Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

I7guy

macrumors Penryn
Nov 30, 2013
27,626
15,869
Gotta be in it to win it
Humm. According to well known innovation indexes, funny enough South Korea tops the US.

Innovation and Apple are two different things. Innovation is an attitude that manifests in products and services and that is shared by multiple companies … Apple is one of those companies.

I call this to attention because it seams that any sort of action that may require Apple to change its behavior is equated to some kind of danger of loosing the ability of the entire market to innovate and in consequence better serve citizens.

As fashionable as Apple is … such relationship of cause and effect does not look realistic.

If the precondition and drive of Innovation is the ability or potential of a single private entity to “tax” any digital transaction at 30% at planetary scale … the problem/challenge is worst than I thought. It’s an extremely narrow view of progress and innovation if not greatly profit from it.
You made this about Apple, I'm making this about governmental micro-regulation. Basically the post was mis-characterized.
 

I7guy

macrumors Penryn
Nov 30, 2013
27,626
15,869
Gotta be in it to win it
Car manufacturers used to do what Apple is doing, if you wanted a specific brand, you had to go to that brands authorised dealership. If you wanted spare parts for that brand, you had to get them from an authorised dealership, if you wanted the brand repaired or serviced, you had to get it done by the brands authorised repair centre. The law put a change to that. You can only purchase iphone/ipad apps from the Apple store. Anyone making apps for the Apple store have to use Apples own pay system, even though other pay systems exist.

So why is it then that car manufacturers were not allowed to protect their own brands, they designed the cars, they built the cars, they built the spare parts for the cars but they were told they cannot restrict their own products to their own dealerships but yet defenders of Apple are saying it's OK for Apple to force developers to use Apples own pay system and customers forced to use Apples app store if they want to use an app on their iphone or ipad.

Why was it not OK for the car manufactuers to restcit their practices but yet it's ok for Apple to restict theirs?
A more fitting analogy is Honda is not under government regulation to be forced to have their accords accept an ECU from Porsche or a tranny from Ferrari, or a taillight from Toyota.
 

Nuno Lopes

macrumors 6502a
Sep 6, 2011
764
639
Lisbon, Portugal
You made this about Apple, I'm making this about governmental micro-regulation. Basically the post was mis-characterized.

I’m sorry for that. I was discussing this regulation rather than the general stance that as a principle things should be non regulated and let the market sort out the balance. I agree with your principle of non regulation as much as I agreed with Tim Cook stance on Net Neutrality regulation.

As a matter of regulation in this context I believe the South Korean is far better than the one being taken in the US.

Keeping with a minimalistic regulation approach it would be preferable to to regulate these telecommunication / network components, requiring them to be fully neutral to both lawfull payment and billing of any lawful goods: apps, digital goods, analog … so and so forth … and let them sort out how that can be achieved, rather than be prescriptive, such as requiring the OSs to support multiple App Store and sideloading apps. Being Neutral in this context being, neutral between payment methods, billing system, digital goods and services as technically possible while being keeping users data secured and private.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:

I7guy

macrumors Penryn
Nov 30, 2013
27,626
15,869
Gotta be in it to win it
I’m sorry for that. I was discussing this regulation rather than the general stance that as a principle things should be non regulated and let the market sort out the balance. I agree with your principle of non regulation as much as I agreed with Tim Cook stance on Net Neutrality regulation.

As a matter of regulation in this context I believe the South Korean is far better than the one being taken in the US.

Keeping with a minimalistic regulation approach it would be preferable to to regulate these telecommunication / network components, requiring them to be fully neutral to both lawfull payment and billing of any lawful goods: apps, digital goods, analog … so and so forth … and let them sort out how that can be achieved, rather than be prescriptive, such as requiring the OSs to support multiple App Store and sideloading apps. Being Neutral in this context being, neutral between payment methods, billing system, digital goods and services.

Cheers.
Telecom, electric, water are regulated industries and industries that are vital for a country. Apple, Samsung, Hauwei are not regulated industries. Government, imo, shouldn't be forcing Apple to design it's app store in a specific way any more than forcing Samsung to support the loading and execution of windows apps on it's lineup of phones or forcing Samsung to give away it's oled panels to Apple, etc.
 

farewelwilliams

Suspended
Jun 18, 2014
4,966
18,039
As an actual iOS/Mac developer who has published apps I have to say this is complete rubbish.

