It doesn't. More versions to choose from, more customer confusion.
Customer confusion doesn't aid security.
But it helps retain their share of the pie.
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's Fines in Dutch Antitrust Case Hit 50 Million Euros
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Customer confusion doesn't aid security.
But it helps retain their share of the pie.
Who is 'their' in this statement? I thought the reason Apple was reducing out of app store fees by 3% was that that's the EU standard for alternative payment methods. I don't know why I thought that, I guess it makes sense in my mind. I assumed developers would pay the same or more for processing out of Apple transactions, in exchange for having a choice to do so. But that the lowest their fee could ever be is 3%.
So you didn't know that you licensed the software and would have limitations when you bought your devices and downloaded software? I assume you resist all HOA rules, too?
Then you should never have bought an iPhone. Know the limits of what you are buying. iPhones have been this way since day 1, its not a new thing.
Have to disagree.
I have apps today that I can pay via any number of ways (ex: Uber, DoorDash, Costco, etc...). Not seeing why that cannot be leveraged for this.
Unless I am missing something.
Yes, devs are perfectly capable of selling software directly from their own websites, this does not mean that this provides a good user experience or that they use a reputable payment processor. Example... Carbon Copy Cloner, a popular app for Macs, only uses "Secure ordering by FastSpring" who the hell is FastSpring?
Say I want a word search game, I can do one of two things:
1) Visit the iOS app store, search for word search games and review the ones that pop up, pick one, pay for it, download it and use it, visiting only the Apple App store for upgrades.
Or
2) Google iOS word search games and get only those Google deems worthy (because the devs paid to boost its presence), choose one, create a user account on that devs site, give that devs random payment processor my info and have to revisit their site individually for updates.
I trust Apple's payment system more than I trust any of the other big names and far more than I trust independent ones not to get hacked or exploit my data.
I'll take the latter.
If I'm looking for an App Store app, I usually do it via Google anyway. The App Store is a mess especially for browsing.
If you refer customer to outside payment options, it's not Apple's business to charge for these transactions.
The transactions are between the app developer / service and the customer - not Apple.
Actually I am a day 1 iPhone user. The App Store didn’t exist when I started to use the iPhone.
Please don’t claim the App Store was there since day 1.
Considering where I live, there is no HOA, I don’t read such rules.
I’ve reviewed the terms and conditions of the App Store usage, and it funnily enough doesn’t cover much about the removal of apps. This is covered in the developer terms and conditions.
I'm pretty sure Apple hasn't paid a fine and won't until they are required by a court of Law after they got to argue their case.
Be careful of that one.
I carefully reviewed the HOA before I bought.
I could only access the "rules" for my 13PM after I bought and activated.
In the EU, that post review isn't legally binding like in the US. But I'm not sure of California though.
But Apple does pass this charge to developers, all payment platforms do.
Hmmm. Maybe iPhone 2G customers have a point. Assuming they never updated their device to iOS 2.
Otherwise, that argument doesn't work since they would have had to agree.
Doesn't Apple make like 8 to 10 million dollars per day in interest on their cash reserves? Assuming the low end that's less than 7 days to pay off the fine.
I’ve read the Terms and Conditions, what point are you trying to make?
... that, um... using the iPhone prior to the introduction of the app store is irrelevant unless you are in a very specific position ...
Terms and conditions wouldn’t cover that.
My point was that there was a model before the App Store.
True, but I don't see Apple just paying million dollar fines levied against them without a court order.
The terms and conditions wouldn't cover what?
I guess I am confused. Are you saying that there was a model for the app store before the app store?
Oh, yeah. No, they won't. They will use the entire period of time given to pay it too.
Apologies, there are too many people to keep a good account of who’s replying to me.
There were previous “app stores” in different forms before Apple brought it to the iPhone and iPod Touch.