Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Judge Says Apple Has Until December 9 to Make App Store Change Letting Developers Link to Alternate Payment Methods

I7guy said:
Yeah, almost like.
Click to expand...
And yet Americans keep re-electing the same politicians who made it all possible and then becoming enraged when it all happens all over again.

That’s a huge part of why I left (the larger part is just that I like experiencing new places and cultures).
 
mrochester said:
It’s not absurdity, it’s a business decision they need to weigh up. They either work with Safari to access those customers or choose not to work with Safari and don’t access those customers. Business basics.
Click to expand...
Which is just another way of saying that if they want to maximize their potential customer pool they have to work with Safari, which is what I said to begin with.

I knew you’d get there if I was patient.

So, again, as I said, Apple’s steadfast refusal to support standards and advances the other browsers support is slowing down progress for everyone, just as Microsoft once did the same with IE.
 
vipergts2207 said:
Ok cool, how do we do that?
Click to expand...
We could expect iOS to do what every other OS and actually allow users to have more than a single choice in browsers.

I wonder how many people even realize that every iOS browser is just Safari with a custom skin?

The good news (for Apple, not so much for everyone else) is that that lack of competition means they don’t have to actually work to improve Safari, since for a billion+ iOS users it’s their only choice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vipergts2207
Mockletoy said:
Which is just another way of saying that if they want to maximize their potential customer pool they have to work with Safari, which is what I said to begin with.

I knew you’d get there if I was patient.

So, again, as I said, Apple’s steadfast refusal to support standards and advances the other browsers support is slowing down progress for everyone, just as Microsoft once did the same with IE.
Click to expand...
But one business choosing to support Safari and whatever limitations is has does not stop another business from ignoring Safari and using whatever innovations any other browser offers.

As I said, business basics.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Mockletoy
vipergts2207 said:
To paraphrase your own quote, who are you to call it a precedent-setting overreach of law? What's scary is the idea that corporations should be allowed to do whatever they want.
Click to expand...
Why is that scary? Because someone who wants to leverage the power and success that corporations achieve to their own benefit told you so?

I'm sorry but your posts drip of NPC drivel. You haven't thought any of this out. You've just been told what to think on this matter.
 
Mockletoy said:
What is it?

And why isn’t Apple also guilty of it, whatever it is, as the other half of the duopoly?
Click to expand...
Because iOS is only available on Apple devices, theres nothing Apple are doing that harms or prevents competition in the smartphone operating system market.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Mockletoy
WB2Colorado said:
You might have a point if that App Store always had a in-app purchase mechanism, which it didn’t.
Click to expand...
The app-store wasn't even there when the phone was launched!

The initial model for iPhone was that third party devs could make web apps not 1st party apps. Apple were going to supply all 1st party native apps.

Then they relented because there were devs who were jailbreaking the thing to put their own apps on there. Apple decided that it was SAFER (remember that key part) to allow an appstore in where they reviewed stuff and gave the devs a sandbox to run in. Thats why side loading even now is a no-no for Apple.

Please remember that they'd already spent years making iPod's which were all closed systems and only apple supplied apps and the few games that were there. The intention for iPhone was never the App Store because of how burnt Jobs was with fixing security / performance issues on Mac OS (because it was open).

The in-app purchase came in as devs asked for the feature. Remember the App Store model: Apple were offering to list your app, review it etc... for free if it was free to consumers (sans the $99 dev membership cost). And if you charged for your app they want 30%. This a) grew the amount of apps on the store rapidly as people published apps for fun or whatever. Also, the paid apps subsidised the cost of processing the free apps.

Then companies realised if they gave there apps for free they could charge people in-app instead and make more money. A normal 3.99 game ended costing player 100's of dollars in in-app gamification. Eventually games didnt want to charge and they just wanted to be free, breaking the model of paid apps subsidising free apps.

Thats why Apple said, if your using our service to distribute your app for free you cant then just take the money from in-app purchases or external payment stores and not give us a cut because your a) breaking the subsidy model b) we got that game in front of the customer for you in the first place!

Apple felt that they were providing the opportunity here and were doing it for nothing. So they made the rule.
Companies like Amazon and Netflix already had huge businesses outside that were providing value to Apple (by letting their customers pick iPhones) so Apple's thinking changes for companies that are helping them out. But thats about it.

