This app does not support the App Store’s private and secure payment system(twitter.com)
twitter.com
This app does not support the App Store’s private and secure payment system
https://twitter.com/marcoarment/status/1489595793506029578
309 comments
> Just like back in the day when Microsoft was forced to let users allow other browser when it wasn't even being blocked. Just theirs was pre-installed!
Microsoft’s antitrust case is frequently misunderstood. MS was a supplier to the companies that made and sold computers. They got in trouble for messing with other suppliers.
Apple manufacturers and sells the computer. It’s not analogous.
Microsoft’s antitrust case is frequently misunderstood. MS was a supplier to the companies that made and sold computers. They got in trouble for messing with other suppliers.
Apple manufacturers and sells the computer. It’s not analogous.
It's a LOT closer than you seem to be painting it.
Apple is a supplier to software companies (of both hardware and software). They are getting in trouble for messing with other suppliers (of both hardware and software).
To quote the charges in the MS case:
"the U.S. government accused Microsoft of illegally maintaining its monopoly position in the personal computer (PC) market primarily through the legal and technical restrictions it put on the abilities of PC manufacturers (OEMs) and users to uninstall Internet Explorer and use other programs such as Netscape and Java."
Apple in this case:
"Apple is illegally maintaining its monopoly position in the mobile application market primarily through technical restrictions it puts on the abilities of iOS software developers and users to install 3rd party application and programs."
We're essentially playing out a very similar situation, just with the focus on digital goods.
Apple is a supplier to software companies (of both hardware and software). They are getting in trouble for messing with other suppliers (of both hardware and software).
To quote the charges in the MS case:
"the U.S. government accused Microsoft of illegally maintaining its monopoly position in the personal computer (PC) market primarily through the legal and technical restrictions it put on the abilities of PC manufacturers (OEMs) and users to uninstall Internet Explorer and use other programs such as Netscape and Java."
Apple in this case:
"Apple is illegally maintaining its monopoly position in the mobile application market primarily through technical restrictions it puts on the abilities of iOS software developers and users to install 3rd party application and programs."
We're essentially playing out a very similar situation, just with the focus on digital goods.
I don't think this is the case. Here is how I understand this:
Microsoft was accused of having a monopoly in a market (PC) defined by one single software (Windows) and hardware produced by a lot of PC manufacturers.
Apple could be accused of having a "monopoly" in market defined by their own software and their own hardware.
So in a way, IANAL, but Microsoft had a monopoly with their product in a bigger market than the one created by them, while Apple has a "monopoly" on the market (Apple ecosystem) that exists only because they exist. In this way, Microsoft was creating a monopoly in an otherwise free market, while Apple is a monopoly on their own devices, so if Microsoft would stop selling Windows the PC market will still exist, while if Apple will stop selling iPhones with iOS the App Store market will not exist anymore.
The correct comparison could be with Microsoft which has a monopoly on the Surface market where they produce both hardware and software.
Microsoft was accused of having a monopoly in a market (PC) defined by one single software (Windows) and hardware produced by a lot of PC manufacturers.
Apple could be accused of having a "monopoly" in market defined by their own software and their own hardware.
So in a way, IANAL, but Microsoft had a monopoly with their product in a bigger market than the one created by them, while Apple has a "monopoly" on the market (Apple ecosystem) that exists only because they exist. In this way, Microsoft was creating a monopoly in an otherwise free market, while Apple is a monopoly on their own devices, so if Microsoft would stop selling Windows the PC market will still exist, while if Apple will stop selling iPhones with iOS the App Store market will not exist anymore.
The correct comparison could be with Microsoft which has a monopoly on the Surface market where they produce both hardware and software.
The bigger market in this instance is "mobile devices," of which iOS accounts for nearly 60% of users in the US.
It's not nearly as aggressive of a split as MS/everyone else, but being the larger side of a duopoly a lot of vendors don't really have the choice to just ignore them, and meanwhile their users are subjected to this.
The comparison also starts looking a lot closer when you consider the way it impacts web development as a profession that the same ~60% can't choose a browser other than Safari in any sense that has practical meaning.
It's not nearly as aggressive of a split as MS/everyone else, but being the larger side of a duopoly a lot of vendors don't really have the choice to just ignore them, and meanwhile their users are subjected to this.
The comparison also starts looking a lot closer when you consider the way it impacts web development as a profession that the same ~60% can't choose a browser other than Safari in any sense that has practical meaning.
> MS was a supplier to the companies that made and sold computers. They got in trouble for messing with other suppliers.
Isn't this only true for the US antitrust case? IIRC the EU antitrust case was similar Apple's situation.
Isn't this only true for the US antitrust case? IIRC the EU antitrust case was similar Apple's situation.
If I can sideload apps on an Apple device, what's stopping me from buying a bunch of them, sideloading my special apps, and reselling them at a markup? Or, if the bootloader becomes unlocked, wiping iOS off of the device and installing Android? There's no way to even have other suppliers right now because Apple has everything so locked down.
Isn't Apple now similarly messing with suppliers of iOS apps?
I see a problem with the Facebook, the Microsoft, the Epic store with all different rules and payment methods. Having them to cross a common threshold is better for me as an end user.
Then use the common threshold. I'm sure Epic would happy to keep a version of their games on the App Store with all prices inflated by thirty percent.
Their saga with the Play Store shows that that isn’t the case.[0] Once you allow third parties to use different stores, and those stores aren’t as restrictive, you bet businesses are gonna move there. The whole “if you like the App Store, just don’t use the others” doesn’t work in practice. See also: the whole Steam vs Epic issue on Windows.
Should Apple open their store? Sure. But it’s not as cut and dry as people make it out to be.
[0]: https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/how-to-install...
Should Apple open their store? Sure. But it’s not as cut and dry as people make it out to be.
[0]: https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/how-to-install...
Apple would not let them charge one price for App Store payments and another price for external payments.
Spotify did exactly this before they abandoned in app purchases. I believe Google does this for YouTube Premium.
Apple did have that policy for less than a year over 10 years ago.
Apple did have that policy for less than a year over 10 years ago.
A store cannot dictate how much you charge for a product at a different retailer, and they have no right to interfere with your business activity, and the agreements you have with a different distributor.
> A store cannot dictate how much you charge for a product at a different retailer
Isn’t this exactly what is happening everywhere you see “we price match!” or “low price guarantee”?
Platforms can and do require sellers to provide the lowest price, and take whatever measures including offing violators from the platform if this means they suffer losses every time a buyer does their research.
Not even mentioning exclusivity clauses, which are very much legal and very much dictate your relationship with other distributors.
I’m not saying Apple is doing that, but there are so many precedents that I doubt this practice is illegal.
> they have no right to interfere with your business activity
If you choose to do business with them, they are literally taking part in your business activity. No one made you sign the contract (presumably you have done so in expectation of benefitting from the platform, which would attract users to you since its owner develops products that users want). Calling this “interference” is nonsensical.
Isn’t this exactly what is happening everywhere you see “we price match!” or “low price guarantee”?
Platforms can and do require sellers to provide the lowest price, and take whatever measures including offing violators from the platform if this means they suffer losses every time a buyer does their research.
Not even mentioning exclusivity clauses, which are very much legal and very much dictate your relationship with other distributors.
I’m not saying Apple is doing that, but there are so many precedents that I doubt this practice is illegal.
> they have no right to interfere with your business activity
If you choose to do business with them, they are literally taking part in your business activity. No one made you sign the contract (presumably you have done so in expectation of benefitting from the platform, which would attract users to you since its owner develops products that users want). Calling this “interference” is nonsensical.
Nitpick: "We price match" is a store voluntarily taking a price cut for their customers. The other store "dictates" the price, but the first one can always end the sale if they wish.
Wouldn’t this open such a platform to scams where a friend of the seller gets discounts by pointing to seller’s site with super-low prices?
I’m not saying they do not take a cut voluntarily, but they must take measures if this happens too often with a particular seller.
I’m not saying they do not take a cut voluntarily, but they must take measures if this happens too often with a particular seller.
Usually those ads have some fine print saying that their own terms of refusing a sale for whatever reason still apply. So if Store A is taking a loss on sales to force Store B to sell for cheaper, Store B can still refuse to sell you the product. "We price match" only applies if a sale actually goes to completion.
Not sure I get your point.
Imagine store A is a platform like Booking.com, and store B is seller’s site. There is a complaint every day to store A that store B sells cheaper. Store A charges the customer less but pays the seller the same, taking a loss.
Meanwhile, it turns out that those customers are friends of the seller, to whom the seller compensates the transaction plus some extra on top.
Imagine store A is a platform like Booking.com, and store B is seller’s site. There is a complaint every day to store A that store B sells cheaper. Store A charges the customer less but pays the seller the same, taking a loss.
Meanwhile, it turns out that those customers are friends of the seller, to whom the seller compensates the transaction plus some extra on top.
Apple can and does do this.
Products on the App Store can be sold at a different price, companies often do this to recoup some of that 30% App Store commission.
Edit: this is a fact, though feel free to downvote. Apple tries to hide this from the user by not letting publishers mention that the app or service is cheaper when purchased outside of the App Store or Mac App Store.
Edit: this is a fact, though feel free to downvote. Apple tries to hide this from the user by not letting publishers mention that the app or service is cheaper when purchased outside of the App Store or Mac App Store.
