App Store is a platform that Apple built, i don't care about your stupid game, i want my Apps to be strictly curated and I want Apple to make some money off it. If a customer disagrees with the policy and gets angry about it, then don't buy and iPhone, it's that simple.
That's fine but did you know Apple would be the middleman to everything, and that they would decide what you could download or not?
More importantly, was that made clear to you at purchase?
You may find that Apple being a middleman isn't a problem here. The root problem is on a deeper level and eventually, I don't think things will work out to Apple's liking.
Apple isn't the middleman. Apple is Apple and it's Apple's Store than they fu**ing INVENTED.
Apple is very much the middleman. You can't develop for iOS device deployment without going through Apple. Apple decides what can (and can't) be present on the App Store and doesn't allow for third party stores. Apple also takes a cut of transactions.
Apple is a middleman in every sense of the word.
Apple provides the tools, configures the downloads for the customer device, operates the backend, provides the storefront including promotion and a secure payment system, and validates and approves the apps according to published rules. It does all this to maximize the customer experience.
That isn't being a middleman.
You could make a case that Apple is the middleman to television and film media, simply because all they are doing is provide storefront, promotion, payment, and distribution of media. The studio, producers, and regulatory bodies provide all of the sales and curation tasks.
You cannot get an app for consumers on iOS without going through Apple in some way or another.
Apple is a middleman in the purest sense of the word. It sits between developers and app store users and determines what can (and cannot) reach consumers, and in which conditions.
You might better describe Apple as a Gatekeeper, rather than a middleman, and I would agree with that.
A Gatekeeper isn't necessarily a bad thing. There are all kinds of Gatekeepers in world that reduce chaos, and chaos is a possibility for any customer side loading apps, not to mention security risks, especially of transactions.
Essentially, Epic wants to remove Apple as the Gatekeeper, to increase Epic's take, not to create a better experience for the user. Funny that Epic doesn't feel the need to do that exact same thing with consoles, because of the different business model.
Apple users for the most part, like Apple's Gatekeeper status, and that Walled Garden.
You don't, but you are barely an Apple user anymore.
You are barking up the wrong tree.
Yes. Apple is also a gatekeeper.
But being a middlemen or a gatekeeper or whatever you want to call it, isn't the root problem here.
The root problem is that far from a being a middleman, Apple wants to be the middleman.
There shouldn't be a problem with wanting to control access to a store you own.
The problems arrive (potentially) when you want your store to be the only one available and you didn't explicitly notify users of this fact when they bought the device.
That is where Apple is likely to find itself in trouble.
Language is important. Use better, more explanatory terms.
If you don't expect users to be able to understand the Apple ecosystem, how the fuck to you expect those same users to be able to successfully navigate a shit ton of side loaded apps from a variety of different 3rd party stores, and even more payment systems?
Seriously, you can't have it both ways, and really, are there that many users that don't understand Apple's app store when they buy Apple products, especially the iPhone?
Do users even need to be explicitly notified?
Really?
That's a pretty low bar of expectation that you have set your straw man argument on.
I have mentioned this in other threads and there are clear parallels involved.
When Spanish mortgage 'floor' clauses were taken up to EU courts, the clauses themselves were not outlawed.
The banks still had to return billions to users because they had not explained the clauses sufficiently clearly to the clients who were signing the contract. This, in spite of clients having the clauses in the contracts they were signing.
No such warning is provided to users prior to purchase of an iDevice.
On your other point, users would have zero issues finding and downloading apps through a different store.
Seriously.
iPhone users are too dumb to know that Apple has a single App store, but are otherwise smart enough to find, navigate, download apps, pay, and get support through any of a number of different stores, with less problems than the Apple App store, which still has minor issues?
You better be able to post supporting data, because that is just bullshit.
"“We are one of only two companies globally that can have this hardware and software solution for our own ecosystem,” Anson Zhang tells me. “Only Huawei and Apple can do this—it’s our long-term strategy.” The man leading Huawei’s U.K. consumer business—arguably its most media-critical market outside China, is bullish. “Although there are lots of challenges and rumours and pressure,” he says, “we are committed to our investments, our ecosystem… This strategy will work.”
Hidden behind the headlines there’s a basal truth with Huawei—they’re playing a long game. No shareholders, as such. A vast and generous domestic market that’s not about to turn against them anytime soon. The welcome embrace of a state sponsor that—whether or not there’s any ownership or control, which is vigorously denied—has certainly been the world’s softest landing post America’s blacklist.
Until last year, Huawei was competing with Samsung for Google Android users worldwide. But Trump’s sanctions cut the Chinese giant adrift from Google. And now, eyeing the global market, Huawei wants to carve a third-way, an alternative to both iOS and full-fat Android. But in doing so, the company finds itself much, much closer to Apple’s model than to Google’s. Huawei’s plan to beat Google, to bring Android users outside China to its own OS, is arguably be just like Apple."
Your pals at Huawei want to be just like Apple...
It is not up to us to decide if people are intelligent enough to do whatever? Are you proposing that people take an exam or something to determine that?
Legislation can impose blanket requirements and it is funny that you bring the subject up because in the Spanish case that went to the EU court, the sentence made clear that the simple presence of the clause in the agreement was not enough to make it valid. The clause should have been made clear to the customer and in terms that the average customer could comprehend.
As for Zak's article, you need to re-read it.
Huawei and Apple and Samsung and Xiaomi etc are already the same.
The only difference is that macOS, iOS and iPad OS sit on top of Darwin and the others sit on top of Android.
Now, Huawei has been forced to move to HarmonyOS earlier than planned due to Trump.
Rumours say it could ship on phones far earlier than most expected. We will find out more on 5th September - less than a month away.
HarmonyOS is already on TVs, cars, routers and its kernel is in watches and laptops. Rumour has it that it will land as an OS on watches and some desktops before the end of this year.
Can you imagine the impact on Google of having the whole process brutally accelerated and the liklihood that Huawei will never go back to Android?
LOL,
It is not up to us to decide if people are intelligent enough to do whatever? Are you proposing that people take an exam or something to determine that?
I don't know what the impact on Google will be in any of this, but Huawei has a long way to go to match Google's services in those countries that Huawei sells into.
Agreed, they are not there YET. But they can take their time to reach there (with a dedicated home market to cater to for 1 or 2 years if needed), unlike Microsoft or Samsung who tried to push their own smartphone OSes and failed because of lack of time. And that should be of concern to Google. Because once Huawei reaches a good-enough level, Google will lose their stranglehold on Android pretty fast, with other Chinese OEMs (BBK's subsidiaries, Xiaomi, Lenovo etc) joining Huawei and will move away from Google fairly quickly. Google will lose its relevance in smartphone world within few years.
Your assumption/speculation may be accurate, but at the same time, Google's services are pretty sticky. I don't see Huawei swaying people from outside of China away from Google services, no more than I see Apple swaying people in China away from WeChat, even though WeChat is very much spy ware.
Samsung wasn't able to create an alternate operation system competitive with Android OS, no matter the time it took, and MS's business model of licensing its phone OS(s) was a failure from the get go. Huawei can rely on China, but many other countries will stick with Android OS, over concerns of China's dominance, India being a good case.
App Store is a platform that Apple built, i don't care about your stupid game, i want my Apps to be strictly curated and I want Apple to make some money off it. If a customer disagrees with the policy and gets angry about it, then don't buy and iPhone, it's that simple.
That's fine but did you know Apple would be the middleman to everything, and that they would decide what you could download or not?
More importantly, was that made clear to you at purchase?
You may find that Apple being a middleman isn't a problem here. The root problem is on a deeper level and eventually, I don't think things will work out to Apple's liking.
Apple isn't the middleman. Apple is Apple and it's Apple's Store than they fu**ing INVENTED.
Apple is very much the middleman. You can't develop for iOS device deployment without going through Apple. Apple decides what can (and can't) be present on the App Store and doesn't allow for third party stores. Apple also takes a cut of transactions.
Apple is a middleman in every sense of the word.
Apple provides the tools, configures the downloads for the customer device, operates the backend, provides the storefront including promotion and a secure payment system, and validates and approves the apps according to published rules. It does all this to maximize the customer experience.
That isn't being a middleman.
You could make a case that Apple is the middleman to television and film media, simply because all they are doing is provide storefront, promotion, payment, and distribution of media. The studio, producers, and regulatory bodies provide all of the sales and curation tasks.
You cannot get an app for consumers on iOS without going through Apple in some way or another.
Apple is a middleman in the purest sense of the word. It sits between developers and app store users and determines what can (and cannot) reach consumers, and in which conditions.
You might better describe Apple as a Gatekeeper, rather than a middleman, and I would agree with that.
A Gatekeeper isn't necessarily a bad thing. There are all kinds of Gatekeepers in world that reduce chaos, and chaos is a possibility for any customer side loading apps, not to mention security risks, especially of transactions.