I and many developers I know try to avoid using Apple APIs and dev software as much as is possible. It will almost certainly be an insignificant/negligable percentage of profits from the app store that go towards app store resources.

You don't know what you're talking about. Apple Maps is 100% free whereas Google Maps would have cost me $10k/mo. Even Yelp and Facebook (who aren't indie developers) use Apple Maps because they don't want to pay Google extra $$$$ per month. Tell me why "you and many developers" would use Google Maps over Apple Maps in iOS?

I'm a full stack developer from iOS/Mac to Android to frontend web to backend and have lead the engineering behind over 30 launched products. Maybe you're stuck in iOS/Mac developer land and have never seen the deficiencies of working on other platforms.

Apple is putting their various APIs out for one reason: lock-in. But most developers don't fall for it usually and will try to write code that works multi-platform as much as possible.

Bear notes charges a subscription fee to their customers and uses CloudKit for their servers. 1) They're doing extremely well 2) Don't pay for servers 3) has recurring income.

Many indie developers DON'T want to manage infrastructure and many prefer to stick with iOS as they don't want to bother with Android. Indie developers simply don't have the resources to go cross-platform and are happy to use Apple's services.

Apple has put out lots of APIs/services to try and get more lock-in that have been miserable failures eg. GameCentre.

The only reason developers would put token use of services like GameCentre in is to seek Apples favour in order to get featured. They would always have a back-up highscores/achievements service that worked multiplatform.

Nope. Miserable failure? Letterpress did extremely well and Apple's Gamecenter services powered all of the multiplayer matches for free. Loren Brichter would have to shell out tens of thousands of dollars to run multiplayer servers which would have not been able to sustain the popularity if it weren't for Gamecenter.

And no, plenty of featured games where devs did NOT use Gamecenter for multiplayer sessions.

I had to sign up just to say this.

Great. But you're 100% wrong. Plenty of success stories from Apple Maps, CloudKit, and Gamecenter.
 
Last edited:

djphat2000

macrumors 6502
Jun 30, 2012
463
343
I believe a lot of malls & shopping centers charge tenants for a percentage profit, in addition to the rent. Thus if the App Store is an extension of the mall in a virtual sense, what Apple is doing is not out of bounds with in-app purchases. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here.
I was literally thinking of this just before reading your message.
 

djphat2000

macrumors 6502
Jun 30, 2012
463
343
In-app purchases are an easy steal for Apple. Trillions of dollars are transacted on iPhone with 3rd party payment systems - From amazon, uber rides, banking, stock trading, you name it - but that $1.99 skin on Fortnite is where Apple suddenly becomes security concious and cant trust developers to use their own payment system ??

What you describe above does not install anything on your device. If I make a bank transaction, that is still at the bank, not the phone. If I order any physical good from Amazon, that doesn't get installed on the phone. If I purchase a skin from Fortnight, software on my phone gets modified to show me the skin. I got "something" on my phone that I had to pay for. There by triggering a cut to Apple for that purchase. So Apple can verify that it's OK to install on my device. They trust it, there by I trust it. Getting an Uber to my door is not installing anything on my phone, or getting food delivery etc.

Apple are geniuses at Marketing. To develop for iPhone, you MUST buy a Macbook. The decent onces go for $2000. Then you MUST pay $99 a year whether you publish to the App Store or not. But despite all that, you still havent "Contributed to the App Store" unless you give them "30%" of your in app purchase...But not Amazon, Uber, Airbnb, Robinhood, Banks, Ecommerce stores, Facebook and Google ad networks.. they get to keep their money, but the small developer selling digital goods, thats who they are finessing with this 30% tax.

