You're moving further from my focused argument. Typical when you know you lost the argument. I'm only talking about in-app purchases. This is AFTER the app has been downloaded and the experience is 100% from the developer outside of requiring in-app purchase system. This requires close to ZERO data on Apple's servers. Apple is hosting nothing for in-app purchase. There is very little improvement needed for the in-app purchase system just maintenance. I agree, A TINY AMOUNT OF EFFORT as you said. 2-3% is good for in-app purchases.
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.
Meta, Spotify, and Match Launch Coalition Against Apple and Google
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So seeing content cant modify your mood or personality? I think just about every study on social media would disagree.
There is a theoretical 90% solution* to this problem -- but it would require action from all of the "Gatekeepers" and from all of the affected app/website devs. First off, "Gatekeepers" would have to be better defined, as it would need to include Microsoft and others as well -- not just Apple and Alphabet; to have a truly comprehensive solution, we can't forget that Windows, macOS and every Linux flavor would all have to implement these features as well! And so, those Gatekeepers would all have two key action items; they would need to:
1) Collect and verify age data on all of their users, and
2) Generate standardized application APIs and web APIs to enable other devs to verify their own age requirements against the data which was collected by the Gatekeeper.
The app/web devs who produce and/or provide access to age-gated materials would obviously be required to follow suit, and implement those APIs on all access points to their systems.
(Oh... and there would have to be a standards body to coordinate those APIs, so that everybody is working against the same set of blueprints -- but that's a nightmare for another conversation.)
To be clear, this would not be just an App Store feature... the various Gatekeepers' first party stores would likely be some of the first consumers of their respective APIs, but the App Stores wouldn't necessarily be the core data verification tool; for this to work at all, it clearly needs to be a system wide feature.
* Now, here's the rub: You probably noticed that I called this a "theoretical 90% solution". That's because there is no 100% solution. Just like fake ID cards have been around for decades and still to this day have not been excised from society, today's technologically savvy youth will naturally seek out ways to circumvent these measures as well... and some portion of them will succeed -- because to them, hacking a computer is actually way easier than fooling a bouncer or a bartender. Additionally, they will doubtless make their discoveries known to a broader community of their peers; what starts out as a 90% solution rapidly degenerates to a 60% or less solution, putting us worse off than when we started.
To my mind, this is the most significant argument against attempting to legislate some sort of technological age verification method... because it inevitably becomes a legal nightmare for all involved. (You get a
After all, why do you think that all of these companies are trying to get someone else to take responsibility for it?
Last edited:
So you're arguing either for a forced fee per app minimum, or saying that Apple should host and provide app store functions for free.
Right now, you can create and distribute apps for essentially free. $99 is nothing for a full blown distribution and worldwide storefront - devs would have crapped themselves hourly in the pre 2010 years for such an option. Oh, and let's not forget when Apple offered the 30% fee for hosting storefront, providing your marketing material, and managing updates, that the average take home for a dev was less than 20% of the MSRP of boxed software.
So what "fee" would be correct for Apple to charge per app on their storefront, on their hardware/software according to you?
Why are these the only two options? seems very arbitary.
I have a computer, it has a big Apple logo on it and I can install software from the internet.
I pay for a service, and that service does what I ask it to do. When does anything else become my problem? The radio is free if money was the issue. or youtube. or soundcloud. I pay for spotify's GUI and convenience. Not because of the music
So the top three scummiest corporations are lobbying against Apple. I guess I know where I stand on this one.
Edit: Aylo isn’t included in this lobbyist group so I guess maybe it’s the 2nd through the 4th scummiest corporations. I’m sure this is likely just an error that they will correct.
Edit: Aylo isn’t included in this lobbyist group so I guess maybe it’s the 2nd through the 4th scummiest corporations. I’m sure this is likely just an error that they will correct.
Last edited:
I think it was is response to the 'not caring if artists make money' comment tbh.
On royalties, most people don't understand how that works and think that Apple are paying more to artists because they are the good guys and spotify are evil. Apple also fed into this with some disingenuous PR.
It isn't true, people who believe it are very naive about how the music business works. The major labels are not just sitting by while the biggest streaming service in the world pay out less than their competitors for no reason.
If Apple had nearly 670 million people using their platform, their average payout rate would look similar to Spotify's due to the pro rata 'stream share' payout model.
Your argument isn't focused though, you've just changed the argument.
Anyway this doesn't work - because people would just make their app free and then charge in-app to unlock features. Then Apple wouldn't make any money and they'd be hosting all the apps for free.
I agree. I couldn't care less.
it's also happened at all of the big tech companies.
Your imaginary point is? Sounds like he is in process of moving away from Google. I have mostly, search, maps and Fiber are the only products I use now. From being an early on full user of Google business and personal products, Nest, and Google Fi
Sure right up until a drunk or high on drugs driver plows into your car. Or someone beats the crap out of you just because.
I wager close to zero people in this thread can say they never had alcohol, smoked, saw a restricted movie, or experienced other "adult" activity before the age they were legally or by policy permitted to.
More laws, statutes, and policies is not the answer. Better parenting is the answer.
Both of those behaviors are criminal. Both behaviors happen every day. I don't understand your point.
Apple and Google, kick these three meanies out from your platforms. \
You'll lose in court eventually, but hopefully the process will take years when fighting in all countries and courts you operate in. Let the three meanies starve in the meanwhile.
You'll lose in court eventually, but hopefully the process will take years when fighting in all countries and courts you operate in. Let the three meanies starve in the meanwhile.
Last edited:
If the services I choose to use are disabled/removed from the ecosystem I'm on, just to prove a point, I'm going to leave the ecosystem.
No, it really is not, ever ... the governments job to control speech.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I'll go the Pixel or just back to a flip/dumb phone.
My phone isn't the most important tech in my life.
Color me surprised... Seems you want laws for certain behavior but not others, then use a overgeneralization libertarian arguement.
They should charge whatever they want for access to their App Store.
Just don't make it the only way to download and install apps.
The market will only bear a certain numbers of platforms - and consumers will converge onto three or less that control almost all of the market.
Just as they did on operating systems, office application suites and mobile platforms. No one has any interest in 10 mobile operating systems existing, each having their own monopolised app distribution service. It's simply not efficient.