Revenue is a number, too.
Profit-seeking developers will go where the money is - not the unit numbers.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Says It Doesn't Approve of EU Porn App
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Profit-seeking developers will go where the money is - not the unit numbers.
Please stop with the goal post moving. When it is said that Microsoft dominates the desktop, they are referring to an install base, not the revenue derived by Microsoft.
The Play store has more apps than the iOS App Store. So yeah devs go where the numbers are. But I’m sure there is some spin coming down the pike.
The focus of the article/thread was third party app distribution/app stores which is why I threw out terms like "mandated sideloading" and "mandated alternative app stores." Note that I also further expanded with "mandated gatekeeper ecosystem openness."
The EU/DMA clearly disagrees and feels it is not wrong to want to foster more competition and choice in the mobile app distribution market. It is not wrong to want to allow not just Android users/developers but also iOS users/developers to be able to access alternative app stores. It is not wrong to want to try to prevent large/dominant companies from potentially exploiting their market power, influence, control, etc. in one or more areas. I could go on but to sum it up, they feel it is not wrong to want to give developers and consumers/users more choice and control in large gateway digital markets (markets playing a central role in broadly connecting businesses and consumers) dominated by few major players e.g., iOS and Android, App Store and Google Play, etc.
Again, your use of bogus theories and analogies, legal terms that don't apply and/or you don't seem to understand the meaning of, etc. show just how little you comprehend what is obvious and not obvious.
There MANY different laws in many different regions that "legalize" or "mandate" what otherwise might not be legal or allowed if not for government involvement, laws/regulations, etc. The reality is that individuals and businesses can and do face all sorts of laws that impact their ability to do certain things, have financial implications, etc. and can potentially result in what might otherwise be considered "theft", "infringement" or whatever. While laws and regulations can vary place to place, it is how societies, laws and regulations work.
Stop justifying bad legislation under the umbrella of “they are allowed to do what they want”.
It would be a far different scenario if Apple were allowed to be remunerated on the use of their IP. And likely there would be far different opinions floating around.
Because the law mandates Apple give their IP away for free, it’s legalized theft of services.
Regardless of your opinions on the rest of the DMA, do you agree with the EU demand that Apple give AirDrop to its competitors?
And my county clearly felt it was not wrong to prevent people from owning property in certain neighborhoods because of their color of their skin or their religion. It was wrong though. And while the DMA doesn’t come close to the immorality of that law, it is still a wrong and immoral law.
I’d would agree it isn’t wrong to want that, but it is wrong to force your desires on those who don’t want it, including the company and a large portion of their customers who chose that company because of the lack of alternative stores. Particularly when the market leader with 50% more market share already does exactly what the government professes to want.
Again, not wrong to want that, but the way the EU is going about it is wrong. If I don’t want people to die in car crashes, banning cars will achieve that goal, but would clearly create more harm to society than good. Same thing is happening here. Severely discouraging innovation, harming security, and trampling on the free market is significantly worse than whatever supposed harm having one company with 25% of the market being closed causes.
Again, just because they feel it’s not wrong doesn’t mean it’s not wrong. And it is wrong. Android exists. If consumers want more choice and control they have that option. We don’t need the government coming in and picking which business models win and lose, particularly when that government has a long history of making terrible choices when trying to regulate the industry and stifling innovation throughout its jurisdiction.
I saw AirDrop mentioned ..
Interoperability is a good thing
That said, I don't even use AirDrop myself anymore, as LocalSend is better in basically every possible way
Interoperability is a good thing
That said, I don't even use AirDrop myself anymore, as LocalSend is better in basically every possible way
Long time ago I watched some Harvard lecture regarding Justice and Utilatarianism.
In one of the example in that lecture there are five guys in hospital waiting for an organ transplant otherwise they’ll die. A healthy guy comes in for just a normal checkup. Would it not be beneficial if five organs are taken out of that healthy person and put them in those five patients. Loss of one life can give life to five.
Foster more competion and choice. But at what cost? Some sacrifice from Apple….
I don’t have any experience with localsend since we’re all Apple over here, but wouldn’t the app have to be open to send stuff over?
That, and not knowing if it’s installed on devices (I occasionally airdrop stuff to coworkers, for example), seems like two huge drawbacks.
Not a user of Airdrop with people other than myself, so I'm just going between my devices
Works far better, and faster, than AirDrop for me
Probably not a good fit for you 👍
Makes sense. Definitely sounds like a good option if you are mixed platform.
If I‘m not mistaken, LocalSend uses a network that both devices have to be connected to - whereas AirDrop works ad hoc?
That said, not as great drawback for me. And having just switched to Android (for my phone) and also using a Linux computer, it’s wonderful.
Yes.
Though I feel that’s not a very different with AirDrop - considering you must accept receiving files.
Also, you can’t send to strangers very easily either, since Apple nerfed it to help Chinese crack down on protests.