I must be misunderstanding this. Since Apple doesn't support sideloading, how is any product offered both on the App Store and somewhere else, let alone for a different price?
Some apps are sold for a different price on the App Store and the Mac App Store, than if you'd buy it directly from the developer or a store on a different platform. On iOS you can obviously only buy an app on the App Store, with some exceptions.
You can buy subscriptions outside of the App Store and still use the app.
That is not true, at least in the US.
> The whole “if you like the App Store, just don’t use the others” doesn’t work in practice.
Why not? Isn't that the status quo? If you like the App Store, you buy an iPhone and don't use any of the others. If you like F-Droid, you get an Android phone, put LineageOS on it and don't use any of the others. Or if you like multiple Android stores, you can do that too.
Allowing multiple stores on Apple devices just reduces the cost relative to the "buy a new phone" solution.
Why not? Isn't that the status quo? If you like the App Store, you buy an iPhone and don't use any of the others. If you like F-Droid, you get an Android phone, put LineageOS on it and don't use any of the others. Or if you like multiple Android stores, you can do that too.
Allowing multiple stores on Apple devices just reduces the cost relative to the "buy a new phone" solution.
They're saying that when what's being asked (alternative stores without paying % cut to OS vendor) doesn't solve this at all, as Epic has its own store on Windows but gamers absolutely hate it since Steam is so much better[0], yet Epic purchases exclusivity rights to new games; it only has marketshare because they give away free games and Fortnite requires it.
0: https://redd.it/b94c4i
0: https://redd.it/b94c4i
No they wouldn't.
They already pulled Rocket League from the steam store[1] after purchasing their developer. There is no reason they would treat ios any different
[1]https://store.steampowered.com/app/252950/Rocket_League/
[1]https://store.steampowered.com/app/252950/Rocket_League/
Steam developer agreement forbids such practice. You can't set base price of your game any higher than in other stores. And, to be fair, situation isn't as dire as you described it, you can still download and play Rocket League with the latest update in Steam if you have it on your account.
There won't be any, it will be either go to the epic store or don't use our product. For certain apps it will be a pain in the ass. And to be honest, this is why I buy Apple not Android. I don't want to think about it.
There is more to it than only getting apps. How about family sharing or checking what the minors in my family are downloading?
And if they do it on the App Store I want to see the break up of Nintendo, Sony and Xbox games stores too.
There is more to it than only getting apps. How about family sharing or checking what the minors in my family are downloading?
And if they do it on the App Store I want to see the break up of Nintendo, Sony and Xbox games stores too.
Why don't we buy their security concern? We then declare the App Store a utility and divorce it from Apple entirely. Pay Apple off and have it run as a non-profit supported by a minimal tax from Apple and developers.
Apart from the fact that almost nobody could afford to pay them off!
(FWIW, I have always thought that media companies should collectively buy Twitter and run it as a utility)
(FWIW, I have always thought that media companies should collectively buy Twitter and run it as a utility)
> I have always thought that media companies should collectively buy Twitter and run it as a utility
That's a pretty good analogy—twitter is to media companies, as power plants are to power companies.
That's a pretty good analogy—twitter is to media companies, as power plants are to power companies.
Yes because government being in charge of technology could never go wrong.
You really don’t see the harm in government controlling distribution?
You really don’t see the harm in government controlling distribution?
[deleted]
Supported side-loading is a thing on Android since day one? What innovation came out of this? Thousands of rip-off apps, all sort of malware pushed upon clueless users? I know, that some of those things are still a problem on iOS, but just imagine how worse this can gen, if they would be forced to open up the system for additional app stores.
There’s so many potential pitfalls with side loading and alternate app stores
Apple’s behavior is BS and they need to be forced to allow competition
They’ve done it to themselves
Apple’s behavior is BS and they need to be forced to allow competition
They’ve done it to themselves
To be fair, iOS jailbreak scene was the birthplace of many UX innovations. However, since them the capabilities of iOS were expanded and jailbreak lost its popularity.
F-Droid.
Like SSL, Apple and Google need to do their part to provide a way for developers to validate an app and prevent clones from being installed instead even if coming from a 3rd party store.
It doesn't really work even with one closed AppStore. How that could work if they would be forced to allow 3rd party AppStores? I don't understand this logic. On one hand you want to force Apple to allow 3rd patry stores (and apps). But still you want them to have final word in the approval process?
And SSL validates just the domain name, which still allows all the phishing attacks to thrive. Compare installing App for the first time to coming to some website for the first time ever. SSL doesn't really provide anything to identify the site, anyone can get any domain.
And SSL validates just the domain name, which still allows all the phishing attacks to thrive. Compare installing App for the first time to coming to some website for the first time ever. SSL doesn't really provide anything to identify the site, anyone can get any domain.
Like Microsoft allows you to sign your app, there should be a mechanism like this for each OS. I can still install an app if it is not signed but I am being warned.
Why should the app store prevent clones? Clones are just another name for competition. I want the app stores to ensure that the apps are safe, not that they are free of competition.
Microsoft was forced around Internet Explorer not "just" because theirs was pre-installed. It was more that Internet Explorer had become so baked in to the system that it literally could not be removed without breaking Windows. That was the thing that caused rulings against Microsoft.
I'm not sure that holds up in practice. The "fix" for the anti-trust claim (or what it was called) was for Microsoft to add a popup asking the user what browser they wanted, and Internet Explorer (or whatever it's called today) is still as embedded into the OS as it was in the past.
IE isn't embedded in the OS in any significant way any more, and hasn't been for a while. Windows Explorer used to basically be a wrapper around IE, for example.
Windows explorer is STILL a wrapper around IE - I can go install COM components for IE that will run just fine in explorer.
And the vast majority of the webviews used by the OS were IE (now webview2, based on Edge instead).
It turns out the ability to display a webpage is a pretty critical part of any modern operating system - they all support some form of a webview. The one in Windows is based on browsers that MS develops and owns (IE, then EdgeClassic, now Chromium Edge). It's absolutely baked in still.
And the vast majority of the webviews used by the OS were IE (now webview2, based on Edge instead).
It turns out the ability to display a webpage is a pretty critical part of any modern operating system - they all support some form of a webview. The one in Windows is based on browsers that MS develops and owns (IE, then EdgeClassic, now Chromium Edge). It's absolutely baked in still.
Nowadays the Windows default browser is called Microsoft Edge (based around Blink engine), and you still cannot remove it from the OS as it's "essential component of our [Microsoft] operating system", at least according to Microsoft themselves:
> Microsoft Edge is the web browser recommended by Microsoft and is the default web browser for Windows. Because Windows supports applications that rely on the web platform, our default web browser is an essential component of our operating system and can’t be uninstalled. To provide our users with compatibility, compliance, accessibility, and performance, we'll continue updating Microsoft Edge through the browser installer or Windows updates.
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/why-can-t...
I still click on links in some parts of the OS or other applications on Windows 10 that opens in Microsoft Edge, even though I've set Firefox to be my default browser.
> Microsoft Edge is the web browser recommended by Microsoft and is the default web browser for Windows. Because Windows supports applications that rely on the web platform, our default web browser is an essential component of our operating system and can’t be uninstalled. To provide our users with compatibility, compliance, accessibility, and performance, we'll continue updating Microsoft Edge through the browser installer or Windows updates.
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/why-can-t...
I still click on links in some parts of the OS or other applications on Windows 10 that opens in Microsoft Edge, even though I've set Firefox to be my default browser.
Windows 11 shell is based on chromium now.
I don't know if it shares with the core that buildin edge use. But if it is the case, then obviously you can't remove it just like you can't remove core of ie in pre windows 11 world.
By the way, some function of the new shell seems relies on service not available under safe mode. So the explore.exe will crash repeatedly when you are in safe mode. __And it openes the edge for help article every time it crashed__, so you ends up with dozens of same tab in the edge.
I don't know if it shares with the core that buildin edge use. But if it is the case, then obviously you can't remove it just like you can't remove core of ie in pre windows 11 world.
By the way, some function of the new shell seems relies on service not available under safe mode. So the explore.exe will crash repeatedly when you are in safe mode. __And it openes the edge for help article every time it crashed__, so you ends up with dozens of same tab in the edge.
EU is specifically drafting legislation for gatekeepers in Digital Markets Law.
TL;DR Apple and Google will have to allow to install third-party app stores trough their stores.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=COM%3A20...
Gatekeepers like Apple will have specific obligation according to Article 5:
(b) allow business users to offer the same products or services to end users through third party online intermediation services at prices or conditions that are different from those offered through the online intermediation services of the gatekeeper;
(c) allow business users to promote offers to end users acquired via the core platform service, and to conclude contracts with these end users regardless of whether for that purpose they use the core platform services of the gatekeeper or not, and allow end users to access and use, through the core platform services of the gatekeeper, content, subscriptions, features or other items by using the software application of a business user, where these items have been acquired by the end users from the relevant business user without using the core platform services of the gatekeeper;
And Article 6:
(c) allow the installation and effective use of third party software applications or software application stores using, or interoperating with, operating systems of that gatekeeper and allow these software applications or software application stores to be accessed by means other than the core platform services of that gatekeeper. The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking proportionate measures to ensure that third party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper;
(k) apply fair and non-discriminatory general conditions of access for business users to its software application store designated pursuant to Article 3 of this Regulation.
