I'd look at all of the big three of now, regardless of market share, while we're possibly going to be updating our laws to reflect the modern digital economy.
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.
Epic vs. Apple Takes a Twist As 35 US States and Department of Justice Weigh in to Back 'Fortnite' Maker
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You said you want ALL SMARTPHONES as the customer.
-- You said this in response to being required to develop for iOS.
Indeed it's not required for mobile development. However, the scenario shouldn't exist where one half of a duopoly can tell you that you have to agree to their arbitrary terms before you even get the choice of developing for their OS.
That's a choice Affinity made and that's fine. If they wanted to be on Android, they could be on there without having to agree to Google's terms by offering sideloading.
No it shouldn't. But opening up iOS is not the answer. Getting a third company to compete with Apple and Google is the answer.
There's nothing wrong with opening iOS, but a third competitor in the space would also be great. I'd happily take both.
And if I was a regulator, I wouldn't let that transaction go through. They already bought up Bethesda.
There are many things wrong with it but that is opinions and we all have different ones.
If you want to reach all smartphone consumers, you have to develop for iOS. If you don't care to reach all smartphone consumers, you don't have to develop for iOS (or Android). I genuinely don't get what's confusing about those two verifiably factual statements.
Yes, but few companies allow work laptops/desktops to be used for personal usage. Even if working from home its not like something you can use casually as it would be locked down if they care. You more likely to have a encrypted work computer then a personal one.
No argument.
But that is a rule or condition you yourself are putting on yourself. Punishing Apple because you want to "reach all smartphone customers" when it is your choice, not Apple forcing you to use the App Store.
I would say there is no chance there will be a third party trying to compete against Apple and Google, when even MS tried and failed.
Apple's been slowly opening iOS for years now. Have you also been against that?
There are definitely better and worse executions of openness, and trying too much at once might be too much for Apple to do properly (let's be honest, they're already struggling to keep up with annual updates), but openness in and of itself is not bad.
Work systems are usually filled with business information on it NOT user information. I cannot install TurboTax and do my taxes on my work system, or log in to my bank website and do my banking. Or sync my texts.
And my Mac laptop - by my own choice - is less valuable than my phone. I don't take my laptop in my car every time I drive, or do my banking on my Mac, or use my health data on my Mac.
I am fully against side-loading. I have not seen Apple open up iOS with side-loading in mind. Otherwise, we would not have these threads and lawsuits if Apple does intend to allow side-loading on iOS. So that is what I refer to as "opening" iOS.
Are you ok with it for specific groups and organizations?
That’s already allowed now.
Even got expanded today
App Store Now Supports Unlisted Apps Discoverable Only With a Direct Link
Apple recently announced that the App Store now supports unlisted apps discoverable only with a direct link, as outlined on its developer website. Developers with apps that aren't suited for public distribution can submit a request on Apple's website to distribute unlisted apps, which don't...
forums.macrumors.com
Unfortunately, Apple doesn't seem to agree with this stance. Otherwise they'd be making changes themselves now rather than waiting on governments to do it for them.
And it should be a dev's right to make that decision for themselves without having to agree to arbitrary terms from a duopoly power. You've even agreed with that in the first quote above.
is true and apple should give developers other options than App Store.
But, shouldnt be xcode and ios sdk limited for App Store, and other stores developer its own SDK compatible with Apple?
I mean, SDK are tool provided by apple for their store, if you want to use your own, you should developer that. Or what?
But, shouldnt be xcode and ios sdk limited for App Store, and other stores developer its own SDK compatible with Apple?
I mean, SDK are tool provided by apple for their store, if you want to use your own, you should developer that. Or what?
Guys let’s not forget that the iPhone platform is desirable for consumers because of the third-party applications.
Almost nobody buys iPhones for the built-in applications. Even if they do use some of those, the platform would be unbelievably unsuccessful without the third-party application ecosystem
Acting like everybody at every point of all these transactions owes everything to Apple is a little bit much.
Almost nobody buys iPhones for the built-in applications. Even if they do use some of those, the platform would be unbelievably unsuccessful without the third-party application ecosystem
Acting like everybody at every point of all these transactions owes everything to Apple is a little bit much.
To be honest though, that looks far more fun.
The solution to duopoly power is to introduce more parties. Breaking up the App Store still leaves the duopoly power around. And I can certainly see this going to a $300 Apple developer fee and $500 XCode license to make up for the 30%. And you (developer) having to deal with individual line items for CDN, support, transaction and other items.
Sideloading in general, or purely sideloading on iOS? Because it's not some crazy, dangerous thing, it's just a fancy word for installing. Mac's handle it fine. Hell, I can sign up to a beta and sideload apps on my iPhone right now (I currently have two installed). Don't get me wrong, you're allowed to be against it, I just don't get the reasoning behind the decision.
But thos is the same as to be in app store, all the process goes trough apple. Only difference is those apps dont have icons in the app store, only direct link. Lets say, the raw link without eyecandies (screenshots etc)Are you ok with it for specific groups and organizations?
That’s already allowed now.
Even got expanded today
App Store Now Supports Unlisted Apps Discoverable Only With a Direct Link
Apple recently announced that the App Store now supports unlisted apps discoverable only with a direct link, as outlined on its developer website. Developers with apps that aren't suited for public distribution can submit a request on Apple's website to distribute unlisted apps, which don't...
The ones crying about it here feel their choice is being taken away if Apple is forced, we know that’s a false narrative, since clearly more options benefit users.