I have “send to strangers” turned off over here anyway because we had issues in my city with people unsolicitedly sharing their “intellectual property” (if you get my drift) to strangers on the subway.
A long time ago I was on a flight with someone who received an unsolicited "more than R rated" AirDrop
Because it is so f*cking difficult to exchange files between iPhone and Android devices, i use the Documents app, to do exactly that! You can SEND files to android without any complaints and you can receive files from ANYWHERE(!) without problems. F*ck the damned walled garden, it simply sucks. So live simply free, as i do with an iPhone nonetheless!
Prior to airdrop being a thing, I used an app called instashare to send files between my Apple devices.
Instashare Air Drop
ransfer files the easy way, just drag & drop the file and we will handle the rest. Like Apple AirDrop, but works and on all major platforms and computers that don't support AirDrop. With millions of downloads in the App Store, thousands of happy users and millions of photo and file transfers...
apps.apple.com
It doesn’t seem to have been updated in ages though. Likely demand for it fell after airdrop became commonplace amongst Apple devices.
Again, how the free market is supposed to work. Not make Apple give Airdrop to Android.Because it is so f*cking difficult to exchange files between iPhone and Android devices, i use the Documents app, to do exactly that! You can SEND files to android without any complaints and you can receive files from ANYWHERE(!) without problems. F*ck the damned walled garden, it simply sucks. So live simply free, as i do with an iPhone nonetheless!
And while you hate the walled garden, I don’t want it to go away. Why does your opinion matter more than mine? Especially when the company who creates the software agrees with me?
No. Ultimately, the free market is supposed to work for the benefit of people and society.
Withholding easy means of communication and file transfer between people is anti-consumer.
Whereas the "invention" of AirDrop (which is only partly Apple's, they're relying on many open standards) is "good" and beneficial to consumers, withholding it from others - while also refusing to implement other built-in, standard means of transferring files is not.
👉 From a perspective of society, human beings, consumers and the social interactions between them - there is nothing beneficial or "good" about what you advocate for. Sharing and transferring photos of events, holidays and memories between people is a basic desire and feature.
Last edited:
Yes. If there is a competing app that does things better than AirDrop, then consumers will choose it. No need to give AirDrop to competitors.
And if all inventions are given away for free, no one will bother investing into R&D because there is no return on your investment; which will be to the significant detriment of people and society.
Straight up socialism here. It would be better for consumers if iPhones were sold at cost. Why aren’t you pushing for that?
No, approaching almost 15 years since its introduction, given Apple's market share (whether majority or minority), the duopoly of operating systems customers face, and plainly how much money Apple have been making and are making, it's not about "Oh, but it discourages companies from innovating" either. Not at all. Quite the contrary, given how it's bundled with iOS, it discourages other companies from inventing competing "better" solutions.
👉 They're literally making billions of dollars in earnings every quarter. They've been more than handsomely rewarded.
It's not (certainly not "straight up" anyway).
Even if it was, I don't care.
It's a compromise. Europe and most Europeans and their elected politicians do not appreciate the ruthless "free market" capitalism as is popular in the USA. Europe and its social-economic model is based on balancing the interests and needs of consumers and companies.
And this is a good example:
Having Apple "earn good money" with their devices and services is a reward for their efforts and innovation.
Letting Apple have business terns and charge "whatever the hell they want" and withholding interoperability for people's basic needs and features they expect from their phones is not appreciated.
Why would I? Apple still makes most of its money from selling hardware products.
Forcing them to sell at cost would discourage them from innovating and improving (to the detriment of consumers).
This is very succinct summary of the main disagreement overall (I think)
With respect to my fellow Americans, I think we've been frog boiled a bit to lean our opinions and defaults a bit too far towards corporate interests overall.
At the end of the day, they are simply powerful well capitalized legal entities and it behooves legislators to have a bias towards protecting the general population.
It's a never ending tension, but only one side of that arrangement is tightly organized, lobbying on its behalf and, in many cases, straight up purchasing influence and outcomes now.
S(n)ide note:
I believe "you" (the U.S.), could use a tiny bit more socialism.
Such as in your health care system, for example.
Show what an amazing experience you can create on Android and make Apple respond. You don’t deserve other’s ideas just because you want them. Stealing is taking the easy way out.
Why is it ok for for the EU to give away Apple’s software designs but not ok to take their hardware designs?
“It’s better for society if we take property away and distribute it to all” is literally the definition of socialism.
And that’s why you can’t innovate out of a wet paper bag.
Again why is hardware different than software?
People have free will. If Apple is charging too much, and their closed system is preventing a superior experience then the market will
Solve that problem. Your issue is the closed ecosystem is making a superior experience, and you hate that, so you want to take away the superior experience for everyone.
So is your argument that giving software away for free doesn’t discourage innovation but giving hardware away for free does? How on earth do you square that circle?