svanstrom

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.  

So he wants to take away the relationship that I have paid quite a lot for (to Apple) to know that I'm getting good, safe/secure, apps via the Apple AppStore; with no problems with scammers (or stupid programmers getting hacked) stealing money from my account?

I'm paying a ridiculous amount of money to Apple to get the products/services that I'm getting, and I would personally prefer if not some entitled dipshit f*cks that up just because he personally is craving money and attention.

georgie01 said:

roake said:

Are the executives all millennials or something?

I don’t get how they feel entitled to be exempted from the rules.

“There is never in a million years a way that I am paying Apple a third of our revenues,” seems to translate to, “There is never in a million years a way that I am letting Apple Pay us all the money we would earn from having the App available for iOS.”

The sense of entitlement is embarrassing for Basecamp. ‘Hey Apple, we demand you let us use your development tools and app distribution which provides security and quality for users of your platform and which has made many developers a ton of money, but I don’t want to pay you for it because I deserve to use your services for free’.

It reminds me of a certain political group which seems to have no meaningful understanding of where money comes from, who think the government just ’has’ it. They do not realise that the people who are actually creating opportunities for themselves and others to make the money need incentives to do that.

Exactly. Incentives like future staff with an education, good health, easily can travel to work, can focus on doing a good job because good childcare being available. You know, a good functioning society providing the stability needed for creative ideas to grow into great businesses.

tenchi211 said:

If I get a bill saying that my kid spent $100 in downloads, SHAME ON ME for not keeping track of what he is playing. And yeah, I let my kid buy five or ten bucks in Roblux from time to time, but I always know when he attempts to make an in app purchase. Parents, DO YOUR JOB! Don’t expect Apple or anyone else to do it FOR you! My opinion, of course.

That statement assumes that it is reasonable that parents have the knowledge to configure the device with the proper restrictions; and whether or not that is a resonable expectation with the way Apple are currently shipping their software is what the courts now will decide.

The important thing to understand here isn't the Apple-specific situation, but rather that companies could do a lot to trick people into "accidentally" doing purchases; which means that legally there needs to be some sort of guidelines as far as what is trickery, and what is a reasonable level of making sure you as a company don't by complacency allow your customers to accidentally make unwanted purchases.

So if Apple make their products to be used by children, and allow some type of purchases to happen in relationship to that, then they end up with a legal obligation to one way or another make sure the parents easily understand how to control such purchases. And "parents" in this context doesn't mean some ideal parents with perfect tech competency, but the type of normal parents of the market that buy Apple products.

member1982 said:

laytech said:

As ever Australia years behind other countries, sadly. Still not available here. Australian’s as a population are early adopters of technology but archaic government delays progress.

I read a while back, Apple has not made any fillings for ECG to be listed on the ARTG, so as far as i am concerned, this has nothing to do with government delays.

the news report sources are from "Government Fillings" which Apple has to apply for this feature, they have not applied yet. I will still continue by yearly upgrade of the Apple Watch, so features like this doesn't really matter to me since I will still be upgrading.

Personally i have been waiting as well. the longest feature wait was for Apple Pay, that was very long.

Apple Pay was really fought by the Aussie banks, though. They reeeeeaaaaally didn't want any potential competitors taking away their control of the people.

xbit said:

Rayz2016 said:

Oh, the whining …

And I see the users in the UK trial are complaining about the battery drain, as predicted by just about everybody outside NHSX. 

Next step for the UK: a humiliating climb down smothered in a pack of lies designed to make it look as though this was the plan all along. 

“Our original system was designed to provide a test baseline for the eventual rollout of our app using the Apple/Google API. We are pleased to report that the real system, which we always planned to release, is working exactly as we intended.”

The elephant in the room is that Apple’s new API will only work on devices running the very latest version of iOS (and the same for Android). This kind of app requires mass adoption so Apple and Google new API is next to useless. 

NHSX were right to explore alternatives.

There's almost never anything wrong with exploring alternatives; but there's a difference between having a bunch of us nerds in a room arguing about best approaches, and butthurt politicians running to the press crying about how the evil tech giants won't allow them to track every person in the world.

As far as the new API being next to useless… well… at least people on the Apple-side of the isle are quite good at keeping their phones updated, and the app could simply launch a huge "push here to update your phone to a compatible level"-button if it isn't. So no need to call it "next to useless" before actually tried; because it could be just that level of extra needed to "flatten the curve" just right.