Apple explains why getting iPhone apps outside the App Store is a bad idea

123457»

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 138
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,304member
    nicholfd said:
    gatorguy said:
    No matter the arguments or which side you fall on the one thing that seems abundantly obvious: the AppStore will not continue for much longer as is. Changes are coming even if it is not yet clear what they will entail. 

    EDIT; I just noticed Google has dropped their cut to 15% across several categories of apps, in addition to matching Apple's small developer offer of 15%. I would not be shocked if Apple does the same, extending their 15% offer beyond the fairly limited one currently in place.
    Apple already dropped to 15% for ALL app categories for developers with less than $1 Million USD in annual sales - not just some categories.
    Yeah. I know Google did the same and better. That's the "limited one" I mentioned, reportedly an impact of less than 5% or revenues. This new rate reduction from Google applies to ALL developers for certain categories of apps, not just small developers. 
    edited June 24
  • Reply 122 of 138
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 1,273member
    docno42 said:
    foregoneconclusion said:
    Those kinds of statements prove that Apple's approach to iOS is providing choice to consumers, not limiting it. Forcing iOS to be Windows/Android is narrowing consumer choice. 
    Forcing Apple to offer users the ability to put software on their devices outside of Apples oversight is not narrowing choice.  And no, I'm not talking about loading android on iPhones (seriously?!?) but just the ability to put apps from other sources into iOS.  

    Apple adding that takes *nothing* from you if you choose not to avail yourself of that option.  iOS continues to work as it always had.  However after that change, people who want software Apple doesn't approve of will now have the choice to run it if they so desire.  That's more choice.  
    If Apple is forced to abandon its current OS/App Store model in favor of the Android/Windows model then I would lose the option I currently have to buy a device that maintains that high level of security. That's less choice.
    williamlondonGeorgeBMacBeatswatto_cobraDetnator
  • Reply 123 of 138
    BeatsBeats Posts: 2,646member
    rcfa said:
    It’s one thing to warn people against the practice, it’s another to prohibit people from doing something on devices they own.

    if I wanted to install Android on my iPhone (not that I ever wanted to) I should be able to do it: it’s my damn hardware.

    Apple can warn against a practice, refuse software support for devices with sideloaded apps, etc. but prohibiting, is another matter.

    Having used NeXTstep (aka macOS, iOS, Darwin) since version 0.8 I’d like to e.g. run a NeXT emulation software. With a “huge” hard drive back then being 8GB (split in four 2GB partitions) and a lot of RAM being 128MB, emulating a NeXT cube and running legacy software is something the iPad Pro can do without breaking a sweat. But it’s not possible without side loading and even that was sabotaged in the latest iOS releases. For no good reason, on a device of that class. Running things well isolated in a virtual machine isn’t or shouldn’t be a security risk.

    Heck even running virtualized macOS or Windows should not be an issue, that’s the whole point of virtual machines. Heck, Apple could run a virtual iOS session for third-party apps, totally isolated from the AppStore side of things.

    The excuses Apple brings for saving its revenue stream are transparent and invalid, at least as far as the latest crop of devices and their powerful hardware is concerned.

    And who the hell are you to criticize Apple for wanting revenue from their services?!?!!

    seriously WHAT THE FU**????
    williamlondonwatto_cobraDetnator
  • Reply 124 of 138
    BeatsBeats Posts: 2,646member
    crowley said:
    The security argument is a decent one, but Apple invite ridicule when they also wield the App Store rules as a competitive weapon and use it as a profit base.  It's a clear conflict of interest, claiming to be guardians of customers' privacy and security, but with the caveat that all their purchases get a slice delivered to Apple, and Apple get to set all of the content rules according to whim and fancy.

    Developers would be much more sympathetic to the security argument if Apple hadn't arbitrarily acted like dicks so many times over the past several years and made so money from their developer tax.

    Geez the replies just get dumber as I go through the pages.

    ”developer tax”??
    So any profit a company makes is a “tax”?

    What about the 30% Nintendo “developer tax”? Sony 30% “developer tax”? Wal-Mart, Coca Cola, McDonalds, Target, Samsung, TCL, Roku, Microsoft, Netflix, Disney…

    …oh wait, it’s only a “tax” when Apple makes money.
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 125 of 138
    JaiOh81 said:
    rcfa said:
    It’s one thing to warn people against the practice, it’s another to prohibit people from doing something on devices they own.

    if I wanted to install Android on my iPhone (not that I ever wanted to) I should be able to do it: it’s my damn hardware.

    Apple can warn against a practice, refuse software support for devices with sideloaded apps, etc. but prohibiting, is another matter.

    Having used NeXTstep (aka macOS, iOS, Darwin) since version 0.8 I’d like to e.g. run a NeXT emulation software. With a “huge” hard drive back then being 8GB (split in four 2GB partitions) and a lot of RAM being 128MB, emulating a NeXT cube and running legacy software is something the iPad Pro can do without breaking a sweat. But it’s not possible without side loading and even that was sabotaged in the latest iOS releases. For no good reason, on a device of that class. Running things well isolated in a virtual machine isn’t or shouldn’t be a security risk.

    Heck even running virtualized macOS or Windows should not be an issue, that’s the whole point of virtual machines. Heck, Apple could run a virtual iOS session for third-party apps, totally isolated from the AppStore side of things.

    The excuses Apple brings for saving its revenue stream are transparent and invalid, at least as far as the latest crop of devices and their powerful hardware is concerned.
    So why not just get an android phone? There are plenty that have similar or better specs than iPhones. This is what I don’t understand. If you want the experience of being able to do all the things you want there are plenty of devices that allow you that freedom. Why buy a phone that has the “restrictions” Apple has? 
    This has nothing to with Apple phones. Those putting forth the argument demanding sideloading already use Android. This is simply hatred of Apple by those who hate them so much they frequent Apple boards to spread their hate of Apple. Others are employed trolls simply doing their jobs. 
    No serious person thinks Apple can’t lockdown their phone as they see best for their offering to users. No rational person believes if I buy it then I should be able to load what I want (I just bought a GE washer, now GE must change it so I can put Maytag updates on it  I own it… right…). 
    They know Android provides them the choice. Their argument is strictly getting at a company they hate. 
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 126 of 138
    crowleycrowley Posts: 9,130member
    Beats said:
    crowley said:
    The security argument is a decent one, but Apple invite ridicule when they also wield the App Store rules as a competitive weapon and use it as a profit base.  It's a clear conflict of interest, claiming to be guardians of customers' privacy and security, but with the caveat that all their purchases get a slice delivered to Apple, and Apple get to set all of the content rules according to whim and fancy.

    Developers would be much more sympathetic to the security argument if Apple hadn't arbitrarily acted like dicks so many times over the past several years and made so money from their developer tax.

    Geez the replies just get dumber as I go through the pages.

    ”developer tax”??
    So any profit a company makes is a “tax”?

    What about the 30% Nintendo “developer tax”? Sony 30% “developer tax”? Wal-Mart, Coca Cola, McDonalds, Target, Samsung, TCL, Roku, Microsoft, Netflix, Disney…

    …oh wait, it’s only a “tax” when Apple makes money.
    No, I'd describe all of those similarly.  They aren't playing the victim though.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 127 of 138
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 1,273member
    crowley said:
    Beats said:
    crowley said:
    The security argument is a decent one, but Apple invite ridicule when they also wield the App Store rules as a competitive weapon and use it as a profit base.  It's a clear conflict of interest, claiming to be guardians of customers' privacy and security, but with the caveat that all their purchases get a slice delivered to Apple, and Apple get to set all of the content rules according to whim and fancy.

    Developers would be much more sympathetic to the security argument if Apple hadn't arbitrarily acted like dicks so many times over the past several years and made so money from their developer tax.

    Geez the replies just get dumber as I go through the pages.

    ”developer tax”??
    So any profit a company makes is a “tax”?

    What about the 30% Nintendo “developer tax”? Sony 30% “developer tax”? Wal-Mart, Coca Cola, McDonalds, Target, Samsung, TCL, Roku, Microsoft, Netflix, Disney…

    …oh wait, it’s only a “tax” when Apple makes money.
    No, I'd describe all of those similarly.  They aren't playing the victim though.
    Without Apple providing the platform, developers would have no customers. Oh, wait. That’s not true.  Developers have customers on all those other platforms. Let’s correct that. 