Following articles, like:
- article 7: Compliance with obligations for gatekeepers
- article 10: Updating obligations for gatekeepers and
- article 11: Anti-circumvention
give the EU Commission quite a lot of executive power to ensure effective implementation.
TL;DR Apple and Google will have to allow to install third-party app stores trough their stores.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=COM%3A20...
Gatekeepers like Apple will have specific obligation according to Article 5:
(b) allow business users to offer the same products or services to end users through third party online intermediation services at prices or conditions that are different from those offered through the online intermediation services of the gatekeeper;
(c) allow business users to promote offers to end users acquired via the core platform service, and to conclude contracts with these end users regardless of whether for that purpose they use the core platform services of the gatekeeper or not, and allow end users to access and use, through the core platform services of the gatekeeper, content, subscriptions, features or other items by using the software application of a business user, where these items have been acquired by the end users from the relevant business user without using the core platform services of the gatekeeper;
And Article 6:
(c) allow the installation and effective use of third party software applications or software application stores using, or interoperating with, operating systems of that gatekeeper and allow these software applications or software application stores to be accessed by means other than the core platform services of that gatekeeper. The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking proportionate measures to ensure that third party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper;
(k) apply fair and non-discriminatory general conditions of access for business users to its software application store designated pursuant to Article 3 of this Regulation.
Following articles, like:
- article 7: Compliance with obligations for gatekeepers
- article 10: Updating obligations for gatekeepers and
- article 11: Anti-circumvention
give the EU Commission quite a lot of executive power to ensure effective implementation.
Will these laws also apply to game consoles? Set top boxes?
The current law draft deems you a gatekeeper if you have:
- annual EEA turnover equal to or above EUR 6.5 billion in the last three financial years
- market value of at least EUR 65 billion in the last financial year and it provides a core platform service in at least three Member States
So, I believe it will apply to many game consoles.
More in detail:
Article 2, Definitions
‘Core platform service’ means any of the following:
(a) online intermediation services;
(...)
Article 3, Designation of gatekeepers
Paragraph 1, a provider of core platform services shall be designated as gatekeeper if:
(a) it has a significant impact on the internal market;
(b) it operates a core platform service which serves as an important gateway for business users to reach end users; and
(c) it enjoys an entrenched and durable position in its operations or it is foreseeable that it will enjoy such a position in the near future.
Paragraph 2, a provider of core platform services shall be presumed to satisfy:
(a) the requirement in paragraph 1 point (a) where the undertaking to which it belongs achieves an annual EEA turnover equal to or above EUR 6.5 billion in the last three financial years, or where the average market capitalisation or the equivalent fair market value of the undertaking to which it belongs amounted to at least EUR 65 billion in the last financial year, and it provides a core platform service in at least three Member States;
(b) the requirement in paragraph 1 point (b) where it provides a core platform service that has more than 45 million monthly active end users established or located in the Union and more than 10 000 yearly active business users established in the Union in the last financial year;
for the purpose of the first subparagraph, monthly active end users shall refer to the average number of monthly active end users throughout the largest part of the last financial year;
(c) the requirement in paragraph 1 point (c) where the thresholds in point (b) were met in each of the last three financial years.
- annual EEA turnover equal to or above EUR 6.5 billion in the last three financial years
- market value of at least EUR 65 billion in the last financial year and it provides a core platform service in at least three Member States
So, I believe it will apply to many game consoles.
More in detail:
Article 2, Definitions
‘Core platform service’ means any of the following:
(a) online intermediation services;
(...)
Article 3, Designation of gatekeepers
Paragraph 1, a provider of core platform services shall be designated as gatekeeper if:
(a) it has a significant impact on the internal market;
(b) it operates a core platform service which serves as an important gateway for business users to reach end users; and
(c) it enjoys an entrenched and durable position in its operations or it is foreseeable that it will enjoy such a position in the near future.
Paragraph 2, a provider of core platform services shall be presumed to satisfy:
(a) the requirement in paragraph 1 point (a) where the undertaking to which it belongs achieves an annual EEA turnover equal to or above EUR 6.5 billion in the last three financial years, or where the average market capitalisation or the equivalent fair market value of the undertaking to which it belongs amounted to at least EUR 65 billion in the last financial year, and it provides a core platform service in at least three Member States;
(b) the requirement in paragraph 1 point (b) where it provides a core platform service that has more than 45 million monthly active end users established or located in the Union and more than 10 000 yearly active business users established in the Union in the last financial year;
for the purpose of the first subparagraph, monthly active end users shall refer to the average number of monthly active end users throughout the largest part of the last financial year;
(c) the requirement in paragraph 1 point (c) where the thresholds in point (b) were met in each of the last three financial years.
And watch European citizens complain that now their game consoles are more expensive because the console makers won’t sell them at a loss since they can’t be subsidized by fees.
Or since there is already a shortage, the console makers prioritize the US.
Then Apple will have a much higher fee to use their developer tools.
Also in the case of Google, you can’t use Google Services outside of the Google Play store. The only company that has had the resources to duplicate many of those services is Amazon.
In iOS users case, you won’t be able to use iCloud backup, the same notifications controls, access to global settings, probably no access to KeyChain or any other API that requires server side integration.
Or since there is already a shortage, the console makers prioritize the US.
Then Apple will have a much higher fee to use their developer tools.
Also in the case of Google, you can’t use Google Services outside of the Google Play store. The only company that has had the resources to duplicate many of those services is Amazon.
In iOS users case, you won’t be able to use iCloud backup, the same notifications controls, access to global settings, probably no access to KeyChain or any other API that requires server side integration.
A fine goal, and I approve strongly, but I worry that without a real understanding of what has happened in China, the outcome might be prices like China's (50% cut being typical, https://archive.fo/5dvsz). And IMO, anyone who says "well, obviously the only reason…" doesn't really understand.
I don't think so and this is where unregulated markets (although I am not a fan at all) would push the prices down. If anyone can provide an app store and that app stores fees are lower people will move.
What Apple and Google need to do is work on assuring that Apps can be uniquely identified (which the can already) and validated so that you don't have a clone of an App in another app store.
What Apple and Google need to do is work on assuring that Apps can be uniquely identified (which the can already) and validated so that you don't have a clone of an App in another app store.
AIUI China has many mobile phone builders that all use android with minimal customisation, so they're basically interchangeable except for the prices of the vendor-provided app store on each. And apparently none of them use app pricing to undercut the others, unless I've overlooked recent developments?
It's not clear to me why the Chinese competition fails at undercutting Apple/Google and the proposed app store competition would achieve that. I don't see the relevant difference.
The unique identifier on Android is easily broken, BTW. I don't know iOS well, but on android it's simple. IIRC you don't even need an android development kit, the java tools will do. This fine web page lets you download a formerly welll-known app; someone downloaded the app, unzipped the executable (which is in zip format), resigned and uploaded. https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/app-quickpic-v4-5-2-class...
It's not clear to me why the Chinese competition fails at undercutting Apple/Google and the proposed app store competition would achieve that. I don't see the relevant difference.
The unique identifier on Android is easily broken, BTW. I don't know iOS well, but on android it's simple. IIRC you don't even need an android development kit, the java tools will do. This fine web page lets you download a formerly welll-known app; someone downloaded the app, unzipped the executable (which is in zip format), resigned and uploaded. https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/app-quickpic-v4-5-2-class...
I am puzzled that he really appears to find it funny.
I am a long-time Mac user and I find myself fervently hoping that Apple has made the completely unnecessary self-own that will finally help people forget the whole keyboard fiasco.
This is the most staggering example of deliberate, bad-faith arrogance that they could have come up with. If Apple is now the kind of business that joyfully thumbs its nose at regulators like Facebook did, we are in the bad timeline.
[edit to add: I don't expect them to like dealing with regulators, and I do expect them to loudly complain in press releases and in the FT and WSJ and on every business TV programme in the world. I then expect them to comply in a way that is productive, whereas this is just aggression, and it'll only leave a bad taste with developers and customers. If they want the same instinctive response as RyanAir, this is the way to go about it]
I am a long-time Mac user and I find myself fervently hoping that Apple has made the completely unnecessary self-own that will finally help people forget the whole keyboard fiasco.
This is the most staggering example of deliberate, bad-faith arrogance that they could have come up with. If Apple is now the kind of business that joyfully thumbs its nose at regulators like Facebook did, we are in the bad timeline.
[edit to add: I don't expect them to like dealing with regulators, and I do expect them to loudly complain in press releases and in the FT and WSJ and on every business TV programme in the world. I then expect them to comply in a way that is productive, whereas this is just aggression, and it'll only leave a bad taste with developers and customers. If they want the same instinctive response as RyanAir, this is the way to go about it]
> I am puzzled that he really appears to find it funny.
It's possible to find something funny and be highly critical of it at the same time. Laughing at something outrageously bad is a pretty standard reaction.
It's possible to find something funny and be highly critical of it at the same time. Laughing at something outrageously bad is a pretty standard reaction.
This is like sharing popcorn when the playground bully picks on a kid you don't like.
No this is like sharing popcorn when the playground bully chases a kid you like but trips over his own feat and falls flat on his face.
The point is its embarrassing the lengths Apple are going to to try to maintain the status quo.
The point is its embarrassing the lengths Apple are going to to try to maintain the status quo.
That has not happened yet.
I believe you’re misinterpreting it. Pretty sure it’s meant sarcastic since even satire magazines like the onion couldn’t make this up.