Essentially, Epic wants to remove Apple as the Gatekeeper, to increase Epic's take, not to create a better experience for the user. Funny that Epic doesn't feel the need to do that exact same thing with consoles, because of the different business model.
Apple users for the most part, like Apple's Gatekeeper status, and that Walled Garden.
You don't, but you are barely an Apple user anymore.
You are barking up the wrong tree.
Yes. Apple is also a gatekeeper.
But being a middlemen or a gatekeeper or whatever you want to call it, isn't the root problem here.
The root problem is that far from a being a middleman, Apple wants to be the middleman.
There shouldn't be a problem with wanting to control access to a store you own.
The problems arrive (potentially) when you want your store to be the only one available and you didn't explicitly notify users of this fact when they bought the device.
That is where Apple is likely to find itself in trouble.
Language is important. Use better, more explanatory terms.
If you don't expect users to be able to understand the Apple ecosystem, how the fuck to you expect those same users to be able to successfully navigate a shit ton of side loaded apps from a variety of different 3rd party stores, and even more payment systems?
Seriously, you can't have it both ways, and really, are there that many users that don't understand Apple's app store when they buy Apple products, especially the iPhone?
Do users even need to be explicitly notified?
Really?
That's a pretty low bar of expectation that you have set your straw man argument on.
I have mentioned this in other threads and there are clear parallels involved.
When Spanish mortgage 'floor' clauses were taken up to EU courts, the clauses themselves were not outlawed.
The banks still had to return billions to users because they had not explained the clauses sufficiently clearly to the clients who were signing the contract. This, in spite of clients having the clauses in the contracts they were signing.
No such warning is provided to users prior to purchase of an iDevice.
On your other point, users would have zero issues finding and downloading apps through a different store.
Seriously.
iPhone users are too dumb to know that Apple has a single App store, but are otherwise smart enough to find, navigate, download apps, pay, and get support through any of a number of different stores, with less problems than the Apple App store, which still has minor issues?
You better be able to post supporting data, because that is just bullshit.
"“We are one of only two companies globally that can have this hardware and software solution for our own ecosystem,” Anson Zhang tells me. “Only Huawei and Apple can do this—it’s our long-term strategy.” The man leading Huawei’s U.K. consumer business—arguably its most media-critical market outside China, is bullish. “Although there are lots of challenges and rumours and pressure,” he says, “we are committed to our investments, our ecosystem… This strategy will work.”
Hidden behind the headlines there’s a basal truth with Huawei—they’re playing a long game. No shareholders, as such. A vast and generous domestic market that’s not about to turn against them anytime soon. The welcome embrace of a state sponsor that—whether or not there’s any ownership or control, which is vigorously denied—has certainly been the world’s softest landing post America’s blacklist.
Until last year, Huawei was competing with Samsung for Google Android users worldwide. But Trump’s sanctions cut the Chinese giant adrift from Google. And now, eyeing the global market, Huawei wants to carve a third-way, an alternative to both iOS and full-fat Android. But in doing so, the company finds itself much, much closer to Apple’s model than to Google’s. Huawei’s plan to beat Google, to bring Android users outside China to its own OS, is arguably be just like Apple."
Your pals at Huawei want to be just like Apple...
It is not up to us to decide if people are intelligent enough to do whatever? Are you proposing that people take an exam or something to determine that?
Legislation can impose blanket requirements and it is funny that you bring the subject up because in the Spanish case that went to the EU court, the sentence made clear that the simple presence of the clause in the agreement was not enough to make it valid. The clause should have been made clear to the customer and in terms that the average customer could comprehend.
As for Zak's article, you need to re-read it.
Huawei and Apple and Samsung and Xiaomi etc are already the same.
The only difference is that macOS, iOS and iPad OS sit on top of Darwin and the others sit on top of Android.
Now, Huawei has been forced to move to HarmonyOS earlier than planned due to Trump.
Rumours say it could ship on phones far earlier than most expected. We will find out more on 5th September - less than a month away.
HarmonyOS is already on TVs, cars, routers and its kernel is in watches and laptops. Rumour has it that it will land as an OS on watches and some desktops before the end of this year.
Can you imagine the impact on Google of having the whole process brutally accelerated and the liklihood that Huawei will never go back to Android?
LOL,
It is not up to us to decide if people are intelligent enough to do whatever? Are you proposing that people take an exam or something to determine that?
I don't know what the impact on Google will be in any of this, but Huawei has a long way to go to match Google's services in those countries that Huawei sells into.
Agreed, they are not there YET. But they can take their time to reach there (with a dedicated home market to cater to for 1 or 2 years if needed), unlike Microsoft or Samsung who tried to push their own smartphone OSes and failed because of lack of time. And that should be of concern to Google. Because once Huawei reaches a good-enough level, Google will lose their stranglehold on Android pretty fast, with other Chinese OEMs (BBK's subsidiaries, Xiaomi, Lenovo etc) joining Huawei and will move away from Google fairly quickly. Google will lose its relevance in smartphone world within few years.
Your assumption/speculation may be accurate, but at the same time, Google's services are pretty sticky. I don't see Huawei swaying people from outside of China away from Google services, no more than I see Apple swaying people in China away from WeChat, even though WeChat is very much spy ware.
Samsung wasn't able to create an alternate operation system competitive with Android OS, no matter the time it took, and MS's business model of licensing its phone OS(s) was a failure from the get go. Huawei can rely on China, but many other countries will stick with Android OS, over concerns of China's dominance, India being a good case.
Agreed on this part - I am from India and I wouldn't switch to Google-less Chinese only phone anytime soon. But I think stickiness of Google's services will be tested over a period of time for the next 2-3 years. If Huawei/Chinese OEMs can come up with a compelling alternative (minimal hassles at a much reduced cost), I can see things changing pretty fast in rest of the world (excluding US/India).
App Store is a platform that Apple built, i don't care about your stupid game, i want my Apps to be strictly curated and I want Apple to make some money off it. If a customer disagrees with the policy and gets angry about it, then don't buy and iPhone, it's that simple.
That's fine but did you know Apple would be the middleman to everything, and that they would decide what you could download or not?
More importantly, was that made clear to you at purchase?
You may find that Apple being a middleman isn't a problem here. The root problem is on a deeper level and eventually, I don't think things will work out to Apple's liking.
Apple isn't the middleman. Apple is Apple and it's Apple's Store than they fu**ing INVENTED.
Apple is very much the middleman. You can't develop for iOS device deployment without going through Apple. Apple decides what can (and can't) be present on the App Store and doesn't allow for third party stores. Apple also takes a cut of transactions.
Apple is a middleman in every sense of the word.
Apple provides the tools, configures the downloads for the customer device, operates the backend, provides the storefront including promotion and a secure payment system, and validates and approves the apps according to published rules. It does all this to maximize the customer experience.
That isn't being a middleman.
You could make a case that Apple is the middleman to television and film media, simply because all they are doing is provide storefront, promotion, payment, and distribution of media. The studio, producers, and regulatory bodies provide all of the sales and curation tasks.
You cannot get an app for consumers on iOS without going through Apple in some way or another.
Apple is a middleman in the purest sense of the word. It sits between developers and app store users and determines what can (and cannot) reach consumers, and in which conditions.
You might better describe Apple as a Gatekeeper, rather than a middleman, and I would agree with that.
A Gatekeeper isn't necessarily a bad thing. There are all kinds of Gatekeepers in world that reduce chaos, and chaos is a possibility for any customer side loading apps, not to mention security risks, especially of transactions.
Essentially, Epic wants to remove Apple as the Gatekeeper, to increase Epic's take, not to create a better experience for the user. Funny that Epic doesn't feel the need to do that exact same thing with consoles, because of the different business model.
Apple users for the most part, like Apple's Gatekeeper status, and that Walled Garden.
You don't, but you are barely an Apple user anymore.
You are barking up the wrong tree.
Yes. Apple is also a gatekeeper.
But being a middlemen or a gatekeeper or whatever you want to call it, isn't the root problem here.
The root problem is that far from a being a middleman, Apple wants to be the middleman.
There shouldn't be a problem with wanting to control access to a store you own.
The problems arrive (potentially) when you want your store to be the only one available and you didn't explicitly notify users of this fact when they bought the device.
That is where Apple is likely to find itself in trouble.
Language is important. Use better, more explanatory terms.
If you don't expect users to be able to understand the Apple ecosystem, how the fuck to you expect those same users to be able to successfully navigate a shit ton of side loaded apps from a variety of different 3rd party stores, and even more payment systems?
Seriously, you can't have it both ways, and really, are there that many users that don't understand Apple's app store when they buy Apple products, especially the iPhone?
Do users even need to be explicitly notified?
Really?
That's a pretty low bar of expectation that you have set your straw man argument on.
I have mentioned this in other threads and there are clear parallels involved.
