Some developers opposed to the practice claim Apple's placements are hurting business. ... the customer experience suffers when purchasing through the App Store, saying, "When you buy with the developer, they have a relationship with you ... when you buy from Apple: sorry, you're Apple's customer, not ours, and if you have a problem with a subscription we can't really help them." Read on AppleInsider
Why would developers think, in their wildest imaginations, that I would trust a small developer when I can't trust big developers with my personal information, like FaceBook? How stupid can they be? If they want my money they can go through Apple.
Your opinion is irrelevant in the sense that every developer in a world of duopoly should have the rights to directly engage with their customers and build insights around them, rather than being blocked through Apple. I actually consciously purchase directly from developers - especially professional software - to not only support them, but also benefit from more direct customer support with a thorough understanding of their customer base. Apple does not provide the same experience and support by a long shot.
So by this logic Walmart shouldn't be able to advertise for a product they sell in stores when it's also available on the manufacturer's website, because they're making money that the manufacturer could have instead.
I seriously don't get this argument from Epic, et al.
The difference is that Walmart is not the only retailer in the world, like Apple/Google being the only large players in the space. Walmart doesn’t have world dominance. Manufacturers use dozens of retailers to sell their goods.
Furthermore, Walmart still allows customers to engage directly with the manufacturer of the purchase (e.g toys, equipment) and in fact they rely on the manufacturers consumer warranties and support next to their own standard TOS.
"When you buy with the developer, they have a relationship with you ... when you buy from Apple: sorry, you're Apple's customer, not ours, and if you have a problem with a subscription we can't really help them."
Ok, I don’t want a relationship with the developer. I want to buy what they are selling. That should not give them the right to know me, or contact me. I like my privacy. I can contact you if I need you. Thanks
So by this logic Walmart shouldn't be able to advertise for a product they sell in stores when it's also available on the manufacturer's website, because they're making money that the manufacturer could have instead.
I seriously don't get this argument from Epic, et al.
The difference is that Walmart is not the only retailer in the world, like Apple/Google being the only large players in the space. Walmart doesn’t have world dominance. Manufacturers use dozens of retailers to sell their goods.
Furthermore, Walmart still allows customers to engage directly with the manufacturer of the purchase (e.g toys, equipment) and in fact they rely on the manufacturers consumer warranties and support next to their own standard TOS.
Your comparison is way off.
Not sure what hole you pulled this "world dominance" rule from, but developers are free to develop software and market it via any platform they choose. They are not required to sell only on the App Store, Google Play Store, or any other store. Many developers, including Epic, Spotify, and the rest of these idiots crying foul, create apps for multiple platforms and the web.
This was litigated ad nauseum in the Epic case, and Epic lost. Time to move on.
And you're seriously using Walmart as an example to support your ridiculous "word dominance" logic? WTF.
It is the "secret" part of this story that is so alarming. If Apple was really trying to help their developers, this would be something they would use in their developer marketing. Apple never mentioned this program even once before it became public knowledge.
It is the "secret" part of this story that is so alarming. If Apple was really trying to help their developers, this would be something they would use in their developer marketing. Apple never mentioned this program even once before it became public knowledge.
What "secret" part? Only un-named parties and Forbes said there was something "secret". That does not make it true.
On the flip side, Apple stated they discuss it with the developers.
Some developers opposed to the practice claim Apple's placements are hurting business. ... the customer experience suffers when purchasing through the App Store, saying, "When you buy with the developer, they have a relationship with you ... when you buy from Apple: sorry, you're Apple's customer, not ours, and if you have a problem with a subscription we can't really help them." Read on AppleInsider
Why would developers think, in their wildest imaginations, that I would trust a small developer when I can't trust big developers with my personal information, like FaceBook? How stupid can they be? If they want my money they can go through Apple.
Your opinion is irrelevant in the sense that every developer in a world of duopoly should have the rights to directly engage with their customers and build insights around them, rather than being blocked through Apple. I actually consciously purchase directly from developers - especially professional software - to not only support them, but also benefit from more direct customer support with a thorough understanding of their customer base. Apple does not provide the same experience and support by a long shot.
They do not. I am the customer, and I have the right to decide if I want engagement with the developer.
AND - Apple doesn't provide supper for ANY non-Apple apps in the App Store. Users have always been required to go to the developer for app support.
Your statement about support relationships is irrelevant.
So by this logic Walmart shouldn't be able to advertise for a product they sell in stores when it's also available on the manufacturer's website, because they're making money that the manufacturer could have instead.
I seriously don't get this argument from Epic, et al.
The difference is that Walmart is not the only retailer in the world, like Apple/Google being the only large players in the space. Walmart doesn’t have world dominance. Manufacturers use dozens of retailers to sell their goods.
Furthermore, Walmart still allows customers to engage directly with the manufacturer of the purchase (e.g toys, equipment) and in fact they rely on the manufacturers consumer warranties and support next to their own standard TOS.
Your comparison is way off.
Apple/Google being the "only" large players in the space (the World) is only true if you think Google control all of Android, like how Apple controls all of iOS. That's not even close to being true, but it seems that you think so.
There are dozens of app stores to develop for with-in Android, that Google do not control nor get a commission from its sales.
There are about the same amount of Android mobile OS users in China, than there are iOS users world wide and none of them connected to Google except by the open source Android fork used in China.
Not all developers develop for the US market nor limited to develop for the US. So when a developer develops for Android, they are not necessarily developing for Google, just because Android (which most surveys includes all the Android forks) is on 73% of the Worlds mobile devices. In China, there is no Apple/Google duopoly. And that might account for 30% of mobile devices using Android.
Comments
I actually consciously purchase directly from developers - especially professional software - to not only support them, but also benefit from more direct customer support with a thorough understanding of their customer base. Apple does not provide the same experience and support by a long shot.
Your comparison is way off.
This was litigated ad nauseum in the Epic case, and Epic lost. Time to move on.
And you're seriously using Walmart as an example to support your ridiculous "word dominance" logic? WTF.
On the flip side, Apple stated they discuss it with the developers.
AND - Apple doesn't provide supper for ANY non-Apple apps in the App Store. Users have always been required to go to the developer for app support.
Your statement about support relationships is irrelevant.
There are dozens of app stores to develop for with-in Android, that Google do not control nor get a commission from its sales.
https://42matters.com/blog/?p=the-best-of-2020-a-list-of-app-stores-for-android-apps
Android forks like the Amazon Fire OS has a decent marketshare in the US, even though the Google Play Store is not part of it.
https://www.techradar.com/news/fireos-does-amazons-software-compete-with-android
And then there are the app stores in China, where Google has no presence at all, with the Android forks used on China phones.
https://www.appinchina.co/blog/how-to-publish-my-app-in-china/
https://as-pacific.com/en/blogs/mobile-applications-in-china/
There are about the same amount of Android mobile OS users in China, than there are iOS users world wide and none of them connected to Google except by the open source Android fork used in China.
https://www.chinainternetwatch.com/31147/mobile-internet-users/
Not all developers develop for the US market nor limited to develop for the US. So when a developer develops for Android, they are not necessarily developing for Google, just because Android (which most surveys includes all the Android forks) is on 73% of the Worlds mobile devices. In China, there is no Apple/Google duopoly. And that might account for 30% of mobile devices using Android.
It's your compassion that is way off.