The germans actually have a word for this: “realsatire”. It means when reality writes better satirical tragedies than anyone of us ever could.
The germans actually have a word for this: “realsatire”. It means when reality writes better satirical tragedies than anyone of us ever could.
I don't think I'm misinterpreting that he appears to be gleeful at the trolling. He thinks it is funny.
Seeing that he is one of the most popular indy app developers, I assure you he isn’t happy with Apple’s App Store policies.
https://marco.org/2021/06/03/developer-relations
https://marco.org/2021/06/03/developer-relations
I well understand that he's a popular indy developer. He can still be wrong.
I also understand that he's _laughing_ at Apple trolling a regulator by messing with other developers.
It's a fairly toxic addition to the discussion.
I also understand that he's _laughing_ at Apple trolling a regulator by messing with other developers.
It's a fairly toxic addition to the discussion.
He is a developer and I just posted a blog post showing he is definitely not on Apple’s side. He complains about Apple’s treatment of developers all of the time on both of his podcasts.
no, i think it's more of a cynic's laugh. After all, the better comparison is that this is like laughing when the playground bully picks on you.
[deleted]
No, it's sharing the popcorn when the bully picks on everyone, and it's just someone else's turn to be bullied this week.
What Apple is doing is terrible and it is hilarious.
It's hilarious because they could act in good faith, but they don't. It's funny to watch them do this, because it is so wildly out of touch with the image they continue to project. It's funny because they repeatedly do these sorts of things, so much that it is now predictable.
It's hilarious because they could act in good faith, but they don't. It's funny to watch them do this, because it is so wildly out of touch with the image they continue to project. It's funny because they repeatedly do these sorts of things, so much that it is now predictable.
It's not hilarious at all. It is a crucial sign that the consumer tech industry is allowing itself to behave in a way that is malignant, because the company inarguably at the top of it -- which has, for clarity, always been arrogant, indignant, entitled, and pushy -- is now engaging in a kind of tech troll conduct, the absence of which people used to sincerely use to differentiate it from e.g. Uber and Google.
This is a sign of insecurity in what is arguably a bear market and it bodes poorly for a lot of us, I think.
This is a sign of insecurity in what is arguably a bear market and it bodes poorly for a lot of us, I think.
IMO the goal is to add friction to the external payment methods so that people just give up and use the built-in Apple payment method that they make insane margins on.
Well, their "commission" on out-of-app purchases is 27%, so adding friction doesn't make a ton of sense.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30204604
Apple's just being a dick here.
- Written from my MacBook Pro -
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30204604
Apple's just being a dick here.
- Written from my MacBook Pro -
He doesn’t find it funny. If you know Marco from his old blog or his “tiny” podcast[1], you’ll know he is being cynical.
1. https://atp.fm
1. https://atp.fm
Obviously Apple is positioning itself here for a negotiation with regulators, in a way that leaves as much options open for them as possible. They aren’t going to grovel and then ask if they’ve been groveling enough, they take strong positions they do have arguments for and then they negotiate.
Most people wouldn’t expect Sony to be forced to allow free access to the PlayStation platform. There really isn’t that big a case for Apple to be forced to allow free access to iOS.
Most people wouldn’t expect Sony to be forced to allow free access to the PlayStation platform. There really isn’t that big a case for Apple to be forced to allow free access to iOS.
Sony isn't positioning the PlayStation as a general purpose computer though.
I think he finds it funny in the same way Netflix Death to 2021 is funny or SNL jokes about Trump were funny. It's a way to laugh at a terrible situation. Black sarcastic humour when honestly things really suck.
I am very fond of sarcastic humour but in this case I don't read it as sarcastic.
Fatalistic, maybe, on reflection. But in this case it's a pretty toxic addition to the discourse.
Fatalistic, maybe, on reflection. But in this case it's a pretty toxic addition to the discourse.
As a non-American may I point out that SNL is no laughing matter under any circumstances.
Because it can't just be that they actually want to be very clear to the user that Apple is not responsible for the experience?
When I buy an iPhone, I buy an iPhone using a third party payment provider. Apple do not smirk and infer that those payments are made through a provider they don't control. They take my money.
They aren't just being "very clear", they are thumbing their nose at the regulator, and joyfully pissing in customer and developer chips as they do so.
They are trolling the process. That is very clear.
They aren't just being "very clear", they are thumbing their nose at the regulator, and joyfully pissing in customer and developer chips as they do so.
They are trolling the process. That is very clear.
Perhaps the 27% is a troll, but the warning screen is 100% in line with how they always do things. Just like when you run an executable on your mac that you downloaded from the internet, they warn you and ask you if you really want to open it. That's not about money, it's about making it clear to users what they are about to do, so they don't have a bad experience and are put off Apple products.
> That's not about money
[citation needed]
It can be about more than one thing at the same time, but it certainly seems likely to be about the money. Apple wants people to use the App Store on their Mac more.
Those apps can be malicious too[0], but you don't see Apple warning you before you download or open them.
[0]: one of the first links on google, but this is not an isolated incident: https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/09/07/more-malicious-ap...
[citation needed]
It can be about more than one thing at the same time, but it certainly seems likely to be about the money. Apple wants people to use the App Store on their Mac more.
Those apps can be malicious too[0], but you don't see Apple warning you before you download or open them.
[0]: one of the first links on google, but this is not an isolated incident: https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/09/07/more-malicious-ap...
> It can be about more than one thing at the same time
Indeed. Remember we live in a world where Tim Cook can say in court that he has "a feeling" the App Store is profitable, and that is apparently where it is left.
Indeed. Remember we live in a world where Tim Cook can say in court that he has "a feeling" the App Store is profitable, and that is apparently where it is left.
What's the connection?
The connection is that Apple don't break out their P&L for the App Store business, which clearly makes them a lot of money. They prefer to leave it buried in the iOS business.
It suits them for the profitability of the App Store to be hard to observe as distinct from the sales of the devices themselves, and it supports the interpretation that they fudge around things that make them **loads of money by emphasising other things instead as important (customer experience, "security" etc.)
It suits them for the profitability of the App Store to be hard to observe as distinct from the sales of the devices themselves, and it supports the interpretation that they fudge around things that make them **loads of money by emphasising other things instead as important (customer experience, "security" etc.)
Obviously they make lots of money from the appstore. What's wrong with that?
Obviously Ma Bell makes lots of money from their telephone system. What's wrong with that?
There are limits to everything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System
unfocussed_mike's point is that Apple has obfuscated App Store P&L for years to try to keep regulators from feeling obligated to step in. There's no other obvious explanation for why they would keep it secret from both investors and the courts, and "the purpose of a system is what it does."
There are limits to everything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System
unfocussed_mike's point is that Apple has obfuscated App Store P&L for years to try to keep regulators from feeling obligated to step in. There's no other obvious explanation for why they would keep it secret from both investors and the courts, and "the purpose of a system is what it does."
Why would it even be an issue that they're making billions from the app store? They've clearly said many times "this year have helped developers earn x billions through the appstore". Then it's easy to calculate their cut. But making money is not illegal.
The app store is only a monopoly on iOS, not on phones or computers in general. I think it will be very hard to make that case.
The app store is only a monopoly on iOS, not on phones or computers in general. I think it will be very hard to make that case.
> They've clearly said many times "this year have helped developers earn x billions through the appstore". Then it's easy to calculate their cut. But making money is not illegal.
No... it's easy to calculate their revenue, but it's not easy to calculate how much profit they made versus how much it cost them to operate the App Store. Pure revenue is largely irrelevant, from what I understand. As you say, making money isn't illegal, it's just the sign of a successful business.
> The app store is only a monopoly on iOS, not on phones or computers in general. I think it will be very hard to make that case.
I completely agree, under the way the laws were written decades ago. A lot of powerful people have been moving to update the way monopolies are understood for the digital era, and to remove Apple's monopoly over iOS. In the US, I can point to various examples of this, but these two will do for the current discussion:
https://9to5mac.com/2020/10/06/app-store-gives-apple-monopol...
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/03/senate-committee-advances-op...
Whether these attempts succeed or not is difficult to say, given how strongly Apple lobbies on their own behalf.
Knowing exactly what the P&L look like for the App Store would make it easier for Apple's opponents to make the case that Apple is misusing their position to take advantage of large numbers of people and businesses within the US due to a lack of competition for iOS users, which might make their government representatives push harder on the issue.
That's the political reality as I see it in the US. I could be off base, but there has been lots of discussion about Apple and their App Store again lately.
No... it's easy to calculate their revenue, but it's not easy to calculate how much profit they made versus how much it cost them to operate the App Store. Pure revenue is largely irrelevant, from what I understand. As you say, making money isn't illegal, it's just the sign of a successful business.
> The app store is only a monopoly on iOS, not on phones or computers in general. I think it will be very hard to make that case.
I completely agree, under the way the laws were written decades ago. A lot of powerful people have been moving to update the way monopolies are understood for the digital era, and to remove Apple's monopoly over iOS. In the US, I can point to various examples of this, but these two will do for the current discussion:
https://9to5mac.com/2020/10/06/app-store-gives-apple-monopol...
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/03/senate-committee-advances-op...
Whether these attempts succeed or not is difficult to say, given how strongly Apple lobbies on their own behalf.