I think the history of the whole thing helps give context instead of making out that Apple is some greedy company all the time.
 
loby said:
That is the underline principle as a society wants big brother (daddy now) to watch over you and take care of you. No more choices.

If you create something and it is successful, it will be taken away from you eventually for “the good of the people”.

If you don’t like the rules of the Apple store, write for Microsoft or Android. I agree totally with Tim Cook on this.

The customer will be hurt, Apple will increase their prices to compensate for the loss…and now having to deal even more with security issues, viruses etc. what a pain…

And we the user (as usual) take the hit at the end of the day…
Click to expand...
Agreed.

I definitely won't be using any alternatives. If a developer wants my money, they will have to continue getting it the way they do now...or not at all. Which will be a real shame if it comes down to an app I REALLY enjoy and get a lot of use out of.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hunter5117
Mockletoy said:
“Apple and Google are a duopoly! They don’t allow any other mobile OS to gain a foothold! That’s wrong! It’s horrible! And Google really needs to cut it out right now!”

These rabid fanboys, man. I don’t even know.
Click to expand...
So what do YOU think are the reasons why we don’t have multiple operating systems and ecosystems to choose from if it’s not the behaviour of the one horizontally integrated company?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Mockletoy
mrochester said:
Whatever makes Android the only viable option for manufactures other than Apple. Make it more attractive for manufacturers to develop and maintain their own ecosystems.
Click to expand...
That's not specific at all, therefore I take it that your suggestion of "encouraging competing operating systems with their own browsers" isn't particularly viable. If the market could bear more than two mobile OS's at least one of RIM, Palm, MS, Symbian or some other entity would be in the game. But they're not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mockletoy
vipergts2207 said:
That's not specific at all, therefore I take it that your suggestion of "encouraging competing operating systems with their own browsers" isn't particularly viable. If the market could bear more than two mobile OS's at least one of RIM, Palm, MS, Symbian or some other entity would be in the game. But they're not.
Click to expand...
The only thing he or she knows with any degree of specificity is that Apple is wholly blameless in all of it and Google is 100% at fault.
 
vipergts2207 said:
That's not specific at all, therefore I take it that your suggestion of "encouraging competing operating systems with their own browsers" isn't particularly viable. If the market could bear more than two mobile OS's at least one of RIM, Palm, MS, or some other entity would be in the game. But they're not.
Click to expand...
Personally I think being open source and free by being cross-subsidised by revenue from an unrelated business area are the two biggest problems.

I would split Android from google and require it to stand on its own two feet as the first action. That way the incentive for google to dominate the smartphone market is eliminated. Smartphone manufacturers would then need to decide whether it was better to license android or create their own operating system and ecosystem.
 
mrochester said:
But one business choosing to support Safari and whatever limitations is has does not stop another business from ignoring Safari and using whatever innovations any other browser offers.

As I said, business basics.
Click to expand...
And if that business relies on web browsers as a critical part of their business, they would fail. So basically the choice would be support Safari or cease to exist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mockletoy
vipergts2207 said:
And if that business relies on web browsers as a critical part of their business, they would fail. So basically the choice would be support Safari or cease to exist.
Click to expand...
Why would they cease to exist by not supporting Safari? Don’t other browsers have infinitely more market share than Safari and thus a much bigger addressable market? By the last count Safari has relatively tiny market share.
 
This ruling is BS. Apple makes the hardware and software. It's a device that's entirely made by Apple. Like the Xbox and PS.. Apple should not need to change how things work because a judge doesn't understand things due to advanced age and crustiness.

Apple is selling a tool -- a Phillips head screw-driver if you will. EPIC is upset because Apple's Phillips head screw-driver won't support their ****** flat-head screw that's all chewed up and rounded over. EPIC is suing Apple to make their Phillips head screw-driver work with their ****** screw. And the judge is like, "Duh, that seems reasonable!"

This is crazy-land IMHO.
 
mrochester said:
Personally I think being open source and free by being cross-subsidised by revenue from an unrelated business area are the two biggest problems.

I would split Android from google and require it to stand on its own two feet as the first action. That way the incentive for google to dominate the smartphone market is eliminated. Smartphone manufacturers would then need to decide whether it was better to license android or create their own operating system and ecosystem.
Click to expand...
Ah, so Google gets punished for being more open than Apple, even though Samsung’s and other Android phone makers’ Android profits absolutely dwarf what Google makes on the platform.

Absurdity on top of absurdity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vipergts2207
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back