When Spanish mortgage 'floor' clauses were taken up to EU courts, the clauses themselves were not outlawed.
The banks still had to return billions to users because they had not explained the clauses sufficiently clearly to the clients who were signing the contract. This, in spite of clients having the clauses in the contracts they were signing.
No such warning is provided to users prior to purchase of an iDevice.
On your other point, users would have zero issues finding and downloading apps through a different store.
Seriously.
iPhone users are too dumb to know that Apple has a single App store, but are otherwise smart enough to find, navigate, download apps, pay, and get support through any of a number of different stores, with less problems than the Apple App store, which still has minor issues?
You better be able to post supporting data, because that is just bullshit.
"“We are one of only two companies globally that can have this hardware and software solution for our own ecosystem,” Anson Zhang tells me. “Only Huawei and Apple can do this—it’s our long-term strategy.” The man leading Huawei’s U.K. consumer business—arguably its most media-critical market outside China, is bullish. “Although there are lots of challenges and rumours and pressure,” he says, “we are committed to our investments, our ecosystem… This strategy will work.”
Hidden behind the headlines there’s a basal truth with Huawei—they’re playing a long game. No shareholders, as such. A vast and generous domestic market that’s not about to turn against them anytime soon. The welcome embrace of a state sponsor that—whether or not there’s any ownership or control, which is vigorously denied—has certainly been the world’s softest landing post America’s blacklist.
Until last year, Huawei was competing with Samsung for Google Android users worldwide. But Trump’s sanctions cut the Chinese giant adrift from Google. And now, eyeing the global market, Huawei wants to carve a third-way, an alternative to both iOS and full-fat Android. But in doing so, the company finds itself much, much closer to Apple’s model than to Google’s. Huawei’s plan to beat Google, to bring Android users outside China to its own OS, is arguably be just like Apple."
Your pals at Huawei want to be just like Apple...
It is not up to us to decide if people are intelligent enough to do whatever? Are you proposing that people take an exam or something to determine that?
Legislation can impose blanket requirements and it is funny that you bring the subject up because in the Spanish case that went to the EU court, the sentence made clear that the simple presence of the clause in the agreement was not enough to make it valid. The clause should have been made clear to the customer and in terms that the average customer could comprehend.
As for Zak's article, you need to re-read it.
Huawei and Apple and Samsung and Xiaomi etc are already the same.
The only difference is that macOS, iOS and iPad OS sit on top of Darwin and the others sit on top of Android.
Now, Huawei has been forced to move to HarmonyOS earlier than planned due to Trump.
Rumours say it could ship on phones far earlier than most expected. We will find out more on 5th September - less than a month away.
HarmonyOS is already on TVs, cars, routers and its kernel is in watches and laptops. Rumour has it that it will land as an OS on watches and some desktops before the end of this year.
Can you imagine the impact on Google of having the whole process brutally accelerated and the liklihood that Huawei will never go back to Android?
LOL,
It is not up to us to decide if people are intelligent enough to do whatever? Are you proposing that people take an exam or something to determine that?
You were the one that stated that Apple needed to tell buyers that there was only the Apple store to purchase apps from. I mean, it's been that way since 2008, so someone would either have to been in coma, or completely obvious to the world of smartphones.
I don't think anyone should claim those others as "the same" since Apple actually has a mature development platform and the core OS Darwin, that spans a wide range of hardware and ecosystem, all of which Apple has complete control of with the move to ASi. Hence why I mentioned that Huawei wants to be like Apple, yet Huawei hasn't actually demonstrated the maturity of their development system, nor the maturity of their underlying Harmony OS, which is still very much a work in process, nor even the maturity or breadth of their own underlying silicon.
I don't know what the impact on Google will be in any of this, but Huawei has a long way to go to match Google's services in those countries that Huawei sells into.
App Store is a platform that Apple built, i don't care about your stupid game, i want my Apps to be strictly curated and I want Apple to make some money off it. If a customer disagrees with the policy and gets angry about it, then don't buy and iPhone, it's that simple.
That's fine but did you know Apple would be the middleman to everything, and that they would decide what you could download or not?
More importantly, was that made clear to you at purchase?
You may find that Apple being a middleman isn't a problem here. The root problem is on a deeper level and eventually, I don't think things will work out to Apple's liking.
Apple isn't the middleman. Apple is Apple and it's Apple's Store than they fu**ing INVENTED.
Apple is very much the middleman. You can't develop for iOS device deployment without going through Apple. Apple decides what can (and can't) be present on the App Store and doesn't allow for third party stores. Apple also takes a cut of transactions.
Apple is a middleman in every sense of the word.
Apple provides the tools, configures the downloads for the customer device, operates the backend, provides the storefront including promotion and a secure payment system, and validates and approves the apps according to published rules. It does all this to maximize the customer experience.
That isn't being a middleman.
You could make a case that Apple is the middleman to television and film media, simply because all they are doing is provide storefront, promotion, payment, and distribution of media. The studio, producers, and regulatory bodies provide all of the sales and curation tasks.
You cannot get an app for consumers on iOS without going through Apple in some way or another.
Apple is a middleman in the purest sense of the word. It sits between developers and app store users and determines what can (and cannot) reach consumers, and in which conditions.
You might better describe Apple as a Gatekeeper, rather than a middleman, and I would agree with that.
A Gatekeeper isn't necessarily a bad thing. There are all kinds of Gatekeepers in world that reduce chaos, and chaos is a possibility for any customer side loading apps, not to mention security risks, especially of transactions.
Essentially, Epic wants to remove Apple as the Gatekeeper, to increase Epic's take, not to create a better experience for the user. Funny that Epic doesn't feel the need to do that exact same thing with consoles, because of the different business model.
Apple users for the most part, like Apple's Gatekeeper status, and that Walled Garden.
You don't, but you are barely an Apple user anymore.
You are barking up the wrong tree.
Yes. Apple is also a gatekeeper.
But being a middlemen or a gatekeeper or whatever you want to call it, isn't the root problem here.
The root problem is that far from a being a middleman, Apple wants to be the middleman.
There shouldn't be a problem with wanting to control access to a store you own.
The problems arrive (potentially) when you want your store to be the only one available and you didn't explicitly notify users of this fact when they bought the device.
That is where Apple is likely to find itself in trouble.
Language is important. Use better, more explanatory terms.
If you don't expect users to be able to understand the Apple ecosystem, how the fuck to you expect those same users to be able to successfully navigate a shit ton of side loaded apps from a variety of different 3rd party stores, and even more payment systems?
Seriously, you can't have it both ways, and really, are there that many users that don't understand Apple's app store when they buy Apple products, especially the iPhone?
Do users even need to be explicitly notified?
Really?
That's a pretty low bar of expectation that you have set your straw man argument on.
I have mentioned this in other threads and there are clear parallels involved.
When Spanish mortgage 'floor' clauses were taken up to EU courts, the clauses themselves were not outlawed.
The banks still had to return billions to users because they had not explained the clauses sufficiently clearly to the clients who were signing the contract. This, in spite of clients having the clauses in the contracts they were signing.
No such warning is provided to users prior to purchase of an iDevice.
On your other point, users would have zero issues finding and downloading apps through a different store.
Seriously.
iPhone users are too dumb to know that Apple has a single App store, but are otherwise smart enough to find, navigate, download apps, pay, and get support through any of a number of different stores, with less problems than the Apple App store, which still has minor issues?
You better be able to post supporting data, because that is just bullshit.
"“We are one of only two companies globally that can have this hardware and software solution for our own ecosystem,” Anson Zhang tells me. “Only Huawei and Apple can do this—it’s our long-term strategy.” The man leading Huawei’s U.K. consumer business—arguably its most media-critical market outside China, is bullish. “Although there are lots of challenges and rumours and pressure,” he says, “we are committed to our investments, our ecosystem… This strategy will work.”
Hidden behind the headlines there’s a basal truth with Huawei—they’re playing a long game. No shareholders, as such. A vast and generous domestic market that’s not about to turn against them anytime soon. The welcome embrace of a state sponsor that—whether or not there’s any ownership or control, which is vigorously denied—has certainly been the world’s softest landing post America’s blacklist.
Until last year, Huawei was competing with Samsung for Google Android users worldwide. But Trump’s sanctions cut the Chinese giant adrift from Google. And now, eyeing the global market, Huawei wants to carve a third-way, an alternative to both iOS and full-fat Android. But in doing so, the company finds itself much, much closer to Apple’s model than to Google’s. Huawei’s plan to beat Google, to bring Android users outside China to its own OS, is arguably be just like Apple."
Your pals at Huawei want to be just like Apple...
It is not up to us to decide if people are intelligent enough to do whatever? Are you proposing that people take an exam or something to determine that?