Knowing exactly what the P&L look like for the App Store would make it easier for Apple's opponents to make the case that Apple is misusing their position to take advantage of large numbers of people and businesses within the US due to a lack of competition for iOS users, which might make their government representatives push harder on the issue.
That's the political reality as I see it in the US. I could be off base, but there has been lots of discussion about Apple and their App Store again lately.
Way more precisely put than I managed, thank you.
I mean of course it's indirectly about money, they want people to have a good experience with their Mac so they stay in the ecosystem. But when you sideload an app like that there is no question about losing app store revenue (developers can just notarize their app for free), it's only about the user experience.
No doubt on iOS it's about both, but my point is that it's reductive to think it's ONLY about losing app store revenue. Especially in the Dutch case, where they won't actually lose any revenue, since they're charging 27% anyway.
No doubt on iOS it's about both, but my point is that it's reductive to think it's ONLY about losing app store revenue. Especially in the Dutch case, where they won't actually lose any revenue, since they're charging 27% anyway.
> Especially in the Dutch case, where they won't actually lose any revenue, since they're charging 27% anyway.
I believe Apple is being forward-looking here. They know such a ridiculous 27% policy is unlikely to be tolerated by the regulators, since it defeats the entire purpose, so they're planning for a future where they're forced to lower that. They want the option to be presented to consumers as being scarier than it actually is and to include as much friction as legally possible, so that developers will be more likely to continue to use IAPs even when they could use something else.
I've heard that Apple isn't allowing consumers any choice in the matter either -- developers can't simultaneously offer both their own payment method and IAPs[0] (at upwards of a ~50% higher price, to cover the ~30% that would have to go to Apple for the IAP option, if the percentage for out-of-band payments ever drops from 27%). Certainly, it would "make Apple look bad" to see the IAP at a much higher price just because of Apple's commission.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=huhtenberg
I believe Apple is being forward-looking here. They know such a ridiculous 27% policy is unlikely to be tolerated by the regulators, since it defeats the entire purpose, so they're planning for a future where they're forced to lower that. They want the option to be presented to consumers as being scarier than it actually is and to include as much friction as legally possible, so that developers will be more likely to continue to use IAPs even when they could use something else.
I've heard that Apple isn't allowing consumers any choice in the matter either -- developers can't simultaneously offer both their own payment method and IAPs[0] (at upwards of a ~50% higher price, to cover the ~30% that would have to go to Apple for the IAP option, if the percentage for out-of-band payments ever drops from 27%). Certainly, it would "make Apple look bad" to see the IAP at a much higher price just because of Apple's commission.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=huhtenberg
> They know such a ridiculous 27% policy is unlikely to be tolerated by the regulators.
I actually think I'm 100% with Apple on this one. The Dutch regulators made the same mistake Epic and so many devs across the internet and hitched their "I don't want to pay 30% wagon" to "Apple is disallowing 3rd party providers" which have nothing at all to do with one another. The people pushing these regulations know that they would go nowhere if they tried to attack sales commissions directly and now the stupidity is bearing fruit.
I'm absolutely in favor of regulations that make it so platforms can't skim percentage revenue off the top but any regulation that does that will attract the ire of literally every business that sells things.
And hitching the wagon to "sideloading" or "alternative app stores" is equally as stupid because you're just trying to find a workaround to things that aren't the core issue. Even with sideloading and other app stores Apple can still demand a sales commission.
I actually think I'm 100% with Apple on this one. The Dutch regulators made the same mistake Epic and so many devs across the internet and hitched their "I don't want to pay 30% wagon" to "Apple is disallowing 3rd party providers" which have nothing at all to do with one another. The people pushing these regulations know that they would go nowhere if they tried to attack sales commissions directly and now the stupidity is bearing fruit.
I'm absolutely in favor of regulations that make it so platforms can't skim percentage revenue off the top but any regulation that does that will attract the ire of literally every business that sells things.
And hitching the wagon to "sideloading" or "alternative app stores" is equally as stupid because you're just trying to find a workaround to things that aren't the core issue. Even with sideloading and other app stores Apple can still demand a sales commission.
> The people pushing these regulations know that they would go nowhere if they tried to attack sales commissions directly and now the stupidity is bearing fruit.
That’s a very strong statement to lack any citation. The intent of the regulators was clear. If a Apple is going to be petulant, the regulators can just come back and tell Apple to lower their commission across the board, which will inevitably hurt Apple more than if Apple had been reasonable about this.
I don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion at all that the regulators are just going to give up and go home, crying about how Apple so cleverly outsmarted them.
> I'm absolutely in favor of regulations that make it so platforms can't skim percentage revenue off the top but any regulation that does that will attract the ire of literally every business that sells things.
When it comes to other businesses, consumers have choice. If one company charges too much of a premium, consumers can go elsewhere. If I go elsewhere from Apple, I lose access to all of my purchased items. If Apple would refund me every dollar I paid, then maybe that would be viable, but Apple wants to have their cake and eat it too.
Imagine if switching from Walmart to Safeway required you to give up every item you had ever purchased from Walmart. This is why Apple is not the same as most businesses charging a commission.
That’s a very strong statement to lack any citation. The intent of the regulators was clear. If a Apple is going to be petulant, the regulators can just come back and tell Apple to lower their commission across the board, which will inevitably hurt Apple more than if Apple had been reasonable about this.
I don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion at all that the regulators are just going to give up and go home, crying about how Apple so cleverly outsmarted them.
> I'm absolutely in favor of regulations that make it so platforms can't skim percentage revenue off the top but any regulation that does that will attract the ire of literally every business that sells things.
When it comes to other businesses, consumers have choice. If one company charges too much of a premium, consumers can go elsewhere. If I go elsewhere from Apple, I lose access to all of my purchased items. If Apple would refund me every dollar I paid, then maybe that would be viable, but Apple wants to have their cake and eat it too.
Imagine if switching from Walmart to Safeway required you to give up every item you had ever purchased from Walmart. This is why Apple is not the same as most businesses charging a commission.
> the regulators can just come back and tell Apple to lower their commission across the board
Unless you somehow craft a "fuck you Apple in particular" law which in basically all courts wouldn't fly, the regulation would be an immediate massive change to how all platforms do business. You would in one stroke wipe out the business models of basically all ecommerce platforms.
Re: your edit
> If one company charges too much of a premium, consumers can go elsewhere.
Except they can't though, that's the entire point. You're paying the commission to reach specifically the people on that particular platform. It's inherently non-fungible. You can sell art on lots of online stores, but if you want to reach Etsy customers you gotta pay up. If you want to sell software there's plenty of ways to do it from sharecropping on existing platforms of selling you own appliance but if you want to reach iOS users you gotta pay up.
Unless you somehow craft a "fuck you Apple in particular" law which in basically all courts wouldn't fly, the regulation would be an immediate massive change to how all platforms do business. You would in one stroke wipe out the business models of basically all ecommerce platforms.
Re: your edit
> If one company charges too much of a premium, consumers can go elsewhere.
Except they can't though, that's the entire point. You're paying the commission to reach specifically the people on that particular platform. It's inherently non-fungible. You can sell art on lots of online stores, but if you want to reach Etsy customers you gotta pay up. If you want to sell software there's plenty of ways to do it from sharecropping on existing platforms of selling you own appliance but if you want to reach iOS users you gotta pay up.
I’m talking about consumer choice. As a consumer, I can stop buying artwork from Etsy if their fees make the artwork more expensive than I’m willing to pay, and I can buy that same artwork from the same artist through other stores, if the artist agrees. But I can keep all the artwork I bought before. I don’t have to give it up to switch platforms. With Apple and the App Store, I do have to give up everything to switch to Android, which is completely a different proposition to switching away from Etsy. I’m locked into Apple’s platform, and Apple is abusing this to make prices exorbitantly high for me, the consumer.
If we want to talk about the developer perspective, then you’re making an even stronger argument that Apple has abused monopoly privilege and needs to be regulated as such. These iOS consumers aren’t reachable through other markets, only Apple’s. This is not the case for Etsy.
In both cases, the ability to choose is greatly reduced compared to other markets. The switching cost is high and requires a big sacrifice from the consumer, but then both Apple and Google have either directly or indirectly conspired to keep App Store prices at 30%, so switching between the platforms doesn’t even provide a real choice there at all.
If we want to talk about the developer perspective, then you’re making an even stronger argument that Apple has abused monopoly privilege and needs to be regulated as such. These iOS consumers aren’t reachable through other markets, only Apple’s. This is not the case for Etsy.
In both cases, the ability to choose is greatly reduced compared to other markets. The switching cost is high and requires a big sacrifice from the consumer, but then both Apple and Google have either directly or indirectly conspired to keep App Store prices at 30%, so switching between the platforms doesn’t even provide a real choice there at all.
[deleted]
> When it comes to other businesses, consumers have choice. If one company charges too much of a premium, consumers can go elsewhere. If I go elsewhere from Apple, I lose access to all of my purchased items.
Well Apple has always charged 30%, so it would be strange if you suddenly wanted to change platforms now because of that. It's reasonable to ask you to do your research before buying it.
Well Apple has always charged 30%, so it would be strange if you suddenly wanted to change platforms now because of that. It's reasonable to ask you to do your research before buying it.
Why would it be strange to want the freedom to choose again when Apple is expanding the set of things that are covered by a 30% commission?[0]
Are you suggesting I should have illegally acquired information about Apple’s future business plans so that I could make informed choices as a consumer?
