You can have the lat word. But no everything in your post was an opinion making subjective.
The earnings call prove people don’t care about your criteria.
Worse by your standard, but I don’t see it that way.
I think they will fight it as these rules are actually making things go worse and Apple is navigating these bombastic rulings to do the right thing.
Yes. Forced.
So in your view it’s acceptable for governments to force companies to give away their IP in the interests of “fairness”.
If it is that.
If it is that as I said above.
No it was not. It's all objective. You just don't like it. You can call it whatever you want, but you'll be wrong.
No they don't. They prove that Apple has other ways of making money, and that the hard part hasn't hit them. Again, they would make way more money if they did the right thing.
It's not my standard. It's worse by objective fact. You don't see it that way because you don't care.
Of course they will fight, but that just makes them wast money. Again doing the right thing would be providing a good user experience.
That's because you hate the facts. Its all there, sorry!
I’ve made my opinions on the matter known prior to this.
Some laws are acceptable, some are not.
It does mean exactly that as highly vertically integrated companies are forced into a business model they don’t want.
It’s my option your entire first criticism was devoid of facts and was a bit hyperbolic to say to say the least.
Correct.
It means that regulations similar to the DMA FORCE companies such as Apple to give away their intellectual property.
Absolute nonsense. Apple is a company that produces electronic discretionary consumer products that also has a digital marketplace. Customers and devs have an opt-in relationship to apple. Nobody is forcing anybody into any relationship.
If it's objective, then you can supply evidence for your point of view. If you cannot supply such evidence, then it's subjective--solely your opinion.
A number of us question governments “authority” when it comes to micro-management of successful businesses who run legally.
I absolutely agree. Leave google as a monopoly in the EU along with phones manufactured in China. And also add a tariff to products imported from the EU…oh wait.
The reality is the DMA is terrible legislation as has been discussed now for more than two years. The winners are not the customer but one or two big devs.
It was either unfortunate (or fortunate to epic) Apple did what it did in terms of its conducts with the courts. But at the same time epic opened up this hornets nest in the US and when the case is ultimately heard by SCOTUS could be surprising to all.
Yes and as we have discussed, you opinion is wrong because its full of facts, and quite grounded to say the least.
No we are not. We are right where we need to be, with me fighting for the users and you fighting for the company to make even more money off them.
No Apple is fighting for an objectively worse experience and saving them lots of money. Again, what Apple wants is for users to either be forced to go to a website that they can't be told about, or pay 30% more to buy in the app.
I have provided evidence. Please read my posts. But let me say it again: " what Apple wants is for users to either be forced to go to a website that they can't be told about, or pay 30% more to buy in the app."
So they can do that without harming the users or the developers.
Because that stand would be on private property. The difference is Apple is controlling MY private property. Hence that have no right to that property.
There is no evidence anything you posted was fact. Maybe you can go over the post that started this and show which lines are facts vs opinions.
Sure!! First one:
This is a fact its good to happen, because its helping out developer and customers get a better experience.
This is a fact, because Apple could have helped their developer and customers have a better experience, but they choose money over that.
This is a fact, because they chose money over developer and customers getting a better experience
This is a fact, because they are fighting for a better developer and customer experience.
This is a fact. Netflix and Amazon got some of their own customers through their website, and it had zero to do with Apple.
This is a fact, this is how they could make money off of companies charging subscriptions not via IAP.
This is a fact, this is how they make the overwhelming majority of their money.
This is a fact, without good software, no-one will buy the hardware.
This is a fact, because the software experience was having to find the website yourself and the app offering no explanation for it, or paying 30% more for the same thing just because it was done in an app (which most companies didn't do, so its not really an option). Hence, it was about making money not about the best experience.
This is a fact, for example media from other companies that require licenses have a small profit margin.
This is a fact. Just because someone signs up on a website outside of the app does not entitle them to make money off of that person. Again, as I said, see the Mac.
This is a fact, because that is exactly what happened, and exactly what Epic fought against and the Courts ruled correctly Apple cannot do.
This is a fact, because Apple is ruining their brand.
No the customer doesn't get a better experience, because the customer now has to figure out where an app is and most likely won't get any savings.
No. This is apples business model, which is completely an opt-in experience. Developers are under no obligation to become a client of Apple.
This is an opinion because it is Apples' store, which as I said above is an opt-in experience. When dealing with large businesses, customers have to accept the terms and conditions of the institute they are doing business with.
The ios app store gives a very good customer and dev experience as it is.
That's true that some customers, like me were acquired through the ios app store. However, Apple has rules regarding digital assets sold on the ios app store.
This is an opinion because the iphone 1 was success with no app store. Apple introduced the app store after devs wanted to create their own apps and apple provided an sdk.
This is an opinion because many devs liked the app store experience. Customers had a great experience as well as refunds were handled nearly seamlessly.
When one engages with a large institution one is subject those terms and conditions. Moving an app means less of a customer experience with mostly customers not seeing a benefit to it.
This is the ios app store that is a completely different business model the Mac app store has nothing to do with this.
And for one point the Supreme Court will be hearing this case shortly. We will see what the outcome is. And the courts may rule in a way that proves the above statement wrong.
Is that why they keep having these record breaking quarters? Because their brand is going downhill?
Based on my responses, they seem like opinions.
What? That makes no sense lol. They don't have to figure out where an app is at all. They just go to the app they are already using. And they get savings, because they aren't paying extra.
No, I'm saying this is a bad business model for customers and developers. What you said makes no sense.
No it's a fact, and what you said is irrelevant. We aren't talking about what customers have to accept, we are talking about whether the terms are good for customers, developers, and Apple. The fact is, it's not.
No it doesn't. For example can't find anything. And again, for example, if you want to sign up for Netflix, until the courts fix it, you couldn't. And you need to read actual developers - they all complain about the experience. You have to sometimes wait a week to release a bug fix. It's a bad experience, that's a fact.
Thank you for agreeing to my whole point. Apple was forced to do that because it was a bad experience, and then they were force to fully fix it.
It's not an opinion, it's a fact. The iPhone only became a massive success once the app store came out. Yes Apple aded the App Store after devs were hacking the iPhone to allow apps. They did it because they knew they needed good apps to really sell it. But you just admitting my point, so thank you.
No it's a fact because many devs hate the app store experience. Customers also did have a great experience because they couldn't sign up for accounts like Netflix except by searching the web, or paying more. Refunds are terrible on the app store, you usually can't get one. And developers can't control the refund experience - if Apple says no, like they often do, devs can't do anything about it. I don't think you actually use the app store or have read any developers.
Again we are discussing whether those terms and conditions are good for customers, developers, and Apple. It's clear they are not. And we are not talking about moving apps, we are talking about allowing apps to sign up customers in the app, not on their website and not letting the app even link to the website.
Actually it has everything to do with it, and it's not the Mac App Store I'm talking about, but about the fact that you don't even have to use it. So it shows your point is wrong. And it shows how much better the Mac is for customers and developers.
No even if they rule wrong for Apple, it will not prove that statement wrong.
Just because things are fine now, doesn't mean they will continue to be. Brand reputation always lags returns.
Based on my responses, they are clearly facts. And based on your responses, you don't understand the difference between facts and opinions.