I believe the rules are that you have to develop for Mac/iOS/iPadOS on a Mac, with Mac SDK's. So yes, everyone would have to do this. Big or small companies. I'm sure most small devs will use a Mac Mini (costs less).
You can give away your apps if your a big or small company. So you only pay for the development of that app as you would any other. You can make money via ad's to keep your app "free", I.E Candy Crush. AND you can charge for in-app-purchases I.E Candy Crush. So the app is free to get, and free to play. And if you want stuff you can "pay" for what you want. You can have it both ways if you will. If you charge for an in-app-purchase you pay Apple a cut (15% for the first 1 million) If over it's 30%. Mind you, this was WAY better than any deal you got from a physical store, not to mention in-app-purchases didn't exist back then. That came along with downloadable content (add-ons that are not free). Again, physical goods and services are outside of this rule. When Candy Crush wants to ship me some gold bars for my hard work. Apple does not get a cut of that. When Fortnite wants to show me how to do those funky dance moves with an instructor that comes to my home or virtually even. Apple wouldn't get a cut of that either.
You want to know why they charge 30% for digital goods but force every physical goods & services business to use 3rd party payments? Because digital goods involve ZERO work on apples end. Its all pure profit. But imagine Uber, Airbnb, Robinhood, Facebook all had to use in-app purchase? Apple would need to hire 1 Million customer service agents to handle those - they wisely chose not to. So they targeted the easiest money they can make and sold it under "security", "Privacy", "Paying for the app Store"

How hard was it for Fortnite developers to code a new outfit for a character? How much are digital coins/tokens or other wise "fake" money really worth? And in the end, it's the software that is being installed on your device that is being charged the 30%. Yes, it's just some code that says you have this outfit or you have this much virtual currency to spend within this game. But, you can bypass that already by going to another game on another platform (even webpage within the iPhone), and buying that same virtual currency. It will be applied to your iOS game as well. So as a "user" I have the ability to not pay Apple anything. I (Used to) could sign up for Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, and a host of other subscription based stuff and a cut of that sale would go to Apple. I can go direct to those companies and sight up with zero cut to Apple. Guess what, it's almost always the same price they charge either way. Sometimes, they have sales where if you buy from Apple you get a discount or some months off or whatever. They all have means in which to provide another way, a cheaper way, a one time sale way, promotion etc. To get you spend via Apple or outside of Apple entirely. I don't see anyone being forced, not customer not developer to go ONLY to Apple for anything. I can play Fortnite on several other platforms just fine. I can even play Xbox games on my iOS device via the WEB, no app installed. No Apple store anything, no Apple CUT for anything. The WEB, the thing everyone complained about being BS. EPIC could do the same exact thing, and bring Fortnite right back on iOS and totally bypass Apple's store and cut. But no, they rather take Apple to court and this rule by South Korea is just another uninformed attempt to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
 

djphat2000

macrumors 6502
Jun 30, 2012
463
343
If a user is scared to use something else they can continue to use the Apple/Google store.

Apple is only hurting its own ecosystem by doing this. Pro software companies that don't want to switch to some subscription model (that most users hate) will not invest a ton of resources in developing Apps that Apple could decide they don't accept any more, or want to compete with and have a built in edge over, while also taking 30% of their profit just for SUPPORTING the Platform.

Apple would sell FAR fewer iPhones and iPads if the only software available on it was Apple's own software. I would have switched to Android already for sure if that was the case.
You do realize that the first iPhone had only Apple software? It sold out too.
They gave access via Web apps. No cut to Apple, and you can still make WebApps. Still for free.

Would they sell less today if they only supplied Apple Apps. Honestly, that is somewhat debatable these days. Apple makes a lot of apps people need and want. I'm sure Disney+, Netflix, Hulu, HBOMax (video side etc.) and Music apps like Spotify, Pandora, Tidal, Qobuz, etc. would make a web app to stay on the closed platform. Bigger apps like Adobe or Office (maybe office could be web too, not like they don't do this already). Banking apps, Uber, Amazon, all could go be web apps too.......

Not for nothing, I doubt they would lose any more sales than they currently do today to Android.
 

Nuno Lopes

macrumors 6502a
Sep 6, 2011
764
639
Lisbon, Portugal
Telecom, electric, water are regulated industries and industries that are vital for a country. Apple, Samsung, Hauwei are not regulated industries.

Like you I am in favor of a Free Market and a strong believer in a minimalistic regulatory platform. Furthermore that regulations should be absolutely neutral if not to ensure a Free Market.

Yet I believe there are some missed conceptions around this. For instance the products these companies produce actually are regulated. The hard devices they create and produce as well as the components are EEE regulated for instance. All this to protect users, merchants and buyers. I don’t understand why soft devices should not if necessary.