    Without Apple providing the platform, developers would have no Apple customers. So this argument is entirely about developers getting access to Apple’s customers, isn’t it? Why would they care about that if they can reach people on all those other platforms? There must be something special about those Apple customers. As it turns out, Apple’s customers are documented to be more willing to spend a buck on apps and services delivered through those apps. There are probably a couple of reasons for that. One, Apple doesn’t build cheap hardware, so iOS customers probably skew to higher incomes. Two - and this is important - Apple customers buy those devices in no small part because of their reputation as more stable, more secure, and more protective of the customers’ privacy. Both one and two above are true because Apple spends money to build better devices and to pair those with integrated operating systems that are designed to be more reliable, secure, and protective of customers’ privacy. 

    So why is it again that Apple should provide all that to developers free of charge? You could argue a chicken-and-egg case that the apps are actually what deliver customers to the platform, except the App Store has been around for only a dozen years or so, and it has clearly delivered the entire mobile app market to the developers, since Android didn’t exist before iPhone and the software publishing market was fundamentally changed with the introduction of the App Store. So we actually do know which came first.

    So Apple invented the mobile app paradigm, and, by producing high-quality hardware and integrated operating systems, curates the most lucrative customer segment of the mobile market. Yet, some developers think it’s an injustice that they’re not provided access to all of that, free of charge. As it turns out, I was right with the first sentence. Without Apple creating the platform, developers would have no customers.

    Wait. Who is playing victim in this scenario?
    williamlondonwatto_cobraDetnator
  • Reply 128 of 138
    crowleycrowley Posts: 9,130member
    AppleZulu said:
    crowley said:
    Beats said:
    crowley said:
    The security argument is a decent one, but Apple invite ridicule when they also wield the App Store rules as a competitive weapon and use it as a profit base.  It's a clear conflict of interest, claiming to be guardians of customers' privacy and security, but with the caveat that all their purchases get a slice delivered to Apple, and Apple get to set all of the content rules according to whim and fancy.

    Developers would be much more sympathetic to the security argument if Apple hadn't arbitrarily acted like dicks so many times over the past several years and made so money from their developer tax.

    Geez the replies just get dumber as I go through the pages.

    ”developer tax”??
    So any profit a company makes is a “tax”?

    What about the 30% Nintendo “developer tax”? Sony 30% “developer tax”? Wal-Mart, Coca Cola, McDonalds, Target, Samsung, TCL, Roku, Microsoft, Netflix, Disney…

    …oh wait, it’s only a “tax” when Apple makes money.
    No, I'd describe all of those similarly.  They aren't playing the victim though.
    Without Apple providing the platform, developers would have no customers. Oh, wait. That’s not true.  Developers have customers on all those other platforms. Let’s correct that. 

    Without Apple providing the platform, developers would have no Apple customers. So this argument is entirely about developers getting access to Apple’s customers, isn’t it? Why would they care about that if they can reach people on all those other platforms? There must be something special about those Apple customers. As it turns out, Apple’s customers are documented to be more willing to spend a buck on apps and services delivered through those apps. There are probably a couple of reasons for that. One, Apple doesn’t build cheap hardware, so iOS customers probably skew to higher incomes. Two - and this is important - Apple customers buy those devices in no small part because of their reputation as more stable, more secure, and more protective of the customers’ privacy. Both one and two above are true because Apple spends money to build better devices and to pair those with integrated operating systems that are designed to be more reliable, secure, and protective of customers’ privacy. 

    So why is it again that Apple should provide all that to developers free of charge? You could argue a chicken-and-egg case that the apps are actually what deliver customers to the platform, except the App Store has been around for only a dozen years or so, and it has clearly delivered the entire mobile app market to the developers, since Android didn’t exist before iPhone and the software publishing market was fundamentally changed with the introduction of the App Store. So we actually do know which came first.

    So Apple invented the mobile app paradigm, and, by producing high-quality hardware and integrated operating systems, curates the most lucrative customer segment of the mobile market. Yet, some developers think it’s an injustice that they’re not provided access to all of that, free of charge. As it turns out, I was right with the first sentence. Without Apple creating the platform, developers would have no customers.

    Wait. Who is playing victim in this scenario?
    Apple.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 129 of 138
    crowley said:
    AppleZulu said:
    crowley said:
    Beats said:
    crowley said:
    The security argument is a decent one, but Apple invite ridicule when they also wield the App Store rules as a competitive weapon and use it as a profit base.  It's a clear conflict of interest, claiming to be guardians of customers' privacy and security, but with the caveat that all their purchases get a slice delivered to Apple, and Apple get to set all of the content rules according to whim and fancy.

    Developers would be much more sympathetic to the security argument if Apple hadn't arbitrarily acted like dicks so many times over the past several years and made so money from their developer tax.

    Geez the replies just get dumber as I go through the pages.

    ”developer tax”??
    So any profit a company makes is a “tax”?

    What about the 30% Nintendo “developer tax”? Sony 30% “developer tax”? Wal-Mart, Coca Cola, McDonalds, Target, Samsung, TCL, Roku, Microsoft, Netflix, Disney…

    …oh wait, it’s only a “tax” when Apple makes money.
    No, I'd describe all of those similarly.  They aren't playing the victim though.
    Without Apple providing the platform, developers would have no customers. Oh, wait. That’s not true.  Developers have customers on all those other platforms. Let’s correct that. 

    Without Apple providing the platform, developers would have no Apple customers. So this argument is entirely about developers getting access to Apple’s customers, isn’t it? Why would they care about that if they can reach people on all those other platforms? There must be something special about those Apple customers. As it turns out, Apple’s customers are documented to be more willing to spend a buck on apps and services delivered through those apps. There are probably a couple of reasons for that. One, Apple doesn’t build cheap hardware, so iOS customers probably skew to higher incomes. Two - and this is important - Apple customers buy those devices in no small part because of their reputation as more stable, more secure, and more protective of the customers’ privacy. Both one and two above are true because Apple spends money to build better devices and to pair those with integrated operating systems that are designed to be more reliable, secure, and protective of customers’ privacy. 

    So why is it again that Apple should provide all that to developers free of charge? You could argue a chicken-and-egg case that the apps are actually what deliver customers to the platform, except the App Store has been around for only a dozen years or so, and it has clearly delivered the entire mobile app market to the developers, since Android didn’t exist before iPhone and the software publishing market was fundamentally changed with the introduction of the App Store. So we actually do know which came first.

    So Apple invented the mobile app paradigm, and, by producing high-quality hardware and integrated operating systems, curates the most lucrative customer segment of the mobile market. Yet, some developers think it’s an injustice that they’re not provided access to all of that, free of charge. As it turns out, I was right with the first sentence. Without Apple creating the platform, developers would have no customers.

    Wait. Who is playing victim in this scenario?
    Apple.
    Apple isn’t playing the victim, they and their users are actual intended victims. The intended victims of for example Apple haters like yourself who for some mentally bizarre reason believe Apple must change to suit you. Nope. 
    You go be happy or at least try in your own Android world. We be fine over here and definitely without the ranting demands of the haters. 

    williamlondonDetnator
  • Reply 130 of 138
    crowleycrowley Posts: 9,130member
    crowley said:
    AppleZulu said:
    crowley said:
    Beats said:
    crowley said:
    The security argument is a decent one, but Apple invite ridicule when they also wield the App Store rules as a competitive weapon and use it as a profit base.  It's a clear conflict of interest, claiming to be guardians of customers' privacy and security, but with the caveat that all their purchases get a slice delivered to Apple, and Apple get to set all of the content rules according to whim and fancy.

    Developers would be much more sympathetic to the security argument if Apple hadn't arbitrarily acted like dicks so many times over the past several years and made so money from their developer tax.

    Geez the replies just get dumber as I go through the pages.

    ”developer tax”??
    So any profit a company makes is a “tax”?

    What about the 30% Nintendo “developer tax”? Sony 30% “developer tax”? Wal-Mart, Coca Cola, McDonalds, Target, Samsung, TCL, Roku, Microsoft, Netflix, Disney…

    …oh wait, it’s only a “tax” when Apple makes money.
    No, I'd describe all of those similarly.  They aren't playing the victim though.
    Without Apple providing the platform, developers would have no customers. Oh, wait. That’s not true.  Developers have customers on all those other platforms. Let’s correct that. 

