saarek

It’s such a shame that Apple left Lightning to effectively die (despite the EU being a big reason for the change). There was nothing stopping them from upgrading Lightning to take faster speeds, etc. I’ll never understand why they did not bother investing money into it.

They fought the EU over the directive, but had they worked to keep Lightning up to date, indeed made it better than USB-C they could have pointed to the advantages as an example of why they should be allowed to keep proprietary ports.

davidw said:

saarek said:

twolf2919 said:

dope_ahmine said:

red oak said:

"EU regulation fosters innovation, without compromising on security and privacy“  

What a f****** joke 

He really has no fkn clue of what he’s talking about.
߃怜t;/div>

Apple is going to be forced, by these id1ots, to allow alternate app stores, wallets, etc.  I hope that every install and every invocation of an app from an alternative app store is preceded  with the warning "This app was not tested by Apple - do you want to proceed?"  Sort of like those super annoying cookie dialog you're forced to click through on every European web site.  But unlike those web sites, Apple users will still have the choice of only downloading/installing apps from the Apple App store.  That alone will keep most people from going to alternatives.

Yes and no. Let’s say you want to buy Resident Evil Village and the price is £50 on the official App Store, or £35 on another side loaded App Store. Identical game, different price.

You personally might decide to give Apple £15 extra, but most won’t.

It’s the same with gaming on a Mac (yes, I know, “gaming on a Mac” haha, etc) I doubt hardly anyone buys the game through the App Store should it be available. Why pay the crazy prices of the App Store when you can usually buy it for a lot less on Steam or GOG? Most don’t, for obvious reasons.

Apple has been actively dissuading developers from releasing apps on a pay once use for life system and have been pushing developers to adopt monthly payments. This is a system I personally abhor because rather than paying £5-30 for the average decent app they now want you to pay £5-30 a year, if not more, to account for the number of people that refuse to subscribe or whom cancel after a month. Who knows, perhaps some competing store will allow sensible options like upgrades, something which Apple refuses to do.

You don't have clue as to how the Apple App Store works. Apple do not set the price of the app. Apple do not get the extra £15 . The developers set the price of their apps and pays Apple a 15/30% commission, depending on if they make less than or over $1M a year with the App Store. You are not paying Apple the extra  £15, you are paying the developer the extra  £15. On a  £35 app purchase Apple will get £10.5 (based on a 30% Commission). On a £50 app purchase, Apple gets  £15 (based on the same 30% commission). So Apple will only gets an extra £4.5 on that extra  £15 that the developer charged.

If sideloading (and third party stores) are so much more profitable for developers, then why did Epic Games put Fortnite in the Google Play Store? Why aren't the most profitable apps (for the  developers) on Android being sideloaded or in a third party app store? Why aren't developers that develop for both Android and iOS making a ton more profit on Android, where they can have their apps sideloaded or in a third party app store? 

Fortnite was first available for sideloading before Epic made it available in the Google Play Store. And by all account, Epic made a ton more money from having their Fortnite app in the Google Play Store. This even after having to pay Google their commission on IAP. The fact is that over 90% of Android users do not and will not sideload an app or get their apps from anywhere else other than the Google Play Store. Because of this, Epic CEO Sweeney is still suing Google for having a monopoly with their app store, even though Android allows third party app stores and sideloading.

If developers want access to those customers that will not get their apps from anywhere else other that the Apple App Store (or Google Play Store), they will have to pay for for having that access. Which would a developer rather have? Sell 1M copies at  £35 by way of sideloading or maybe sell 5M copies at £35 in the Apple App Store. And don't forget, it will still cost developers to support sideloading or to be in a thrid party app store, not to mention processing payments.  

BTW- Steam charges the same 30% commission (and maybe more on some games) that Apple and Google charges. So why would a developer price their games more on the Apple App Store (or Google Play Store)? Unless you actually clueless as to how it works. So instead of give us a made up scenario where a developer will charge £35 for their game in a third party app store and £50 in the Apple App Store (where Apple gets the extra mark up), give us a real example on Android (with Google getting the extra markup). Android has always been allowed sideloading and third party app stores. 

You're making an assumption yourself. I'm well aware of Apple's model and yes I am aware that all of that £15 did not go to Apple, semantics my friend, I was making a comparison against store pricing. 

twolf2919 said:

dope_ahmine said:

red oak said:

"EU regulation fosters innovation, without compromising on security and privacy“  

What a f****** joke 

He really has no fkn clue of what he’s talking about.
🃏

Apple is going to be forced, by these id1ots, to allow alternate app stores, wallets, etc.  I hope that every install and every invocation of an app from an alternative app store is preceded  with the warning "This app was not tested by Apple - do you want to proceed?"  Sort of like those super annoying cookie dialog you're forced to click through on every European web site.  But unlike those web sites, Apple users will still have the choice of only downloading/installing apps from the Apple App store.  That alone will keep most people from going to alternatives.

Yes and no. Let’s say you want to buy Resident Evil Village and the price is £50 on the official App Store, or £35 on another side loaded App Store. Identical game, different price.

You personally might decide to give Apple £15 extra, but most won’t.

It’s the same with gaming on a Mac (yes, I know, “gaming on a Mac” haha, etc) I doubt hardly anyone buys the game through the App Store should it be available. Why pay the crazy prices of the App Store when you can usually buy it for a lot less on Steam or GOG? Most don’t, for obvious reasons.

Apple has been actively dissuading developers from releasing apps on a pay once use for life system and have been pushing developers to adopt monthly payments. This is a system I personally abhor because rather than paying £5-30 for the average decent app they now want you to pay £5-30 a year, if not more, to account for the number of people that refuse to subscribe or whom cancel after a month. Who knows, perhaps some competing store will allow sensible options like upgrades, something which Apple refuses to do.

Apple will likely release the next version with the anticipated dual ultra SoC. Without that it’s really a largely pointless product and Apple knows it.

For whatever reason they could not get the volume right on such a combination for this launch and wanted to finish the transition to Apple Silicon so pushed the Mac Pro out as it was.

It’ll all come right in the end.

slow n easy said:

d_2 said:

eriamjh said:

If they call it X, I will sh*t.   X is stupid, just like that idiot who called his company X.   This isn’t 2000.

Yeah, Apple has never been successful with “X” naming for major products… Max OS X … iPhone X … /s

Exactly. I was sifting through the comments to see if someone would bring this up. Apple was first. Musk copied Apple.

Apple did not copy Musk and Musk never copied Apple.

If you really want to go down the whole “who did X first” rabbit hole it’d be Musk. He was using it in the 90’s. Far before Mac OS X was a thing.