I certainly never agreed to their expansion of the commission, but what power does a consumer have over that now? That’s what monopoly power feels like, even if it may not meet the legal definition of “monopoly” that was set many decades ago before a smartphone was even imaginable.
Apple seems intent to expand their 30% commission to cover all aspects of daily life nowadays. I certainly didn’t know this years ago, and years ago when many consumers bought into iOS, the 30% commission was really just a commission on Angry Birds and similarly casual apps. It wasn’t impacting more serious parts of life, but now the smartphone is the place where the average person does some of the most important transactions in life. It’s a completely different situation from when the App Store first launched, and it should be treated as such. Do you recognize the validity of any of that?
[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/28/technology/apple-app-stor...
Are you suggesting I should have illegally acquired information about Apple’s future business plans so that I could make informed choices as a consumer?
I certainly never agreed to their expansion of the commission, but what power does a consumer have over that now? That’s what monopoly power feels like, even if it may not meet the legal definition of “monopoly” that was set many decades ago before a smartphone was even imaginable.
Apple seems intent to expand their 30% commission to cover all aspects of daily life nowadays. I certainly didn’t know this years ago, and years ago when many consumers bought into iOS, the 30% commission was really just a commission on Angry Birds and similarly casual apps. It wasn’t impacting more serious parts of life, but now the smartphone is the place where the average person does some of the most important transactions in life. It’s a completely different situation from when the App Store first launched, and it should be treated as such. Do you recognize the validity of any of that?
[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/28/technology/apple-app-stor...
The companies expanded the acope of their activities, from physical to virtual. Apple’s policies remained the same.
As to covering all the important things in life, it’s only an issue for things that are 1. Not physical, or “content”, and 2. Not available through the browser.
Can’t think of anything important in life that you HAVE to pay the 30% on, but I’m sure there’s something.
As to covering all the important things in life, it’s only an issue for things that are 1. Not physical, or “content”, and 2. Not available through the browser.
Can’t think of anything important in life that you HAVE to pay the 30% on, but I’m sure there’s something.
So you think they are trying to move the Overton Window (haggling policy)?
It is a reasonable interpretation that I tried to get into and failed to.
It's brave if they are, because attempts to move the Overton Window are surely usually deliberately designed to fail before they are enacted, to avoid the cost of action!
It is a reasonable interpretation that I tried to get into and failed to.
It's brave if they are, because attempts to move the Overton Window are surely usually deliberately designed to fail before they are enacted, to avoid the cost of action!
Ah, whoops, [0] was meant to link to this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30245059
A more direct comparison would be to apps that already support third party payment methods like Uber, Amazon, etc. How would you explain Apple forcing devs to include these stern warnings when buying digital goods but not physical goods?
Because physical goods is not digital. Why shouldn't they be able to choose what they charge for? They probably feel that their role is much less important when the service is delivered outside the phone. Makes sense to me. But if they wanted to do it the other way around, or only charge for things before noon, it would be up to them.
Because the warning is about the payment method, not how tangible the goods are. You can directly add credit cards to the Uber app on iPhone, completely outside the normal Apple payment flow. Apple doesn't require Uber to provide an obnoxious full-page modal warning that is intended to discourage people from adding a credit card to their app.
This kind of double standard reveals the true nature of this warning dialog, which is just retaliation against the app makers who wanted outside payment methods and the regulators who agreed. Otherwise, Apple would have already required Uber to add such a dialog.
This kind of double standard reveals the true nature of this warning dialog, which is just retaliation against the app makers who wanted outside payment methods and the regulators who agreed. Otherwise, Apple would have already required Uber to add such a dialog.
Physical goods have never been paid for with in-app purchases, so nobody will expect Apple to handle that, and nobody will blame them if things go wrong.
I still don't understand why the blame would be any different if something goes wrong with a dating app (as in the Netherlands) versus something going wrong with virtual events that also aren't held in the app, but require the use of Apple Pay, versus physical goods, which don't require Apple Pay.
I think most customers are happy to assign blame to Apple regardless, since the app went through Apple's hand curated App Store. That may be illogical in the case of physical goods, but I've seen people assign blame for far less. It's also still illogical in the case of virtual events, even though those use Apple's IAP system and 30% cut now.
I think most customers are happy to assign blame to Apple regardless, since the app went through Apple's hand curated App Store. That may be illogical in the case of physical goods, but I've seen people assign blame for far less. It's also still illogical in the case of virtual events, even though those use Apple's IAP system and 30% cut now.
Pretty sure in MacOS you just need to flip a toggle once and it'll never prompt you about sideloading again.
So devs should be able to bypass desired features of iOS and not alert the user that they're doing so?
Becuase if I wasnt informed, and they took a subscription that I was then unable to cancel in 1 click from my iCloud subscription settings, I would be very annoyed. Shady.
Becuase if I wasnt informed, and they took a subscription that I was then unable to cancel in 1 click from my iCloud subscription settings, I would be very annoyed. Shady.
At the point where you start typing in your payment information from scratch, you should have a pretty good idea that you're not in kansas anymore. Apple IAPs don't require you to enter your payment information again and again.
So, you are definitely informed one way or another, but requiring the developer to be more explicit about that would probably be good, but achieving that benefit doesn't require Apple to do... whatever this is that they're trying to force developers to do. It's a farcically extreme version of what could otherwise be interpreted to be a consumer friendly requirement.
So, you are definitely informed one way or another, but requiring the developer to be more explicit about that would probably be good, but achieving that benefit doesn't require Apple to do... whatever this is that they're trying to force developers to do. It's a farcically extreme version of what could otherwise be interpreted to be a consumer friendly requirement.
[deleted]
They could add an API where the app registers a subscription (or link) into the iCloud subscription settings page, they just don't want to.
I mean the developers are clearly trying to avoid this (among other things) so I can't imagine there's much point.
What do you mean? Many apps are happy to provide one click cancellation, they just don't want to pay 30% of their revenue to Apple.
Ok, I'll pass then.
Good job I was informed via this modal :)
Good job I was informed via this modal :)
What does that mean? That apps using third party payment providers should still show up as app store subscriptions? That would make it even less clear that it's third party, that's exactly the opposite of what apple wants.
The warning that apple forces you to add here insinuates that the thing you're going to is probably not safe and secure, which is ridiculous to _force_ app developers to do, and more importantly perhaps, that warning is all about apple.
It should be about the thing you're going to. Something like 'WARNING: You are being directed to payment provider 'X', please trust them before continuing with your payment' would (I think) be seen as far less hostile. That doesn't insinuate that what you're doing is unsafe, does make clear that apple has washed their hands of it, and isn't about apple: It's about X.
It should be about the thing you're going to. Something like 'WARNING: You are being directed to payment provider 'X', please trust them before continuing with your payment' would (I think) be seen as far less hostile. That doesn't insinuate that what you're doing is unsafe, does make clear that apple has washed their hands of it, and isn't about apple: It's about X.
I'm probably in the minority here but I'm at a point where I'll simply not purchase any service if I cannot use the in app form of payment. I'm just done with everything else. If I miss out on something then so be it.
Have you ever bought an Adobe subscription, ever tried to cancel a New York Times subscription? Or Audible where they say "Well, you can cancel but then we'll also take the tokens you've already paid for"? It's completely ridiculous.
I'm so sick of 14,000 variations on cancelling things, having to click through menus, five hundred different things I have to take care of and all that crap. On iOS I can cancel anything and everything - without exception - the same way and in a few clicks. I like that and it's just something I got used to.
Have you ever bought an Adobe subscription, ever tried to cancel a New York Times subscription? Or Audible where they say "Well, you can cancel but then we'll also take the tokens you've already paid for"? It's completely ridiculous.
I'm so sick of 14,000 variations on cancelling things, having to click through menus, five hundred different things I have to take care of and all that crap. On iOS I can cancel anything and everything - without exception - the same way and in a few clicks. I like that and it's just something I got used to.
I 100% agree that I am not interested in establishing new relationships with payment systems other than Apple's. Absolutely true.
BUT two things:
1. I already have relationships with some payment systems other than Apple's which I trust. Not many, but some. I mean, Amazon happens to be big enough that they are immune from this requirement, even for digital purchases, but there are plenty of other companies I would happily pay directly and trust as much as Apple.
2. This messaging requirement is just petty. It makes Apple look small and childish. It should embarrass them that this ever saw the light of day.
BUT two things:
1. I already have relationships with some payment systems other than Apple's which I trust. Not many, but some. I mean, Amazon happens to be big enough that they are immune from this requirement, even for digital purchases, but there are plenty of other companies I would happily pay directly and trust as much as Apple.
2. This messaging requirement is just petty. It makes Apple look small and childish. It should embarrass them that this ever saw the light of day.
Amazon isn't immune. You can't "buy" Kindle books through the Amazon app on iOS.
Fine, but apps should be allowed to let you pay via alternative methods and also allow you to pay via Apple and charge you the 30% extra costs which Apple wants.
I highly doubt you would pay 30% more just so you can pay via Apple.
I highly doubt you would pay 30% more just so you can pay via Apple.
43% more, in point of fact.
If an IAP is $15, then $4.5 of that goes to Apple. If you priced the direct payment option at $10.50, then $15 is 43% more expensive.