At the core of our disagreement is wether the situation at hand warrants regulation around the Neutrality of OSs such as iOS and Android, towards the users acquisition of goods and services. The mechanism through which this Neutrality is achieve is for me irrelevant to the discussion and should be for regulators.

I believe the situation does warrant such measure given that both Apple and Google (Apple Store/iOS, Google Play/Android) produce network components enforcing non neutral policies (anti Net Neutral) that regulate the activities 99% of planet earth smartphone users, components of the global network infrastructure. Not to mention that smarphones already surpassed PCs both in terms of users and traffic … they are indeed building global non Neutral Network on top the Internet (Net Neutral) that it is increasingly hard to escape from.

I believe this situation is unfair to other companies that operated in such a scale that were regulated in order to avoid such situation. Not only that I believe that great innovation, great businesses have come by as a consequence of regulation, either from governements or private companies around digital transactions. Regulation that been have kept to a minimum as well as neutral.

Apple and Google, and it seams that you too, argue otherwise. These companies believe that there needs to be more regulation to protect both users and businesses. With a twist … as long as they are the ones establishing it. For others … Net Neutrality if you please because of this and that. Two decades ago the same discussion was been taken with other company, Microsoft. Further away in time within other industries.

The discussion that we and others are having now on this topic is great. It’s a testament of the success of the Free Market as a whole, including regulations … such as Net Neutrality and many others. I think we need to keep the digital business flow that way … free. Away from the “grabs” of a handful of entities as it was done before.

As Tim Cook advocated for in the letter linked on a previous post. All it is being asked by South Korea I’m with this bill is for these companies to practice what they preach for others.

As far as I see it Apple is an incredible position to do so way above others. With their experience with macOS as well iOS, total opposites in this regard …. maybe, just maybe they could again innovate and create something in between. Compliant with this kind of regulation yet different from macOS.
 
Last edited:

I7guy

macrumors Penryn
Nov 30, 2013
27,626
15,869
Gotta be in it to win it
Like you I am in favor of a Free Market and a strong believer in a minimalistic regulatory platform. Furthermore that regulations should be absolutely neutral if not to ensure a Free Market.

Yet I believe there are some missed conceptions around this. For instance the products these companies produce actually are regulated. The hard devices they create and produce as well as the components are EEE regulated for instance. All this to protect users, merchants and buyers. I don’t understand why soft devices should if necessary.

At the core of our disagreement is wether the situation at hand warrants regulation around the Neutrality of OSs such as iOS and Android, towards the users acquisition of goods and services. The mechanism through which this Neutrality is achieve is for me irrelevant to the discussion and should be for regulators.

I believe the situation does warrant such measure given that both Apple and Google (Apple Store/iOS, Google Play/Android) produce network components enforcing non neutral policies (Net Neutrality) that regulate the activities 99% of planet earth smartphone users, components of the global network infrastructure. Not to mention that smarphones already surpassed PCs both in terms of users and traffic … they are indeed building global non Neutral Network on top the Internet (Net Neutral) that it is increasingly hard to escape from.

I believe this situation is unfair to other companies that operated in such a scale that were regulated in order to avoid such situation. Not only that I believe that great innovation, great businesses have come by as a consequence of regulation, either from governements or private companies around digital transactions. Regulation that been have kept to a minimum as well as neutral.

Apple and Google, and it seams that you too, argue otherwise. These companies believe that there needs to be more regulation to protect both users and businesses. With a twist … as long as they are the ones establishing it. For others … Net Neutrality of you please. Two decades ago the same discussion was been taken with other company, Microsoft. Further away in time within other industries.

The discussion that we and others are having now on this topic is great. It’s a testament of the success of the Free Market as a whole, including regulations … such as Net Neutrality and many others. I think we need to keep the digital business flow that way … free. Away from the “grabs” of a handful of entities as it we did before.

As Tim Cook advocated for in the letter linked on a previous post. All it is asked is for this companies to practice what they preach to others.

