351–360 of 482 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They would reject the update that attempted to roll out that system.
Except that bunches of apps with that model are being accepted now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's true that it would be technically trivial for Apple to censor web access on iPhones. However, they don't do this, and it doesn't seem reasonable to expect them to in the future. Sandboxing apps / discouraging side-loading are categorically different than going the way of Communist China. Where is the user value in censoring web sites?
What if apple agrees to censorship in order to do business with communist china or a future even more authoritarian US. Hard to control billions of users that own machines easy to strong arm a few vendors that don't want to be excluded from lucrative markets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't that illegal? Didn't Microsoft lose a huge case about IE just like this?
Only because Microsoft was in a monopoly position in it's market. Apple isn't, and thus is not subject to the same oversight. Not that the current administration is going to be performing any anti-trust litigation anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have painted this false dichotomy. In Apple's world: The users come first. Everyone else second.
The policies described in the root comment we're replying to have nothing to do with putting the user first. Apple puts Apple first, even when it's bad for users.
Didn't Apple change the rules about external accounts and subscriptions a couple years back? I thought you could create an app that required an external account (and external purchases) as long as there was no links to the external site from the app and no mention of subscription or external purchases within the app. Netflix, Hulu, Spotify, and a few others have been doing it this way for a while, so I'm surprised th…
Audible.com is a clear example of this. All purchases have to be made on their website. The app is just a player with the ability to browse and put content on your wish list but nothing more. It's a horrible user experience but a 30% price hike on content might make me think twice about impulse purchases
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess what we're seeing here is a developer/development-first ideology versus a platform-first ideology. Should the developer/development have to resubmit to the benevolent platform? Or should the platform have to support the development that has occurred? I don't really care, but I know that I'd rather develop somewhere where my contributions aren't under constant threat of being wiped off the landscape. Again, go…
You have painted this false dichotomy. In Apple's world: The users come first. Everyone else second.
Moral panics come first. User second. Developers third.
I worked on an app that is in the same category as Netflix. A week before launch, Apple chose to reject us in spite of months of meetings and reviews with their app teams and assurances we were in-bounds since we were working with them for launch featuring. It came down to the fact we required an email address and password for IAP so you could bring your subscription to the web or other platforms. While everyone else…
It came down to the fact we required an email address and password for IAP so you could bring your subscription to the web or other platforms. While everyone else in the category did this, they decided that policy was going to change and we were just going to be the first people to deal with it. Since having an email-based account was core to the architecture and the UX, I went through a week of refactor hell to make…
> Since other apps still get to do this, it's clear the policy change message was BS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that's true $11.99 if you sign up on web - https://www.youtube.com/premium $15.99 if you sign up through in-app - https://itunes.apple.com/app/youtube/id544007664 (Click on In-App Purchases under Information to see the price)
You’re right. That is what Spotify is doing too. I really thought they prohibited that, but can’t find evidence of that. Perhaps that was around their bookstore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is a valuable lesson - a lesson in learning to be a rational, critical, grown-up human being. Or we could educate them and it might never happen. Also, let's not forget that many closed system are spyware already. Many of us became deeply involved in tech because some person (thanks Pat Volkerding!) or organization gave us a system were we could do whatever the hell we wanted.
> Which is a valuable lesson - a lesson in learning to be a rational, critical, grown-up human being. Well... you can phrase it like some life lesson, sure. In reality 1% of 3 million kids clicking on 'Free vbux!!' and converting is 30,000 kids having malware ridden phones, doing god knows what to god knows who. Is increasing the profits of malware distributors by so much really worth some hand-wavy "teach kids to be…
I worked on an app that is in the same category as Netflix. A week before launch, Apple chose to reject us in spite of months of meetings and reviews with their app teams and assurances we were in-bounds since we were working with them for launch featuring. It came down to the fact we required an email address and password for IAP so you could bring your subscription to the web or other platforms. While everyone else…
Building business that solely relies on constant mercy of someone else's platform is an extremely risky endeavor to begin with.
For some reason, though, we don't tolerate Seattle City Light choosing to arbitrarily not supply electricity to another company, or Cupertino's water utility charging extortive rates to Apple, just because the latter has deep pockets.