    Without Apple providing the platform, developers would have no Apple customers. So this argument is entirely about developers getting access to Apple’s customers, isn’t it? Why would they care about that if they can reach people on all those other platforms? There must be something special about those Apple customers. As it turns out, Apple’s customers are documented to be more willing to spend a buck on apps and services delivered through those apps. There are probably a couple of reasons for that. One, Apple doesn’t build cheap hardware, so iOS customers probably skew to higher incomes. Two - and this is important - Apple customers buy those devices in no small part because of their reputation as more stable, more secure, and more protective of the customers’ privacy. Both one and two above are true because Apple spends money to build better devices and to pair those with integrated operating systems that are designed to be more reliable, secure, and protective of customers’ privacy. 

    So why is it again that Apple should provide all that to developers free of charge? You could argue a chicken-and-egg case that the apps are actually what deliver customers to the platform, except the App Store has been around for only a dozen years or so, and it has clearly delivered the entire mobile app market to the developers, since Android didn’t exist before iPhone and the software publishing market was fundamentally changed with the introduction of the App Store. So we actually do know which came first.

    So Apple invented the mobile app paradigm, and, by producing high-quality hardware and integrated operating systems, curates the most lucrative customer segment of the mobile market. Yet, some developers think it’s an injustice that they’re not provided access to all of that, free of charge. As it turns out, I was right with the first sentence. Without Apple creating the platform, developers would have no customers.

    Wait. Who is playing victim in this scenario?
    Apple.
    Apple isn’t playing the victim, they and their users are actual intended victims. The intended victims of for example Apple haters like yourself who for some mentally bizarre reason believe Apple must change to suit you. Nope. 
    You go be happy or at least try in your own Android world. We be fine over here and definitely without the ranting demands of the haters. 
    I have no Android devices.  And I'm not ranting, demanding, or hating on anything.  I'm calling Apple out on an inconsistent defence of their behaviour and a clear conflict of interest.
    avon b7gatorguymuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 131 of 138
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,959member
    crowley said:
    AppleZulu said:
    crowley said:
    Beats said:
    crowley said:
    The security argument is a decent one, but Apple invite ridicule when they also wield the App Store rules as a competitive weapon and use it as a profit base.  It's a clear conflict of interest, claiming to be guardians of customers' privacy and security, but with the caveat that all their purchases get a slice delivered to Apple, and Apple get to set all of the content rules according to whim and fancy.

    Developers would be much more sympathetic to the security argument if Apple hadn't arbitrarily acted like dicks so many times over the past several years and made so money from their developer tax.

    Geez the replies just get dumber as I go through the pages.

    ”developer tax”??
    So any profit a company makes is a “tax”?

    What about the 30% Nintendo “developer tax”? Sony 30% “developer tax”? Wal-Mart, Coca Cola, McDonalds, Target, Samsung, TCL, Roku, Microsoft, Netflix, Disney…

    …oh wait, it’s only a “tax” when Apple makes money.
    No, I'd describe all of those similarly.  They aren't playing the victim though.
    Without Apple providing the platform, developers would have no customers. Oh, wait. That’s not true.  Developers have customers on all those other platforms. Let’s correct that. 

    Without Apple providing the platform, developers would have no Apple customers. So this argument is entirely about developers getting access to Apple’s customers, isn’t it? Why would they care about that if they can reach people on all those other platforms? There must be something special about those Apple customers. As it turns out, Apple’s customers are documented to be more willing to spend a buck on apps and services delivered through those apps. There are probably a couple of reasons for that. One, Apple doesn’t build cheap hardware, so iOS customers probably skew to higher incomes. Two - and this is important - Apple customers buy those devices in no small part because of their reputation as more stable, more secure, and more protective of the customers’ privacy. Both one and two above are true because Apple spends money to build better devices and to pair those with integrated operating systems that are designed to be more reliable, secure, and protective of customers’ privacy. 

    So why is it again that Apple should provide all that to developers free of charge? You could argue a chicken-and-egg case that the apps are actually what deliver customers to the platform, except the App Store has been around for only a dozen years or so, and it has clearly delivered the entire mobile app market to the developers, since Android didn’t exist before iPhone and the software publishing market was fundamentally changed with the introduction of the App Store. So we actually do know which came first.

    So Apple invented the mobile app paradigm, and, by producing high-quality hardware and integrated operating systems, curates the most lucrative customer segment of the mobile market. Yet, some developers think it’s an injustice that they’re not provided access to all of that, free of charge. As it turns out, I was right with the first sentence. Without Apple creating the platform, developers would have no customers.

    Wait. Who is playing victim in this scenario?
    Apple.
    Apple isn’t playing the victim, they and their users are actual intended victims. The intended victims of for example Apple haters like yourself who for some mentally bizarre reason believe Apple must change to suit you. Nope. 
    You go be happy or at least try in your own Android world. We be fine over here and definitely without the ranting demands of the haters. 

    How can you personally speak for the majority? Do you know what I, or Crowley or anybody else wants or thinks, and more importantly why on a multitude of Apple issues? Do you think that the majority of iOS users are even actually aware of what is at stake here and the underlying reasons for everything?

    Of course you can't/dont but you've conveniently walled users off into you're very own paradise garden and cooked up 'we' to represent yourselves. You did that by sticking a label on dissenters which you, again conveniently, call 'haters'. It reads like a catch all for anyone that doesn't agree with what Apple does or the Apple way of doing things. 

    There is a label of some kind for everyone, if you try hard enough, but you clearly haven't thought things through well enough here. 

    What  'ranting demands' are you referring to? 





    gatorguymuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 132 of 138
    DetnatorDetnator Posts: 208member
    crowley said:
    AppleZulu said:
    crowley said:
    Beats said:
    crowley said:
    The security argument is a decent one, but Apple invite ridicule when they also wield the App Store rules as a competitive weapon and use it as a profit base.  It's a clear conflict of interest, claiming to be guardians of customers' privacy and security, but with the caveat that all their purchases get a slice delivered to Apple, and Apple get to set all of the content rules according to whim and fancy.

    Developers would be much more sympathetic to the security argument if Apple hadn't arbitrarily acted like dicks so many times over the past several years and made so money from their developer tax.

    Geez the replies just get dumber as I go through the pages.

    ”developer tax”??
    So any profit a company makes is a “tax”?

    What about the 30% Nintendo “developer tax”? Sony 30% “developer tax”? Wal-Mart, Coca Cola, McDonalds, Target, Samsung, TCL, Roku, Microsoft, Netflix, Disney…

    …oh wait, it’s only a “tax” when Apple makes money.
    No, I'd describe all of those similarly.  They aren't playing the victim though.
    Without Apple providing the platform, developers would have no customers. Oh, wait. That’s not true.  Developers have customers on all those other platforms. Let’s correct that. 

    Without Apple providing the platform, developers would have no Apple customers. So this argument is entirely about developers getting access to Apple’s customers, isn’t it? Why would they care about that if they can reach people on all those other platforms? There must be something special about those Apple customers. As it turns out, Apple’s customers are documented to be more willing to spend a buck on apps and services delivered through those apps. There are probably a couple of reasons for that. One, Apple doesn’t build cheap hardware, so iOS customers probably skew to higher incomes. Two - and this is important - Apple customers buy those devices in no small part because of their reputation as more stable, more secure, and more protective of the customers’ privacy. Both one and two above are true because Apple spends money to build better devices and to pair those with integrated operating systems that are designed to be more reliable, secure, and protective of customers’ privacy. 

    So why is it again that Apple should provide all that to developers free of charge? You could argue a chicken-and-egg case that the apps are actually what deliver customers to the platform, except the App Store has been around for only a dozen years or so, and it has clearly delivered the entire mobile app market to the developers, since Android didn’t exist before iPhone and the software publishing market was fundamentally changed with the introduction of the App Store. So we actually do know which came first.

    So Apple invented the mobile app paradigm, and, by producing high-quality hardware and integrated operating systems, curates the most lucrative customer segment of the mobile market. Yet, some developers think it’s an injustice that they’re not provided access to all of that, free of charge. As it turns out, I was right with the first sentence. Without Apple creating the platform, developers would have no customers.

    Wait. Who is playing victim in this scenario?
    Apple.
    Wow. That’s deep. 

    Apple was going along doing its job and doing it very well until every man and his dog started suing them. 

