891–900 of 1001 posts
Apple not trusting Epic is another, and the wording suggests that Apple thinks third parties would agree. What's that about?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>but it's so offensive that it invites crackdowns, implemented by ignorant politicians and legislative bodies... hurting Apple's bottom line. Apple is a billion (nay trillion) dollar company with the best lawyers and accountants in the world. They clearly believe that the added uncertainty and negative perception that could be attached to their brand by allowing systems that can increase fraud and malfeasance is more…
It seems pretty clear what should happen here: Apple should be able to require you to accept their payment system, but not to require you to charge uniform pricing across payment systems, and not be able to charge you anything for sales outside of their payment system. Now you can continue to use Apple's payment system all you like, but if Apple continues to charge 30% when e.g. Stripe charges ~3%, you're going to pa…
You're being disingenuous to suggest that the only benefit Apple provides is a payment system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hopefully changing laws will cure companies from this delusional take. Most reasonable people don't think this way.
To offer a modest counterweight here, every iPhone owner bought the product knowing damn well that Apple keeps the OS locked down. If you don’t want that, don’t buy an iPhone. There’s no confusion about what the product is and what you can do with it.
No, average owner has no idea. But they will be relentlessly asking why your application is not supporting iOS
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there is an anti-culture youth movement against iPhones, apple will be in serious trouble. Their revenue is heavily dependent on selling iphones and people using the app store.
Fortunately for Apple, there definitely is not a movement against iPhones. If anything, the youth associate status with iphones, and if you don't have one you are a loser deserving ridicule. My kids have stopped asking as they know I'm not going to give Apple any of my money, but for a very long time they begged for iphones because kids made fun of them for "having a droid." Today's youth are definitely not the rebel…
They absolutely are, you have just become part of the culture they’re countering. Of course there’s conformity within a group or it wouldn’t really exist, but the main reason young people are so turned off by Android phones is that they are mainly associated with older family members who wanted to save a few bucks and substantially compromised on utility in the process. I’m in my 20s and I know this from experience, my mom gets substantially more utility out of her iPhone than my dad who’s an order of magnitude more technologically literate gets out of his Android phone. It doesn’t matter to teenagers that an Android phone could be as good as their iPhone when the optics are so bad. It doesn’t help that, for them, there isn’t a meaningful difference between the platforms beyond price and maybe piracy either. The actual movement among youth against iPhones is against phones in general, it’s a trend to use “dumbphones” because many feel smartphones are taking too much space in their lives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The issue is that Epic doesn’t want to be Apple’s customer in the first place. They want to publish iOS apps. The fact that this requires them to be an Apple customer is the core problem. Indeed. It all boils down to: if I buy a product from company A, then want to use that product to do business with company B, why does company A have anything to say about it? Am I not the owner of my device?
Increasingly in this modern world, no, you are not the owner of the device. You're more like purchasing the right to use it for a time, in the way that the makers want you to use it. This applies across PCs, Macs, and Phones where Microsoft, Apple, and Google all try to up-sell you on their online services and now their "AI tools".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems more to me like someone built a beautiful walled garden where people are walking nicely, and some rowdy pirates are trying to break it down because they see a lot of money inside.
>someone built a beautiful walled garden where people are walking nicely Just because you build something nice doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it. You're still bound by the rules of the state where you operate and earn revenue. If I build a nice house for me I still have tones of regulation how I can build it and what I can do with it, including activities inside. For example, I can't fire guns(EU) or…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yeah, its really weird to appeal to the noble intentions of a corporation. They're both just engaged in business. This is what's wrong with the current overly capitalist system. Companies are totally allowed to have no conscience, and externalise whatever they please to consumers and the environment. And you could even argue they are 'forced' to do so by due diligence legislation. If we let this continue there will…
It's entirely a matter of incentives. Companies are like machines whose sole purpose is to make a profit. Pretty much everything they do apart from that (make products, employ people, pollute, etc) is, strictly speaking, a side effect. If they could make just as much money (or more) without doing any of those other things, they absolutely would, and any company that wouldn't do the same would eventually be put out of…
Feels like a mob boss sending a message. "We own this platform, we make the rules, and we don't care who you are or how big you are, you mess with us we'll terminate your account and revenue stream." C'mon EU, do something.