Legislation can impose blanket requirements and it is funny that you bring the subject up because in the Spanish case that went to the EU court, the sentence made clear that the simple presence of the clause in the agreement was not enough to make it valid. The clause should have been made clear to the customer and in terms that the average customer could comprehend.
As for Zak's article, you need to re-read it.
Huawei and Apple and Samsung and Xiaomi etc are already the same.
The only difference is that macOS, iOS and iPad OS sit on top of Darwin and the others sit on top of Android.
Now, Huawei has been forced to move to HarmonyOS earlier than planned due to Trump.
Rumours say it could ship on phones far earlier than most expected. We will find out more on 5th September - less than a month away.
HarmonyOS is already on TVs, cars, routers and its kernel is in watches and laptops. Rumour has it that it will land as an OS on watches and some desktops before the end of this year.
Can you imagine the impact on Google of having the whole process brutally accelerated and the liklihood that Huawei will never go back to Android?
LOL,
It is not up to us to decide if people are intelligent enough to do whatever? Are you proposing that people take an exam or something to determine that?
You were the one that stated that Apple needed to tell buyers that there was only the Apple store to purchase apps from. I mean, it's been that way since 2008, so someone would either have to been in coma, or completely obvious to the world of smartphones.
I don't think anyone should claim those others as "the same" since Apple actually has a mature development platform and the core OS Darwin, that spans a wide range of hardware and ecosystem, all of which Apple has complete control of with the move to ASi. Hence why I mentioned that Huawei wants to be like Apple, yet Huawei hasn't actually demonstrated the maturity of their development system, nor the maturity of their underlying Harmony OS, which is still very much a work in process, nor even the maturity or breadth of their own underlying silicon.
I don't know what the impact on Google will be in any of this, but Huawei has a long way to go to match Google's services in those countries that Huawei sells into.
Where did I say that?
Your exact quote;
The problems arrive (potentially) when you want your store to be the only one available and you didn't explicitly notify users of this fact when they bought the device.
AFAIK, there have never any consumers that were so concerned with that to litigate, and that app store has been in operation since 2008. That anyone would be unaware at this point in time of that would be remarkable.
and then this one;
have mentioned this in other threads and there are clear parallels involved.
When Spanish mortgage 'floor' clauses were taken up to EU courts, the clauses themselves were not outlawed.
The banks still had to return billions to users because they had not explained the clauses sufficiently clearly to the clients who were signing the contract. This, in spite of clients having the clauses in the contracts they were signing.
No such warning is provided to users prior to purchase of an iDevice.
On your other point, users would have zero issues finding and downloading apps through a different store.
App Store is a platform that Apple built, i don't care about your stupid game, i want my Apps to be strictly curated and I want Apple to make some money off it. If a customer disagrees with the policy and gets angry about it, then don't buy and iPhone, it's that simple.
That's fine but did you know Apple would be the middleman to everything, and that they would decide what you could download or not?
More importantly, was that made clear to you at purchase?
You may find that Apple being a middleman isn't a problem here. The root problem is on a deeper level and eventually, I don't think things will work out to Apple's liking.
Apple isn't the middleman. Apple is Apple and it's Apple's Store than they fu**ing INVENTED.
Apple is very much the middleman. You can't develop for iOS device deployment without going through Apple. Apple decides what can (and can't) be present on the App Store and doesn't allow for third party stores. Apple also takes a cut of transactions.
Apple is a middleman in every sense of the word.
Apple provides the tools, configures the downloads for the customer device, operates the backend, provides the storefront including promotion and a secure payment system, and validates and approves the apps according to published rules. It does all this to maximize the customer experience.
That isn't being a middleman.
You could make a case that Apple is the middleman to television and film media, simply because all they are doing is provide storefront, promotion, payment, and distribution of media. The studio, producers, and regulatory bodies provide all of the sales and curation tasks.
You cannot get an app for consumers on iOS without going through Apple in some way or another.
Apple is a middleman in the purest sense of the word. It sits between developers and app store users and determines what can (and cannot) reach consumers, and in which conditions.
You might better describe Apple as a Gatekeeper, rather than a middleman, and I would agree with that.
A Gatekeeper isn't necessarily a bad thing. There are all kinds of Gatekeepers in world that reduce chaos, and chaos is a possibility for any customer side loading apps, not to mention security risks, especially of transactions.
Essentially, Epic wants to remove Apple as the Gatekeeper, to increase Epic's take, not to create a better experience for the user. Funny that Epic doesn't feel the need to do that exact same thing with consoles, because of the different business model.
Apple users for the most part, like Apple's Gatekeeper status, and that Walled Garden.
You don't, but you are barely an Apple user anymore.
You are barking up the wrong tree.
Yes. Apple is also a gatekeeper.
But being a middlemen or a gatekeeper or whatever you want to call it, isn't the root problem here.
The root problem is that far from a being a middleman, Apple wants to be the middleman.
There shouldn't be a problem with wanting to control access to a store you own.
The problems arrive (potentially) when you want your store to be the only one available and you didn't explicitly notify users of this fact when they bought the device.
That is where Apple is likely to find itself in trouble.
Language is important. Use better, more explanatory terms.
If you don't expect users to be able to understand the Apple ecosystem, how the fuck to you expect those same users to be able to successfully navigate a shit ton of side loaded apps from a variety of different 3rd party stores, and even more payment systems?
Seriously, you can't have it both ways, and really, are there that many users that don't understand Apple's app store when they buy Apple products, especially the iPhone?
Do users even need to be explicitly notified?
Really?
That's a pretty low bar of expectation that you have set your straw man argument on.
I have mentioned this in other threads and there are clear parallels involved.
When Spanish mortgage 'floor' clauses were taken up to EU courts, the clauses themselves were not outlawed.
The banks still had to return billions to users because they had not explained the clauses sufficiently clearly to the clients who were signing the contract. This, in spite of clients having the clauses in the contracts they were signing.
No such warning is provided to users prior to purchase of an iDevice.
On your other point, users would have zero issues finding and downloading apps through a different store.
Seriously.
iPhone users are too dumb to know that Apple has a single App store, but are otherwise smart enough to find, navigate, download apps, pay, and get support through any of a number of different stores, with less problems than the Apple App store, which still has minor issues?
You better be able to post supporting data, because that is just bullshit.
"“We are one of only two companies globally that can have this hardware and software solution for our own ecosystem,” Anson Zhang tells me. “Only Huawei and Apple can do this—it’s our long-term strategy.” The man leading Huawei’s U.K. consumer business—arguably its most media-critical market outside China, is bullish. “Although there are lots of challenges and rumours and pressure,” he says, “we are committed to our investments, our ecosystem… This strategy will work.”
Hidden behind the headlines there’s a basal truth with Huawei—they’re playing a long game. No shareholders, as such. A vast and generous domestic market that’s not about to turn against them anytime soon. The welcome embrace of a state sponsor that—whether or not there’s any ownership or control, which is vigorously denied—has certainly been the world’s softest landing post America’s blacklist.
Until last year, Huawei was competing with Samsung for Google Android users worldwide. But Trump’s sanctions cut the Chinese giant adrift from Google. And now, eyeing the global market, Huawei wants to carve a third-way, an alternative to both iOS and full-fat Android. But in doing so, the company finds itself much, much closer to Apple’s model than to Google’s. Huawei’s plan to beat Google, to bring Android users outside China to its own OS, is arguably be just like Apple."
Your pals at Huawei want to be just like Apple...
It is not up to us to decide if people are intelligent enough to do whatever? Are you proposing that people take an exam or something to determine that?
Legislation can impose blanket requirements and it is funny that you bring the subject up because in the Spanish case that went to the EU court, the sentence made clear that the simple presence of the clause in the agreement was not enough to make it valid. The clause should have been made clear to the customer and in terms that the average customer could comprehend.
As for Zak's article, you need to re-read it.
Huawei and Apple and Samsung and Xiaomi etc are already the same.
The only difference is that macOS, iOS and iPad OS sit on top of Darwin and the others sit on top of Android.
Now, Huawei has been forced to move to HarmonyOS earlier than planned due to Trump.
Rumours say it could ship on phones far earlier than most expected. We will find out more on 5th September - less than a month away.
HarmonyOS is already on TVs, cars, routers and its kernel is in watches and laptops. Rumour has it that it will land as an OS on watches and some desktops before the end of this year.
Can you imagine the impact on Google of having the whole process brutally accelerated and the liklihood that Huawei will never go back to Android?
LOL,
It is not up to us to decide if people are intelligent enough to do whatever? Are you proposing that people take an exam or something to determine that?
You were the one that stated that Apple needed to tell buyers that there was only the Apple store to purchase apps from. I mean, it's been that way since 2008, so someone would either have to been in coma, or completely obvious to the world of smartphones.
