cropr

mjtomlin said:

"Thousands of apps on the App Store approved by Apple accept direct payments, including commonly used apps like Amazon, Grubhub, Nike SNKRS, Best Buy, DoorDash, Fandango, McDonald's, Uber, Lyft, and StubHub. We think all developers should be free to support direct payments in all apps."

Is that what you think? Haha. These types of developers are nothing more than parasites.

Look, I get it and think Apple needs to do something about how the App Store is run, but these developers who want what amounts to a free ride are just being greedy and stupid. It is App Store revenue that allows Apple to give away free OS upgrades, which in turn allows Apple to push the platform (and developers) forward.

Maybe Apple should create tiered fees for their Developer Program?
$99/year to develop apps sold through the App Store - Apple gets their 30% cut. Basically the same as it is now.
$999,999/year to develop apps sold via outside payment system - Apple gets nothing extra.

Some of these larger developers could easily cover a million a year. And smaller developers can still start with a hundred dollar fee and if/when their app takes off, switch to the higher tier.

1. Of the 11 apps that I put on the App Store, 7 are loss making, 2 are about break even and 1 is making a nice profit.  This last app is profitable because it is multi-platform and because I can avoid the 30% Apple tax by charging the customer directly. 
   
2. If I would only make a iOS version of my apps, all my apps would be loss making.   Developing an app simultaneously for iOS, Android and Web costs roughly 40% more than making it for iOS only, but the revenues are more than double. So the "fact" that Apple is offering me the market I was dreaming of, is a fake fact
   
3. One of my colleague app business owners had spent 40.000 Euro in developing a new app, when Apple announced a change in its app developing guidelines.  His app could no longer pass the approval and he went broke 3 months later.   This is the business reality that you fail to understand.

wizard69 said:

This is a prime example of the EU's obsession with successful American companies.    Frankly i think the goverment here in the USA needs to take a more active roll in adressing this harassment.     In the end that is exactly what it is.   

By the way iagree with Google, links to other search sites just waste my time.  The last thing we need is crappy service from Google because the EU can't compete.  

MacPro said:

It must be a nightmare for Android developers when so few users update and so many versions of the OS out there on so many disparate types of hardware.

AppleInsider said:

Finally, Google calls RCS an industry standard. Which it isn't, not even close. Google hasn't even adopted RCS across all of its disparate messaging platforms.

mjtomlin said:

dipdog3 said:

Many VNC apps stream live video and send back commands. You could buy the Golden Gate Bridge using a VNC App without giving Apple a cut. How is this any different?

Seriously!?

If I were Apple I would start revoking developer accounts for developers who promise things they clearly know is against the rules. Sorry, but ANY developer who’s serious about developing for iOS WOULD HAVE READ the contract and UNDERSTOOD what is or isn’t possible. And getting your fan base worked up in a tizzy should be an immediate cancellation of your developer account.

The guidelines have been in place since day one, in fact they’ve become more relaxed since then. There’s no reason ANY developer should attempt to step beyond those rules and hope for the best. Unless they think they can rally their fan base and try to force it. As I said, in that case, cancel their developer account. 

foodmetaphors said:

Yes, the Android folk who notoriously spend big money on anything

tundraboy said:

avon b7 said:

tundraboy said:

Right to repair laws can get really dumb. I can understand its benefit when it comes to cars*, but for compact electronic devices, it just benefits a handful of people at a cost that is charged to all buyers of the device.  The worst effect of such a law is when it starts to interfere with product design, forcing the company to make design compromises that sacrifice cost, quality, and performance.

*And even with cars, nobody insists that the electronic modules be repairable down to the level that is demanded of iPhones.  When a volume control knob on your car stereo breaks, are auto manufacturers required to make that replaceable, or is just offering a replacement stereo good enough?  I've had that happen to me and a replacement knob is not available, the only solution offered is to replace the whole unit.  An electronic device should be repairable to the same standard as that car stereo, not to the standard applied to the whole car.

The opposite argument applies too because the goals don't have to coincide. 

Cost? At what price? 
Design? What sacrifices against what benefits? 
Performance? What performance metrics?

Companies should be designing for repair.

If they think their products truly last (and are built to last) why do companies like Apple offer such poor warranties out of the gate?

Often requiring external legislation to set minimum warranty periods. The Answer is that 'price' or 'cost' falls squarely on the consumer (both in and out of warranty). 'In warranty' via Applecare or similar systems and 'out of warranty' through poor design decisions that actually impede or dissuade repair due to complexity and/or price and parts availability (lack of, that is to say). 

Tradeoffs abound in any situation but things need to be re-thought to put the paying consumer centre stage. 

If you think IP68 protection is necessary - then back it up under warranty. Simple. Don't say 'you should be fine if it ever happens but your on your own if it fails'. The point here is that it almost always does not happen. I think I've only ever known of two cases of water immersion personally. 

IP68 ratings are questionable design choices at best. Water resistance is a better solution along with things like nano coatings which have been around for years. 

User replaceable batteries should not require a special suitcase full of tools and instructions.

Thickness you say? Take a look at this folding phone (it will be released next week) and imagine how 'thick' things would be if applied to some like an iPhone:

https://www.fonearena.com/blog/427645/honor-magic-v3-launch-date-magic-vs3-magicpad-2-magicbook-art-14.html

Performance is moot. Some would argue that a repairable phone 'performs' better because it can last longer between upgrades. 

And parts pairing should be authorised by the owner, not limited to Apple. 

The only reasonable way to reach these goals is through 'right to repair' legislation and that is what we are seeing. 

The EU directive is already making waves and surely being taken into consideration by manufacturers. Expect a lot of handwringing (and fines) if DMA compliance is anything to go by. Especially as the EU approach is actually part of a bigger initiative. 

Looks like your beef is not really about repairability but Apple's design choices not being the ones you would have made.  Battery replaceability, water proofing, thickness -- you laid out your preference about these things.  Unfortunately companies cannot cater to all consumers' preferences; Apple chose features that it deemed would appeal to the most number of potential customers.

Now the usual consumer response to a product that he doesn't like is to buy something else.  Your response is to demand that government pass a law that forces a company to deliver what you want.

I on the other hand believe that aside from safety considerations, governments should not be in the product design business.