Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Financial Times Won't Give Apple A Cut, Drops iOS for Web App

macrumors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 90 posts

Re: Financial Times Won't Give Apple A Cut, Drops iOS for Web App

#61

Post by [deleted] »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #47
scrod wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Didn't Apple take the KHTML (Konqueror was a full fledged browser) code... WebKit has vastly evolved from the original KHTML library, to the point of being almost an entirely different product. The KHTML team has been pulling changes from WebKit ( http://trac.webkit.org/browser ) for many years now.

So if Apple does it, they're "evolving" an existing project... but the vast work that the Chrome team has put into WebKit is just nothing? Your bias is showing. Hard.

[deleted]

Re: Financial Times Won't Give Apple A Cut, Drops iOS for Web App

#62

Post by scrod »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #47
scrod wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Didn't Apple take the KHTML (Konqueror was a full fledged browser) code... WebKit has vastly evolved from the original KHTML library, to the point of being almost an entirely different product. The KHTML team has been pulling changes from WebKit ( http://trac.webkit.org/browser ) for many years now.

So if Apple does it, they're "evolving" an existing project... but the vast work that the Chrome team has put into WebKit is just nothing? Your bias is showing. Hard.

>Your bias is showing. Hard.

Please tell me more, drivebyacct2.

Edit: Your homoeroticism is showing.

Re: Financial Times Won't Give Apple A Cut, Drops iOS for Web App

#63

Post by drivebyacct2 »

scrod wrote: post #62
drivebyacct2 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if Apple does it, they're "evolving" an existing project... but the vast work that the Chrome team has put into WebKit is just nothing? Your bias is showing. Hard.

>Your bias is showing. Hard. Please tell me more, drivebyacct2. Edit: Your homoeroticism is showing.

Wow, you're attacking my name instead of actually participating in the conversation. I'm sure you could, you know, glance at my account and determine I'm not any kind of troll. I have no idea what my username has to do with anything here at all.

The point is, in three different places you shrugged off the Chrome team's contributions to WebKit, yet acted like Apple is the night in shining armor because they happen to "own" WebKit. Can't they both work on it, both receive credit and both be happy without fanboys needlessly going out of their way to argue about a competitor that competes in a nearly completely unrelated field?

Besides the original point has gone completely undiscussed. It might be shocking but I'm betting the WebKit, iOS and Apple's executive steering committee are all vastly decoupled. It is possible for the WebKit team to make advances and for the iOS team to not adopt them for, gasp, political purposes. For example, the accelerated javascript engine, additional HTML5 controls that have been simply and for reasons unknown not enabled in iOS.

That has nothing to do with my ability to be thankful for Apple's stewardship of WebKit. I'm quite thankful to be honest. I love that Google and Apple can both build a better web engine while competing with each other. I just hope that they both embrace that superior engine for the sake of the open web, and some of Apple's actions have called into question their intentions about the mobile web in iOS. That's all I'm saying.

edit: Uh, I generally try to keep my, yes, homo, eroticism off of the Internet. I apologize if you were exposed to any, that's probably not a pretty sight.

Re: Financial Times Won't Give Apple A Cut, Drops iOS for Web App

#64

Post by jmitcheson »

The "HTML5 apps don't cut it compared to native" argument is incredibly short sighted. The pace of development in this area is staggering. Things are moving very quickly and in a short time, the days where HTML applications didn't perform as well will be long forgotten - as forgotten as the days when the internet ran at 2400 baud or when you needed a huge tape to record television.

Think of the future, not the present.

Re: Financial Times Won't Give Apple A Cut, Drops iOS for Web App

#65

Post by Steko »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #59
Steko wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If there was no apps and no content" "if there no apps and no content to subscribe to" What world do you live in where this is even remotely possible? By all means Go Galt, there are plenty of others willing to step in and make millions off iphone owners.

You're missing the point. The point is, Apple's walled garden is profitable now, in part, due to the forced use of their APIs. If developers continue to be forced to use Apple's APIs or nothing... well... as we're seeing here in this case, they begin to choose nothing. It's like the mafia expecting payments. The protection they offer is great if you're willing to pay the price. If you're not, you have to move out of…

It's not remotely like the mafia. It's like pretty much every other store in the world -- Amazon, Wal-Mart, Target, Macys, Newegg, etc. Businesses sell their goods to Wal-Mart even though Wal-Mart takes a 30%-50% margin because of the hundreds of millions of people that shop at Wal-Mart.

"I'm curious who produces the content like Financial Times that can just come in and supply a new native app for iOS..." Is there no native app for WSJ, Economist, Fortune, Forbes, Bloomberg, Businessweek, etc.? None of those are as good as the FT but that's irrelevant, the FT isn't an option for someone searching for a business news/analysis app.

