Respite

About

Banned
Username
Respite
Joined
Visits
6
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
239
Badges
0
Posts
111

Reactions

129Like0Dislike22Informative

  • Apple will allow third-parties in the EU access to the iPhone NFC chip

    RespiteRespite
    studiomusic said:
    ctt_zh said:
    omasou said:
    Charge a license fee to use the technology or like MC and Visa charge a per transaction fee + percentage.
    MC and Visa only charge a fee when they're providing a service don't they? What service would Apple be providing in this instance to warrant charging a fee / percentage? 

    Building, maintaining, and selling the actual device this is used on?
    Or was that free for Apple to make this platform available?
    A service Apple provided to the banks was selling the iPhone to the customer?

    That's a very weird way of looking at the world.
    ctt_zh

  • Apple Vision Pro storage and AppleCare prices revealed

    RespiteRespite
    byronl said:
    The base version should be AT LEAST 512gb for that price...
    What are you planning on storing on yours?
    watto_cobra

  • YouTube and Spotify also won't offer any apps on Apple Vision Pro

    RespiteRespite
    “But… but… but…, it’s because Netflix just hates apple!”

    LOL

    ITS BUSINESS. 

    The ROI just isn’t there for headsets. 
    What is the business value received by disallowing an existing iPad app to operate on AVP? 
    Since I’m not those companies. I can’t say for sure, but putting myself in their shoes, it’s pretty simple:

    the iPad app was designed for iPad. The Vision Pro is not the iPad. It’s a headset that requires more thought, creativity, and entirely new UX in order to not be an embarrassment when put up against Disney (for example), who has put the investment in. 

    you might counter with “well it’s it’s more embarassing to not even have an app.” But that’s not true. When the browser experience basically mirrors the app, only with even more features, the app doesn’t need to exist. Sure, it’s a little faster to tap an app icon than to navigate to a favorite on your browser, but that’s not a major deal when you’re looking at having an apples to apple comparison between a dedicated app designed specifically to take advantage of a device versus sloppily propping up your app made for an entirely different device. 

    Rather than looking like the sloppy companies that don’t know how to make an app, they bar their tablet app from being used on a headset and point to the already excellent browser option instead. 

    But if the vp becomes a viable market, you can bet Netflix, Spotify, YouTube, etc. will have dedicated apps. 
    "browser experience basically mirrors the app, only with even more features"? 

    No it doesn't.  Higher resolutions are often app dependant and browser will be massively inferior if anyone plans on using the VP while travelling, which has been mentioned by some as a use case.  You need the download and offline viewing, which is enabled by the app.
    watto_cobra

  • Apple's App Store anti-steering rules are gone, but the replacement isn't much better

    RespiteRespite
    davidw said:
    Respite said:
    The judge should have simply said anti-steering is not allowed for ELIGIBLE purchases. Meaning Spotify or Netflix can link to outside payments for their subscriptions, but normal IAP (like tokens in a game) still have to remain in-App.
    What do you mean eligible?

    You've always been able to buy Fortnite currency outside of iOS, Apple don't prohibit that.

    Not quite. The way it works with digital currency with nearly all IAP in games, is that the players (of certain games) can only spend the digital currency purchased on a certain platform, only when playing on that platform.

    In other words, when playing Fortnite on a PlayStation, the only Fortnite Bucks available are the ones you purchased using a PlayStation. If you also have an Xbox, any Fortnite Bucks you purchased on the Xbox  platform, can not be spent while playing Fortnite on a PlayStation.

    This makes perfect sense for MS, Sony, Nintendo, Apple and Google For example, why should MS allow their Xbox players to use the free Xbox app to play Fortnite, while allowing them to spend Fortnite Bucks that were purchased on another platform, from which MS did not earn a commission from? Or even worse, discounted Fortnite Bucks on Epic own website. If this were the case, all Fortnite players would just purchase the discounted Fortnite Bucks from Epic, while not paying a commission to the platform owners on which they are playing Fortnite using a free app.

    Purchases that do transfer across platforms are the purchases paid with Fortnite Bucks. For example, if you purchased $20 in Fortnite Bucks ($10 in real dollars) on an Xbox and spent $10 in Fortnite Bucks for a cool outfit, MS got their 30% commission ($3 in real dollars) for the purchase of $20 in Fortnite Bucks and the cool outfit you purchase will be available on all the platforms you play Fortnite on (logged your account) but the $10 in Fortnite Bucks you have left over can only be spent while playing on the Xbox. It would be unfair for Sony if you were able use the left over $10 (in Fortnite Bucks) on a PlayStation as Sony did not get any commission for that $10 (in Fortnite Bucks).

    MS, Sony and Nintendo gets "paid" for hosting the free Fortnite app on their platform, from the commission they earn on the purchase of Fortnite Bucks using the free Fortnite app on their platform. Why shouldn't Apple and Google get "paid" for hosting the free Fortnite app on their platform?

    This is/was also true for mobile platforms (Android and iOS). But by offering iOS and Android Fortnite Bucks outside their app stores, it got Epic kicked out of the Apple and Google Play apps stores.


    So "always" wasn't too long and surely it wasn't before Epic violated apps stores policies. And if you were following the Epic vs Apple case, the Judge forced Epic to pay Apple the commission from the sale of Fortnite Bucks outside of the Apple App Store. It seems that iOS users that already had the Fortnite app downloaded were still able play Fortnite and continue to purchase Fortnite Bucks from Epic website. But the Fortnite app could not be updated to the latest game play.


    And if you followed closely on what was happening when Epic made discounted Fortnite Bucks available to iOS (that got them kicked out of the Apple App Store), Epic had to discount Fortnite Bucks on all platforms by the same 20%. This to be fair to players on platforms by MS, Sony and Nintendo. So not only did Epic have to pay back Apple their 30% commission on all the Fortnite Bucks sold on their own website, they loss 20% on the sale of Fortnite Bucks on all platforms, while this was going on.

    Add this to the Judge ruling that Epic must pay Apple legal fees (at least some of it), how can one not be a Nelson Muntz and yell out ..... Ha-Ha .... while pointing at Sweeney.

     



    You have a real talent for pushing into conversations and zeroing in with laser focus on the periphery of the point.  Notwithstanding the fact that what you've said is largely incorrect, Fortnite currency is transferrable across all platforms except the Nintendo Switch (and iOS, obvs).

    You were always able to buy Fortnite currency outside of iOS and you can buy Fortnite game content outside of iOS. My question was what ericthehalfbee meant by eligible.
    tht

  • Apple's App Store anti-steering rules are gone, but the replacement isn't much better

    RespiteRespite
    The judge should have simply said anti-steering is not allowed for ELIGIBLE purchases. Meaning Spotify or Netflix can link to outside payments for their subscriptions, but normal IAP (like tokens in a game) still have to remain in-App.
    What do you mean eligible?

    You've always been able to buy Fortnite currency outside of iOS, Apple don't prohibit that.
    tht