I don't think anyone should claim those others as "the same" since Apple actually has a mature development platform and the core OS Darwin, that spans a wide range of hardware and ecosystem, all of which Apple has complete control of with the move to ASi. Hence why I mentioned that Huawei wants to be like Apple, yet Huawei hasn't actually demonstrated the maturity of their development system, nor the maturity of their underlying Harmony OS, which is still very much a work in process, nor even the maturity or breadth of their own underlying silicon.
I don't know what the impact on Google will be in any of this, but Huawei has a long way to go to match Google's services in those countries that Huawei sells into.
Where did I say that?
Your exact quote;
The problems arrive (potentially) when you want your store to be the only one available and you didn't explicitly notify users of this fact when they bought the device.
AFAIK, there have never any consumers that were so concerned with that to litigate, and that app store has been in operation since 2008. That anyone would be unaware at this point in time of that would be remarkable.
and then this one;
have mentioned this in other threads and there are clear parallels involved.
When Spanish mortgage 'floor' clauses were taken up to EU courts, the clauses themselves were not outlawed.
The banks still had to return billions to users because they had not explained the clauses sufficiently clearly to the clients who were signing the contract. This, in spite of clients having the clauses in the contracts they were signing.
No such warning is provided to users prior to purchase of an iDevice.
On your other point, users would have zero issues finding and downloading apps through a different store.
Should I be surprised that what you are attributing to me is not correct?
What does "potentially" tell you?
You interpret that as a stated affirmation that I said Apple needed to make buyers aware of the situation?
Why do you think 'potentially' is even in that sentence?
The second part you are quoting me on is an absolute and unquestionable fact!
And to top this off, the whole idea of litigation does not revolve around a consumer taking action individually. It revolves around governments taking action against them, and potentially ruling against Apple's way seeing the App Store.
I agree with him. Apple is a middleman to Epic's software. This is why I fully support Epic in creating their own game console so they can sell Forknife directly to customers the way Nintendo does on their Switch.
I thinks it just about the money. Clearly this was premeditated. He formulated a route and programmed it into the game to by pass Apple and google play stores. Anticipated a lawsuit knowing what he was doing violated there ToS and then had a parody video in place, knowing the likely hood of them yanking fort nite over his TOS violation was close to 100%.
He also has been outspoken for over 3 years about this. Why did he wait til now to pull this? Why not do it in 2017? Or 2018? Or 2019?
There was already a pushback with the App Store so they decided to pile on. It was a solid strategic move for someone who lacks ethics (just like trying to define the post office, causing strategic delays, and removing mail boxes from cities so a sitting president can steal another election).
Notice it's only the multi-billionaire dollar companies complaining?
Also notice the "coincidence" of Microsoft doing similar crap KNOWING the rules.
MS didn't do anything wrong. They followed and respected Apple rules while running xCloud on TestFlight, and took the app down without issues. Maybe they thought of the possibility of Apple relaxing or changing some rules after seeing the positive reviews and experience of xCloud. Since it didn't happened, in the announcement they posted the reasons on why xCloud wasn't going to be available in iOS and iPadOS, and it was because Apple.
This is very different compared to what Epic is doing. Personally I prefer what MS did, tell customers the reason cloud gaming is not available in Apple mobile devices (in this case, because Apple restricting rules for cloud gaming) and let the market decide. At the end, Apple customers are missing great gaming experiences because of their rules. This is an example on how the Apple walled garden is not always for the benefit of the users / customers.
The timing buddy the timing. Microsoft is not some $2,000 startup unaware of Apple's terms. They KNEW what they did broke the rules and the COMPLAINED like Epic did.
How MS broke App Store rules when it was never released outside of TestFlight? They gave Apple the opportunity to see an excellent gaming service for Apple customers. Apple decided not to change or adapt their rules for cloud gaming, and MS stopped developing for it. Different from Epic lawsuit, they respect Apple (nonsense) rules, and released a statement explaining why Apple was the reason we would not see xCloud in iOS / iPadOS devices. IMO, this is far better than what are we seeing with Epic.
Both Epic and Microsoft are bed buddies jealous of Apple's success. And one of them has failed mobile platforms that Apple dominated.
If that's the case, I could say that Apple is jealous of MS success in gaming, and they are blocking xCloud so people are forced to us Apple Arcade, right?
No. they ( Apple ) are mandating that the games be downloaded to device and not streamed 100% from the cloud. It is the way Apple arcade and all other games on the app store operate. Steam and PS4 remote play require a internet connected machine to connect to in order to play purchased games on IOS.
xCloud wants their service to be 100% from the cloud. That is the App store rule they broke they needed to change it or leave.. so they left.
App Store is a platform that Apple built, i don't care about your stupid game, i want my Apps to be strictly curated and I want Apple to make some money off it. If a customer disagrees with the policy and gets angry about it, then don't buy and iPhone, it's that simple.
That's fine but did you know Apple would be the middleman to everything, and that they would decide what you could download or not?
More importantly, was that made clear to you at purchase?
You may find that Apple being a middleman isn't a problem here. The root problem is on a deeper level and eventually, I don't think things will work out to Apple's liking.
Apple isn't the middleman. Apple is Apple and it's Apple's Store than they fu**ing INVENTED.
Apple is very much the middleman. You can't develop for iOS device deployment without going through Apple. Apple decides what can (and can't) be present on the App Store and doesn't allow for third party stores. Apple also takes a cut of transactions.
Apple is a middleman in every sense of the word.
Apple provides the tools, configures the downloads for the customer device, operates the backend, provides the storefront including promotion and a secure payment system, and validates and approves the apps according to published rules. It does all this to maximize the customer experience.
That isn't being a middleman.
You could make a case that Apple is the middleman to television and film media, simply because all they are doing is provide storefront, promotion, payment, and distribution of media. The studio, producers, and regulatory bodies provide all of the sales and curation tasks.
You cannot get an app for consumers on iOS without going through Apple in some way or another.
Apple is a middleman in the purest sense of the word. It sits between developers and app store users and determines what can (and cannot) reach consumers, and in which conditions.
You might better describe Apple as a Gatekeeper, rather than a middleman, and I would agree with that.
A Gatekeeper isn't necessarily a bad thing. There are all kinds of Gatekeepers in world that reduce chaos, and chaos is a possibility for any customer side loading apps, not to mention security risks, especially of transactions.
Essentially, Epic wants to remove Apple as the Gatekeeper, to increase Epic's take, not to create a better experience for the user. Funny that Epic doesn't feel the need to do that exact same thing with consoles, because of the different business model.
Apple users for the most part, like Apple's Gatekeeper status, and that Walled Garden.
You don't, but you are barely an Apple user anymore.
You are barking up the wrong tree.
Yes. Apple is also a gatekeeper.
But being a middlemen or a gatekeeper or whatever you want to call it, isn't the root problem here.
The root problem is that far from a being a middleman, Apple wants to be the middleman.
There shouldn't be a problem with wanting to control access to a store you own.
The problems arrive (potentially) when you want your store to be the only one available and you didn't explicitly notify users of this fact when they bought the device.
That is where Apple is likely to find itself in trouble.
Language is important. Use better, more explanatory terms.
If you don't expect users to be able to understand the Apple ecosystem, how the fuck to you expect those same users to be able to successfully navigate a shit ton of side loaded apps from a variety of different 3rd party stores, and even more payment systems?
Seriously, you can't have it both ways, and really, are there that many users that don't understand Apple's app store when they buy Apple products, especially the iPhone?
Do users even need to be explicitly notified?
Really?
That's a pretty low bar of expectation that you have set your straw man argument on.
I have mentioned this in other threads and there are clear parallels involved.
When Spanish mortgage 'floor' clauses were taken up to EU courts, the clauses themselves were not outlawed.
The banks still had to return billions to users because they had not explained the clauses sufficiently clearly to the clients who were signing the contract. This, in spite of clients having the clauses in the contracts they were signing.
No such warning is provided to users prior to purchase of an iDevice.
On your other point, users would have zero issues finding and downloading apps through a different store.
Seriously.
iPhone users are too dumb to know that Apple has a single App store, but are otherwise smart enough to find, navigate, download apps, pay, and get support through any of a number of different stores, with less problems than the Apple App store, which still has minor issues?
You better be able to post supporting data, because that is just bullshit.
"“We are one of only two companies globally that can have this hardware and software solution for our own ecosystem,” Anson Zhang tells me. “Only Huawei and Apple can do this—it’s our long-term strategy.” The man leading Huawei’s U.K. consumer business—arguably its most media-critical market outside China, is bullish. “Although there are lots of challenges and rumours and pressure,” he says, “we are committed to our investments, our ecosystem… This strategy will work.”
Hidden behind the headlines there’s a basal truth with Huawei—they’re playing a long game. No shareholders, as such. A vast and generous domestic market that’s not about to turn against them anytime soon. The welcome embrace of a state sponsor that—whether or not there’s any ownership or control, which is vigorously denied—has certainly been the world’s softest landing post America’s blacklist.
