Trey_Lance

darkvader said:

Trey_Lance said:

You can want that but I don’t want the security risk with my information on my phone. Why would you force that on me? Who the F are you? You can do all those things right now by jail breaking, just do that, don’t force it on the rest of the people and make all the phones a security risk.

There is a reason Apple Phones are proven to be the most secure, my company buy iPhones exactly for that reason 

All I'm asking for is a toggle in settings that says something like "Allow Installing Apps From non-Apple Sources". 

It can default to off.  It can have warnings about Apple's security concerns.  Your company can force it off on company-owned iPhones with a profile.  You don't ever have to turn it on if you don't want to.

Jailbreaking as it exists today adds security issues FAR beyond simply allowing app installation.  This would not be the same thing as jailbreaking, not even remotely.  It doesn't fundamentally change the iPhone's security in any way.

But it does need to be there.  It should have been there since the beginning.  And now, with Apple illegally exploiting their monopoly on iOS devices, hopefully the courts will force it to be there.  And I expect they will, if not the US courts, I expect the EU will fix the problem.

Again, if you don't want it, you wouldn't have to do a thing.  Don't flip the switch, stay in the walled garden.  Entirely your choice.

nicholfd said:

mr lizard said:

Just let developers link out to their own website from the app for payments already. If Apple’s confident in their IAP platform, then they won’t be concerned that customers won’t use it over the developers own system. 

Not being able to link out, and not even being able to tell the customer where to go to make payments outside of the app, is just childish and petty.  

So if you had a store, and you let me distribute my items in your store, you'd be ok with me putting a sign or label on my items, telling the buyers that they should buy the item somewhere else because it's cheaper, and avoid paying you a commission?  Does that make any sense?

darkvader said:

crowley said:

Well there goes the principle argument.

Oh, absolutely.  Epic isn't doing this for the good of everyone.  It's all about the money for them.

All we can hope for is that the outcome is good anyway - an end to Apple's app store monopoly.

I don't care if Apple charges devs 50% on their app store.  They can charge 90% as far as I'm concerned.  I just want the ability to load any app I want.  I want Firefox with the Gecko engine.  I want Pi-hole to be able to run on my iPhone so I can block domains even when I'm using cell data.  I want to be able to compile and install open source apps without having to have a paid dev account, and without having to reinstall once a week.

It's not Apple's iPhone.  It's MY iPhone.  It's not Apple's Apple TV, it's MY Apple TV.  The Apple app store walled garden should be an option for anyone who wants it, not the only option.

And before you say it, Android is a terrible alternative.  It's not a phone OS, it's a Google spy platform.

darkvader said:

crowley said:

Well there goes the principle argument.

Oh, absolutely.  Epic isn't doing this for the good of everyone.  It's all about the money for them.

All we can hope for is that the outcome is good anyway - an end to Apple's app store monopoly.

I don't care if Apple charges devs 50% on their app store.  They can charge 90% as far as I'm concerned.  I just want the ability to load any app I want.  I want Firefox with the Gecko engine.  I want Pi-hole to be able to run on my iPhone so I can block domains even when I'm using cell data.  I want to be able to compile and install open source apps without having to have a paid dev account, and without having to reinstall once a week.

It's not Apple's iPhone.  It's MY iPhone.  It's not Apple's Apple TV, it's MY Apple TV.  The Apple app store walled garden should be an option for anyone who wants it, not the only option.

And before you say it, Android is a terrible alternative.  It's not a phone OS, it's a Google spy platform.

darkvader said:

crowley said:

Well there goes the principle argument.

Oh, absolutely.  Epic isn't doing this for the good of everyone.  It's all about the money for them.

All we can hope for is that the outcome is good anyway - an end to Apple's app store monopoly.

I don't care if Apple charges devs 50% on their app store.  They can charge 90% as far as I'm concerned.  I just want the ability to load any app I want.  I want Firefox with the Gecko engine.  I want Pi-hole to be able to run on my iPhone so I can block domains even when I'm using cell data.  I want to be able to compile and install open source apps without having to have a paid dev account, and without having to reinstall once a week.

It's not Apple's iPhone.  It's MY iPhone.  It's not Apple's Apple TV, it's MY Apple TV.  The Apple app store walled garden should be an option for anyone who wants it, not the only option.

And before you say it, Android is a terrible alternative.  It's not a phone OS, it's a Google spy platform.

osmartormenajr said:

InspiredCode said:

This argument breaks down with in-app purchase. In-app purchase is for a store inside your own app. In this case the customer in *your* store may have become a customer somewhere outside the App Store, but the App Store still gets to be the middle man. Apple essentially gets to steal your customers in this scenario.

This is where things get complicated. This is why there is a lot of debate over market power and this needs to be hashed out within the public and courts to make sure it is fair. I think Apple could make things less complicated on their own (and they have in some ways) to make it more obvious that they are being fair and competitive. I love Apple, but I don't think they are at an ideal place yet on the store rules.

That’s because it’s just an analogy. All analogies break down if you look close enough. My only argument was at the very last sentence: this lawsuit is motivated by Apple financial success.

I also like Apple, that’s why a frequent this forums and engage with other people that hold similar tastes—if you ignore the trolls. But that is neither here nor there.

If not Apple, and by extension their customers, who “vote” with their wallets, who should get to make this decisions? Tech illiterate politicians, voicing the interest of lobbyists? Public servants that never have run any business whatsoever (I know, I’m a public servant myself)? Sorry to disagree, but my bet is on Apple itself. Remember the iBookStore case? That only helped consolidate Amazon monopoly.

Finally, I agree that commissions could be lower than 30 %. I think that’s a pretty popular opinion. Trouble is finding agreement in any other percentage whatsoever. Given the reported effective commission of less than 10 %—as we came to know because of the trial—which is a healthy profit for a high volume business, I’d say that Apple’s commissions are pretty much where they should be.

get serious said:

mr lizard said:

Just let developers link out to their own website from the app for payments already. If Apple’s confident in their IAP platform, then they won’t be concerned that customers won’t use it over the developers own system. 

Not being able to link out, and not even being able to tell the customer where to go to make payments outside of the app, is just childish and petty.  

Sure let the kids link out to a Russian/Nigerian Prince payment service or maybe child dating service the developer prefers.