docbburk

rcfa said:

StrangeDays said:

The thing with mandating outside in-app payments - it enables devs to deploy a free app but require an IAP to unlock functionality. Thus if using the mall metaphor, as landlord Apple provides the developer retailers with a free mall and customer base, while getting $0 in rent.

Unless Apple can still require a % of the IAP, regardless of what mechanism is used for the transaction? Still, gets more complicated for users than a single point of purchasing, credit card storage, billing customer service, etc. 

In effect not much changes: I e.g. have a Netflix subscription since long before the AppStore. I never paid for it through the AppStore, Netflix’ app is free to download, and I can still log into my account and use all paid features without Apple getting a dime.

Given that this was long an option without Apple making a fuss about it, I don’t expect massive changes. Probably app developers can show a link to a web site where people can sign up for services, rather than relying on people figuring it out on their own. Not exactly a big deal.

Allowing sideloading would have been overdue. While I agree Apple should be able to decide what App it wants to associate with its brand in a branded AppStore (e.g. no porn), they should not have the right to decide what uses users put their devices to, after they paid squarely and fairly for them. But without sideloading, Apple’s brand decisions become decisions on what users my do with their devices, and THAT needs to stop.

avon b7 said:

genovelle said:

I guess these people miss the point. Apple has total control over their store, because it is THIER Store. Build the store you make the rules. Apple can’t dictate how Walmart runs even though they sell Apple stuff. The store doesn’t make sense if it doesn’t make money and would become a liability and no longer an asset. Apple is tolerating this situation because there are far more appreciative developers than greedy whiners and understand that many depend on Apple to maintain the store. 

Maybe Apple should develop a second store that is WebApp based does not use their APIs and allows everything they want. No promotion from Apple. no access to Apple’s payment system or other support. Developers would choose which type of account they prefer and that’s that

These people aren't missing the point. Their point seems to have strong legal legs right now.

We will have to wait and see which way regulators ultimately swing but if Apple is making concessions in the face of all the complaints, I'd say even Apple itself isn't quite so sure of its case.

Walmart has no place in any reasonable analogy. For that to be, Walmart would have to be the only store that existed and be able to prevent other stores from existing/ competing.