591–600 of 1001 posts
Apple built their controlled ecosystem and set their rules. And now others are insisting that Apple should not have that control (even when they themselves are doing the same thing).
"Standard Oil built their ecosystem and set their rules." "AT&T built their ecosystem and set their rules."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They want to be part of a small exclusive group of store owners who get to share in the benefits of Apple’s investments. Exclusive? Why can't I write an app store?
For the same reason you can’t build a phone. You’ll be competing with multi-billion dollar corporations who have exclusive content and nobody will bother with your store.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it hard to believe that 100% of the market is the exact perfect amount that any given developer needs to sustain their business. 99% is already too little, and 60% is a non-starter. And yet this is the same market where tens to hundreds of companies have proliferated into billion dollar entities in mere years. It's nothing more than greed, just like the greed you supposedly fight against.
> iOS App Store 2018 revenue came to $46.6 billon, while Google Play revenue stood at $24.8 billion by this measure https://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-revenues/ > Apple Users More Willing to Pay for Apps https://www.statista.com/chart/14590/app-downloads-and-consu... > The median iPhone app user earns $85,000 per year, which is 40% more than the median Android phone user with an annual income of $61,000. [...] T…
Correct me if I am wrong but the advocacy group is essentially arguing that let me use your platform (marketplace) services and get a free ride doing so. Kind of like taking an Uber where at the end of the ride the driver just says: "you know what, lets ditch Uber, pull out your credit card and settle between the two of us. And I will charge you much lower!!" Aha.
The analogy only works if the only way to get to your destination was to use Uber. iOS doesn't allow app installs outside of the store.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple does not have a monopoly on phones. Not even smartphones.
They control almost 70% of mobile app revenue: https://swagsoft.com.sg/blog/android-vs-ios-which-platform-t... . A service like netflix, spotify or basecamp can't compete without an iOS app.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s more representative of how the market has imploded. There were 900M CDs sold in the US in 2000. This year that number will be less than 25M
Imploded or transformed? Music consumption hasn't gone down. Consumption of physical media that I can't slip in my pocket has.
The RIAA publishes numbers - https://www.riaa.com/u-s-sales-database/
Inflation adjusted we are down by over half from the peak.
Subscription revenue is less that 30% of peak CD revenue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why isn't Epic forced to make it a platform? They have a large captive audience with money and I want a cut of it. Opening it up to everyone will drive competition to the digital skin market, and as we all know from this thread, that's a good thing. Why does Epic get to monopolize their game's monetization?
"monopolize their game's monetization" That is a silly oxymoron. One game doesn't constitute a monopoly; users who don't like it for whatever reason can go play any one of the vast number of games that computing has produced for half a century. What you're saying is like why should Burger King have a "monopoly" on what sauce goes into a Whopper? Gosh, darn it, the market should be open so that you can order a Whopper…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eh. A better analogy would be Cheerios sticking an insert inside their box of cereal that said, "save $1 at Costco". That kind of behavior is pretty common with physical retailers; most boxed products I buy will contain inserts that advertise replacement parts and other products from other sources. Apple isn't just banning apps from mentioning competing stores in app descriptions, it's banning them from mentioning co…
Serious question: what counts as "inside" the app, when the app itself is free? The free-to-play model that Epic is relying on (and, with some variability, the other players are relying on, where the apps themselves are "free" with a paid service) somewhat breaks the conventions we're used to discussing, and there aren't really analogies. The closest comparison I can make to these services are how PC MMORPGs (think W…
If I'm using a free app, and a bug causes it to break, would I report the bug to Apple or to the developer? If I saw something objectionable, or ugly, would I say that iOS is ugly, or would I blame the developer? I think that regardless of the price, when I'm using an app and I find myself in the state of attributing the experience to the developer instead of Apple, that means I'm playing in the developer's space, not Apple's. Getting past all of the analogies, what Apple is doing is saying that you're not allowed to mention competing storefronts even when you're inside your own space.
In contrast, if I went to a app store page and the app store crashed, or the app didn't download, I'd contact Apple, because I'm not in the developer's space there, I'm in Apple's.
There is some fuzziness there, and there's also some fuzziness around whether or not it's OK for Apple to decide what you can and can't do inside your own 'app space.' Different people can have different opinions on that, and ultimately the courts/Congress will probably end up deciding whether that is Ok.
But that's the non-analogy, purely app-centric explanation I would use -- Apple is dictating what you can say to customers when you're in your own space, and they're doing that to a degree that goes beyond protecting users from malware or fraud. I personally think it's very difficult to argue that keeping people from mentioning prices elsewhere is a restriction that's purely designed to protect users. It's not really the same as restricting phishing attacks or fraud inside of an app would be. So to me, that makes me feel less charitable about arguments that Apple should be able to have that kind of control about what happens in the developer's space, because I don't see a compelling reason for them to have that power.
All the arguments about what company is most evil entirely miss the point. You don't make a decision on a specific issue based on what company you like more, you base it on who is right on the specific issue. From an ethical perspective that's what having a codified rule of laws is all about. Everyone get's the same rules no matter how much you like them. You don't arbitrarily punish people for doing things you don't…
> I'm strongly reminded of the quote "Freedom of speech doesn't protect speech you like; it protects speech you don't like... Modern addendum is "You can have Freedom Of Speech but no guarantee for Freedom After speech." Edit: Just to clarify, It is not my opinion. It is Social media warriors warning people "Free speech is not free of consequences"