961–970 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s still sandboxed. What evil thing would it be doing?
Do you need the outside app to have access to bluetooth, location, storage etc? And if apple restricts the storage, then a company will sue apple again for the restrictions saying that the iOS photos app have unrestricted access to photos, whereas an outside app doesn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Our justice system is good at drawing squiggly lines. It’s luckily based on intent and outcome and not exact wording. There’s no reason the law couldn’t carve out a class of devices as “general purpose computing devices” which would exclude fine homemade / artisanal / hyper-focused kindles, gaming consoles, etc. of course these lines get moved around and tested in many ways. Much like how assault weapons are hard to…
> If unlocking general purpose computing devices drove trillions in GDP and innovation, didn’t harm anyone, and generally improved consumers lives, I don’t see why we need a direct precedent. If this was really such a boon, wouldn't the devices where you can already do this have a huge market advantage? If so then why are we talking about forcing it on consumers and manufacturers?
I’m certain there would be a new generation of startups especially focused on selling digital goods.
Further, you need to look at incentives. Apple would almost certainly respond by lowering their fees as a move to stay competitive. That extra cash trickling downstream would enrich many more people, who then would go on to create new things.
Not sure you have an argument that it would already have happened if it was so much better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If unlocking general purpose computing devices drove trillions in GDP and innovation, didn’t harm anyone, and generally improved consumers lives, I don’t see why we need a direct precedent. If this was really such a boon, wouldn't the devices where you can already do this have a huge market advantage? If so then why are we talking about forcing it on consumers and manufacturers?
Well Android has 80% market share, but there’s too many confounding factors to know why. I’m certain there would be a new generation of startups especially focused on selling digital goods. Further, you need to look at incentives. Apple would almost certainly respond by lowering their fees as a move to stay competitive. That extra cash trickling downstream would enrich many more people, who then would go on to create…
If the vast majority of devices already have this capability, what difference is it really going to make forcing it on the remaining 20%? Why hasn't Apple already been forced to lower their fees if they are the underdog in terms of market share? For that matter, why hasn't Google been forced to, given how easy it is to sideload?
I mean Epic, Spotify, and Tinder are wrong here. Apple built the hardware, and the distribution mechanism for software on that hardware platform. Apple has been a closed ecosystem from day 1. It shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone and they all knew when they decided to create apps for iOS that they were party to a closed system where Apple are the gatekeepers. Don't like their rules? Then, don't do business o…
If that happened to your business, would you say "well we always knew they are a closed system, time to pack up and go home"?
I mean Epic, Spotify, and Tinder are wrong here. Apple built the hardware, and the distribution mechanism for software on that hardware platform. Apple has been a closed ecosystem from day 1. It shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone and they all knew when they decided to create apps for iOS that they were party to a closed system where Apple are the gatekeepers. Don't like their rules? Then, don't do business o…
What happens if you are fine with those parameters, you build a business on iOS, and then apple decides that it wants to be in your business, so it makes their own competing app default and non removable? Then it adds hardware functionality to help its own software, but locks the hardware from you, so your business suffers? This is exactly the Tile example on the linked page. If that happened to your business, would…
This whole issue is children screaming because they broke the rules and Mommy and Daddy have put their foot down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well Android has 80% market share, but there’s too many confounding factors to know why. I’m certain there would be a new generation of startups especially focused on selling digital goods. Further, you need to look at incentives. Apple would almost certainly respond by lowering their fees as a move to stay competitive. That extra cash trickling downstream would enrich many more people, who then would go on to create…
> Well Android has 80% market share, but there’s too many confounding factors to know why. If the vast majority of devices already have this capability, what difference is it really going to make forcing it on the remaining 20%? Why hasn't Apple already been forced to lower their fees if they are the underdog in terms of market share? For that matter, why hasn't Google been forced to, given how easy it is to sideload…
Apple has dominance in many markets, like the US. In fact you could say the reason Android has such global market-share is because they commoditized their OS, ie, allowing for competition to drive down prices. So you're claiming the same forces wouldn't affect software? Android apps are generally cheaper, as well, though it's hard to pin why. The general principle of competition = lower prices applies here.
I'd rather debate on what's right for consumers not whether some technical definition of a monopoly applies or anything like that. But to be honest there's not much more to be said - if you are against the legislation, then fine, it's a perfectly valid opinion. I think legislating allowing more freedom on personal general computing devices would be a good thing with many benefits to society as I've enumerated already.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do we, though? I feel like most ebooks on Amazon are priced similarly to their paperback counterparts, or at least not significantly lower to the point that it reflects the fact that they don't have to manufacture a physical good or get someone to drive a truck to bring it to me.
I mean you’re tying value to cost which is weird for art (which is the majority of e-books, novels) This is like complaining a painting is too expensive because the canvas and paint only cost 100 dollars. The major value of a book, to a consumer, is the words it contains not the paper it’s printed on.
The art itself hasn't changed, so it makes sense to demand that the price follows when the distribution cost approaches zero.
As for whether that would actually happen...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course you should be able to cancel without requiring JavaScript.
Alright, after returning my iOS device I became Amish. I fully expect Apple to cancel my subscription via Mail and refund me back dated to when the letter was post dated ! My point is Apple isn't doing this on purpose to you, you're just in a very strange use case
You keep making these claims that I'm sure sound more outlandish to you, and I think all of them are quite reasonable.
The purpose of a system is what it does.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their current position protects consumers from being defrauded. I'm all for it.
That is great, you can avoid using app stores you don't trust. Why prevent other users from using stores they trust? Apple isn't the only company that can run an online store. There are countless online web stores selling all kinds of things, and people trust them with their money. Apple is artificially preventing competition in iOS stores here because they can abuse their dominant position.