Re: Financial Times Won't Give Apple A Cut, Drops iOS for Web App

#66

Post by drivebyacct2 »

Steko wrote: post #65
drivebyacct2 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing the point. The point is, Apple's walled garden is profitable now, in part, due to the forced use of their APIs. If developers continue to be forced to use Apple's APIs or nothing... well... as we're seeing here in this case, they begin to choose nothing. It's like the mafia expecting payments. The protection they offer is great if you're willing to pay the price. If you're not, you have to move out of…

It's not remotely like the mafia. It's like pretty much every other store in the world -- Amazon, Wal-Mart, Target, Macys, Newegg, etc. Businesses sell their goods to Wal-Mart even though Wal-Mart takes a 30%-50% margin because of the hundreds of millions of people that shop at Wal-Mart. "I'm curious who produces the content like Financial Times that can just come in and supply a new native app for iOS..." Is there n…

So are you of the position, that to users looking for business information, the delivery mechanism is more important than the content?

How universal do you think that is? How well do you think that will work when WSJ, Economist, etc, realize that they can ship a "native" app that uses a WebView, that also looks native, and they don't have to give Apple 30%?

And I really don't know how you don't see this being like the mafia... I own my own device, I own my own developer's license. My users own their own devices, yet I'm forced to force them to use Apple's distribution/payment/subscription channels.

I own my own store, or I distribute drugs on my own. The mafia forces me to buy and sell through them. Apple doesn't own a "financial news store", so acting like they should be allowed to (exclusively, no less) broker ANY content to their device, is frankly absurd.

Your analogy would make sense, except it's like Wal-Mart holding you ransom, telling you you WILL pay 30% and that you can't go elsewhere or they'll kick you out of their (App)Store.

Re: Financial Times Won't Give Apple A Cut, Drops iOS for Web App

#67

Post by [deleted] »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #63
scrod wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Your bias is showing. Hard. Please tell me more, drivebyacct2. Edit: Your homoeroticism is showing.

Wow, you're attacking my name instead of actually participating in the conversation. I'm sure you could, you know, glance at my account and determine I'm not any kind of troll. I have no idea what my username has to do with anything here at all. The point is, in three different places you shrugged off the Chrome team's contributions to WebKit, yet acted like Apple is the night in shining armor because they happen to…

[deleted]

Re: Financial Times Won't Give Apple A Cut, Drops iOS for Web App

#68

Post by Stormbringer »

dstein wrote: post #5

I think we are close to the tipping point where a majority of developers begin to favor webapps to iOS native apps. I've seen this coming a mile away. Apple almost lost a big portion of its development community 2 years ago with that whole 3rd party development platform issue. Apple relented, and they are now turning a different crank with the big subscription tax. They are playing a game of monopoly here. It's the s…

It isn't a big tax that is suddenly something new.

What it is, is a way to prevent developers trying to rort the system and doing an end run around their fee structure.

When this first came out, the ones screaming the loudest were the guys who had "free" apps ($0 to Apple) who then built into their apps an "okay, you've been using it for 5 minutes, now pay us $3 ($0 to Apple)" 'one-off subscription'.

E.g. you used to be able to get all the benefits of a paid app without paying Apple anything, simply by relabelling the "paid" app as an app with a "one-off subscription".

Apple closed that loop-hole. Hence one particular side of the screaming. You don't actually need to ascribe these actions to some kind of evil Microsoftian conspiracy, it's jsut closing a loophole that some people were using to cheat the system.

The other side of this coin is the arrangements between authors and publishers, where the authors have had a long time 70% of net agreement. If the author gets 70% and Apple gets 30%... this leaves 0% for the middle-man. So they weren't happy.

Re: Financial Times Won't Give Apple A Cut, Drops iOS for Web App

#69

Post by scrod »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #63
scrod wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Your bias is showing. Hard. Please tell me more, drivebyacct2. Edit: Your homoeroticism is showing.

Wow, you're attacking my name instead of actually participating in the conversation. I'm sure you could, you know, glance at my account and determine I'm not any kind of troll. I have no idea what my username has to do with anything here at all. The point is, in three different places you shrugged off the Chrome team's contributions to WebKit, yet acted like Apple is the night in shining armor because they happen to…

>You're attacking my name instead of actually participating in the conversation...

Yes, that my point, and it's in much the same way that you're questioning my motives (a form of argumentum ad hominem) instead of... actually participating in the conversation.

Re: Financial Times Won't Give Apple A Cut, Drops iOS for Web App

#70

Post by astrodust »

dstein wrote: post #5

I think we are close to the tipping point where a majority of developers begin to favor webapps to iOS native apps. I've seen this coming a mile away. Apple almost lost a big portion of its development community 2 years ago with that whole 3rd party development platform issue. Apple relented, and they are now turning a different crank with the big subscription tax. They are playing a game of monopoly here. It's the s…

How did they lose a big portion of its development community? Attendance at WWDC was record-breaking, and that's a developer-focused conference. The number of apps is still growing. The sales of the devices are still growing.

What I think you mean is they lost a big portion of their early adopter community, and that's not the same thing as what sustains them.

Post reply on HN