Most interactions with this system apparently do not involve processing payments. It sounds like the portion deciding who gets what is closer to a "Like" button in Facebook. I can see Apple enforcing their rules on the initial deposit transaction. But are they enforcing the rules for any interaction with the system? (As in "Like" button.) If so, I think Apple is probably going too far.
then what about your comment doesn't apply here? if you decide to DONATE to a content provider.. "App Store guideline 21.2 states: The collection of donations must be done via a web site in Safari or an SMS"
what I'd like to know is how the user is supposed to authenticate to flattr. let's say i have 10 apps that have that button. I have to login in each app? sorry. not me. in a webpage, your credentials can be stored in a cookie, so you auth once and the buttons just work.
This is more akin to John Doe selling a pie tin through iTunes and then Apple insisting that they forever in the future have a claim to 30% of the price of the cherries to make a pie and John Doe can't even tell his customer where cherries can be bought elsewhere.
All of these "Well, if it was your store" comments are complete nonsense because you can't show me another retail setting where this ridiculous scheme exists.
Apple is don't NO such thing. Going by internet rumors, I see. John Doe can sell his cherries anywhere he wants to, but unless he has his own store to sell it, he's gonna have to make arrangements with the owner be it Apple or another store. Take a look at any retailer and if you were trying to get your products into Wal-Mart, Costco, or the lot, you'll see what terms they slap at you. If you don't like it, they'll simply waive good bye to you. Not to mention the huge lines that people stand in just to show off their products for a minute.
That's what people are being told repeatedly. Are people too dumb to understand?
It's possible, but I don't think they understand the concept of a business. It wouldn't necessarily make them dumb though. People tend to think that they have rights to everything. What they forget is that companies have the right to refuse service to them.
It's possible, but I don't think they understand the concept of a business. It wouldn't necessarily make them dumb though. People tend to think that they have rights to everything. What they forget is that companies have the right to refuse service to them.
People should think one step ahead. If a company uses its right to refuse service, they can leave for another company. If they declare their intentions in advance, they might get a different deal. Yet they choose to either foam at the mouth after the fact, or bend over, and sometimes both.
It depends what the financial transaction is for. If it's for a physical (non-digital) product then Apple don't want a cut, in fact their rules prohibit you from using their in-app purchase system for this.
If on the other hand the product or service is for use in the app then they want you to use in-app purchase.
Ah.. thanks.
But Flattr is for donation only. You never use Flattr to purchase anything at all. It's just donations. It's a shame donation is banned as well on the app store.
See, the problem here is that you hate Apple, and that's blinding you to the accuracy of what I'm saying.
Do you also complain that Target doesn't sell Wal-mart's store brand products?
Actually, it's you who is not seeing what we are saying. We are not Apple-haters. We are egalitarians who have liked Apple for decades (25 years in my case) but realize that not everything Apple does is right. You seem to defend them no matter what they do.
In this case, your analogy is not apt. It is easy for a buyer to switch from Target to Wal-Mart. It is not at all easy for an iPhone user, locked into a 2-year contract, to switch to Android. That changes this case from one of "free market" to one of "restriction of trade".
It's actually quite amazing to me how many on this list are defending the .5Trillion dollar company over the little startup who just wants to get money to charities. Really, people??
How exactly does an end-user locked into a 2-year contract leave for another company??
First, by gathering information and finding out what they're signing up for BEFORE signing. Why should someone else be responsible for your actions? Secondly, pay the early termination fee and move on. The contract is with the carriers, not Apple. Buy a different phone and use it, there's no termination fee as long as you stay with the carrier. You're not limited to using the iphone for an entire 2 years. There's no contract if you purchased it unsubsidized at full price from Apple.
Arguing over what Apple can and can't do with their store is just nonsense. I don't agree with everything they do, but I have enough sense to choose something else if it bothers me that much. So far, for me personally, I'm ok with their sandbox and I'm the first person at the refund line when I'm not satisfied with something I buy.
Actually, it's you who is not seeing what we are saying. We are not Apple-haters. We are egalitarians who have liked Apple for decades (25 years in my case) but realize that not everything Apple does is right. You seem to defend them no matter what they do.
In this case, your analogy is not apt. It is easy for a buyer to switch from Target to Wal-Mart. It is not at all easy for an iPhone user, locked into a 2-year contract, to switch to Android. That changes this case from one of "free market" to one of "restriction of trade".
So Apple should be forced to sell Android phones in their store? They should be forced to sell everything that anyone could possibly ask for? they should be forced to sell software even if it has a backdoor?
Your concept of 'restriction of trade' is ridiculous. Apple has their own store and can sell whatever they want. If you don't want to agree to the terms, buy something else.
It's actually quite amazing to me how many on this list are defending the .5Trillion dollar company over the little startup who just wants to get money to charities. Really, people??
It's even more amazing to me that you insist on posting about subjects you don't understand.
Flattr's site says:
"There’s a brave new world filled with entertainment, news and tools made by everyone, and not just the big guys. This new world deserves your support.
Simply click on Flattr buttons on blogs and websites. Creators can make a decent living, because if lots of us do this, sums add up quickly and can keep a blog or a useful piece of software going."
Comments
Flatter is not a charity org either.
