ITGUYINSD

castcore said:

I will be going to Costco and Safeway tomorrow  and ask them to clear up shelf space for me to sell my home made lemonade for free. After, I will goto local steakhouse and ask them to give me a free steak because they are the biggest and most profitable steak house in town!

You can sell your lemonade anywhere you want.   You can make a website and sell it and distribute it directly.  You can sell it from your home.  You can sell it at a farmers market in your town.  Or you can check other stores to get a lower rate to sell your lemonade.  You have that freedom. 

If your city had a law that said you cannot sell any goods in the town anywhere (not even online) except one city-run store, and that store demanded a 30% cut, wouldn't you think that is unfair?

The problem is, there is NO OTHER WAY to sell apps for i-devices than Apple's App Store as their own rules (and devices) restrict it.  Because of that, it does seem unfair to me that apps can't accept payment through other means than the App Store.  Maybe the app itself shouldn't be free so that Apple gets it's money, but once the app is sold, why should Apple continue to get revenue for everything purchased in the app?  Since you like analogies, how about you buy a car so that you can start making money doing Uber, Dashpass, etc.  But the car dealer demands a 30% cut of everything you make while you are driving the car they sold you?  Same thing.

AppleInsider said:

The OWC Thunderbolt 3 Mini Dock comes with two 4K HDMI connections as well as two USB 3.0, and Gigabit Ethernet. "The OWC Thunderbolt 3 mini Dock effectively utilizes your computer's Thunderbolt 3 40Gb/s capability to provide support for two displays up to 4096 x 2160 4K @ 60Hz without impacting performance," claims the company in a statement.

It actually has ONE USB 3.0 port and a USB 2.0 port.

hexclock said:

SpamSandwich said:

AppleZulu said:

I'm sure Mr. Hanks was surprised that what he said was spun into a slam on Apple. Of course he's heartbroken that his film isn't going to be shown in theaters. Up until a few months ago, he was always (at least since Bosom Buddies wrapped...) in the business of making movies to play on the big screen. Film studios are struggling to sort out what films to hold onto until theaters can reopen, what to send straight into the home market, and how to pace all that out, given that most film production has been at a standstill for months. 

Perhaps once a vaccine emerges to set us on a path to recovery, this will create an opportunity for lower-budget and independent films to fill an early gap, by virtue of being able to get from take one, scene one to general theatrical release much more quickly. 

Incidentally, a vaccine may never be developed according to Fauci and others. Better to just do your best to minimize spread and get on with your life.

Faucci has proven erratic, and unreliable at best. 

Not even close to true, but in his defense, the virus is novel and no one knows much about it in the 6 months it's been with us.  Who, in your opinion, is less erratic and more reliable with regards to the COVID-19?  

Spanading_returns said:

ITGUYINSD said:

lkrupp said:

Everybody wants free ride on Apple's amazingly successful platform. On both the Mac and iOS a developer is more likely to succeed financially if their products are in the App Store where it's easy to buy, install and pay for. But that's not good enough, they want free access or just a nominal fee. Most people don't know that grocery stores actually charge brands for shelf space in their stores. Don't pay, your product does not make it to the shelves. Grocery stores also sell their own branded products in competition with the name brands. Lots of retailers do the same thing but in Apple's case it's deemed anti-trust and anti-competitive.Go figure.

That's what you got out of reading the article, is that everybody wants a free ride?  I've not read anywhere that anyone thinks the App Store should be a free service to developers.  What is an issue is the mandatory 30% cut that Apple takes, and the inability of app companies to sell their own product without going through the App Store.

Your grocery store analogy doesn't really work here because there are more than one grocery store chains.  There is only one App Store.  If Grocery store A sets a 30% fee to sell a food item, and grocery store B sets a 10% fee, the manufacturer has a choice and can sell at store B.  There is no choice in the Apple ecosystem.  That is the problem, not that everybody wants a free ride.

It’s not like comparing two grocery stores, it’s like comparing selling the goods yourself on a market stall as opposed to selling it through a distributor who takes care of marketing, excess stock losses, payment management, distibution and quality control of your product for you. All of which costs. 

That's another analogy that works, except there isn't a "market stall" available for iPhone apps as an alternative to a distributor (Apple).  If there were other ways to market and sell iPhone apps, that creates competition and lower fees as developers search for the lowest cost to distribute their app.  

darren mccoy said:

What about Microsofts Xbox? There's only one store on there, why can't I buy software from someone else on my Xbox?

I buy XBOX games from Amazon and Best Buy.  There is also Walmart, Target, and hundreds of other places.  Where can you get iPhone apps but the App Store?