551–559 of 559 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s not true. In fact Spotify did charge more for in app subscriptions v
Maybe they changed this. I thought that was a rule to begin with
https://www.theverge.com/2015/7/8/8913105/spotify-apple-app-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How so? Seriously. There seem to be lots of people who don't consider Apple to have a monopoly in any market, and I just don't get it. Can you explain the argument for that position?
Because there are meaningful alternatives to the iPhone on the market. If I claim that a gas station has a monopoly within a three block radius, that might be technically true, but only because of the constraints I applied. It's not actually a meaningful distinction if the consumer can drive down a bit further and find another gas station.
Imo it's more like saying, "Foocorp in the US doesn't have a monopoly, since you can always move to Canada and buy from BarCo or one of its competitors there!" Well, Foocorp is still the only seller in the US, so they have a monopoly in that market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I know what I signed up for. Why should I feel entitled to anything else? It's interesting you'd say that because it's actually not true (I am not accusing you of lying at all - I take your statement at face value!) What I mean is the following: When I buy a phone - no matter the maker - I have deep within me a default assumption that if I want some app, some provider, some service, some feature, on my phone - that…
Apple is not tricking people into buying iPhones, believing every app is available. “There’s an app for that” doesn’t mean “every single app for that is available”. It means there are many apps, all of which found 30% to be acceptable. If Apple had promised customers that Age of Empires runs on Macs, then they would have a hard time getting Microsoft to give them 30%. But Apple has made not such promise to consumers.…
The POINT that I'm making is that people their phone is theirs and they can install what they want on it. Even if that thing comes from the app store. EVEN NOW when I want to do something I go looking for an app. I don't assume my phone can't do it. And I certainly don't assume it can't do it thanks to shenanigans on Apple's part.
The reality however is far different and there are LOTS of things Apple doesn't allow and they are not above using their platform to stifle competition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because there are meaningful alternatives to the iPhone on the market. If I claim that a gas station has a monopoly within a three block radius, that might be technically true, but only because of the constraints I applied. It's not actually a meaningful distinction if the consumer can drive down a bit further and find another gas station.
Right, but when it comes to selling software to people who have iPhones — there's a market for that, right? — Apple clearly has a monopoly in that market. Imo it's more like saying, "Foocorp in the US doesn't have a monopoly, since you can always move to Canada and buy from BarCo or one of its competitors there!" Well, Foocorp is still the only seller in the US, so they have a monopoly in that market.
Sure. I also have a monopoly in the market of "selling lemonade on my front lawn". Is that a meaningful distinction?
> Imo it's more like saying, "Foocorp in the US doesn't have a monopoly, since you can always move to Canada and buy from BarCo or one of its competitors there!" Well, Foocorp is still the only seller in the US, so they have a monopoly in that market.
No one would consider moving to another country a realistic alternative. So in that situation, yes, there is a monopoly because the consumer does not have a realistic alternative. If a gas station is the only gas station in the city, then it too would have a monopoly in that city, because driving to the next city every time you needed gas is not realistic.
Seems like a lot of these examples are intentionally ignoring the rules that allow them as exceptions just to build up a bigger strawman: * Netflix: Reader app (reader is a special Apple exception for movies/tv, books, news... mass-market media) * Github: Offers a free tier * App store connect: I mean come on, it's an Apple dev tool * Tesla: exception for physical goods Basecamp/Hey knew this was going to happen. It'…
I have no horse in this race, but it has been interesting to watch the conversations grow over the past few days on this topic. Some people are so pro-Apple on this, clearly ignoring some of the primary complaints (like no option to not use the App Store for distribution). As I get older, I can't help but wonder if these people are simply shareholders of Apple (or any company in a discussion like this). Is this good…
> Is this good for society overall, to have such a strong financial incentive for so many people to willfully ignore the other side of important arguments? Ironically, you're wilfully ignoring the other side of the important argument, and telling yourself the lie that anyone who disagrees with you must be being paid to do so, rather than listening to them and thinking about why they may think that way through their o…
I specifically said "can't help but wonder". It just crosses my mind, no assumptions are made.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think the inverse to "Apple employed humans make a judgement call" is "Apple is no longer allowed to control their App Store". I think the right alternative is "Users should have a choice of app stores"
And they do, if you want play store or huawei store instead of apple app store you can just get an android phone. Nobody is forced to buy an iPhone, there is no monopoly at play here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes you think anyone is surprised? Do you think anger or frustration requires surprise?
Why would anyone be angry or frustrated that "Apple designed their rules so most of the key businesses in this world don't pay an insane 30% of their revenue to Apple"?