- Last Active
CheeseFreeze said:Apple’s arguments on third party payment providers is a little nonsensical. It’s up to the consumer to decide to work with MasterCard, VISA etc; these are all payment options that are used world-wide, and proven.
Heck, even Apple built their own system - Apple Pay - based on credit-cards, to reduce payment friction and get more control over digital transaction revenues.
The reason why they don’t allow for Apple Pay within their digital goods store, and allow direct credit card payment by having developers offer that directly has nothing to do with the security argument. Their primary concern is simply money - their precious 30%. Apple should just admit that and be honest about it.
The natural result of a singular payment option, is control, which indeed leads to a more cohesive payment experience and fewer fraud cases. But it’s not their starting point! That’s just marketing bullocks to defend their abusive monopoly.
The answer is simple: allow side-loading on their “amazingly secure operating system” and when side-loading is initiated, inform the consumer that Apple cannot vouch for the payment options provided and does not offer any support with payment (they should go to the vendor). Keep their previous App Store and their 30%.
In 2021, the consumer needs choice. That is the Apple App Store or side-loading. There is nothing scary about that, and Apple has no rights to play mommy and daddy over my own choices.I wouldn’t want to be forced in renting a house from one of the 2 landlords in the world either and having to accept their terms. That would spark outrage, but for some reason this forum feels Apple is entitled to be the exception.
Per someone’s comment on another forum; as for Tim’s point: why is Apple’s return on its IP any more important than a developer’s return in its IP?At some point, the outlet of purchase has to shut up and go away. Walmart shouldn’t get a cut of every slice of bread I buy for the toaster I bought there.
This isn’t black and white; it is serving Apple to mislead us into thinking it is. They can spin off the App Store, remove in-app purchase restrictions (or make their in-app offering more competitive to where developers will use it out of desire rather than force), and they can provide the same security benefits to iOS without being anticompetitive.You heard it in plainspeak straight from the source; in-app purchase restrictions are about Apple’s money only, competition be damned.
Well started. Sweeney is so full of himself and BS. I guess he thinks we aren’t smart enough to see through his giant stream of BS. Allowing him to get his way will actually make our phones less secure. No thanks. If I wanted that, I’d get an Android. I hope the judge sees through his crap screen too.
rob53 said:I guess none of you realize every country, especially the US, is involved in computer espionage on a daily basis. Before you complain about the Chinese or Russians check out the NSA, CIA and many others.