    Apple didn’t pick any of these fights.  Apple isn’t playing victim. Apple is defending its products and business against a sh**storm of attacks from whiny weasels like Sweeney who want a free ride off Apple’s efforts. You think Tim Cook and co haven’t got anything better to do than go argue all this stuff in court and write these papers?  Good grief dude you come out with the dymbest comments sometimes. 

    Exactly how is Apple playing victim?
    edited July 19 williamlondon
  • Reply 133 of 138
    DetnatorDetnator Posts: 208member
    avon b7 said:
    crowley said:
    AppleZulu said:
    crowley said:
    Beats said:
    crowley said:
    The security argument is a decent one, but Apple invite ridicule when they also wield the App Store rules as a competitive weapon and use it as a profit base.  It's a clear conflict of interest, claiming to be guardians of customers' privacy and security, but with the caveat that all their purchases get a slice delivered to Apple, and Apple get to set all of the content rules according to whim and fancy.

    Developers would be much more sympathetic to the security argument if Apple hadn't arbitrarily acted like dicks so many times over the past several years and made so money from their developer tax.

    Geez the replies just get dumber as I go through the pages.

    ”developer tax”??
    So any profit a company makes is a “tax”?

    What about the 30% Nintendo “developer tax”? Sony 30% “developer tax”? Wal-Mart, Coca Cola, McDonalds, Target, Samsung, TCL, Roku, Microsoft, Netflix, Disney…

    …oh wait, it’s only a “tax” when Apple makes money.
    No, I'd describe all of those similarly.  They aren't playing the victim though.
    Without Apple providing the platform, developers would have no customers. Oh, wait. That’s not true.  Developers have customers on all those other platforms. Let’s correct that. 

    Without Apple providing the platform, developers would have no Apple customers. So this argument is entirely about developers getting access to Apple’s customers, isn’t it? Why would they care about that if they can reach people on all those other platforms? There must be something special about those Apple customers. As it turns out, Apple’s customers are documented to be more willing to spend a buck on apps and services delivered through those apps. There are probably a couple of reasons for that. One, Apple doesn’t build cheap hardware, so iOS customers probably skew to higher incomes. Two - and this is important - Apple customers buy those devices in no small part because of their reputation as more stable, more secure, and more protective of the customers’ privacy. Both one and two above are true because Apple spends money to build better devices and to pair those with integrated operating systems that are designed to be more reliable, secure, and protective of customers’ privacy. 

    So why is it again that Apple should provide all that to developers free of charge? You could argue a chicken-and-egg case that the apps are actually what deliver customers to the platform, except the App Store has been around for only a dozen years or so, and it has clearly delivered the entire mobile app market to the developers, since Android didn’t exist before iPhone and the software publishing market was fundamentally changed with the introduction of the App Store. So we actually do know which came first.

    So Apple invented the mobile app paradigm, and, by producing high-quality hardware and integrated operating systems, curates the most lucrative customer segment of the mobile market. Yet, some developers think it’s an injustice that they’re not provided access to all of that, free of charge. As it turns out, I was right with the first sentence. Without Apple creating the platform, developers would have no customers.

    Wait. Who is playing victim in this scenario?
    Apple.
    Apple isn’t playing the victim, they and their users are actual intended victims. The intended victims of for example Apple haters like yourself who for some mentally bizarre reason believe Apple must change to suit you. Nope. 
    You go be happy or at least try in your own Android world. We be fine over here and definitely without the ranting demands of the haters. 

    How can you personally speak for the majority? Do you know what I, or Crowley or anybody else wants or thinks, and more importantly why on a multitude of Apple issues? Do you think that the majority of iOS users are even actually aware of what is at stake here and the underlying reasons for everything?

    Of course you can't/dont but you've conveniently walled users off into you're very own paradise garden and cooked up 'we' to represent yourselves. You did that by sticking a label on dissenters which you, again conveniently, call 'haters'. It reads like a catch all for anyone that doesn't agree with what Apple does or the Apple way of doing things. 

    There is a label of some kind for everyone, if you try hard enough, but you clearly haven't thought things through well enough here. 

    What  'ranting demands' are you referring to? 

    I’m a little late to this party this time but I can’t ignore this one…

    He’s absolutely right to be referring to “we”. Seems this is a pretty polarizing issue. You, Crowley, DarkVader, and others are pretty clearly taking one side and a bunch of the rest of us are taking the other side.  

    The thing for us is we have something pretty significant at stake here.  We’re trying to hold on to something we as happy Apple customers want that we can’t get anywhere else  — the improved safety, security, convenience and other benefits of the exclusive Apple App Store that is one of the biggest reasons we choose Apple products in the first place. 

    Yet every time any of us explain that,  your side just casually dismisses it as if it’s meaningless. You all rant on about how sideloading increases consumer choice, and Apple have this evil monopoly on THEIR OWN DAMN PRODUCTS and refuse to listen to the points wh’re making about what that will TAKE from us. 

    There currently is choice between the walled garden way Apple does things and the free for all way Android does things. And the market is pretty evenly split. So plenty of people like the free for all while plenty of others LIKE the walled garden (and don’t want it forced out from under them). 

    Our big confusion is… why can’t you people see that??  Right now there’s choice between two  wry distinct options.  Why can’t it stay that way? Why does one option have to change to be like the other — thus reducing choice?


    And then what’s really confusing is you people who are so opposed to how Apple does everything but then when we say “ok. No worries, you’ve got a wealth of choices out there that do it more like the way you want” but you won’t choose that either. You’ll just stay here and bash Apple. Why???

    How can you people possibly like Apple products enough to consider this stuff worth fighting for when you’re so opposed to the way Apple does things? And if you do actually genuinely prefer Apple’s stuff how can you not see the connection between Apple’s products and the way Apple does things? (Or if you do why are you so adamant about changing the way Apple does things?)

    You want the governments to force Apple to make their products more like their competition instead of letting them keep the very things that differentiate them from their competition and you call that increasing consumer choice. 

    Then your side make arguments like “most developers won’t leave”. But you dismiss the HUGE point that SOME will. And it won’t just be insignificant players that no one cares about. Just look at the Mac. 

    If that happens on iOS then I must choose whether to sacrifice all the apps by the devs that leave, some of which I will still want to use, or sacrifice the benefits that I as a consumer appreciate from the one single exclusive App Store. If you really think that’s not going to be an issue then, again you’re just not paying attention.  I hate having that issue on my Mac. I DO NOT WANT to have to deal with that on my iDevices. And right now I have that choice. But if Sweeney and you guys have your way I will lose that choice. 

    There is no way sideloading benefits the types of users who choose iOS because of its centralized distribution. By definition. And if you don’t think that’s a significant deciding factor then you’re just not listening and that’s when posts like ArchStanton’s become valid. 

    Our question to your side is — again — WHY???!!! Why must Apple make their products behave and function like the competition?  How does that benefit anyone?  If you like the way the Android system works, why the f*** do you give a sh** about anything Apple does?  You want a device and ecosystem that works the way Android works? Go buy a damn Android phone. They’re not all crap. Samsung ripped Apple off at first but they’ve definitely forged their own way now and bring out good quality stuff… if you want to do things the Android way. 

    Why are you people pushing and fighting so hard to get Apple to change something that plenty of us like the way it is? If Apple’s way was the only way I’d understand but there is another radically different option that gives you exactly what you’re fighting for. So why can’t you take that option and leave us the hell alone to enjoy our walled garden just the way we like it????

    Maybe just maybe there’s some sliver of the market that likes iOS the way it is much better than anything else except for this one issue and maybe, just maybe that’s where you’re coming from, but the fundamental depth of the connection between the way Apple operates (like in this situation) and the end results (their products), and how forcing Apple to make different choices would screw up what makes Apple’s products what they are… well… it just makes that very hard to believe.  And that’s when “we” have a really hard time not concluding you guys arguing for that are shills. 

    So yeah. That’s where he’s coming from. Him, me, AppleZulu, GeorgeBMac, Beats, and a few others here are all saying the same things. It’s not hard to see that. And that’s how he can speak for us in comments like that at least, and rightly so. 
  • Reply 134 of 138
    crowleycrowley Posts: 9,130member
    Detnator said:
    crowley said:
    AppleZulu said:
    crowley said:
    Beats said:
    crowley said:
    The security argument is a decent one, but Apple invite ridicule when they also wield the App Store rules as a competitive weapon and use it as a profit base.  It's a clear conflict of interest, claiming to be guardians of customers' privacy and security, but with the caveat that all their purchases get a slice delivered to Apple, and Apple get to set all of the content rules according to whim and fancy.

