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
Again you’re talking about purchases and not in app purchases why can’t you stay focused? I agree if Apple sells a paid app they should get some percentage. And the bigger thing did you see the news it was illegal what Apple was doing against the law the judge decided it was against the law so everything you’re saying doesn’t make any sense the judge decided it was against the law. Checkmate.
Your "Otherwise..." is my "Additionally..."
If only Apple and Google did anything about this issue, people looking to get around those blockades will simply access websites from Windows. Or Linux. Or any of a few dozen other unidentified "Gatekeepers."
And as you stated: Yeah, it absolutely would be ridiculous to try to legislate a solution to this problem. There is no real solution; see my previous comment for just a small -- but not comprehensive -- set of examples of the nuances that most people seem to miss.
Well they haven't have they, sooo..
They can't really implement a solution to a legal requirement based on hypotheticals that they would like to happen.
"And the bigger thing did you see the news it was illegal what Apple was doing against the law the judge decided it was against the law so everything you’re saying doesn’t make any sense the judge decided it was against the law."
I'll be honest this sentence doesn't make sense - have you not got Apple intelligence to rewrite these for you?
I’m not picking out Apple or Google for criticism, it’s just more logical to do age verification at the gatekeeper level before users get to the app or website.
You could easily add Microsoft to that list. Yes people could use Linux but the number of people using Linux is tiny especially those under 16.
It would be impossible to monitor every single website to check they are complying with age verification checks.
lol I'll let you have that dig on me as clearly I won the argument and you can't accept it like a man. Good luck in life. I won't reply anymore, case closed!
I mean you wrote so much gibberish by the end it wasn't worth debating with, like trying to describe classical music to a dog.
_________________
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Looks like you lost an argument to a dog lol what does that make you? I don’t know if you’re reading the news but yesterday the judge declared what Apple was doing was illegal so your argument is done. Literally done it’s time to take the L genius. I don’t know if your ego can accept it but it’s pretty loud and clear what the judge said
It just simply does not make sense, no matter how much I think about it.
You both want side loading so you can get around Apple, but at the same time you want Apple to enforce your app’s policies.
How?
How is Apple going to stop someone from going to Facebook’s own website (that you can literally open in any web browser) and creating their account and giving their age there?
If it’s just when it comes to downloading the app, why? Facebook controls the accounts, and the app is pretty useless without an account. Literally all you can do is just… Stare at the login screen.
At the end of the day, no matter what, age verification is always going to have to go through Meta. Just because the app can’t be downloaded doesn’t mean the services can’t be used.
I mean as things stand Meta, Spotify and whoever else have no alternative to the App Store for distribution on iOS, whether or not they would like it to be different is irrelevant they can only deal with real world situations not hypothetical ones.
The argument you are making could be flipped on it's head, if Apple want all software distribution to go via the app store it's up to them to verify the age of the users. Apple can't pick and choose, they want to be the middle man and it's up to them.
As I said - it is still possible, there's a process to do so - it is just less convenient than what one would prefer and has prerequisites.
I certainly woke up and realized you have a warped world view. You don't pay apple for anything you buy on a website, on a mac NOR an iphone.
So now that we can dispense with your red herring, what makes you think you have the right to use Apple's App store for free?
Let's also not forget the situation when the app store was created, there was no option for any devs to produce any apps and sell them to the masses. Phones were locked into a service provider's network and only their apps were downloadable. Also, devs on average got about 20% of MSRP, and now they were getting 70%. Is there any doubt about why the App Store took off?
Does that mean that there isn't a reason to review the situation? Absolutely not. I am mixed on the situation - on the one hand, the App Store does provide me, as both a dev and a consumer, value. The apps are vetted and restricted in their behavior, and in general are of a specific quality (don't crash often nor crash the device, although I think I have seen a case of the latter)
Would the Epic store be ok? Maybe. Dread Pirate Roberts Illicit Goods Market? Probably not.
There literally is not. The only means of distributing commercial software on iOS is via the app store. It has nothing to do with convenience.
A company couldn't encourage their customers to sideload software via Xcode even if they wanted to. They would be in breach of their dev agreement.
I agree on the commercial, but disagree with the absolutist statement that was initially said.
There's another piece here that you're indirectly implying - which is "enterprise" distribution. This is a different feature, requires a dev license like any other, and you can distribute your app within your enterprise (and external folks). There are limits and tiers, which I no longer remember off-hand and would undoubtedly be out of date by now.
So there's a number of things offered, and quite a few ways around the solution. But, general offering to a worldwide potential customer base - yes, the App Store is the solution (at least up to now) and you had to pay some minor fee to participate. And yes, there were restrictions on what and how you could monetize that, and the easiest path might require a % to Apple. Other options were available depending upon your offering.
How can you write an argument when literally yesterday a judge ruled that Apple is wrong? I mean, what other evidence do you need??? You should be on my side now! Take the L my friend. Again, I'm only referring to in-app purchases not paid apps. I believe paid apps Apple should get some commission
I'm telling you directly this time: this will end free apps that wish to have their own pay system. What is so hard to understand about that?
Apple will likely have a minimum fee for apps, and those that choose to utilize Apple's in-app payment system will get a rebate of said fee, or something similar, with contractual obligations.
Cool - today's my birthday!
And so was yesterday, tomorrow, yesterday's tomorrow for anyone reading this at any particular day. Because one of those will be true at least one of the 365 days of the year.