As far as I see it Apple is an incredible position to do so way above others. With their experience with macOS as well iOS, total opposites in this regard, not has this. Maybe, just maybe they could again innovate create something in between compliant with this kind of regulation.
In many locales, an electric company can't just up the rates, it has to apply for a rate increase. That is an example of the regulation I am referring to. However, there are safety elements that are regulated in phones, SAR is one of them. But Apple/Samsung doesn't need regulatory approval to add more memory, increase the price, change the form factor etc. The don't need regulatory approval to up the developer fee, add a second app store etc.

I(my opinion) do not want to turn the ios ecosystem into android. There are proprietary business processes that shouldn't be platform neutral.
 

seek3r

macrumors 6502a
Aug 16, 2010
845
605
You do realize that the first iPhone had only Apple software? It sold out too.
They gave access via Web apps. No cut to Apple, and you can still make WebApps. Still for free.

Would they sell less today if they only supplied Apple Apps. Honestly, that is somewhat debatable these days. Apple makes a lot of apps people need and want. I'm sure Disney+, Netflix, Hulu, HBOMax (video side etc.) and Music apps like Spotify, Pandora, Tidal, Qobuz, etc. would make a web app to stay on the closed platform. Bigger apps like Adobe or Office (maybe office could be web too, not like they don't do this already). Banking apps, Uber, Amazon, all could go be web apps too.......

Not for nothing, I doubt they would lose any more sales than they currently do today to Android.
The first iPhone also created a thriving jailbreak scene with alternative stores because people wanted native apps, and lots of indie devs. Also, remember, Apple “borrowed” a lot of ideas from apps that came from early third party stores to incorporate into their first party offerings
 

Nuno Lopes

macrumors 6502a
Sep 6, 2011
764
639
Lisbon, Portugal
I(my opinion) do not want to turn the ios ecosystem into android. There are proprietary business processes that shouldn't be platform neutral.

iOS is my favorite mobile system. Not just because of the App Store vs Google Play, there are many many things that make it much better for us.

I think its entirely unecessary to turn iOS into Android, meaning that such thing is not the only solution. As a customer in fact I think the best solution for iOS would not be multiple App Stores. A single App Store, allowing in app purchases with multiple methods of payments supplied by third parties at devs discretion, one of them Appe Store Pay along with Apple Pay that I use, as well as others. Oh, and by the way, refusal of lawful apps and digital services strictly in the base of security and privacy issues and no other. Which is not the case of both Stadia, xCloud and other bans from the App Store.

How could Apple support such a thing? Well, charge for app hosting and distribution (much like website hosts do), charge for app security review as base. On top charge for App Store and billing if such service was selected, charge for App Store marketing if such service was selected … so on and so forth. Simple.

Hey, but I think it’s not the job of regulators to prescribe the solution for OS Neutrality … just the general requirement, much as South Korea seams to be doing.
 
Last edited:

britboyj

macrumors 6502a
Apr 8, 2009
706
829
Then I'll start charging for this free app I provide for my users to make up for paying Apple $1k/mo to use Apple Maps/CloudKit where I used to be able to use it for free.
Or I can shut down the app.

Congrats, you being A-ok of banning a requirement has passed the cost onto the users.

And users are free to use those apps or not. The free market works.
 

jameslmoser

macrumors 6502a
Sep 18, 2011
616
425
Las Vegas, NV
You do realize that the first iPhone had only Apple software? It sold out too.
They gave access via Web apps. No cut to Apple, and you can still make WebApps. Still for free.

Would they sell less today if they only supplied Apple Apps. Honestly, that is somewhat debatable these days. Apple makes a lot of apps people need and want. I'm sure Disney+, Netflix, Hulu, HBOMax (video side etc.) and Music apps like Spotify, Pandora, Tidal, Qobuz, etc. would make a web app to stay on the closed platform. Bigger apps like Adobe or Office (maybe office could be web too, not like they don't do this already). Banking apps, Uber, Amazon, all could go be web apps too.......

Not for nothing, I doubt they would lose any more sales than they currently do today to Android.

You do realize that was from a time when people used phones primarily to call people, don't you?

You seriously think so many countries, including the US, are making laws force Apple to open this up if there weren't companies that were concerned about it?? There have been plenty that have released statements and formed coalitions. There are also ongoing lawsuits on it. No... its not debatable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RedRage

djphat2000

macrumors 6502
Jun 30, 2012
463
343
You do realize that was from a time when people used phones primarily to call people, don't you?