    Developers would be much more sympathetic to the security argument if Apple hadn't arbitrarily acted like dicks so many times over the past several years and made so money from their developer tax.

    Geez the replies just get dumber as I go through the pages.

    ”developer tax”??
    So any profit a company makes is a “tax”?

    What about the 30% Nintendo “developer tax”? Sony 30% “developer tax”? Wal-Mart, Coca Cola, McDonalds, Target, Samsung, TCL, Roku, Microsoft, Netflix, Disney…

    …oh wait, it’s only a “tax” when Apple makes money.
    No, I'd describe all of those similarly.  They aren't playing the victim though.
    Without Apple providing the platform, developers would have no customers. Oh, wait. That’s not true.  Developers have customers on all those other platforms. Let’s correct that. 

    Without Apple providing the platform, developers would have no Apple customers. So this argument is entirely about developers getting access to Apple’s customers, isn’t it? Why would they care about that if they can reach people on all those other platforms? There must be something special about those Apple customers. As it turns out, Apple’s customers are documented to be more willing to spend a buck on apps and services delivered through those apps. There are probably a couple of reasons for that. One, Apple doesn’t build cheap hardware, so iOS customers probably skew to higher incomes. Two - and this is important - Apple customers buy those devices in no small part because of their reputation as more stable, more secure, and more protective of the customers’ privacy. Both one and two above are true because Apple spends money to build better devices and to pair those with integrated operating systems that are designed to be more reliable, secure, and protective of customers’ privacy. 

    So why is it again that Apple should provide all that to developers free of charge? You could argue a chicken-and-egg case that the apps are actually what deliver customers to the platform, except the App Store has been around for only a dozen years or so, and it has clearly delivered the entire mobile app market to the developers, since Android didn’t exist before iPhone and the software publishing market was fundamentally changed with the introduction of the App Store. So we actually do know which came first.

    So Apple invented the mobile app paradigm, and, by producing high-quality hardware and integrated operating systems, curates the most lucrative customer segment of the mobile market. Yet, some developers think it’s an injustice that they’re not provided access to all of that, free of charge. As it turns out, I was right with the first sentence. Without Apple creating the platform, developers would have no customers.

    Wait. Who is playing victim in this scenario?
    Apple.
    Wow. That’s deep. 

    Apple was going along doing its job and doing it very well until every man and his dog started suing them. 

    Apple didn’t pick any of these fights.  Apple isn’t playing victim. Apple is defending its products and business against a sh**storm of attacks from whiny weasels like Sweeney who want a free ride off Apple’s efforts. You think Tim Cook and co haven’t got anything better to do than go argue all this stuff in court and write these papers?  Good grief dude you come out with the dymbest comments sometimes. 

    Exactly how is Apple playing victim?
    dymbest :smiley: 

    I think I've been pretty clear previously, and I've no interest in repeating myself.  I'll help you out though:
    crowley said:
    The security argument is a decent one, but Apple invite ridicule when they also wield the App Store rules as a competitive weapon and use it as a profit base.  It's a clear conflict of interest, claiming to be guardians of customers' privacy and security, but with the caveat that all their purchases get a slice delivered to Apple, and Apple get to set all of the content rules according to whim and fancy.

    Developers would be much more sympathetic to the security argument if Apple hadn't arbitrarily acted like dicks so many times over the past several years and made so money from their developer tax.



  • Reply 135 of 138
    crowleycrowley Posts: 9,130member
    Detnator said:
    avon b7 said:
    crowley said:
    AppleZulu said:
    crowley said:
    Beats said:
    crowley said:
    The security argument is a decent one, but Apple invite ridicule when they also wield the App Store rules as a competitive weapon and use it as a profit base.  It's a clear conflict of interest, claiming to be guardians of customers' privacy and security, but with the caveat that all their purchases get a slice delivered to Apple, and Apple get to set all of the content rules according to whim and fancy.

    Developers would be much more sympathetic to the security argument if Apple hadn't arbitrarily acted like dicks so many times over the past several years and made so money from their developer tax.

    Geez the replies just get dumber as I go through the pages.

    ”developer tax”??
    So any profit a company makes is a “tax”?

    What about the 30% Nintendo “developer tax”? Sony 30% “developer tax”? Wal-Mart, Coca Cola, McDonalds, Target, Samsung, TCL, Roku, Microsoft, Netflix, Disney…

    …oh wait, it’s only a “tax” when Apple makes money.
    No, I'd describe all of those similarly.  They aren't playing the victim though.
    Without Apple providing the platform, developers would have no customers. Oh, wait. That’s not true.  Developers have customers on all those other platforms. Let’s correct that. 

    Without Apple providing the platform, developers would have no Apple customers. So this argument is entirely about developers getting access to Apple’s customers, isn’t it? Why would they care about that if they can reach people on all those other platforms? There must be something special about those Apple customers. As it turns out, Apple’s customers are documented to be more willing to spend a buck on apps and services delivered through those apps. There are probably a couple of reasons for that. One, Apple doesn’t build cheap hardware, so iOS customers probably skew to higher incomes. Two - and this is important - Apple customers buy those devices in no small part because of their reputation as more stable, more secure, and more protective of the customers’ privacy. Both one and two above are true because Apple spends money to build better devices and to pair those with integrated operating systems that are designed to be more reliable, secure, and protective of customers’ privacy. 

    So why is it again that Apple should provide all that to developers free of charge? You could argue a chicken-and-egg case that the apps are actually what deliver customers to the platform, except the App Store has been around for only a dozen years or so, and it has clearly delivered the entire mobile app market to the developers, since Android didn’t exist before iPhone and the software publishing market was fundamentally changed with the introduction of the App Store. So we actually do know which came first.

    So Apple invented the mobile app paradigm, and, by producing high-quality hardware and integrated operating systems, curates the most lucrative customer segment of the mobile market. Yet, some developers think it’s an injustice that they’re not provided access to all of that, free of charge. As it turns out, I was right with the first sentence. Without Apple creating the platform, developers would have no customers.

    Wait. Who is playing victim in this scenario?
    Apple.
    Apple isn’t playing the victim, they and their users are actual intended victims. The intended victims of for example Apple haters like yourself who for some mentally bizarre reason believe Apple must change to suit you. Nope. 
    You go be happy or at least try in your own Android world. We be fine over here and definitely without the ranting demands of the haters. 

    How can you personally speak for the majority? Do you know what I, or Crowley or anybody else wants or thinks, and more importantly why on a multitude of Apple issues? Do you think that the majority of iOS users are even actually aware of what is at stake here and the underlying reasons for everything?

    Of course you can't/dont but you've conveniently walled users off into you're very own paradise garden and cooked up 'we' to represent yourselves. You did that by sticking a label on dissenters which you, again conveniently, call 'haters'. It reads like a catch all for anyone that doesn't agree with what Apple does or the Apple way of doing things. 

    There is a label of some kind for everyone, if you try hard enough, but you clearly haven't thought things through well enough here. 

    What  'ranting demands' are you referring to? 

    I’m a little late to this party this time but I can’t ignore this one…

    He’s absolutely right to be referring to “we”. Seems this is a pretty polarizing issue. You, Crowley, DarkVader, and others are pretty clearly taking one side and a bunch of the rest of us are taking the other side.  

    The thing for us is we have something pretty significant at stake here.  We’re trying to hold on to something we as happy Apple customers want that we can’t get anywhere else  — the improved safety, security, convenience and other benefits of the exclusive Apple App Store that is one of the biggest reasons we choose Apple products in the first place. 

    Yet every time any of us explain that,  your side just casually dismisses it as if it’s meaningless. You all rant on about how sideloading increases consumer choice, and Apple have this evil monopoly on THEIR OWN DAMN PRODUCTS and refuse to listen to the points wh’re making about what that will TAKE from us. 

    There currently is choice between the walled garden way Apple does things and the free for all way Android does things. And the market is pretty evenly split. So plenty of people like the free for all while plenty of others LIKE the walled garden (and don’t want it forced out from under them). 

    Our big confusion is… why can’t you people see that??  Right now there’s choice between two  wry distinct options.  Why can’t it stay that way? Why does one option have to change to be like the other — thus reducing choice?