Until last year, Huawei was competing with Samsung for Google Android users worldwide. But Trump’s sanctions cut the Chinese giant adrift from Google. And now, eyeing the global market, Huawei wants to carve a third-way, an alternative to both iOS and full-fat Android. But in doing so, the company finds itself much, much closer to Apple’s model than to Google’s. Huawei’s plan to beat Google, to bring Android users outside China to its own OS, is arguably be just like Apple."
Your pals at Huawei want to be just like Apple...
It is not up to us to decide if people are intelligent enough to do whatever? Are you proposing that people take an exam or something to determine that?
Legislation can impose blanket requirements and it is funny that you bring the subject up because in the Spanish case that went to the EU court, the sentence made clear that the simple presence of the clause in the agreement was not enough to make it valid. The clause should have been made clear to the customer and in terms that the average customer could comprehend.
As for Zak's article, you need to re-read it.
Huawei and Apple and Samsung and Xiaomi etc are already the same.
The only difference is that macOS, iOS and iPad OS sit on top of Darwin and the others sit on top of Android.
Now, Huawei has been forced to move to HarmonyOS earlier than planned due to Trump.
Rumours say it could ship on phones far earlier than most expected. We will find out more on 5th September - less than a month away.
HarmonyOS is already on TVs, cars, routers and its kernel is in watches and laptops. Rumour has it that it will land as an OS on watches and some desktops before the end of this year.
Can you imagine the impact on Google of having the whole process brutally accelerated and the liklihood that Huawei will never go back to Android?
LOL,
It is not up to us to decide if people are intelligent enough to do whatever? Are you proposing that people take an exam or something to determine that?
You were the one that stated that Apple needed to tell buyers that there was only the Apple store to purchase apps from. I mean, it's been that way since 2008, so someone would either have to been in coma, or completely obvious to the world of smartphones.
I don't think anyone should claim those others as "the same" since Apple actually has a mature development platform and the core OS Darwin, that spans a wide range of hardware and ecosystem, all of which Apple has complete control of with the move to ASi. Hence why I mentioned that Huawei wants to be like Apple, yet Huawei hasn't actually demonstrated the maturity of their development system, nor the maturity of their underlying Harmony OS, which is still very much a work in process, nor even the maturity or breadth of their own underlying silicon.
I don't know what the impact on Google will be in any of this, but Huawei has a long way to go to match Google's services in those countries that Huawei sells into.
Where did I say that?
Your exact quote;
The problems arrive (potentially) when you want your store to be the only one available and you didn't explicitly notify users of this fact when they bought the device.
AFAIK, there have never any consumers that were so concerned with that to litigate, and that app store has been in operation since 2008. That anyone would be unaware at this point in time of that would be remarkable.
and then this one;
have mentioned this in other threads and there are clear parallels involved.
When Spanish mortgage 'floor' clauses were taken up to EU courts, the clauses themselves were not outlawed.
The banks still had to return billions to users because they had not explained the clauses sufficiently clearly to the clients who were signing the contract. This, in spite of clients having the clauses in the contracts they were signing.
No such warning is provided to users prior to purchase of an iDevice.
On your other point, users would have zero issues finding and downloading apps through a different store.
Should I be surprised that what you are attributing to me is not correct?
What does "potentially" tell you?
You interpret that as a stated affirmation that I said Apple needed to make buyers aware of the situation?
Why do you think 'potentially' is even in that sentence?
The second part you are quoting me on is an absolute and unquestionable fact!
And to top this off, the whole idea of litigation does not revolve around a consumer taking action individually. It revolves around governments taking action against them, and potentially ruling against Apple's way seeing the App Store.
There won't be even any "potential" litigation due to consumers not being aware of Apple's exclusive app store. It's just too rare an occurrence.
As for your second point, I've seen enough comments from tech journalists that absolutely disagree with you on "users will have zero issues finding and downloading apps from a different store."
"Apple is often capricious, arbitrary and inept in how it moderates the store, and rent-seeking in how it manages App Store payments. But the principle of a sandboxed store and a unified payment system are very good for users and, actually, developers."
"This is, perhaps, a tragedy of the commons problem. it's clear this would make Epic more money, and it would be good for some other developers. But it's hard to see how it would be good for users at all, and it would be bad for lots of smaller developers as well."
App Store is a platform that Apple built, i don't care about your stupid game, i want my Apps to be strictly curated and I want Apple to make some money off it. If a customer disagrees with the policy and gets angry about it, then don't buy and iPhone, it's that simple.
That's fine but did you know Apple would be the middleman to everything, and that they would decide what you could download or not?
More importantly, was that made clear to you at purchase?
You may find that Apple being a middleman isn't a problem here. The root problem is on a deeper level and eventually, I don't think things will work out to Apple's liking.
Apple isn't the middleman. Apple is Apple and it's Apple's Store than they fu**ing INVENTED.
Apple is very much the middleman. You can't develop for iOS device deployment without going through Apple. Apple decides what can (and can't) be present on the App Store and doesn't allow for third party stores. Apple also takes a cut of transactions.
Apple is a middleman in every sense of the word.
Apple provides the tools, configures the downloads for the customer device, operates the backend, provides the storefront including promotion and a secure payment system, and validates and approves the apps according to published rules. It does all this to maximize the customer experience.
That isn't being a middleman.
You could make a case that Apple is the middleman to television and film media, simply because all they are doing is provide storefront, promotion, payment, and distribution of media. The studio, producers, and regulatory bodies provide all of the sales and curation tasks.
You cannot get an app for consumers on iOS without going through Apple in some way or another.
Apple is a middleman in the purest sense of the word. It sits between developers and app store users and determines what can (and cannot) reach consumers, and in which conditions.
You might better describe Apple as a Gatekeeper, rather than a middleman, and I would agree with that.
A Gatekeeper isn't necessarily a bad thing. There are all kinds of Gatekeepers in world that reduce chaos, and chaos is a possibility for any customer side loading apps, not to mention security risks, especially of transactions.
Essentially, Epic wants to remove Apple as the Gatekeeper, to increase Epic's take, not to create a better experience for the user. Funny that Epic doesn't feel the need to do that exact same thing with consoles, because of the different business model.
Apple users for the most part, like Apple's Gatekeeper status, and that Walled Garden.
You don't, but you are barely an Apple user anymore.
You are barking up the wrong tree.
Yes. Apple is also a gatekeeper.
But being a middlemen or a gatekeeper or whatever you want to call it, isn't the root problem here.
The root problem is that far from a being a middleman, Apple wants to be the middleman.
There shouldn't be a problem with wanting to control access to a store you own.
The problems arrive (potentially) when you want your store to be the only one available and you didn't explicitly notify users of this fact when they bought the device.
That is where Apple is likely to find itself in trouble.
Language is important. Use better, more explanatory terms.
If you don't expect users to be able to understand the Apple ecosystem, how the fuck to you expect those same users to be able to successfully navigate a shit ton of side loaded apps from a variety of different 3rd party stores, and even more payment systems?
Seriously, you can't have it both ways, and really, are there that many users that don't understand Apple's app store when they buy Apple products, especially the iPhone?
Do users even need to be explicitly notified?
Really?
That's a pretty low bar of expectation that you have set your straw man argument on.
I have mentioned this in other threads and there are clear parallels involved.
When Spanish mortgage 'floor' clauses were taken up to EU courts, the clauses themselves were not outlawed.
The banks still had to return billions to users because they had not explained the clauses sufficiently clearly to the clients who were signing the contract. This, in spite of clients having the clauses in the contracts they were signing.
No such warning is provided to users prior to purchase of an iDevice.
On your other point, users would have zero issues finding and downloading apps through a different store.
Seriously.
iPhone users are too dumb to know that Apple has a single App store, but are otherwise smart enough to find, navigate, download apps, pay, and get support through any of a number of different stores, with less problems than the Apple App store, which still has minor issues?
You better be able to post supporting data, because that is just bullshit.
"“We are one of only two companies globally that can have this hardware and software solution for our own ecosystem,” Anson Zhang tells me. “Only Huawei and Apple can do this—it’s our long-term strategy.” The man leading Huawei’s U.K. consumer business—arguably its most media-critical market outside China, is bullish. “Although there are lots of challenges and rumours and pressure,” he says, “we are committed to our investments, our ecosystem… This strategy will work.”
Hidden behind the headlines there’s a basal truth with Huawei—they’re playing a long game. No shareholders, as such. A vast and generous domestic market that’s not about to turn against them anytime soon. The welcome embrace of a state sponsor that—whether or not there’s any ownership or control, which is vigorously denied—has certainly been the world’s softest landing post America’s blacklist.
Until last year, Huawei was competing with Samsung for Google Android users worldwide. But Trump’s sanctions cut the Chinese giant adrift from Google. And now, eyeing the global market, Huawei wants to carve a third-way, an alternative to both iOS and full-fat Android. But in doing so, the company finds itself much, much closer to Apple’s model than to Google’s. Huawei’s plan to beat Google, to bring Android users outside China to its own OS, is arguably be just like Apple."
