We’re not talking about being profitable, we’re talking about being anti-competitive.
No wonder you are confused if you think they are the same thing.
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.
Judge Says Apple Has Until December 9 to Make App Store Change Letting Developers Link to Alternate Payment Methods
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No wonder you are confused if you think they are the same thing.
More than a billion iOS users is not a “tiny” share. Also, iOS users are among the most affluent in the world.
The only browser allowed on iOS is Safari.
If you want access to those billion wealthy customers, you support Safari.
That’s just basic common sense.
Maybe... what if the Dev decides to ONLY use their payment system? This is likely the end result. The issue with Epic (and those whining along with them) is that Apple is getting a portion of their take from those playing their games on Apples platform. This is going to be VERY bad for the consumer and open up the Apple ecosystem up to a lot of the fraud and scams running rampant on Google environment.
Why is that scary? Because corporations only care about one thing, profits. Unchecked, that rarely means anything good for the citizenry. Again, if you want lawless anarchy, create your own society with other like-minded people. And sorry, just because you disagree with me doesn't make me an NPC. Now would you like to debate on the merits or just throw more ad hominems out there because you have no point or argument to make?
I'm also not comparing apples to apples there. In the case of a Mac app, that's a sideloading situation.
In the case of the iOS App Store, we're potentially talking about an app that costs $0 to install initially, that links outside the store to pay for it. But.....that's precisely how Netflix works currently (minus a physical link).
Dumping. Giving software away below cost to dominate a market.
FYI, I've made a request to Apple to allow us to offer one of our iOS apps (that Apple pulled from their App Store) using the same Apple-provided Notary service that we use for our macOS app.
Covers iPhones & iPads, as well as M1 Macs.
Would be a first if they agree.
Would keep Apple "in the loop," otherwise they could be cut-out completely.
And I did stress that point to them.
We'll see ...
& naturally this was triggered by the Judge's decision yesterday.
Sideloading is inevitable !
It's the next step !!
Covers iPhones & iPads, as well as M1 Macs.
Would be a first if they agree.
Would keep Apple "in the loop," otherwise they could be cut-out completely.
And I did stress that point to them.
We'll see ...
& naturally this was triggered by the Judge's decision yesterday.
Sideloading is inevitable !
It's the next step !!
Well, yes, I suppose suicide is technically a choice. Not a great or sensible choice, but a choice.
This really has become much too absurd to continue.
Try better next time. Not playing that game. You made an incorrect statement, I called you out on it and now you’re backpeddling and attempting to redefine the term “Computer” again.
Pick another sucker - I’m not your mark.
Next time write what you mean and quit playing games.
Yes your entitled (I’d be generous and call it idealistic if I were giving you the benefit of doubt) attitude is rather detached from business reality so probably best to end this here.
You are way off - as of the October reports Chrome is hands down the most ubiquitous browser @ 70.1%, Safari is second at a staggering 19% - filtering just to Mobile users the numbers do not change materially. The only device that shows Chrome and Safari on par with each other is the tablet market.
You are also completely wrong about Safari being the only browser allowed on iOS - I was just using Microsoft Edge and Google Chrome on my iPhone and my iPad - does not look like the only browser allowed on iOS is Safari in fact other browsers are made available in the App Store.
The market has changed. And that is a small change, I saw an estimate that that is just 4% less revenue.
They did not drop for developers that are making serious money. It helps for getting the majority of developers more on their side instead of on the side of the big bucks developers who are inconvenienced by Apple’s business model.
Apple does not want to make things more complicated until they have to.
First they divided developers in two groups, free apps and paid apps.
Then they added in app purchases for digital goods consumed on device.
Then they added a category called "reader apps".
Then they added the "small business program" for developers that make less than a million.
Each of these things added complexity.
Now they are going to have to add another wrinkle to the system.
Maybe several wrinkles, because different jurisdictions will have different dumb ideas.
Not quite correct. Edge and chrome on iOS are just visual wrappers for safari.
Then Apple removes their app from the store, just like it would today. What I'm saying is that it's still against the app store rules to offer an alternative payment method and not also let users pay through Apple's payment system.
To sum it up so that hopefully people stop proposing this same scenario to me:
This gives the developer the options to
a) collect payments through Apple's payment method
or
b) collect payments through Apple's payment method or link to an alternative payment method.
It does not allow them to only link to another payment method (except for possibly reader apps Like Netflix, where there was previously no Apple payment method available in the first place).
You as a user lose nothing, but gain the possibility to use a different payment method if you so choose. You can completely ignore that though and continue paying for things on your phone the way you always have.
No. I also have Chrome. There is also Edge, Firefox, Opera, DuckDuck Go, Dolphin and Aloha.
Mobile OS worldwide market share:
Chrome - 64%, Safari - 26%, Samsung Internet - 5%.
So no, other browsers don't have infinitely more market share than Safari. And in first world countries, the market share for each Chrome and Safari is in the mid to high 40% range. Why is this important? Because billions of poor Indians, Africans, and Chinese probably aren't going to be buying your product, regardless of which browser you support.
Last edited:
When did I say Chrome and Safari had equal market share?
Never.
What I said was, the billion+ people using Safari are among the most affluent on the planet, and thus the most desirable when it comes to marketing, meaning that the other poster’s bizarre and absurd suggestion that a business could blithely decide to just ignore them is, well, bizarre and absurd.
And you are factually mistaken: you have never used a non-Safari browser on iOS because every iOS browser is forced to use the outdated, underlying Safari rendering engine (WebKit).
It may say “Chrome” or “Edge” or “Firefox,” but it’s just a skin atop plain old Safari.
I don’t understand why you wouldn’t simply Google something like that before making blanket statements about it as if you know what you’re talking about.
Those are all just Safari with a skin on top. The underlying engine in every case is WebKit.
Every iOS browser is the same iOS browser, it just has different “chrome.”
Also, (to oversimplify a bit) if one browser has 90% market share and another has 10%, but the one with 10% is used by wealthy people and the other by poor people, which one will businesses consider it more important to cater to?
The answer, I believe, is, “Duh.”
No, you have Safari with a Chrome theme.
The others are Safari with an Edge, Firefox, Opera, DuckDuck Go, Dolphin or Aloha theme. It's all Safari under the hood.
You are mistakenly thinking that a business is entitled to access the most affluent customers. It is not. It is a business decision after weighing up and pros and cons of addressing that customer base.
Yep, confused myself again lol. It was Google that recently went 15%....but that's only for subscription services.