    And then what’s really confusing is you people who are so opposed to how Apple does everything but then when we say “ok. No worries, you’ve got a wealth of choices out there that do it more like the way you want” but you won’t choose that either. You’ll just stay here and bash Apple. Why???

    How can you people possibly like Apple products enough to consider this stuff worth fighting for when you’re so opposed to the way Apple does things? And if you do actually genuinely prefer Apple’s stuff how can you not see the connection between Apple’s products and the way Apple does things? (Or if you do why are you so adamant about changing the way Apple does things?)

    You want the governments to force Apple to make their products more like their competition instead of letting them keep the very things that differentiate them from their competition and you call that increasing consumer choice. 

    Then your side make arguments like “most developers won’t leave”. But you dismiss the HUGE point that SOME will. And it won’t just be insignificant players that no one cares about. Just look at the Mac. 

    If that happens on iOS then I must choose whether to sacrifice all the apps by the devs that leave, some of which I will still want to use, or sacrifice the benefits that I as a consumer appreciate from the one single exclusive App Store. If you really think that’s not going to be an issue then, again you’re just not paying attention.  I hate having that issue on my Mac. I DO NOT WANT to have to deal with that on my iDevices. And right now I have that choice. But if Sweeney and you guys have your way I will lose that choice. 

    There is no way sideloading benefits the types of users who choose iOS because of its centralized distribution. By definition. And if you don’t think that’s a significant deciding factor then you’re just not listening and that’s when posts like ArchStanton’s become valid. 

    Our question to your side is — again — WHY???!!! Why must Apple make their products behave and function like the competition?  How does that benefit anyone?  If you like the way the Android system works, why the f*** do you give a sh** about anything Apple does?  You want a device and ecosystem that works the way Android works? Go buy a damn Android phone. They’re not all crap. Samsung ripped Apple off at first but they’ve definitely forged their own way now and bring out good quality stuff… if you want to do things the Android way. 

    Why are you people pushing and fighting so hard to get Apple to change something that plenty of us like the way it is? If Apple’s way was the only way I’d understand but there is another radically different option that gives you exactly what you’re fighting for. So why can’t you take that option and leave us the hell alone to enjoy our walled garden just the way we like it????

    Maybe just maybe there’s some sliver of the market that likes iOS the way it is much better than anything else except for this one issue and maybe, just maybe that’s where you’re coming from, but the fundamental depth of the connection between the way Apple operates (like in this situation) and the end results (their products), and how forcing Apple to make different choices would screw up what makes Apple’s products what they are… well… it just makes that very hard to believe.  And that’s when “we” have a really hard time not concluding you guys arguing for that are shills. 

    So yeah. That’s where he’s coming from. Him, me, AppleZulu, GeorgeBMac, Beats, and a few others here are all saying the same things. It’s not hard to see that. And that’s how he can speak for us in comments like that at least, and rightly so. 
    Pretty much everything you claim that I've said and done I have neither said nor done.

    And the other guy claimed that I rant.  Lol.
  • Reply 136 of 138
    DetnatorDetnator Posts: 208member
    crowley said:
    Detnator said:
    crowley said:
    AppleZulu said:
    crowley said:
    Beats said:
    crowley said:
    The security argument is a decent one, but Apple invite ridicule when they also wield the App Store rules as a competitive weapon and use it as a profit base.  It's a clear conflict of interest, claiming to be guardians of customers' privacy and security, but with the caveat that all their purchases get a slice delivered to Apple, and Apple get to set all of the content rules according to whim and fancy.

    Developers would be much more sympathetic to the security argument if Apple hadn't arbitrarily acted like dicks so many times over the past several years and made so money from their developer tax.

    Geez the replies just get dumber as I go through the pages.

    ”developer tax”??
    So any profit a company makes is a “tax”?

    What about the 30% Nintendo “developer tax”? Sony 30% “developer tax”? Wal-Mart, Coca Cola, McDonalds, Target, Samsung, TCL, Roku, Microsoft, Netflix, Disney…

    …oh wait, it’s only a “tax” when Apple makes money.
    No, I'd describe all of those similarly.  They aren't playing the victim though.
    Without Apple providing the platform, developers would have no customers. Oh, wait. That’s not true.  Developers have customers on all those other platforms. Let’s correct that. 

    Without Apple providing the platform, developers would have no Apple customers. So this argument is entirely about developers getting access to Apple’s customers, isn’t it? Why would they care about that if they can reach people on all those other platforms? There must be something special about those Apple customers. As it turns out, Apple’s customers are documented to be more willing to spend a buck on apps and services delivered through those apps. There are probably a couple of reasons for that. One, Apple doesn’t build cheap hardware, so iOS customers probably skew to higher incomes. Two - and this is important - Apple customers buy those devices in no small part because of their reputation as more stable, more secure, and more protective of the customers’ privacy. Both one and two above are true because Apple spends money to build better devices and to pair those with integrated operating systems that are designed to be more reliable, secure, and protective of customers’ privacy. 

    So why is it again that Apple should provide all that to developers free of charge? You could argue a chicken-and-egg case that the apps are actually what deliver customers to the platform, except the App Store has been around for only a dozen years or so, and it has clearly delivered the entire mobile app market to the developers, since Android didn’t exist before iPhone and the software publishing market was fundamentally changed with the introduction of the App Store. So we actually do know which came first.

    So Apple invented the mobile app paradigm, and, by producing high-quality hardware and integrated operating systems, curates the most lucrative customer segment of the mobile market. Yet, some developers think it’s an injustice that they’re not provided access to all of that, free of charge. As it turns out, I was right with the first sentence. Without Apple creating the platform, developers would have no customers.

    Wait. Who is playing victim in this scenario?
    Apple.
    Wow. That’s deep. 

    Apple was going along doing its job and doing it very well until every man and his dog started suing them. 

    Apple didn’t pick any of these fights.  Apple isn’t playing victim. Apple is defending its products and business against a sh**storm of attacks from whiny weasels like Sweeney who want a free ride off Apple’s efforts. You think Tim Cook and co haven’t got anything better to do than go argue all this stuff in court and write these papers?  Good grief dude you come out with the dymbest comments sometimes. 

    Exactly how is Apple playing victim?
    dymbest :smiley: 

    I think I've been pretty clear previously, and I've no interest in repeating myself.  I'll help you out though:
    crowley said:
    The security argument is a decent one, but Apple invite ridicule when they also wield the App Store rules as a competitive weapon and use it as a profit base.  It's a clear conflict of interest, claiming to be guardians of customers' privacy and security, but with the caveat that all their purchases get a slice delivered to Apple, and Apple get to set all of the content rules according to whim and fancy.

    Developers would be much more sympathetic to the security argument if Apple hadn't arbitrarily acted like dicks so many times over the past several years and made so money from their developer tax.  


    Made so money? ;) 

    Ok.  There’s that word again.  “Tax”. It’s ridiculous and you just lose a lot of credibility when you use that word to describe what every for-profit company does and in fact is required to do for their investors and shareholders. Turn a profit.  

    And you (and Sweeney etc) make it sound Apple’s raping us. But we’ve all been through all those arguments. 30% is industry standard. It’s 15% or less for the vast majority of purchases. Etc. etc. And whatever average percentage that all boils down to, they’re entitled to it. They’ve invested a lot of money and took a lot of risk in building the infrastructure they’ve built. Why shouldn’t they get a return on that?

    I think it’s a matter of opinion and some bias as to whether they’ve acted like dicks or simply made some honest mistakes.  Im sure it’s a bit of both. And perhaps some ridicule is reasonable.  But there’s a lot more than ridicule going on around this issue. 

    Developers… well… the funny thing is the vast majority of developers are more than just sympathetic. They’re very happy with the system the way it is.  Sure it’s great that there’s some pressure to lower the margins. That’s capitalism and that’s good. But people like Sweeney and the others in that coalition for app fairness etc are pushing a lot more than ridicule.  

    I don’t see how Apple is playing victim. They’re being attacked and they’re defending. If anyone’s playing victim it’s the whiny little crybabies at the top of Epic, Tile, Spotify, etc who want to freeload off Apple and come after them just because they’ve done well.  

    As forApple getting a slice of  “all their purchases” that is not the case at all.  It’s spin and deception.  But this is where myself and others on this side have explained ourselves too. 