Your pals at Huawei want to be just like Apple...
It is not up to us to decide if people are intelligent enough to do whatever? Are you proposing that people take an exam or something to determine that?
Legislation can impose blanket requirements and it is funny that you bring the subject up because in the Spanish case that went to the EU court, the sentence made clear that the simple presence of the clause in the agreement was not enough to make it valid. The clause should have been made clear to the customer and in terms that the average customer could comprehend.
As for Zak's article, you need to re-read it.
Huawei and Apple and Samsung and Xiaomi etc are already the same.
The only difference is that macOS, iOS and iPad OS sit on top of Darwin and the others sit on top of Android.
Now, Huawei has been forced to move to HarmonyOS earlier than planned due to Trump.
Rumours say it could ship on phones far earlier than most expected. We will find out more on 5th September - less than a month away.
HarmonyOS is already on TVs, cars, routers and its kernel is in watches and laptops. Rumour has it that it will land as an OS on watches and some desktops before the end of this year.
Can you imagine the impact on Google of having the whole process brutally accelerated and the liklihood that Huawei will never go back to Android?
LOL,
It is not up to us to decide if people are intelligent enough to do whatever? Are you proposing that people take an exam or something to determine that?
You were the one that stated that Apple needed to tell buyers that there was only the Apple store to purchase apps from. I mean, it's been that way since 2008, so someone would either have to been in coma, or completely obvious to the world of smartphones.
I don't think anyone should claim those others as "the same" since Apple actually has a mature development platform and the core OS Darwin, that spans a wide range of hardware and ecosystem, all of which Apple has complete control of with the move to ASi. Hence why I mentioned that Huawei wants to be like Apple, yet Huawei hasn't actually demonstrated the maturity of their development system, nor the maturity of their underlying Harmony OS, which is still very much a work in process, nor even the maturity or breadth of their own underlying silicon.
I don't know what the impact on Google will be in any of this, but Huawei has a long way to go to match Google's services in those countries that Huawei sells into.
Where did I say that?
Your exact quote;
The problems arrive (potentially) when you want your store to be the only one available and you didn't explicitly notify users of this fact when they bought the device.
AFAIK, there have never any consumers that were so concerned with that to litigate, and that app store has been in operation since 2008. That anyone would be unaware at this point in time of that would be remarkable.
and then this one;
have mentioned this in other threads and there are clear parallels involved.
When Spanish mortgage 'floor' clauses were taken up to EU courts, the clauses themselves were not outlawed.
The banks still had to return billions to users because they had not explained the clauses sufficiently clearly to the clients who were signing the contract. This, in spite of clients having the clauses in the contracts they were signing.
No such warning is provided to users prior to purchase of an iDevice.
On your other point, users would have zero issues finding and downloading apps through a different store.
Should I be surprised that what you are attributing to me is not correct?
What does "potentially" tell you?
You interpret that as a stated affirmation that I said Apple needed to make buyers aware of the situation?
Why do you think 'potentially' is even in that sentence?
The second part you are quoting me on is an absolute and unquestionable fact!
And to top this off, the whole idea of litigation does not revolve around a consumer taking action individually. It revolves around governments taking action against them, and potentially ruling against Apple's way seeing the App Store.
There won't be even any "potential" litigation due to consumers not being aware of Apple's exclusive app store. It's just too rare an occurrence.
As for your second point, I've seen enough comments from tech journalists that absolutely disagree with you on "users will have zero issues finding and downloading apps from a different store."
"Apple is often capricious, arbitrary and inept in how it moderates the store, and rent-seeking in how it manages App Store payments. But the principle of a sandboxed store and a unified payment system are very good for users and, actually, developers."
"This is, perhaps, a tragedy of the commons problem. it's clear this would make Epic more money, and it would be good for some other developers. But it's hard to see how it would be good for users at all, and it would be bad for lots of smaller developers as well."
No. It's far simpler than that. It is possible that the EU investigation (or any other) could deem the AppStore anti competitive, fine Apple and allow for other stores on the platform OR allow it, but require consumers be explicitly made aware of the subsequent lock in.
We must wait to see how these investigations play out.
App Store is a platform that Apple built, i don't care about your stupid game, i want my Apps to be strictly curated and I want Apple to make some money off it. If a customer disagrees with the policy and gets angry about it, then don't buy and iPhone, it's that simple.
That's fine but did you know Apple would be the middleman to everything, and that they would decide what you could download or not?
More importantly, was that made clear to you at purchase?
You may find that Apple being a middleman isn't a problem here. The root problem is on a deeper level and eventually, I don't think things will work out to Apple's liking.
Apple isn't the middleman. Apple is Apple and it's Apple's Store than they fu**ing INVENTED.
Apple is very much the middleman. You can't develop for iOS device deployment without going through Apple. Apple decides what can (and can't) be present on the App Store and doesn't allow for third party stores. Apple also takes a cut of transactions.
Apple is a middleman in every sense of the word.
Apple provides the tools, configures the downloads for the customer device, operates the backend, provides the storefront including promotion and a secure payment system, and validates and approves the apps according to published rules. It does all this to maximize the customer experience.
That isn't being a middleman.
You could make a case that Apple is the middleman to television and film media, simply because all they are doing is provide storefront, promotion, payment, and distribution of media. The studio, producers, and regulatory bodies provide all of the sales and curation tasks.
You cannot get an app for consumers on iOS without going through Apple in some way or another.
Apple is a middleman in the purest sense of the word. It sits between developers and app store users and determines what can (and cannot) reach consumers, and in which conditions.
You might better describe Apple as a Gatekeeper, rather than a middleman, and I would agree with that.
A Gatekeeper isn't necessarily a bad thing. There are all kinds of Gatekeepers in world that reduce chaos, and chaos is a possibility for any customer side loading apps, not to mention security risks, especially of transactions.
Essentially, Epic wants to remove Apple as the Gatekeeper, to increase Epic's take, not to create a better experience for the user. Funny that Epic doesn't feel the need to do that exact same thing with consoles, because of the different business model.
Apple users for the most part, like Apple's Gatekeeper status, and that Walled Garden.
You don't, but you are barely an Apple user anymore.
You are barking up the wrong tree.
Yes. Apple is also a gatekeeper.
But being a middlemen or a gatekeeper or whatever you want to call it, isn't the root problem here.
The root problem is that far from a being a middleman, Apple wants to be the middleman.
There shouldn't be a problem with wanting to control access to a store you own.
The problems arrive (potentially) when you want your store to be the only one available and you didn't explicitly notify users of this fact when they bought the device.
That is where Apple is likely to find itself in trouble.
Language is important. Use better, more explanatory terms.
If you don't expect users to be able to understand the Apple ecosystem, how the fuck to you expect those same users to be able to successfully navigate a shit ton of side loaded apps from a variety of different 3rd party stores, and even more payment systems?
Seriously, you can't have it both ways, and really, are there that many users that don't understand Apple's app store when they buy Apple products, especially the iPhone?
Do users even need to be explicitly notified?
Really?
That's a pretty low bar of expectation that you have set your straw man argument on.
I have mentioned this in other threads and there are clear parallels involved.
When Spanish mortgage 'floor' clauses were taken up to EU courts, the clauses themselves were not outlawed.
The banks still had to return billions to users because they had not explained the clauses sufficiently clearly to the clients who were signing the contract. This, in spite of clients having the clauses in the contracts they were signing.
No such warning is provided to users prior to purchase of an iDevice.
On your other point, users would have zero issues finding and downloading apps through a different store.
Seriously.
iPhone users are too dumb to know that Apple has a single App store, but are otherwise smart enough to find, navigate, download apps, pay, and get support through any of a number of different stores, with less problems than the Apple App store, which still has minor issues?
You better be able to post supporting data, because that is just bullshit.
"“We are one of only two companies globally that can have this hardware and software solution for our own ecosystem,” Anson Zhang tells me. “Only Huawei and Apple can do this—it’s our long-term strategy.” The man leading Huawei’s U.K. consumer business—arguably its most media-critical market outside China, is bullish. “Although there are lots of challenges and rumours and pressure,” he says, “we are committed to our investments, our ecosystem… This strategy will work.”
Hidden behind the headlines there’s a basal truth with Huawei—they’re playing a long game. No shareholders, as such. A vast and generous domestic market that’s not about to turn against them anytime soon. The welcome embrace of a state sponsor that—whether or not there’s any ownership or control, which is vigorously denied—has certainly been the world’s softest landing post America’s blacklist.
