311–320 of 996 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft can fire game developers from Xbox.
Xbox isn't central to modern life like a smartphone is. Also, the game consoles use a razor/blades model, they're sold at a loss and make money through the sale of games. Smartphones are not sold at a loss.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay, then since we've failed to argue that Apple is a monopoly, what's the next antitrust argument, and how does it apple to iPhones but not to game consoles (which have the same if not stricter restrictions to third-party software developers)?
Game consoles are toys, smartphones are an integral part of people's lives and livelihoods.
I keep reading this all over the Internet and it makes me so irrationally angry that so many people are so ignorant.
Seriously, it seems like a very large part of people online think this behavior from Apple is okay "because they set the rules".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually developers built the market. Without that Apps on the App store, the iPhone is worth almost nothing.
Not to clients like myself who bought it because of the security provided by that locked-down environment. I'm not concerned about a game not being sold on it. It provides for a host of other purposes.
Make it possible to unlock iOS ability to sideload apps, either through a unique code, a security certificate, or a simple toggle and allows businesses to lock down (but not remotely enable) this ability using their MDM.
Of course, put the usual disclaimer that enabling this feature could weaken the device security, and don't simply enable it because an app or a website told you so.
This clearly and unambiguously crosses the line into abuse of market power. Apple's actions before? Maybe? Sort of? Apple needed that 30 percent cut to monitor for fraud and quality or something, going above-and-beyond other payment processors. This? This has absolutely no basis in anything. It's simple retaliation designed to kneecap Epic from Apple's dominant control of a market. Apple can refuse to let Epic releas…
Can someone give me compelling reasons for disallowing side-loading of applications on iOS? Hypothetically, if side-loading were to be allowed it could be buried under a configuration+confirmation flag for security reasons just like with Android or Windows 10. Thinking more abstractly about this, I already do "sideload" iOS applications when I sign them with enterprise/developer certs and perform OTA installs from sy…
A single human is smart, people are stupid. They’ll install ANYTHING, no matter how hard it is and how shady the site is. They can’t help themselves. Then their phone is rooted by a bad actor and spreading malware. Who do they blame? Themselves? The shady site? The creator of the trojan? Nope. Apple. They’ll shout from the rooftops how Apple ruined their life and business and remand restitution. The easiest and most…
How is the process for enabling side-loading on Android unsuitable for consumers of Apple products? It is off by default. I don't think anyone is advocating for allowing iOS users the ability to run arbitrary executable images found in Safari without going through some process first.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay, then since we've failed to argue that Apple is a monopoly, what's the next antitrust argument, and how does it apple to iPhones but not to game consoles (which have the same if not stricter restrictions to third-party software developers)?
Game consoles are toys, smartphones are an integral part of people's lives and livelihoods.
From a preliminary statement of Epic's motion: > Just over two weeks ago, Apple’s CEO Tim Cook was asked during a Congressional hearing whether Apple has “ever retaliated against or disadvantaged a developer who went public about their frustrations with the App Store”. Mr. Cook testified, “We do not retaliate or bully people. It’s strongly against our company culture.”
This isn't retaliation though for Epic going on Twitter and being angry about the App Store practices, or the situation like Hey where the was a lot of press and negativity. Epic breached the terms of the agreement for their app, so their app was removed from the App Store. Other than needing to fix their app to no longer be in violation of the guidelines, they could have cured that breach of the contract. Instead Ep…
From a preliminary statement of Epic's motion: > Just over two weeks ago, Apple’s CEO Tim Cook was asked during a Congressional hearing whether Apple has “ever retaliated against or disadvantaged a developer who went public about their frustrations with the App Store”. Mr. Cook testified, “We do not retaliate or bully people. It’s strongly against our company culture.”
Some might see a difference between "a developer who went public about their frustrations with the App Store" and a developer who deliberately violated the policies and then filed a lawsuit and started an extensive PR campaign.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fortnite is available on several different game consoles and platforms (most of which, by the way, have a 30% commission fee). It used to be the case that it wasn’t available on iOS, and it was a planetary success already. Customers that had a iOS device and absolutely wanted Fortnite had to resort to use another platform, eg. buy a PC or a PlayStation. Now we’re back on the situations where we were before: Fortnite…
Holy s * this is a surreal comment to read on Hacker News. Once upon a time we believed in general-purpose computing devices that allowed users -- their owners! -- to run whatever software they pleased. Now you speak of "platforms" that charge a tax in return for preventing users from installing software -- on their own devices they actually literally own, mind. Can you imagine if your car would only operate on roads…
I mean, per-car roads probably aren't a good business model, but if it's a privately owned road you can probably make up your own rules, and there would be nothing to stop you doing that, right? And nothing to stop car owners using different roads.