    Fortnite players can buy V-bucks off Epic’s website. Sure there are reasons why that’s not as good an experience as buying them directly in the app but most of those reasons are because of work Apple has done to make the in app experience awesome. So why should epic get that for free?

    Oh… but the customers don’t know they can buy their V-bucks or Spotify subscription or whatever else on the website - and the dev isn’t allowed to tell them?  Huh??? Why don’t they know? Wait… whose customers are they?  

    Am I using an app because its developer successfully marketed and sold it to me? If so then yes, I’m that developer’s customer and I went to the dev’s site first and was made aware before I even got to the app on the App Store that I could buy the subscription from the website while downloading the app from Apple’s servers for free. In that instance the dev gets 100%. Apple gets nothing. 

    Unless… I found the app because I found it in the Apple App Store and at worst I’ve never heard of the developer or the site before.  If so, then I’m Apple’s customer and Apple’s just handed of a sale to the dev that the dev would otherwise not have got. Why shouldn’t Apple get something for that? In that instance the dev gets 70% of something they would have otherwise got 0 of. 

    So yeah… I just don’t get it. I just can’t see how any of this is unfair on anyone. And no one has been able to provide any explanation as to why any of Apple’s policies are bad for anyone other than the wannabe freeloaders. 

    But you guys keep throwing that “tax” word around. That’ll show us. 
    edited July 19 williamlondon
  • Reply 137 of 138
    crowleycrowley Posts: 9,130member
    Detnator said:
    crowley said:
    Detnator said:
    crowley said:
    AppleZulu said:
    crowley said:
    Beats said:
    crowley said:
    The security argument is a decent one, but Apple invite ridicule when they also wield the App Store rules as a competitive weapon and use it as a profit base.  It's a clear conflict of interest, claiming to be guardians of customers' privacy and security, but with the caveat that all their purchases get a slice delivered to Apple, and Apple get to set all of the content rules according to whim and fancy.

    Developers would be much more sympathetic to the security argument if Apple hadn't arbitrarily acted like dicks so many times over the past several years and made so money from their developer tax.

    Geez the replies just get dumber as I go through the pages.

    ”developer tax”??
    So any profit a company makes is a “tax”?

    What about the 30% Nintendo “developer tax”? Sony 30% “developer tax”? Wal-Mart, Coca Cola, McDonalds, Target, Samsung, TCL, Roku, Microsoft, Netflix, Disney…

    …oh wait, it’s only a “tax” when Apple makes money.
    No, I'd describe all of those similarly.  They aren't playing the victim though.
    Without Apple providing the platform, developers would have no customers. Oh, wait. That’s not true.  Developers have customers on all those other platforms. Let’s correct that. 

    Without Apple providing the platform, developers would have no Apple customers. So this argument is entirely about developers getting access to Apple’s customers, isn’t it? Why would they care about that if they can reach people on all those other platforms? There must be something special about those Apple customers. As it turns out, Apple’s customers are documented to be more willing to spend a buck on apps and services delivered through those apps. There are probably a couple of reasons for that. One, Apple doesn’t build cheap hardware, so iOS customers probably skew to higher incomes. Two - and this is important - Apple customers buy those devices in no small part because of their reputation as more stable, more secure, and more protective of the customers’ privacy. Both one and two above are true because Apple spends money to build better devices and to pair those with integrated operating systems that are designed to be more reliable, secure, and protective of customers’ privacy. 

    So why is it again that Apple should provide all that to developers free of charge? You could argue a chicken-and-egg case that the apps are actually what deliver customers to the platform, except the App Store has been around for only a dozen years or so, and it has clearly delivered the entire mobile app market to the developers, since Android didn’t exist before iPhone and the software publishing market was fundamentally changed with the introduction of the App Store. So we actually do know which came first.

    So Apple invented the mobile app paradigm, and, by producing high-quality hardware and integrated operating systems, curates the most lucrative customer segment of the mobile market. Yet, some developers think it’s an injustice that they’re not provided access to all of that, free of charge. As it turns out, I was right with the first sentence. Without Apple creating the platform, developers would have no customers.

    Wait. Who is playing victim in this scenario?
    Apple.
    Wow. That’s deep. 

    Apple was going along doing its job and doing it very well until every man and his dog started suing them. 

    Apple didn’t pick any of these fights.  Apple isn’t playing victim. Apple is defending its products and business against a sh**storm of attacks from whiny weasels like Sweeney who want a free ride off Apple’s efforts. You think Tim Cook and co haven’t got anything better to do than go argue all this stuff in court and write these papers?  Good grief dude you come out with the dymbest comments sometimes. 

    Exactly how is Apple playing victim?
    dymbest :smiley: 

    I think I've been pretty clear previously, and I've no interest in repeating myself.  I'll help you out though:
    crowley said:
    The security argument is a decent one, but Apple invite ridicule when they also wield the App Store rules as a competitive weapon and use it as a profit base.  It's a clear conflict of interest, claiming to be guardians of customers' privacy and security, but with the caveat that all their purchases get a slice delivered to Apple, and Apple get to set all of the content rules according to whim and fancy.

    Developers would be much more sympathetic to the security argument if Apple hadn't arbitrarily acted like dicks so many times over the past several years and made so money from their developer tax.  


    Made so money? ;) 

    Ok.  There’s that word again.  “Tax”. It’s ridiculous and you just lose a lot of credibility when you use that word to describe what every for-profit company does and in fact is required to do for their investors and shareholders. Turn a profit.  

    And you (and Sweeney etc) make it sound Apple’s raping us. But we’ve all been through all those arguments. 30% is industry standard. It’s 15% or less for the vast majority of purchases. Etc. etc. And whatever average percentage that all boils down to, they’re entitled to it. They’ve invested a lot of money and took a lot of risk in building the infrastructure they’ve built. Why shouldn’t they get a return on that?

    I think it’s a matter of opinion and some bias as to whether they’ve acted like dicks or simply made some honest mistakes.  Im sure it’s a bit of both. And perhaps some ridicule is reasonable.  But there’s a lot more than ridicule going on around this issue. 

    Developers… well… the funny thing is the vast majority of developers are more than just sympathetic. They’re very happy with the system the way it is.  Sure it’s great that there’s some pressure to lower the margins. That’s capitalism and that’s good. But people like Sweeney and the others in that coalition for app fairness etc are pushing a lot more than ridicule.  

    I don’t see how Apple is playing victim. They’re being attacked and they’re defending. If anyone’s playing victim it’s the whiny little crybabies at the top of Epic, Tile, Spotify, etc who want to freeload off Apple and come after them just because they’ve done well.  

    As forApple getting a slice of  “all their purchases” that is not the case at all.  It’s spin and deception.  But this is where myself and others on this side have explained ourselves too. 

    Fortnite players can buy V-bucks off Epic’s website. Sure there are reasons why that’s not as good an experience as buying them directly in the app but most of those reasons are because of work Apple has done to make the in app experience awesome. So why should epic get that for free?

    Oh… but the customers don’t know they can buy their V-bucks or Spotify subscription or whatever else on the website - and the dev isn’t allowed to tell them?  Huh??? Why don’t they know? Wait… whose customers are they?  

    Am I using an app because its developer successfully marketed and sold it to me? If so then yes, I’m that developer’s customer and I went to the dev’s site first and was made aware before I even got to the app on the App Store that I could buy the subscription from the website while downloading the app from Apple’s servers for free. In that instance the dev gets 100%. Apple gets nothing. 

    Unless… I found the app because I found it in the Apple App Store and at worst I’ve never heard of the developer or the site before.  If so, then I’m Apple’s customer and Apple’s just handed of a sale to the dev that the dev would otherwise not have got. Why shouldn’t Apple get something for that? In that instance the dev gets 70% of something they would have otherwise got 0 of. 

    So yeah… I just don’t get it. I just can’t see how any of this is unfair on anyone. And no one has been able to provide any explanation as to why any of Apple’s policies are bad for anyone other than the wannabe freeloaders. 

    But you guys keep throwing that “tax” word around. That’ll show us. 
    Tax is just a shorthand.  Don't get hung up on terminology.

