31–40 of 93 posts
I'm starting to suspect were hitting peak Apple. It feels like they might be pushing in app purchase through apple pay as their means for continued revenue growth rather than product innovation.
>I'm starting to suspect were hitting peak Apple As a shareholder or a product user?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Antitrust with 13% market share. Good luck explaining that one to the judge.
Around 50% in the US. The real issue is that Apple has control over its devices after sale. That it decides what they can and cannot run based on its own arbitrary rules that no one can challenge. That it can literally put other companies out of business by denying them the privilege of having an iOS app.
That way, when you do get kicked out from an app store, at least you can direct users to your web site (which is probably a violation of app store guidelines, but if it's your only/main revenue generating app, and already kicked out, having this option can be a lifesaver).
Update: It was indefensible, and Apple has already reversed course. It's a shame it sometimes takes twitter outcry for the right thing to happen, but at least the right thing happened. This seem indefensible at first blush. The app has been available as-is for years, so if the explanation given him is correct, it's a really bad look for Apple.
It's a computer, and the most popular computer in the US. It's also the only computer a lot of people own.
It's not a dedicated gaming device - people use iPhone to call, edit media, find jobs, pay for things, calculate, date, do email. It's a computer. Arguments like "but you can't install on a Nintendo" aren't equivalent. Nintendo makes one of a dozen different game platforms, all of which have wide penetration and lots of alternatives. And it's just for games. This is closer to "you can't repair your tractor", which is also an issue for farmers.
Computers, especially those with massive market share, should be open to 3rd party installs.
It's an expensive device and it got to where it is because of a trillion dollar company backing it. You can't compete with that.
You own an iPhone and you're happy installing just from Apple? That's fine. But there are a lot more people in this world that will benefit from open computing. Apple can still have their App Store, charge for distribution, and will still be making bank.
Computing on computers should be free and open.
If we let this slide, we'll one day own nothing. Stallman was right about everything.
This demonstrates the amazing power of social media. It only took 2-3 hours for one of the largest, most powerful corporations, to reverse their decision.
All i need to know. Why even have an app in the EvilStores?
Every app needs to have a built-in messaging channel that allows you to display rich-text (including clickable links) "news and updates" to your existing users. That way, when you do get kicked out from an app store, at least you can direct users to your web site (which is probably a violation of app store guidelines, but if it's your only/main revenue generating app, and already kicked out, having this option can be…
Okay, let's hear from the Apple fanatics on HN why this is a good move by Apple? After all, Apple can do no wrong :)
Off to the right you see the text > "...you agree to charge a $36 a year subscription to this payment method."
There's no mention of a $36 / annual anywhere else. It's on the margin to clearly trick the user when simply adding a payment info.