871–880 of 903 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The extension to read PC formatted disks came with System 7.
lol. Obviously there’s no monopoly power when the small company has to support the big company, but can’t actually format disks for the big company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is Netflix even relevant to the discussion? Netflix hasn’t allowed in app subscription prices for years
They don't allow it exactly because they have to pay the 30% on top, the same with Kindle books, etc. that's exactly why it's relevant in this discussion, mate... Not sure how to be clearer, I've been playing around with your analogies and get just a brick wall in return, exhausting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except the velvet lined iron fist called Google Play Services which gatekeeps the apps from having nice things or not.
Android lets you easily side-load apps. You are not required to get your apps from Google.
Shouldn't this provide even more motivation for companies like Spotify to invest in a high quality Progressive Web App that can be installed to phones, bypassing the app store entirely?
The same PWAs which Apple restricts on iOS because they know it would cut into their App Store cashflow? If it were an equal market, I'd agree with you, but the OS makers also make and prioritize their own application stores too, so of course they'd want to cut down other competitive avenues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These are all business decisions by Valve, Ubisoft, Epic, etc... if it's too much of a hassle for me to play Ubisoft games, then Ubisoft has lost me as a customer, it's very simple (apart from that, Ubisoft has returned to Steam a long time ago: https://store.steampowered.com/publisher/Ubisoft ) But none of this is Microsoft's business. That's the important part.
So it's ok for it to be one companies choice but not another company? As a consumer it's not a meaningful choice if I have to use their platform, and I'd rather have the situation where the platform holder enforces consistency - they're not perfect but I know that having a Google account with Google Pay is enough to get me into 98+% of applications on android, and I'm not worried about having to _phone_ someone to ca…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but that is fundamentally incompatible with phones! It's an oxymoron, like a Windows 2000 phone. Marricks's comment simply does not make any sense if we're to use that definition of "Linux".
Marrick's comment makes even less sense using a definition of Linux that includes Android, since they lists three different options: iOS, Android and Linux. "No one is going to spend billions of dollars to get you to buy Linux.", Marrick said. Perhaps they were including the resources required to make something that is recognisably Linux that is compatible with phones, and polished enough to be appealing to the avera…
They could just have not known this, it's not obvious if you've never tried to open a terminal on an Android phone.
But how is Android not recognisably Linux? You can natively run all the Linux stuff you'd like on Android.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What the parent is likely trying to point out is that Apple has no obligation to give you the feature the way you want it (in fact, Apple seems to view not providing flexibility as the feature). If you feel this strongly about the feature, then using a different phone (which there are many) is available.
Standard Oil has no obligation to give you oil the way you want it. If you feel this strongly about oil, then using a different oil provider (which there are many) is available.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What the parent is likely trying to point out is that Apple has no obligation to give you the feature the way you want it (in fact, Apple seems to view not providing flexibility as the feature). If you feel this strongly about the feature, then using a different phone (which there are many) is available.
> that Apple has no obligation to give you > If you feel this strongly about the feature, then using a different phone Actually, instead of that, citizens of a nation are free to vote for anti-trust, and pro competition laws that force Apple, under threat of government force, to stop engaging in certain actions. We did it for the railway monopolies a century ago, and we can do it again, by updating our anti trust law…
Today, there is, in my own opinion, plenty of ways to compete with Apple's ecosystem. Android is the most obvious, but we also have the ability to build much better web and mobile web experiences to compete with apps. To quote another commenter, "it isn't Apple's fault the competition is not any good"
To be clear, I don't agree with Apple's honestly draconian cut on payments and app revenue, but I also don't think it is illegal. I think the competition needs to step up OR companies need to reconsider how much they are attaching their revenue stream to Apple's world. I see this as clear business maneuvering by companies who can't/don't see an easier way to grow than to attack the rails upon which they built their products (and the rules were clear when they started!! -- this isn't a surprise fee...)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what is that 80% comprised of? It's not much of an alternative when both parties are squeezing 30% out of those of us who do mobile development.
It's not Apple's problem the competition is mediocre, you advocating for the tearing up of Apple means we are left with only mediocre options, is that what you want?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can pry my carburetor from my cold, dead hands!
Carburetors are awful. Stop blasting fuel into the air.
Why? Because it's always broken down.