    And you're going to need a citation for "the funny thing is the vast majority of developers are more than just sympathetic".
  • Reply 138 of 138
    DetnatorDetnator Posts: 208member
    crowley said:
    Detnator said:
    crowley said:
    Detnator said:
    crowley said:
    AppleZulu said:
    crowley said:
    Beats said:
    crowley said:
    The security argument is a decent one, but Apple invite ridicule when they also wield the App Store rules as a competitive weapon and use it as a profit base.  It's a clear conflict of interest, claiming to be guardians of customers' privacy and security, but with the caveat that all their purchases get a slice delivered to Apple, and Apple get to set all of the content rules according to whim and fancy.

    Developers would be much more sympathetic to the security argument if Apple hadn't arbitrarily acted like dicks so many times over the past several years and made so money from their developer tax.

    Geez the replies just get dumber as I go through the pages.

    ”developer tax”??
    So any profit a company makes is a “tax”?

    What about the 30% Nintendo “developer tax”? Sony 30% “developer tax”? Wal-Mart, Coca Cola, McDonalds, Target, Samsung, TCL, Roku, Microsoft, Netflix, Disney…

    …oh wait, it’s only a “tax” when Apple makes money.
    No, I'd describe all of those similarly.  They aren't playing the victim though.
    Without Apple providing the platform, developers would have no customers. Oh, wait. That’s not true.  Developers have customers on all those other platforms. Let’s correct that. 

    Without Apple providing the platform, developers would have no Apple customers. So this argument is entirely about developers getting access to Apple’s customers, isn’t it? Why would they care about that if they can reach people on all those other platforms? There must be something special about those Apple customers. As it turns out, Apple’s customers are documented to be more willing to spend a buck on apps and services delivered through those apps. There are probably a couple of reasons for that. One, Apple doesn’t build cheap hardware, so iOS customers probably skew to higher incomes. Two - and this is important - Apple customers buy those devices in no small part because of their reputation as more stable, more secure, and more protective of the customers’ privacy. Both one and two above are true because Apple spends money to build better devices and to pair those with integrated operating systems that are designed to be more reliable, secure, and protective of customers’ privacy. 

    So why is it again that Apple should provide all that to developers free of charge? You could argue a chicken-and-egg case that the apps are actually what deliver customers to the platform, except the App Store has been around for only a dozen years or so, and it has clearly delivered the entire mobile app market to the developers, since Android didn’t exist before iPhone and the software publishing market was fundamentally changed with the introduction of the App Store. So we actually do know which came first.

    So Apple invented the mobile app paradigm, and, by producing high-quality hardware and integrated operating systems, curates the most lucrative customer segment of the mobile market. Yet, some developers think it’s an injustice that they’re not provided access to all of that, free of charge. As it turns out, I was right with the first sentence. Without Apple creating the platform, developers would have no customers.

    Wait. Who is playing victim in this scenario?
    Apple.
    Wow. That’s deep. 

    Apple was going along doing its job and doing it very well until every man and his dog started suing them. 

    Apple didn’t pick any of these fights.  Apple isn’t playing victim. Apple is defending its products and business against a sh**storm of attacks from whiny weasels like Sweeney who want a free ride off Apple’s efforts. You think Tim Cook and co haven’t got anything better to do than go argue all this stuff in court and write these papers?  Good grief dude you come out with the dymbest comments sometimes. 

    Exactly how is Apple playing victim?
    dymbest :smiley: 

    I think I've been pretty clear previously, and I've no interest in repeating myself.  I'll help you out though:
    crowley said:
    The security argument is a decent one, but Apple invite ridicule when they also wield the App Store rules as a competitive weapon and use it as a profit base.  It's a clear conflict of interest, claiming to be guardians of customers' privacy and security, but with the caveat that all their purchases get a slice delivered to Apple, and Apple get to set all of the content rules according to whim and fancy.

    Developers would be much more sympathetic to the security argument if Apple hadn't arbitrarily acted like dicks so many times over the past several years and made so money from their developer tax.  


    Made so money? ;) 

    Ok.  There’s that word again.  “Tax”. It’s ridiculous and you just lose a lot of credibility when you use that word to describe what every for-profit company does and in fact is required to do for their investors and shareholders. Turn a profit.  

    And you (and Sweeney etc) make it sound Apple’s raping us. But we’ve all been through all those arguments. 30% is industry standard. It’s 15% or less for the vast majority of purchases. Etc. etc. And whatever average percentage that all boils down to, they’re entitled to it. They’ve invested a lot of money and took a lot of risk in building the infrastructure they’ve built. Why shouldn’t they get a return on that?

    I think it’s a matter of opinion and some bias as to whether they’ve acted like dicks or simply made some honest mistakes.  Im sure it’s a bit of both. And perhaps some ridicule is reasonable.  But there’s a lot more than ridicule going on around this issue. 

    Developers… well… the funny thing is the vast majority of developers are more than just sympathetic. They’re very happy with the system the way it is.  Sure it’s great that there’s some pressure to lower the margins. That’s capitalism and that’s good. But people like Sweeney and the others in that coalition for app fairness etc are pushing a lot more than ridicule.  

    I don’t see how Apple is playing victim. They’re being attacked and they’re defending. If anyone’s playing victim it’s the whiny little crybabies at the top of Epic, Tile, Spotify, etc who want to freeload off Apple and come after them just because they’ve done well.  

    As forApple getting a slice of  “all their purchases” that is not the case at all.  It’s spin and deception.  But this is where myself and others on this side have explained ourselves too. 

    Fortnite players can buy V-bucks off Epic’s website. Sure there are reasons why that’s not as good an experience as buying them directly in the app but most of those reasons are because of work Apple has done to make the in app experience awesome. So why should epic get that for free?

    Oh… but the customers don’t know they can buy their V-bucks or Spotify subscription or whatever else on the website - and the dev isn’t allowed to tell them?  Huh??? Why don’t they know? Wait… whose customers are they?  

    Am I using an app because its developer successfully marketed and sold it to me? If so then yes, I’m that developer’s customer and I went to the dev’s site first and was made aware before I even got to the app on the App Store that I could buy the subscription from the website while downloading the app from Apple’s servers for free. In that instance the dev gets 100%. Apple gets nothing. 

    Unless… I found the app because I found it in the Apple App Store and at worst I’ve never heard of the developer or the site before.  If so, then I’m Apple’s customer and Apple’s just handed of a sale to the dev that the dev would otherwise not have got. Why shouldn’t Apple get something for that? In that instance the dev gets 70% of something they would have otherwise got 0 of. 

    So yeah… I just don’t get it. I just can’t see how any of this is unfair on anyone. And no one has been able to provide any explanation as to why any of Apple’s policies are bad for anyone other than the wannabe freeloaders. 

    But you guys keep throwing that “tax” word around. That’ll show us. 
    Tax is just a shorthand.  Don't get hung up on terminology.

    And you're going to need a citation for "the funny thing is the vast majority of developers are more than just sympathetic".
    Perhaps.  Or perhaps a combination of that and some common sense.

    According to https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/06/apple-reveals-new-developer-technologies-to-foster-the-next-generation-of-apps/, there were about 23 million developers around the time Sweeney started pulling some of this coalition for app fairness crap around this time last year. 

    He opened the doors offering his full support to anyone who’d come join him. So many devs and they’re all so pissed at Apple’s horrible way of doing things.  If unhappy devs ever had a chance to speak up against Apple’s crippling practices, together, united, supporting each other to be heard, this was it. 

    But where are they?  Where’s the armies of unhappy developers signing up and joining the cause?  Out of 23 million developers there’s no more than about 100 members listed on that site. And you’d think if they wanted to promote their cause they’d list anyone and everyone they could get away with, surely?

    There is so very little news or reports or anything that I can find about unhappy Apple developers outside of that same few loud mouthed whiners, while I have indeed heard, at least in my own anecdotal circles, plenty of praise from developers for Apple’s practices and how the 15-30% is a bargain for what Apple provides. 

    Of course I can’t prove my own anecdotal evidence so if the rest isn’t good enough then ok, I’ll retract my public expression of that statement and you can feel free to discard it. But one still has to wonder what those 22,999,900 other “unhappy” developers are thinking if none of them are seriously interested in joining Sweeney‘s cause. 

    I mean even if 1% of those 23million at the far end of the unhappy side of the bell curve said even the vaguest of somethings. That’s still a couple hundred thousand voices I’m just not hearing or seeing in the news or on forums or anywhere else. Where are they?

    I think my statement is pretty reasonable. 
    edited July 19
Sign In or Register to comment.