861–870 of 1001 posts
To everyone that is supporting Apple's position, let me run this hypothetical by you: You buy a Nespresso machine on Amazon. Some amount of the purchase price goes to Amazon for facilitating the transaction and delivering it to you, some goes to Nespresso for actually making the device. Cool. Then you get a pod subscription from Nespresso – let's say there is a touch screen on the coffee machine itself where you ente…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Taking a cut of say, 3%, to keep the app store running is forgivable. But 30% digging into users pocket is unpardonable. What makes you think that 3% cut is enough?
Because its the sort of above most transaction fees of most payment providers in the world. But Apple can ask whatever they want. They can't block side-loading though. That's the uncompetitive part. You can run your store and pick whatever terms you like. You can't use your marketshare in hardware sales to bundle a forced store. Imagine Tesla charging you 30% of any grocery shopping (i.e. would refuse to open the doo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Would you also argue that you have the right to run any software on it? Duh, yes. It's like asking if i can drive my (human-driven) car anywhere. Just because it's "technology" doesnt mean all human agency goes out the window.
It seems like you are not thinking things through then. You would at least need to get some kind of certification that your car remains „street legal“. You cannot seriously expect to run any autonomous driving software that you want in your car?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason I, and I assume many others, have less of a problem with that is that you can fairly easily still download and play fortnite without the Play Store. As far as I know that’s not an option on iOS outside of jailbreaking your phone.
Epic disagrees as they've just filed a lawsuit vs google as well: https://twitter.com/Slasher/status/1294073105376333825
It's not Apple vs. Fortnite. It's actually Apple vs. Users. Apple has been taking us for a ride this whole time. We pay damn much and buy the phone. It is the user's property from then on. What the user install's and uninstall's from his phone should be his decision. Taking a cut of say, 3%, to keep the app store running is forgivable. But 30% digging into users pocket is unpardonable. Apple is no longer the underdog…
It is interesting that we criticise monopoly in one form (apple), but encourage it in another ("It is the user's property"). If we go down the logical road of "why monopoly is bad" it is because property may not be utilised in the most effective way for the common good, all property is monopoly. I wonder if auction based app store costs are a possible solution to the increasing developer frustration with Apple? Self…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A PR stunt from Epic and everyone's falling for it.
A PR stunt that consumers and small businesses could benefit from. 30% decimates indie studios and makes some apps fiscally nonviable.
It's the large scale clients that are hurt the most by the 30% cut. Old timer indie devs who used to have to manage payment and distribution themselves, like Jeff Vogel, will tell you that Steam's cut is absolutely fair given the value it brings. On PC there are different platforms competing for Steam, which might be a reason why Valve introduced discount tiers for more successful titles. If an outcome of the PR stunt is that Apple decreases its cut, it will likely be a similar arrangement which does not benefit the small businesses.
The issue with the App Store is not the cut, but that it is the only gate to the iOS walled garden.
You could argue about Apple's rights, or citizens' free speech rights, or consumer rights, under existing law. It would be an interesting discussion because I think it's a lot more complicated an issue that most people appreciate. But really why not talk about how we think things should work on platforms like iOS? What should the law be? What protects essential human rights, encourages creativity, and allows business…
Is this not one of the most common refrains among major decision-makers of this era, whether it be business or politics?
In this case, Apple has judged that the consumer doesn't care enough, or doesn't have enough power, to change this calculus. Are they right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because its the sort of above most transaction fees of most payment providers in the world. But Apple can ask whatever they want. They can't block side-loading though. That's the uncompetitive part. You can run your store and pick whatever terms you like. You can't use your marketshare in hardware sales to bundle a forced store. Imagine Tesla charging you 30% of any grocery shopping (i.e. would refuse to open the doo…
I don't want side-loading apps on iPhone. The moment you allow side-loading you can no longer trust the apps on a phone. Is it really facebook or was facebook removed and replaced with something else.
It's not Apple vs. Fortnite. It's actually Apple vs. Users. Apple has been taking us for a ride this whole time. We pay damn much and buy the phone. It is the user's property from then on. What the user install's and uninstall's from his phone should be his decision. Taking a cut of say, 3%, to keep the app store running is forgivable. But 30% digging into users pocket is unpardonable. Apple is no longer the underdog…
In their profit reports I am told that the 30% is not profit it just maintains the app store. I read that from some jailbreakers, they seemed legit since it was talking about how apple locks it down too much. It was in the earnings report, so they didn't have a reason to lie (I think). I wonder if they cook the numbers or something to lie about it.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2018/01/06/apples-ap...
To everyone that is supporting Apple's position, let me run this hypothetical by you: You buy a Nespresso machine on Amazon. Some amount of the purchase price goes to Amazon for facilitating the transaction and delivering it to you, some goes to Nespresso for actually making the device. Cool. Then you get a pod subscription from Nespresso – let's say there is a touch screen on the coffee machine itself where you ente…
That is inaccurate. Your comparison would be closer if the purchase of pods was handled by Amazon Any comparison with physically shipped goods isn't going to be particularly relevant here
Though, in the real world of physical goods Amazon also sells generic pods from all sorts of manufacturers, which Nespresso can’t prevent. Yet Epic demands that they are the only company that can sell hats on Fortnite.