And this is the whole reason Apple doesn't want developers to be able to offer both IAPs and direct payment at the same time... it would make Apple look like the bad guy (a horrifying thought!), and they might feel pressured to lower their percentage to something more reasonable.
If Apple would switch to a usage based model more like AWS's where they charge for actual resource consumption (review requests, app store bandwidth, etc., maybe even with some kind of "free tier" to help very small developers who are still paying $99/year) then that would make more sense... but a 30% surcharge for every transaction is just absurd.
If credit card companies tried to charge 30%, the uproar would be so loud that no would be able to sleep for days, and you know businesses would instantly be offering steep discounts for people paying in cash. Apple has demonstrated that they want to eventually charge a 30% tax on all economic activity[0]... the App Store is more than just a place to download Angry Birds these days. Apple's 30% transaction fee is unsustainable. (I feel the same about Google's Play Store fees too, but at least Android allows sideloading and PWAs support push notifications there, giving developers and consumers some options.)
[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/28/technology/apple-app-stor...
If an IAP is $15, then $4.5 of that goes to Apple. If you priced the direct payment option at $10.50, then $15 is 43% more expensive.
And this is the whole reason Apple doesn't want developers to be able to offer both IAPs and direct payment at the same time... it would make Apple look like the bad guy (a horrifying thought!), and they might feel pressured to lower their percentage to something more reasonable.
If Apple would switch to a usage based model more like AWS's where they charge for actual resource consumption (review requests, app store bandwidth, etc., maybe even with some kind of "free tier" to help very small developers who are still paying $99/year) then that would make more sense... but a 30% surcharge for every transaction is just absurd.
If credit card companies tried to charge 30%, the uproar would be so loud that no would be able to sleep for days, and you know businesses would instantly be offering steep discounts for people paying in cash. Apple has demonstrated that they want to eventually charge a 30% tax on all economic activity[0]... the App Store is more than just a place to download Angry Birds these days. Apple's 30% transaction fee is unsustainable. (I feel the same about Google's Play Store fees too, but at least Android allows sideloading and PWAs support push notifications there, giving developers and consumers some options.)
[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/28/technology/apple-app-stor...
Apple's 30% charge isn't for payment methods. I hate that this meme has persisted through the Epic case and the Netherlands regulations.
Apple charges the seller 30% (well 27% but w/e) as a sales commission for being able to sell digital goods through any means on their platform. Harping for allowing alternative payment methods is the wrong angle if you don't want to pay 30%.
It's not about the payment methods! If you can force Apple to drop their commission then IAP would be a 3% charge and nobody would really care.
Apple charges the seller 30% (well 27% but w/e) as a sales commission for being able to sell digital goods through any means on their platform. Harping for allowing alternative payment methods is the wrong angle if you don't want to pay 30%.
It's not about the payment methods! If you can force Apple to drop their commission then IAP would be a 3% charge and nobody would really care.
That's Apple's spin on this and it's as greedy and unreasonable now as it was when they just started.
The fair setup - as far as the owners of expensive devices are concerned - is to:
1. Be able to install arbitrary software capable of running on the device.
2. Be able to pay for it in whatever way that is supported by the software vendor.
This are reasonable expectations.
If Apple provides a way to install pre-approved software through their Store - excellent. As an option.
If Apple provides a way to pay using their super pro-consumer payment system - ditto, as an option. Possibly as a required option (option!) for programs distributed through the Store.
You want convenience for either aspect - you go through Apple, pay them extra, be happy. You don't want to pay them - install yourself and pay directly.
Voila. It's not very complicated.
All the arguments against this is not a "meme", it's Apple guarding its profits in ways that are explicitly and aggressively anti-consumer.
The fair setup - as far as the owners of expensive devices are concerned - is to:
1. Be able to install arbitrary software capable of running on the device.
2. Be able to pay for it in whatever way that is supported by the software vendor.
This are reasonable expectations.
If Apple provides a way to install pre-approved software through their Store - excellent. As an option.
If Apple provides a way to pay using their super pro-consumer payment system - ditto, as an option. Possibly as a required option (option!) for programs distributed through the Store.
You want convenience for either aspect - you go through Apple, pay them extra, be happy. You don't want to pay them - install yourself and pay directly.
Voila. It's not very complicated.
All the arguments against this is not a "meme", it's Apple guarding its profits in ways that are explicitly and aggressively anti-consumer.
Cancellation pain is a big driver for me too. I've heard lots of people say something like "streaming services are no better than cable was, once I get Service A, Service B, Service C ... I'm paying as much as I was for cable". And that may be true for some people, sometimes. But if the streaming services are easy to cancel, then I often only keep a subscription active for a couple of months at a time. Ok, I saw the HBO-exclusive stuff I wanted, now I'll disable it and maybe check it out again in a year. And that's easy to do now! I guess HBO doesn't love hearing that part, but easy cancellation makes me much more willing to sign up for it in the first place, which they ought to be happy about.
And the inevitable cancellation dark patterns! I cancelled my prime membership the other day, and holy cow, I had to confirm my intent at least 5 times. Offers to “pause”, a page telling me what I’ll miss out on, plus more pages that boil down to “actually?!?!”
Seems like subscriptions have gotten out of hand. Since the goverment can’t regulate meaningfully, I’m at least glad that Apple has some solution to this, even if it feels a bit monopolistic.
Seems like subscriptions have gotten out of hand. Since the goverment can’t regulate meaningfully, I’m at least glad that Apple has some solution to this, even if it feels a bit monopolistic.
I also learned recently that if you cancel a trial Prime membership early, the benefits end immediately instead of ending at the end of the trial period.
I generally like to cancel trial memberships immediately after signing up to ensure that I don’t forget about it and accidentally get charged for something I don’t want. If I end up liking the service then I’ll happily enter my payment info again at the end of the trial. Most online services (including all App Store subscriptions) are fine with this approach. But Amazon seems to want to take advantage of people forgetting to cancel their unused subscriptions.
It’s really surprising that a company as large and successful as Amazon would feel the need stoop to such levels.
I generally like to cancel trial memberships immediately after signing up to ensure that I don’t forget about it and accidentally get charged for something I don’t want. If I end up liking the service then I’ll happily enter my payment info again at the end of the trial. Most online services (including all App Store subscriptions) are fine with this approach. But Amazon seems to want to take advantage of people forgetting to cancel their unused subscriptions.
It’s really surprising that a company as large and successful as Amazon would feel the need stoop to such levels.
> I generally like to cancel trial memberships immediately after signing up to ensure that I don’t forget about it and accidentally get charged for something I don’t want. [...] Most online services (including all App Store subscriptions) are fine with this approach.
Except for Apple's own services, which includes Apple Music, Apple TV+, Apple Arcade, and Apple Fitness+. All of these will instantly terminate your trial if you cancel during the trial period, rather than terminating at the end of the trial period.
This goes against the way App Store subscription trials work for everyone else. Why? Because Apple isn't bound by their own rules, and I guess Apple wants people to forget and let the trial lapse into actual payment. It is certainly a proven (if unsavory) technique for making money.
Except for Apple's own services, which includes Apple Music, Apple TV+, Apple Arcade, and Apple Fitness+. All of these will instantly terminate your trial if you cancel during the trial period, rather than terminating at the end of the trial period.
This goes against the way App Store subscription trials work for everyone else. Why? Because Apple isn't bound by their own rules, and I guess Apple wants people to forget and let the trial lapse into actual payment. It is certainly a proven (if unsavory) technique for making money.
Ah yes I had forgotten that Apple does the same thing with their own services. To make matters worse, they used to annoy me to no end with full-screen popups for Apple Music trials when I was just trying to listen to my local music library. And if you're not careful and choose the option to merge your local library with your apple music library, you can accidentally end up losing all of your local music. Very annoying.
Ah, that reminds me -- cancelling your (pre-paid year) subscription also very much makes it sound like you're going to lose your benefits immediately. Another scummy scare tactic to spook you into forgetting to cancel until it rolls over for another year...
I agree 100% with you, but here's the thing:
That peace of mind has a price.
As long as Apple lets me charge you twice the price I'll play by their IAP rules.
That peace of mind has a price.
As long as Apple lets me charge you twice the price I'll play by their IAP rules.
But that's one of the things Apple is selling - peace of mind. The customer knows they will be able to cancel subscriptions, get refunds, security, etc...
And if those are conditions the customer and developer are okay with, then everyone wins.
I agree -- easy has a price. But it's one of the benefits of the walled garden. And it's one that a lot of customers are willing to pay, just to avoid the hassles involved with other systems.
(There are other benefits and downsides, but that's another thread).
And if those are conditions the customer and developer are okay with, then everyone wins.
I agree -- easy has a price. But it's one of the benefits of the walled garden. And it's one that a lot of customers are willing to pay, just to avoid the hassles involved with other systems.
(There are other benefits and downsides, but that's another thread).
Yeah, but Apple is already charging twice the price for the hardware, let me charge twice the price for the software instead of insisting that I charge the same in every platform.
Sure I agree that dark patterns which try to prevent your from canceling are awful and the iOS App store comparatively makes that easy.
But that's great argument for regulators to step in to prevent dark patterns. Cancelation should be just as easy as signing up.
But that's great argument for regulators to step in to prevent dark patterns. Cancelation should be just as easy as signing up.
Right because more laws to govern technology is the answer to bad laws with unintended consequences.
Or “why I see a cookie pop up on every damn web page I visit .”
