331–340 of 408 posts
Boycott WWDC everyone. Trillion Dollar companies don't play by the fair rules. Apple Music on Android requires its own payment details to avoid Google Play's 30% cut. Apple has accused Match, Epic, and Spotify of wanting a 'free ride' while taking one themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>You can't have monopolistic behavior without a monopoly This is wrong. Monopolistic behavior is anti-competitive behavior that doesn't require having a market monopoly. Think of it as a pattern of behavior that moves you towards having a monopoly.
Which market would Apple be moving towards having a monopoly in, in the App Store policy case?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google's stance here looks good on paper, but the reality is very different. Fortnite was the most ambitious attempt to distribute outside of Google Play. Here's what Epic had to say: > After 18 months of operating Fortnite on Android outside of the Google Play Store, we’ve come to a basic realization: Google puts software downloadable outside of Google Play at a disadvantage, through technical and business measures…
That all seems very reasonable. Apps downloaded from other sources are much more dangerous than apps downloaded from Google Play.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First of all, my stance here is that Google is pretty reasonable with their guidelines compared to Apple. My biggest issue in the iOS vs Android debate is that apple is behaving monopolistically and Google isn't. Using the respective app stores give publishers an inherent audience to distribute/sell content through. I don't think it's unreasonable for Apple/Google to try to profit off of the audience they've built. W…
Apple is a minority player in every single market in the world, including the US. You can't have monopolistic behavior without a monopoly. You can't be a monopoly if you are not the market leader. People want this to be a legal issue but it's just a market issue. If people don't like these policies they shouldn't buy Apple products or release apps on Apple devices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> as a user I would NEVER use something other than Apple's payment solution in the App Store Would you choose to pay Hey's subscription $142/year to be able to pay on the App Store, instead of $100/year paying on the web? Or if it was available, would you pay Adobe's Creative Cloud for $906/year in the App Store or $636 on the web? I'd choose to pay slightly more for the convenience for very small subscriptions too.…
I would choose not to use the app unless there was very clearly value for the cost. If a service was literally doing as you say, charging more through Apple's App Store vs their site, I would choose not to use that app. At all. Part of the real appeal is the pro-consumer parts of the App Store. Like I said, being informed before renewal is something that very few services do but Apple does for any subscription. Edit:…
I really don't understand why people are defending Apple on this. It seems shameful of a $1.5 trillion company to do this to developers. Even more so when they themselves don't abide by their philosophy. They are extracting out a competitive advantage from this on other services like Spotify or Netflix( even without this they have a big one at app discovery and pre installs on iOS). Kudos to Google for allowing the d…
I agree on the ethos you are taking about. I personally prefer that choice, not everyone does. You also have to understand when you buy into apple's philosophy the experience you sign up for is seamless where you don't need to worry about who controls what, that requires you to sacrifice choice , - I cannot choose to change my RAM or hard disk or other h/w to vendor of my choice on a MacBook, - I cannot choose my own…
But I don't see how that applies here. There's too many random carve outs for me to take this as being in good faith. If you can trust 37Signals to handle their own logins and payments for one app but not another, you're making stuff up.
Note to the people asking why this matters: Legally, if you take a position in federal court on X (i.e., that it's okay to ban external transactions by apps using your app store), and you are found to be doing not-X in an analogous situation (i.e., setting up external transactions to avoid fees in your competitors' app store), the court can rule against you in the original case...and then sanction you and your lawyer…
This doesn't sound right, so let me try to form an example to get at what is the issue I'm seeing. Let X be "It is okay for me to ban my customers from using discounts." Let not X be "It is okay for me to use discounts offered by another restaurant." This doesn't feel like a particularly contradictory situation. Maybe the issue is that we skipped a few too many steps, because there isn't anything particularly illegal…
Apples’s defense of its in-app payments rule is that having a single payment system owned by the platform used by every app on that platform provides the best experience for users. According to them, Apple isn't being greedy but rather they are ensuring their users have the best experience on their platform.
But if a single payment system for a platform is such a great user experience, why does Apple not offer that superior experience to their Apple Music customers on Android?
Of course, one could argue that Google's refusal to require apps on their platform to use their in-app purchase system means that superior user experience of a uniform payment system is out of reach regardless of what Apple does with their own apps on Android, so maybe it's not a contradiction after all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree on the ethos you are taking about. I personally prefer that choice, not everyone does. You also have to understand when you buy into apple's philosophy the experience you sign up for is seamless where you don't need to worry about who controls what, that requires you to sacrifice choice , - I cannot choose to change my RAM or hard disk or other h/w to vendor of my choice on a MacBook, - I cannot choose my own…
Well, I have a lot of Apple hardware, think they generally do a decent job on the OS, and mostly appreciate the fact that the app store has rules that keeps it from turning into a dumpster fire. But I don't see how that applies here. There's too many random carve outs for me to take this as being in good faith. If you can trust 37Signals to handle their own logins and payments for one app but not another, you're maki…
From Apple's perceptive allowing one vendor and not another is going to difficult, next vendor may not be as trustworthy as 37Signals, it is considerably easier to say no other system than theirs. They have never traditionally encouraged ecosystems unless they have been forced to.
I am not saying it is right, but it is consistent with their product philosophy.
Same reason they absorb features from apps into the OS itself, it sucks for the developer, but it benefits the user. For example having the flash light as OS feature than an app is considerably safer, better experience.