You seriously think so many countries, including the US, are making laws force Apple to open this up if there weren't companies that were concerned about it?? There have been plenty that have released statements and formed coalitions. There are also ongoing lawsuits on it. No... its not debatable.
Its' good we all know the history here.
Which is what I had hoped, since that should be evidence enough that Apple is not a monopoly. They created something before it existed and did not break any rules in doing so. So everyone is freaking out because they are successful? Again, show what Apple is doing that is wrong?

Open up? So why not force apple to license the OS to third party manufactures (attack of the clones, or DellEMC or HP), or be forced to support Microsoft and or Linux. Why not have any OS run on their iPhones and tablets and watches? You generally don't get to compete within the store of a competitor. You get to outside the store for sure. Don't like what Apple is selling, go to Google, or Microsoft, or Blackberry, or build your own widget. But, you don't get to tell Apple they have to support a 3rd party within their system. They don't have to build anything for anyone "else". They get to sell what they want to those that are willing to buy it. We have a choice to or not.

If you go to Target, or BestBuy and bring items to the counter. You get to pay at that stores counter. Not the counter of the manufacture of the items you bought. You get to pick which form of payment, cash or card/gift card or even store branded card. Many times the store branded card will net you some discounts to encourage you to have it and use it there. While the other cards in your wallet may have other benefits. They all get processed via Master Card or Visa or Discover, NICE, AMEX. etc. Those cards all get their transaction cut. The store gets their cut of any and all items sold in the store. This is the same process going on with the AppStore or GooglePlay store.
Should all that be changed because it's digital? What's the difference? Why are we not trying to force other physical stores within other physical stores? Why can't Procter & Gamble charge you directly at the counter of a Target, or Sony charge you directly at a BestBuy? Would they even charge you less?

IF Apple was the only game in town AND they actively stopped any competitor from well, competing with them. They would have a case. But, that's not the case
 

djphat2000

macrumors 6502
Jun 30, 2012
463
343
The first iPhone also created a thriving jailbreak scene with alternative stores because people wanted native apps, and lots of indie devs. Also, remember, Apple “borrowed” a lot of ideas from apps that came from early third party stores to incorporate into their first party offerings
And google takes from iOS and Apple takes from Android. My point being we didn't even have a store to begin with, and the phones sold out without any 3rd party apps.

All parties had a level playing field here. Apple was new, Google came on later. You had Blackberry, Nokia, Windows CE, SideKicks, Palms, HP's, Compaq's, all kinds of competition. Apple and Google won out. People decided. No one was forced into anything. Neither of them as far as I know used any tactics to ensure their dominance. One (Google) gave away the OS to any phone maker that wanted it. Apple created a closed ecosystem. The walled garden. Both became very successful with all the competition around them. Everyone else failed and went away because people/consumers made that choice. No one had a 30% cut issue, no one had a Let me put a store on your platform issue. You could pick either using the Apple Store, or make a Web App. Google, you can be on the store or side load, or root or whatever you want. You have a choice. I personally don't think I can make Apple build something that doesn't exist just because I think it's more fair to those that simply don't want to or can't build a phone/ecosystem themselves. They can all try, no one is stopping them.
 

djphat2000

macrumors 6502
Jun 30, 2012
463
343
I believe this situation is unfair to other companies that operated in such a scale that were regulated in order to avoid such situation. Not only that I believe that great innovation, great businesses have come by as a consequence of regulation, either from governements or private companies around digital transactions. Regulation that been have kept to a minimum as well as neutral.

Apple and Google, and it seams that you too, argue otherwise. These companies believe that there needs to be more regulation to protect both users and businesses. With a twist … as long as they are the ones establishing it. For others … Net Neutrality if you please because of this and that. Two decades ago the same discussion was been taken with other company, Microsoft. Further away in time within other industries.
My argument "for" Apple and Google is that their success was done the right way. People choose what they wanted. We had a multitude of options and they failed on their merits. Why should Apple or Google have to change anything? They provided a better product and services and solutions than the competition. That to me means you still can compete against them fairly by creating something that does exactly what these governments want done. Build a product that lets anyone or any developer make whatever they want, and sell it however they want. Why can't an EPIC or a Microsoft or a Blackberry do this? They would sell like hotcakes right? They would take over right? Instead, they want Apple to open up and make their system work for others. When that is exactly the opposite of how Apple has ever worked.
 