Until last year, Huawei was competing with Samsung for Google Android users worldwide. But Trump’s sanctions cut the Chinese giant adrift from Google. And now, eyeing the global market, Huawei wants to carve a third-way, an alternative to both iOS and full-fat Android. But in doing so, the company finds itself much, much closer to Apple’s model than to Google’s. Huawei’s plan to beat Google, to bring Android users outside China to its own OS, is arguably be just like Apple."
Your pals at Huawei want to be just like Apple...
It is not up to us to decide if people are intelligent enough to do whatever? Are you proposing that people take an exam or something to determine that?
Legislation can impose blanket requirements and it is funny that you bring the subject up because in the Spanish case that went to the EU court, the sentence made clear that the simple presence of the clause in the agreement was not enough to make it valid. The clause should have been made clear to the customer and in terms that the average customer could comprehend.
As for Zak's article, you need to re-read it.
Huawei and Apple and Samsung and Xiaomi etc are already the same.
The only difference is that macOS, iOS and iPad OS sit on top of Darwin and the others sit on top of Android.
Now, Huawei has been forced to move to HarmonyOS earlier than planned due to Trump.
Rumours say it could ship on phones far earlier than most expected. We will find out more on 5th September - less than a month away.
HarmonyOS is already on TVs, cars, routers and its kernel is in watches and laptops. Rumour has it that it will land as an OS on watches and some desktops before the end of this year.
Can you imagine the impact on Google of having the whole process brutally accelerated and the liklihood that Huawei will never go back to Android?
LOL,
It is not up to us to decide if people are intelligent enough to do whatever? Are you proposing that people take an exam or something to determine that?
You were the one that stated that Apple needed to tell buyers that there was only the Apple store to purchase apps from. I mean, it's been that way since 2008, so someone would either have to been in coma, or completely obvious to the world of smartphones.
I don't think anyone should claim those others as "the same" since Apple actually has a mature development platform and the core OS Darwin, that spans a wide range of hardware and ecosystem, all of which Apple has complete control of with the move to ASi. Hence why I mentioned that Huawei wants to be like Apple, yet Huawei hasn't actually demonstrated the maturity of their development system, nor the maturity of their underlying Harmony OS, which is still very much a work in process, nor even the maturity or breadth of their own underlying silicon.
I don't know what the impact on Google will be in any of this, but Huawei has a long way to go to match Google's services in those countries that Huawei sells into.
Where did I say that?
Your exact quote;
The problems arrive (potentially) when you want your store to be the only one available and you didn't explicitly notify users of this fact when they bought the device.
AFAIK, there have never any consumers that were so concerned with that to litigate, and that app store has been in operation since 2008. That anyone would be unaware at this point in time of that would be remarkable.
and then this one;
have mentioned this in other threads and there are clear parallels involved.
When Spanish mortgage 'floor' clauses were taken up to EU courts, the clauses themselves were not outlawed.
The banks still had to return billions to users because they had not explained the clauses sufficiently clearly to the clients who were signing the contract. This, in spite of clients having the clauses in the contracts they were signing.
No such warning is provided to users prior to purchase of an iDevice.
On your other point, users would have zero issues finding and downloading apps through a different store.
Should I be surprised that what you are attributing to me is not correct?
What does "potentially" tell you?
You interpret that as a stated affirmation that I said Apple needed to make buyers aware of the situation?
Why do you think 'potentially' is even in that sentence?
The second part you are quoting me on is an absolute and unquestionable fact!
And to top this off, the whole idea of litigation does not revolve around a consumer taking action individually. It revolves around governments taking action against them, and potentially ruling against Apple's way seeing the App Store.
There won't be even any "potential" litigation due to consumers not being aware of Apple's exclusive app store. It's just too rare an occurrence.
As for your second point, I've seen enough comments from tech journalists that absolutely disagree with you on "users will have zero issues finding and downloading apps from a different store."
"Apple is often capricious, arbitrary and inept in how it moderates the store, and rent-seeking in how it manages App Store payments. But the principle of a sandboxed store and a unified payment system are very good for users and, actually, developers."
"This is, perhaps, a tragedy of the commons problem. it's clear this would make Epic more money, and it would be good for some other developers. But it's hard to see how it would be good for users at all, and it would be bad for lots of smaller developers as well."
No. It's far simpler than that. It is possible that the EU investigation (or any other) could deem the AppStore anti competitive, fine Apple and allow for other stores on the platform OR allow it, but require consumers be explicitly made aware of the subsequent lock in.
We must wait to see how these investigations play out.
You are completely off track with your "locked in" meme where new customers need to be specifically told and provide legal acknowledgement that Apple has an exclusive app store. It has never been an issue with new users, or we would have heard about it years ago. Regulators aren't even going to look at that.
The only issue of relevance is whether a regulating body can force an App store to accept a class of applications that they do not currently allow or support. That could happen by forcing the app store to accept a specific class of application, which certainly is outside of any historical operation of retail stores, to my knowledge.
A good example would be retail stores disallowing pornography, alcohol, or tobacco products, and there are certainly other items that might be disallowed. I doubt that a retail store could ever be forced by our government to carry a specify product except in a national emergency.
Regulators could force Apple to allow third party stores or side loading, but Apple would absolutely require that they be rendered harmless from any liabilities due to those store operations. After all of that, regulators would still have to acknowledge Apple's platform support tools which would have to be accommodated, and based on the current atmosphere, 15% appears to be the target fee, whatever happens.
My guess would be that all digital app/game stores would be required to operate at 15% fee or below.
I don't know what will happen, but a taking in a capitalist economy is a pretty serious endeavor, and I can't see it happening.
Well EPIC Games, if you don't like the service the store provides you, set up your own distribution and payment system. I bet it will work out far more expensive than the percentage Apple or Google charge to create, manage and maintain a store front for you, let alone advertise your game.
Just don't forget that the majority of users are keen to be protected by a safe and secure payment process, how many will download from an untrusted source and give their payment card details over, or more importantly, how many parents will agree to it.
While you whinging about "middle men" you'd best stop using PayPal, Mastercard, VISA, AMEX etc ... they all charge to use the system.
Actually, part of the problem here is “set up your own store” etc is exactly what Sweeney is trying to do. A deeper look at the lawsuit reveals that most of this is actually about Apple not allowing other STORES on iOS devices. He doesn’t just want to sell fortnite without paying the 30%. He wants to set up a competing Epic App Store on iOS.
The big thing Sweeney gets wrong here is the part where (as you noted) iPhone and iPad buyers don’t want other stores and a large part of why we choose iPhones is BECAUSE of the single curated protected store.
Comments
Samsung wasn't able to create an alternate operation system competitive with Android OS, no matter the time it took, and MS's business model of licensing its phone OS(s) was a failure from the get go. Huawei can rely on China, but many other countries will stick with Android OS, over concerns of China's dominance, India being a good case.
AFAIK, there have never any consumers that were so concerned with that to litigate, and that app store has been in operation since 2008. That anyone would be unaware at this point in time of that would be remarkable.
and then this one;
What does "potentially" tell you?
You interpret that as a stated affirmation that I said Apple needed to make buyers aware of the situation?
Why do you think 'potentially' is even in that sentence?
The second part you are quoting me on is an absolute and unquestionable fact!
And to top this off, the whole idea of litigation does not revolve around a consumer taking action individually. It revolves around governments taking action against them, and potentially ruling against Apple's way seeing the App Store.
As for your second point, I've seen enough comments from tech journalists that absolutely disagree with you on "users will have zero issues finding and downloading apps from a different store."
"Apple is often capricious, arbitrary and inept in how it moderates the store, and rent-seeking in how it manages App Store payments. But the principle of a sandboxed store and a unified payment system are very good for users and, actually, developers."
"This is, perhaps, a tragedy of the commons problem. it's clear this would make Epic more money, and it would be good for some other developers. But it's hard to see how it would be good for users at all, and it would be bad for lots of smaller developers as well."
We must wait to see how these investigations play out.
The only issue of relevance is whether a regulating body can force an App store to accept a class of applications that they do not currently allow or support. That could happen by forcing the app store to accept a specific class of application, which certainly is outside of any historical operation of retail stores, to my knowledge.
A good example would be retail stores disallowing pornography, alcohol, or tobacco products, and there are certainly other items that might be disallowed. I doubt that a retail store could ever be forced by our government to carry a specify product except in a national emergency.
Regulators could force Apple to allow third party stores or side loading, but Apple would absolutely require that they be rendered harmless from any liabilities due to those store operations. After all of that, regulators would still have to acknowledge Apple's platform support tools which would have to be accommodated, and based on the current atmosphere, 15% appears to be the target fee, whatever happens.
My guess would be that all digital app/game stores would be required to operate at 15% fee or below.
I don't know what will happen, but a taking in a capitalist economy is a pretty serious endeavor, and I can't see it happening.
The big thing Sweeney gets wrong here is the part where (as you noted) iPhone and iPad buyers don’t want other stores and a large part of why we choose iPhones is BECAUSE of the single curated protected store.