No post body was provided.
App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee
61–70 of 437 posts
Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee
#62Does this apply to XBox and PlayStation?
It must. There's no functional difference.
If it doesn't, there's grounds for injunctions and lawsuits aplenty.
Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee
#63Quoted post unavailable.
Care to elaborate?
Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee
#64People seem mostly mad about the IAP thing, so I don't understand why everyone keeps lumping third-party payments and third-party app stores together. They're completely orthogonal.
Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee
#65One downside (as a consumer) of this bill is that it requires app store owners to allow spamming users
"A Covered Company shall not impose restrictions on communications of developers with the users of the App through an App or direct outreach to a user concerning legitimate business offers, such as pricing terms and product or service offerings."
Yay, more spam (probably all starting with "Dear user, we have a legitimate business offer for you!")
Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee
#66One downside (as a consumer) of this bill is that it requires app store owners to allow spamming users "A Covered Company shall not impose restrictions on communications of developers with the users of the App through an App or direct outreach to a user concerning legitimate business offers, such as pricing terms and product or service offerings." Yay, more spam (probably all starting with "Dear user, we have a legit…
I have yet to see a downside of this bill that isn’t solved by deleting or not installing offending apps.
Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Oh and by the way, there’s no other malls in town to move your business to. I mean, given that this bill is targeting two companies, I'm not sure your analogy holds. There clearly is another mall you could move to. You just wouldn't get the patrons at the other mall. And they charge the same and always have. And, your business doesn't even have to be located in the mall if you think the fees are unreasonable. You ju…
The analogy is saying there are malls in two different towns- there's only one mall in Androidville, and if I want to go to the one in Appletown I have to sell my house and all the stuff I bought at the Androidville mall and move there. Trying to argue its not a monopoly is engaging in the worst type of pointless semantic argument.
>Trying to argue its not a monopoly is engaging in the worst type of pointless semantic argument.
So, you think this bill is a waste of time, then?
If Apple has a monopoly, no legislation is needed as we already have laws to address it. Epic's lawsuit failed specifically because they couldn't prove Apple was a monopoly. This legislation's existence is specifically predicated on that there could be issues that might be worth addressing outside of monopolies.
Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee
#68Great news. Apple has turned the magic of software development from “how cool would this be?” to “how cool would Apple be with this?” That’s an environment of software suppression instead of free innovation, and Apple has felt little pressure to change. For anyone concerned about the security and privacy implications, don’t fall for the misconceptions perpetuated by Apple: non-App Store apps will still be sandboxed (…
Quoted post unavailable.
> If there was a load of cool software that Apple was preventing from coming into existence, Android would be the dominant platform by now, because it would have all the cool stuff.
A mobile application that can't be shipped on iOS has a much lower total addressable market, which potentially makes it so that it isn't a commercially-viable undertaking for the developer. When I was working in the mobile space, I saw more than one great idea that never advanced to a product because of this factor.
There are also a lot of cases where a cross-platform mobile developer will kill an otherwise promising feature because they can't ship it on iOS and don't want to fragment their product by having different feature sets on each platform.
Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee
#69As long as this does not cause an exodus from the App Store and I am forced to start paying for apps directly, I am fine with this.
But a strong benefit to the App Store for me is being able to manage and cancel my subscriptions from a central place. No going through 5 screens, no being forced to call, no any of that crap.
I can already see apps refusing to carry through the App Store so they can control more, and I am not looking forward to that.
Re: App store bill sails out of Senate Judiciary Committee
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
> - you can’t access the unique identifier on iPhones as an app developer. Apple blocked that years ago. There's an advertising id built-in into the device... Just the thought of that on a browser would make everybody scream. > - if you have found away to get around iOS’s ssndboxing, you could collect a bug bounty https://developers.facebook.com/docs/marketing-api/conversio... > - ad blocking doesn’t work well or at…
Settings -> Privacy -> Personalized Ads - disable As far as FB cross app tracking, there is another article on HN where FB attributed $10B worth of revenue loss to Apple’s new opt in tracking prompt. It’s not about obstructing, a “native ad” looks just like any other post and is integrated into the feed. It would take some serious AI to block that.
I'm not saying Apple does not take any steps towards fighting this, I'm just saying they are currently very far to the level of privacy of a browser.
> It’s not about obstructing, a “native ad” looks just like any other post and is integrated into the feed.
They have to disclose sponsor posts by law (at least in the EU). Right now they are using tricks of random divs to hide that to adblockers. When the browsers will add a contains-visible-text:() selector (or similar name), it will be game over.