Nuno Lopes

macrumors 6502a
Sep 6, 2011
764
639
Lisbon, Portugal
My argument "for" Apple and Google is that their success was done the right way.

As much as I too appreciate Apple and Google path to success, oh boy yes I do, text book stuff … regulation usually steps in not because companies are doing something wrong or right but to establish some kind of balance and protect the existence of a Free Market of goods and services in context. For instance there is nothing wrong or unlawful with a company buying another company … yet in certain cases such activity is denied by regulators.

IMHO, your idea is at most naive.

Cheers.
 

I7guy

macrumors Penryn
Nov 30, 2013
27,626
15,869
Gotta be in it to win it
As much as I too appreciate Apple and Google path to success, oh boy yes I do, text book stuff … regulation usually steps in not because companies are doing something wrong or right but to establish some kind of balance and protect the existence of a Free Market of goods and services in context. For instance there is nothing wrong or unlawful with a company buying another company … yet in certain cases such activity is denied by regulators.

IMHO, your idea is at most naive. I don’t think most people quite get what some types regulations are all about.

Cheers.
I agree with the poster you quoted. And as I said, whilst I have no control of the situation, I see the micro-regulation of companies as a very, very bad thing. Do something well, legally and grow the business. The government steps in to take it away in the interest of "fairness"? Nah.
 
  • Like
Reactions: djphat2000

deevey

macrumors 6502a
Dec 4, 2004
923
919
3rd party apps fuel demand for iPhones - the most profitable consumer device is probably history. To develop for iOS you MUST Purchase iPhone, Macbook, $99 dev account in that order
You need none of the above unless you are going to publish your app at which stage you pay $99.

Even then you don't need a Macbook or iPhone, a Mac Mini will suffice (even a really old one).

Is it really going to be any shock to any dev that they should invest in a device capable of running the software they designed it for?
If you buy an electric toothbrush in Walmart, they don’t force you to buy brush heads there, do they?
What if they gave you the toothbrush for free on the basis that you do buy the brush heads there?

Oh and I have a Watsons electric toothbrush and can only buy new heads in Watsons stores.
 

h3ysw5nkan

macrumors 68000
Aug 17, 2016
1,763
1,658
What if they gave you the toothbrush for free on the basis that you do buy the brush heads there?

Oh and I have a Watsons electric toothbrush and can only buy new heads in Watsons stores.

No can do sir, “first sale principle“ here. You are free to buy knockoff or compatible brush heads from Aliexpress.

Same with printer toner.
 

h3ysw5nkan

macrumors 68000
Aug 17, 2016
1,763
1,658
You need none of the above unless you are going to publish your app at which stage you pay $99.

Even then you don't need a Macbook or iPhone, a Mac Mini will suffice (even a really old one).

Is it really going to be any shock to any dev that they should invest in a device capable of running the software they designed it for?
Almost all iOS apps outside of the US are developed with frameworks, like flutter or react native. They don’t need to have a Mac or Xcode to develop for iOS. They use third party IDEs, usually co-branded from Jetbrains. Only the final signing guy needs a Mac to submit to Apple, which is usually automated via CI/CD pipeline anyway. So it’s done on a Mac mini server in a data centre somewhere, which can be rented as any other types of servers. Most of these developers develop cross platform, and use a single code base for iOS, Android, Huawei, and web apps.

(many US ones too, Google is a big example of this, as they made Flutter)
 

willchris

macrumors newbie
Aug 24, 2021
29
15
It seems very likely that if these kinds of efforts pass there will be apps that drop Apple's first party payment systems all together and/or move off to a third party store. Then my preferred options go away. That is what I'm most concerned about.

This would be like my favorite brands of food pulling out of the grocery store in the good part of town and requiring me to go to a part of town I don't trust to get my groceries.
I understand your concern now but I don't think that's ever gonna happen. Apple is way too big and vindictive to let something go unpunished. I assume there would be a huge number of people like yourself and I just don't see any app leaving users behind. If anything changes at all I predict there only being alternative options, not replacements.
 
  • Like
Reactions: _Spinn_
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.