cjlacz

Pascalxx said:

This sounds like Epic has a separate developer account for their Unreal Engine team which is marketed under a separate entity and Apple has threated to close both accounts, despite only one violating the App Store rules. So maybe they have a case after all?

What I remember reading in the past is that the tax id (?) and emails on the accounts are identical. If your corporate identifiers are the same, then the accounts are under the same company. If SARL is really a different company not under epic shouldn't it have a different tax id? Personally, I think I agree with Apple pulling all the accounts with the same IDs. I'm not sure I'm against the judge ordering restoration of the SARL account, which is what it sounds like. It basically only means they get official access back to the dev tools and the normal App Store support tools I think. They'd probably get in trouble again if they tried to move Fortnite to the SARL account. 

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.  

He does have a point, but I'm not really sure it's to the benefit of the customer.  For an app like Hey.com that requires I subscribe to the service I *want* to be able to subscribe through my Apple account if I download app rather than be force to put my credit card number on their site and manage another subscription from yet another location. This is why Apple has the rule in place, but that option benefits the consumer. In some ways it benefits the developer too, but I won't try most applications that would require me to add billing details external to the app when it's basically paying for a feature or service of the app. For something like Hey, if I used it long time, I'd might change my payment method if I decide to make it my main email so that's it is independent of the App Store, but by god, I want the options to subscribe in the app to start with. 

I don't really agree with him either that the customer is the developer's customer. I use an iPhone because I like the management of the App Store. I enjoy the quality of the apps and the usability of the system. That includes managing payments through Apple. Buying an iPhone or iPad is an agreement between Apple and I that the store is managed well, and that it's designed to work well for me as a customer. So yes, Apple has a place putting themselves in the middle. 

I originally thought he might have a valid point when this all started, but the more he talks the worse is sounds. And after reading the App Store guidelines, I think Apple's argument is the right one. If they added support for imap and pop3, so it actually can work like an email client out of the box, then yes, the subscription could be handled outside of apple. But as an App that doesn't work until you buy a subscription to a service, there MUST be a way for the consumer to purchase it inside the app. This is different from he reader category of apps. You aren't buying content elsewhere, you are purchasing a service as a requirement to get a working app. 

I kind of laughed at this video.  First calling it an 'honest review'. Calling the AirPods garbage. Whatever you think, they aren't garbage. Then oohing and aahing over the release of the AirPod Pros so much. He's still seeing them with rose colored glasses I don't see how I can take this video seriously.

I wish they'd stop saying this 'saved a life'. 'potentially saved a life' or 'found undiagnosed Afib'. It is important for it to be found, figure out how much of a risk the person is at, and what they need to do. Afib doesn't mean you were about ready to die though. 

Regardless of the nitpicking, I'm glad to see that the new features in the Apple Watch are finding new cases and it seems not doing it with too many false positives. I'm curious how many cases it's still missing, but that's not a criticism. This technology is definitely helping people and it's moving in the right direction. 

22july2013 said:

Not many people are willing to shell out money to see a 20 year old news article. So I think he's mistaken comparing movies to news. The life cycle of a movie is probably measured in decades, while news is probably measured in weeks. He can do what he wants, but I think it would be wise to open up his newspaper to an additional 100 million paying subscribers.

I think it's a little more complicated. Google and Facebook have worked with publishers and promised they'd drive more subscriptions, or ad revenue and those never really panned out. In addition the publishers lost some control over when and how their articles were published and how they looked. Having your articles posted next to the latest anti-vaxxer FUD or whatever may not be the platforms they are so interested in being involved in. Readers start depending on Facebook and Google for news and the publisher takes a lesser role. Google in particular has a history of then taking over the position and pushing competitors out. I can understand them being cautious. 

I think a lot will depend on how much money Apple's new service distributes, how much control they have in their articles. If they can add ads and who else is present on the platform. Also, if Apple and the Publishers can find the right balance of sharing information about their readers. I can see a lot of companies holding back for a while. 

Apple's made a number of different pushes into this area and I think they've gotten a little better each time. Hopefully this will be one were they can find win situation for publishers, readers and Apple.