'Donations' is simply a euphamism for 'payment'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman
Most interactions with this system apparently do not involve processing payments. It sounds like the portion deciding who gets what is closer to a "Like" button in Facebook. I can see Apple enforcing their rules on the initial deposit transaction. But are they enforcing the rules for any interaction with the system? (As in "Like" button.) If so, I think Apple is probably going too far.
then what about your comment doesn't apply here? if you decide to DONATE to a content provider.. "App Store guideline 21.2 states: The collection of donations must be done via a web site in Safari or an SMS"
what I'd like to know is how the user is supposed to authenticate to flattr. let's say i have 10 apps that have that button. I have to login in each app? sorry. not me. in a webpage, your credentials can be stored in a cookie, so you auth once and the buttons just work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidm77
This is more akin to John Doe selling a pie tin through iTunes and then Apple insisting that they forever in the future have a claim to 30% of the price of the cherries to make a pie and John Doe can't even tell his customer where cherries can be bought elsewhere.
All of these "Well, if it was your store" comments are complete nonsense because you can't show me another retail setting where this ridiculous scheme exists.
Apple is don't NO such thing. Going by internet rumors, I see. John Doe can sell his cherries anywhere he wants to, but unless he has his own store to sell it, he's gonna have to make arrangements with the owner be it Apple or another store. Take a look at any retailer and if you were trying to get your products into Wal-Mart, Costco, or the lot, you'll see what terms they slap at you. If you don't like it, they'll simply waive good bye to you. Not to mention the huge lines that people stand in just to show off their products for a minute.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio
That's what people are being told repeatedly. Are people too dumb to understand?
It's possible, but I don't think they understand the concept of a business. It wouldn't necessarily make them dumb though. People tend to think that they have rights to everything. What they forget is that companies have the right to refuse service to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neosum
It's possible, but I don't think they understand the concept of a business. It wouldn't necessarily make them dumb though. People tend to think that they have rights to everything. What they forget is that companies have the right to refuse service to them.
People should think one step ahead. If a company uses its right to refuse service, they can leave for another company. If they declare their intentions in advance, they might get a different deal. Yet they choose to either foam at the mouth after the fact, or bend over, and sometimes both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aderutter
It depends what the financial transaction is for. If it's for a physical (non-digital) product then Apple don't want a cut, in fact their rules prohibit you from using their in-app purchase system for this.
If on the other hand the product or service is for use in the app then they want you to use in-app purchase.
Ah.. thanks.
But Flattr is for donation only. You never use Flattr to purchase anything at all. It's just donations. It's a shame donation is banned as well on the app store.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
GOOD. I applaud Apple for disallowing micropayments.
Unless you tell us why, you're not adding to the conversation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
See, the problem here is that you hate Apple, and that's blinding you to the accuracy of what I'm saying.
Do you also complain that Target doesn't sell Wal-mart's store brand products?
Actually, it's you who is not seeing what we are saying. We are not Apple-haters. We are egalitarians who have liked Apple for decades (25 years in my case) but realize that not everything Apple does is right. You seem to defend them no matter what they do.
In this case, your analogy is not apt. It is easy for a buyer to switch from Target to Wal-Mart. It is not at all easy for an iPhone user, locked into a 2-year contract, to switch to Android. That changes this case from one of "free market" to one of "restriction of trade".
It's actually quite amazing to me how many on this list are defending the .5Trillion dollar company over the little startup who just wants to get money to charities. Really, people??
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio
People should think one step ahead. If a company uses its right to refuse service, they can leave for another company.
How exactly does an end-user locked into a 2-year contract leave for another company??
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe
Unless you tell us why, you're not adding to the conversation.
… I. don't. like. the. idea. of. micropayments.
I don't get how that can be any clearer. I'd much rather pay once and own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe
It is not at all easy for an iPhone user, locked into a 2-year contract, to switch to Android.
Fortunately we're not talking about that at all. That's not even remotely close to what this argument is about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe
How exactly does an end-user locked into a 2-year contract leave for another company??
Locking yourself into a contract for two years isn't what I call thinking ahead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe
How exactly does an end-user locked into a 2-year contract leave for another company??
First, by gathering information and finding out what they're signing up for BEFORE signing. Why should someone else be responsible for your actions? Secondly, pay the early termination fee and move on. The contract is with the carriers, not Apple. Buy a different phone and use it, there's no termination fee as long as you stay with the carrier. You're not limited to using the iphone for an entire 2 years. There's no contract if you purchased it unsubsidized at full price from Apple.
Arguing over what Apple can and can't do with their store is just nonsense. I don't agree with everything they do, but I have enough sense to choose something else if it bothers me that much. So far, for me personally, I'm ok with their sandbox and I'm the first person at the refund line when I'm not satisfied with something I buy.
So Apple should be forced to sell Android phones in their store? They should be forced to sell everything that anyone could possibly ask for? they should be forced to sell software even if it has a backdoor?
Your concept of 'restriction of trade' is ridiculous. Apple has their own store and can sell whatever they want. If you don't want to agree to the terms, buy something else.
It's even more amazing to me that you insist on posting about subjects you don't understand.
Flattr's site says:
"There’s a brave new world filled with entertainment, news and tools made by everyone, and not just the big guys. This new world deserves your support.
Simply click on Flattr buttons on blogs and websites. Creators can make a decent living, because if lots of us do this, sums add up quickly and can keep a blog or a useful piece of software going."
It's not supporting charities.