thrang

Wir fahren fahren fahren auf der Autobahn...

indieshack said:

So, a 1TB option, a better camera, same lightning connector and a slightly faster SoC. 

Pass. Another Apple yawn fest.

You and the 37 other people with the same insight can go hang out in the Microsoft Store.... oh wait...

avon b7 said:

thrang said:

I never understood carving out one component of a company and calling it a monopoly (or having monopolistic tactics)

The app stores are one component of a product feature set and capabilities. and of a companies overall strategy and ecosystem. They have every right to control access and monetization.

If the app store fees were so egregious, developers will look elsewhere, or consumers wouldn't pay the prices. Perhaps web-based applications would become more prominent, or another company launches products/services to capitalize on a perceived achilles heal. But that doesn't happen. Because virtually NO ONE, of the billions of users around the world, is screaming for change. And most developers wouldn't even exist, or their net profits much smaller, WITHOUT the stores.

If Epic and a handful of others don't like it, who gives a shit? 

Why in the world should any platform developer give free access and distribution, or lessen security, interoperability, or ease of use, for any reason? It's like someone suing Walmart to gain access to their retail floor to sell their products without paying for floor space, or giving Walmart any margin, but expecting Walmart to mange their inventory and point of sale - and marketing - for free. And giving them factory tooling (ie developer tools and support) to boot.

I DON'T WANT side loading on iOS. That's nuts, and if anyone thinks through what that means in terms of security or loss of interoperability/functionality, and potential harm from data sharing between users, you would readily see the stupidity. And who pays for the inevitable increase in support issues in this mixed environment world? How is Apple's reputation harmed if they start telling people they can't help them, and they indirectly are stained as being less than consumer friendly?

Mental midgetry in full force here.

If iOS were a completely encapsulated platform you wouldn't see any complaints from anyone. It would literally be a case of our way or the highway.

However, iOS isn't a completely encapsulated platform. It has an existential dependence on outside contact and largely through the App Store.

When your tentacles reach outside your own realm you become subject to all manner of outside regulations. You simply can't operate commercially without accommodating those rules and regulations. 

Now, it does not have to mean the end of the world. Personally, I can see a situation whereby Apple might be able to have its cake and eat it. 

Simply make users sign off on acceptance of what they are giving up but prior to purchase. 

Of course, and in spite of what many here would have you believe, I'm sure that the vast majority of users don't have the slightest idea of what control Apple has over their commercial Interests. Apple knows this too and I believe they would rather bow to external rulings on the App Store instead of having to spell out in clear language what they are denying users. 

And remember, alternative App Stores mean competition. There is no obligation to use them. 

If users are so content with the current situation and understand the current restrictions, they would have no reason to stop using the App Store. 

Sorry, this is mostly gobbledygook and you are just ignoring the points raised. How many businesses have "encapsulated platforms" where there is no interaction with outside suppliers? I'd venture to say none, really.

This is an Apple-built ecosystem, with countless billions and billions of dollars invested in it over the decades, and they are defining the parameters of participation within that ecosystem. Apple is not attempting to define or alter how businesses operate outside their ecosystem (ie, where some company might pressure a supplier to not do business with another company to harm that competitor beyond ethical free market functions)

Simply, the app store is a feature of the devices they sell, but one that is only monetized if you use it. The App store is useless without the reliance on their devices. It's a component, a subset, a feature.

Returning to my aforementioned Walmart; if they keep demanding lower and lower prices from their suppliers, those suppliers can choose to figure out a way to do so and stay profitable, or stop doing business with Walmart. That is a operational business decision, not something to legislate. Fundamentally, if the engagement terms are onerous, partners and/or customers bolt.

But of course, Apple perhaps is one of the most successful company's of all time, and still growing, because the opposite occurs. Partners and people are highly attracted to it, in numbers that are dizzying. I would speculate more than 95% of the developers making money form the App store would simply exist without it. 

And other companies are fine not selling through the App Stores and keeping all the revenue raised by selling direct. Almost all of Adobe is that way. That's an option lest we forget.

But Adobe is a company with a broad array of vertical and somewhat unique products, with their own investment in features and interoperability that almost no other company has surpassed, and with a strong professional and corporate base. So they have made the investments that they can leverage and sell direct. By contrast, Spotify has much less to offer from a breadth of product and feature set perspective. And after initially growing post 2018 cessation of Apple-transacted selling, they are down 30% YTD with reported weaker subscriber growth. So to save the 15% fee to Apple (second and subsequent years for subscription sales) and more direct exposure to selling via the App Store, Spotify chose to keep 100% of a shrinking number.

Finally, you should know that opening up sideloading of apps brings a host of issues, some of which I mentioned. Even if you don't use sideloaded apps, if others in your circle do and you are transmitted data that may have compromising code, you are compromised in some way. Or if your information is harvested from a friends contact list, or photo library, or Notes, or Messages or Mail, or whatever, you are compromised. Could sideloaded access the camera or microphone without your knowledge? Sure.

The platform would become far less secure and private. Apple would be forced to block sideloaded apps from accessing many features and data repositories on the phone to protect against that, the overall iPhone/iOS experience become bifurcated, cumbersome, and far less pleasurable, and Apple is potentially harmed with significance. 

It's stupid.

So, rather, someone else build a better phone and system and have a go go at it.

How about Microsoft? Oh, wait.... Maybe Sony. Hmm, well.... Maybe an Epic phone? With fantastic gaming, to shove it Apple's pipe? What about Amazon?

Nah, why spend billions to do hard work when one can argue they are unfairly treated by Apple and cry to a headline-starving media and technologically illiterate politicians.

That's easier. And FREE.

If they do an earnings call, the first spot should go to Scarlett Johansson....

I never understood carving out one component of a company and calling it a monopoly (or having monopolistic tactics)

The app stores are one component of a product feature set and capabilities. and of a companies overall strategy and ecosystem. They have every right to control access and monetization.

If the app store fees were so egregious, developers will look elsewhere, or consumers wouldn't pay the prices. Perhaps web-based applications would become more prominent, or another company launches products/services to capitalize on a perceived achilles heal. But that doesn't happen. Because virtually NO ONE, of the billions of users around the world, is screaming for change. And most developers wouldn't even exist, or their net profits much smaller, WITHOUT the stores.

If Epic and a handful of others don't like it, who gives a shit? 

Why in the world should any platform developer give free access and distribution, or lessen security, interoperability, or ease of use, for any reason? It's like someone suing Walmart to gain access to their retail floor to sell their products without paying for floor space, or giving Walmart any margin, but expecting Walmart to mange their inventory and point of sale - and marketing - for free. And giving them factory tooling (ie developer tools and support) to boot.

I DON'T WANT side loading on iOS. That's nuts, and if anyone thinks through what that means in terms of security or loss of interoperability/functionality, and potential harm from data sharing between users, you would readily see the stupidity. And who pays for the inevitable increase in support issues in this mixed environment world? How is Apple's reputation harmed if they start telling people they can't help them, and they indirectly are stained as being less than consumer friendly?

Mental midgetry in full force here.