wonkothesane

I think that the potential savings on Apple’s side are not only driven by the cost of the charger/earbuds, but also by halving the packaging height and hence reducing (packaging and) logistics costs.

Personally, I like the idea of adding a voucher that entitles you pick up a charger for free. 

What I find personally the most disgusting is that once you become (too?) successful exactly because of how you do things there will always be bozos that twist the facts such that you owe them. Pathetic at best in case of individuals. Totally unacceptable for organizations that claim amongst other things to have enough technical expertise to judge stuff. 

I look at it from a win-win perspective: I guess some more margin for Apple and less yet-another-charger -/headphone set in my drawer. Oh, and less footprint as well, if you like. I’m good with this. 

canukstorm said:

agilealtitude said:

"Does the world's largest company really get to decide how millions of other businesses can interact with their own customers?“

Yes they can, because it is their ecosystem. Maybe you should have read their guidelines before developing the world’s umpteenth email app and submitting it to the App Store. 

You obviously didn't understand what the hell is  talking about.  Did you actually read the original post?  Here's the entire context surrounding that sentence;

"But personally, as the owner of a business, this isn’t just about money. Money grabs the headlines, but there’s a far more elemental story here. It's about the absence of choice, and how Apple forcibly inserts themselves between your company and your (the developer's) customer.

Does the world’s largest company really get to decide how millions of other businesses (ie: developers) can interact with their own (again, referring to developers')  customers? In fact, Apple’s policy distances you from your customer."

His implication is, is that with respect to the app or service, the consumer is the developer's customer not Apple's and that the developer has the right, without interference, to manage the relationship between the developer and user of the app or service.  And he has a good point.  And you can bet that the coming investigation or hearing will take this into account.  The major issue is not the 30% cut although no doubt that will play a part in it as well.  

I don’t get the last part, at least not fully. How does the fact that commercially The end customer deals with Apple stop the customer from dealing with the developer directly when it’s about app support? Granted, the dev cannot easily provide user specific discounts - but to my knowledge even that is possible today. On the other hand, the App Store protects a customer from fraudulent or subpar apps in that Apple will decide that you can get your money back if a purchase doesn’t do what it claims. At least, this is my experience in the one or two cases over a decade when I asked my money back. 

lonestar1 said:

benji888 said:

I’m glad for this lawsuit and I hope it makes headway!!!

I hate this free app, but have to buy loot boxes (or something else) to get anywhere in the game. Words with friends has even taken this on, wish it had a non-cheat mode so I can just play the game with other non-cheaters...I don’t know if someone is beating me because they are good at it or because they use the cheats.

Poor dear. Who forced you to buy it?

Hundreds of thousands are dead from Covid-19, people are protesting about legalized murder, and a major concern in your life is the fear that someone might be cheating in a video game? 

Well, based on your statement basically any thread here in this forum covers a first world problem.