- Last Active
jdb8167 said:Everyone is making this too complicated. This law only applies to in-app-purchases. A very simple solution is to disallow free apps with non-Apple payment for IAP.
Make an app with IAP that doesn’t use the App Store for payment have a minimum price, say $4.99 (equivalent in SK). Apple gets paid for hosting. Nothing changes for other developers. Of course developers will hate it because they lose their free ride.
If there's a hoisting fee it'll need to apply across the board or it'll be discriminatory.
jbdragon said:tylersdad said:loopless said:Only people who have never developed an app for sale want this to happen. Apple takes care of everything for you, money just appears in your bank account. It's worth every penny.
So how is that working out for you on the X-box??? By the way, even though you don't use Microsoft's app store on Windows, look at all the security issues and viruses on that platform from people just downloading whatever from anywhere. An issue you don't see on the Xbox CLOSED Platform!!! You are trying to compare apples and oranges.
How about we look at the old days. You know the days before the Internet. You know where you had to get your Game or App massed produced onto floppy's or discs. You don't want to have so many made and lose money. Then there was Box Art, and instruction manuals. All put together and sealed. That is all costing YOU money. Then you had the distributors get your software out to all the stores. They took a cut. Then the Stores sold that software and they once again took their own cut.
30% is a massive chunk of a digital good, and Apple's missteps and arbitrary rule applications, on top of a general lack of features and development, undermine it. If Apple are going to charge 30% then they'd better make it worth it, or people will be pissed. And if not, lower the damn charge. "Create a better platform" is not an argument, companies like Microsoft have failed to make a dent in the Apple-Google duopoly, the barriers to entry are too high.You really have it EASY these days. A simple 30% cut and Ap[ple or Google handles everything. All you have to do is upload it into their store.
If people don't like it. They are FREE to create their own OS and Phones and have a completely open platform. There is not a single person stopping anyone from doing that. Create a better platform and people will flee to it.
Apple could have diffused this whole circus if they'd been better custodians of the store and acted like partners to the development community rather than overlords. Monopolies and duopolies aren't innately bad, but monopolistic actions are, and Apple have profiteered and thrown their weight around way too much; it was bound to lead to this.
sdw2001 said:crowley said:No government has ever held 100% of the means of production, so your distinction is pretty facile.
The Soviet Union did, at least until near its collapse.
The industries that I went on to name: transport, energy, broadcasting, and I could also add in communications, education, social care, many others. And the goals of each should be pretty clear, giving people what they need to live their lives fruitfully and happily; the ultimate aim of socialist policies. That goal is often not best delivered with a profit mindset, and actually it can be the profit focus that undermines the efficacy of the capitalist system.There are certainly examples where government running certain industries for social benefits rather than profit has proven to be very effective at their goals.Which industries? And what goals? There are only two ways to distribute scarce resources: 1) Pricing model and 2) Rationing. That's it. One might argue that healthcare could be an exception in certain countries, or perhaps education. However, I don't know that those are industries as much as they are services. There are also major downsides to government running them in terms of efficacy.
Industries largely become services when they are run by the government, so that distinction you're trying to make doesn't really cut mustard.
And that's the extreme position, that socialism is tyranny, period. It may be freedom limiting in some capitalist senses, but that's not the same as tyranny, it's just a different way to organise industry, and it often affords different kinds of freedoms. And as we can see from the examples I gave, industries can very much operate in that model and can deliver efficiently, and often with a better mind to the core purpose of the industry (health: healing people, education: teaching people) that counterpart industries with a profit motive.So while you might argue that the large nationalised energy, transport and public broadcasting companies of northern Europe may have destroyed some freedom and prosperity, they've given back so much more, and extreme positions like yours are pretty laughable in those countries, which are still very free and prosperous, and perhaps more importantly, happy.
LOL! How is it an "extreme position" to state what socialism is? And why are you trying to redefine it? I'm not arguing against all public spending or social programs. I'm arguing against socialism. The countries you point to as success stories are not socialist. Many have much larger safety nets and public service sectors which are supported by very high individual taxes and made partially possible by the fact that the United States has been the free world's armed forces for 75 years. And freedom? Despite the very concerning trend in the United States, these nations don't have anything approaching freedom as compared to us. There is no real freedom of speech in the U.K., Germany or Canada for that matter. There are virtually no rights to self-defense/firearms. Do I really need to provide examples, or are you well-versed enough to read the news on a daily basis?
Let's stick to the issue: Socialism. Socialism is tyranny. Period.
The countries that I point to have developed models of social corporatism, which take from capitalism and socialism. But according to you socialism is tyranny, period. You seem to be fixated on "socialism" as only ever meaning a particular brand of Stalinist or Maoist fascism, when it has always been a wide body of thought encompassing many different approaches, from the aforementioned social corporatism, ethical socialism, liberal socialism, and the more modern mixed economy approaches which try to use socialist methods in certain targeted areas of social impact, while keeping broader market industries in place elsewhere.
There is freedom of speech in every meaningful way in the UK, Germany and Canada. Maybe not in the hysterical sense that it is interpreted in the USA, but no one has ever told me I can't say anything I've wanted to say when I've been in any of those places, even when it's been critical of the government or authority. Down with the Queen, and the Church, and the Parliament. In any case, aren't you arguing that these aren't socialist countries? What point are you even trying to make other than flexing some nationalist muscles?
Also, gun ownership is not at all uncommon in the Scandinavian socialist countries. And I don't think anywhere has laws against self defence.
guymanchester said:Does anyone else think WTF was that video trying to do/say? Google clearly don’t know what a good marketing video / strategy looks like. 😂
elijahg said:I have never found a terminal that applies a a limit to Apple Pay, other than sometimes refunds don't work through it. Even when the limit was £30, I regularly spent more through Apple Pay with no issue.