Has the government ever made a good law regarding technology? The last one I remember is phone number portability.
Or “why I see a cookie pop up on every damn web page I visit .”
Has the government ever made a good law regarding technology? The last one I remember is phone number portability.
> why I see a cookie pop up on every damn web page I visit
There is no regulation that requires every website to give you cookie pop-ups. If you are seeing that, it is because the websites you visit are trying to stalk you online and making the popups as painful as possible so you will dislike the regulations instead of asking them not to stalk you.
There is no regulation that requires every website to give you cookie pop-ups. If you are seeing that, it is because the websites you visit are trying to stalk you online and making the popups as painful as possible so you will dislike the regulations instead of asking them not to stalk you.
So now every website is doing some type of protest against regulation? It couldn’t possibly be that government is inept when it comes to understanding consequences of their legislation?
Every website thinks they are smarter than EU.
In reality fines are already being written, Facebook is seeing the writing on the wall and is already now (this surprised me a bit) pulling the desperate "we'll take our toys and go home" card, hoping EU won't call their bluff.
Let's be clear here: most of these informed consent banners are invalid.
The rules are something like:
- default is opt out
- if a choice must be presented opting out should be the easiest choice
Besides they almost all are trying to hide sneaky stuff behind the "legitimate interest” clause, but in that case you don’t need to ask and an opt out would be meaningless.
In reality fines are already being written, Facebook is seeing the writing on the wall and is already now (this surprised me a bit) pulling the desperate "we'll take our toys and go home" card, hoping EU won't call their bluff.
Let's be clear here: most of these informed consent banners are invalid.
The rules are something like:
- default is opt out
- if a choice must be presented opting out should be the easiest choice
Besides they almost all are trying to hide sneaky stuff behind the "legitimate interest” clause, but in that case you don’t need to ask and an opt out would be meaningless.
Do you really think it takes much to ge smarter than a bunch of lawmakers when it comes to tech?
Do you really think it is easy to be much smarter than law makers and lawyers when it comes to laws?
There is an intersection here, but basically this - in my mind - isn't about bad laws but about big businesses fighting for their lives (or at least the lives of whole branches in their organizations) against these laws.
They'll do most things they'll come up with and think they can get away with: misrepresent, plead, beg, threaten to leave, willfully misunderstand even very clear laws etc as long as their lawyers and business people think the risk/reward ratio is favorable.
GDPR isn't that hard, technically.
It just gets extremely hard to comply with without letting go of abusive but highly lucrative business practices.
There is an intersection here, but basically this - in my mind - isn't about bad laws but about big businesses fighting for their lives (or at least the lives of whole branches in their organizations) against these laws.
They'll do most things they'll come up with and think they can get away with: misrepresent, plead, beg, threaten to leave, willfully misunderstand even very clear laws etc as long as their lawyers and business people think the risk/reward ratio is favorable.
GDPR isn't that hard, technically.
It just gets extremely hard to comply with without letting go of abusive but highly lucrative business practices.
Most lawmakers aren’t lawyers…
From what I have seen, when the government gets away with stuff - imminent domain, police corruption, etc., it’s a lot more detrimental than my not being able to side load.
As far as the GDPR not being “hard”. It’s 11 chapters with 99 sections.
https://gdpr-info.eu/
From what I have seen, when the government gets away with stuff - imminent domain, police corruption, etc., it’s a lot more detrimental than my not being able to side load.
As far as the GDPR not being “hard”. It’s 11 chapters with 99 sections.
https://gdpr-info.eu/
> As far as the GDPR not being “hard”. It’s 11 chapters with 99 sections.
Yet, the guiding principles are clear as day, just like the ten commandments. (Don't collect personal data without consent, store it responsibly, allow users to introspect data about themselves and remove it and you shouldn't need to worry.[1])
And it also only becomes a real problem when someone wants to get away with breaking both the spirit and the wording of the law.
[1]: And yes, I'm aware that this is mostly incompatible with the practice of hoovering up all you can get, selling it to everyone who wants to buy and generally abusing it for fun and profit in every conceivable way, but that isn't the fault of the law but a problem that companies who habe grown addicted to now antiquated business models have to brought on themselves, isn't it?
Yet, the guiding principles are clear as day, just like the ten commandments. (Don't collect personal data without consent, store it responsibly, allow users to introspect data about themselves and remove it and you shouldn't need to worry.[1])
And it also only becomes a real problem when someone wants to get away with breaking both the spirit and the wording of the law.
[1]: And yes, I'm aware that this is mostly incompatible with the practice of hoovering up all you can get, selling it to everyone who wants to buy and generally abusing it for fun and profit in every conceivable way, but that isn't the fault of the law but a problem that companies who habe grown addicted to now antiquated business models have to brought on themselves, isn't it?
I don't know where you're getting "every website" from your previous reply and this one, but you can be certain that not every website is throwing cookie popups on their visitors.
The consequences of recent privacy laws is privacy-friendly services being able to compete easier because they're not subsidizing their costs by stalking their users and selling their data. If the government got such good results without even understanding the consequences, they must be very lucky.
The consequences of recent privacy laws is privacy-friendly services being able to compete easier because they're not subsidizing their costs by stalking their users and selling their data. If the government got such good results without even understanding the consequences, they must be very lucky.
Right because there is a privacy first open mobile operating open operating system that has become popular.
And a privacy first social network.
And a privacy first search engine that is profitable.
The government has solved what tech problem exactly?
And a privacy first social network.
And a privacy first search engine that is profitable.
The government has solved what tech problem exactly?
You can get similar functionality to what Apple is offering through a disposable credit card (privacy.com and alike). Worst case you can take the matter up with your credit card company.
How many times in a year do you cancel something?
How many times in a year do you cancel something?
If you do this, your account will be sent to collections (because yes, you still have a payment obligation if you do not cancel). Those are people whose job it is to be so unpleasant to you you'd rather pay them and not eat, so this is terrible advice.
I had a situation where New Yorker was able to charge me, after I used one-time credit card (and thus invalid) that was issued by Revolut.
The explanation was like this that, it was an “offline“ charge, which they let thru.
The explanation was like this that, it was an “offline“ charge, which they let thru.
Can't companies ban such cards? I think there are some BIN code etc… that can be used to identify them.
Seconding this. Apple is also the only provider that lets me consistently pay with those Visa gift cards that almost never work when charging a credit card online.
I stock up on Apple gift cards when they're 20% off at Costco. I'll buy $200-$300 and add it all into my account.
So I'm getting 20% off all purchases, effectively, until the credit runs out.
So I'm getting 20% off all purchases, effectively, until the credit runs out.
But, wait! It gets even better [1]:
- Cannot also support IAP
- Website links are all to a single URL specified in Info.plist with no parameters <-- !!!
- Must submit monthly report to Apple listing EVERY external transaction
All for measly 27% of the sales proceeds. A total steal.
Apple's really jerking on the regulators' chain. I sure hope they continue in the same vein, because the fallout will be spectacular.
[1] https://twitter.com/marcoarment/status/1489599440667168768
- Cannot also support IAP
- Website links are all to a single URL specified in Info.plist with no parameters <-- !!!
- Must submit monthly report to Apple listing EVERY external transaction
All for measly 27% of the sales proceeds. A total steal.
Apple's really jerking on the regulators' chain. I sure hope they continue in the same vein, because the fallout will be spectacular.
[1] https://twitter.com/marcoarment/status/1489599440667168768
Apple is just asking to get hammered, I've never seen such a level of contempt, let's hope they get what they are deserving. There's soon going to be a domino effect in the EU.
They also don't provide a view controller or something you can present to display the warning as they do with other things like this, you have to build the view yourself according to their silly specs... Phil Schiller needs to go.
That’s totally reasonable.
A new view controller would require a new version of iOS to provide that view controller, which would lock out all the people on older versions of iOS from the alternative payment methods.
Any iOS developer can put together a screen like that in no time, it’s not a meaningful hurdle and it means more people can get the alternative payment method.
A new view controller would require a new version of iOS to provide that view controller, which would lock out all the people on older versions of iOS from the alternative payment methods.
Any iOS developer can put together a screen like that in no time, it’s not a meaningful hurdle and it means more people can get the alternative payment method.
That's true I forgot that it needs to work retroactively plus it's only in NL so it makes less sense to be available to everyone. Yes you can put it together quickly and no-doubt a package will appear on GitHub for those who don't want to but normally these things defer to an OS control.
Replacing execs won’t solve this. Even if you put someone in place that isn’t an asshole, they’re still accountable to Apple shareholders and need to act in the interests of the company. If they don’t, they’ll just be fired (or maybe even sued for violating their fiduciary duties or something like that)
Stuff like this is in the interests of the company. The only way to prevent it is for regulators to make it no longer in their best interests.
Stuff like this is in the interests of the company. The only way to prevent it is for regulators to make it no longer in their best interests.
> Apple's really jerking on the regulators' chain.
It feels like a US management decision to win a court case in the US, not someone who knows European anti-trust regulators. Really bizarre.
It feels like a US management decision to win a court case in the US, not someone who knows European anti-trust regulators. Really bizarre.
He continues. Apple seems to have picked 27% because most payment processors charge 2-3% percent which, after you're done paying the processor, your margin over iAP is going to be 1% at best.
So how much should they charge developers for access to continued iOS improvements and updates? What if they had to pay a license fee for access to each new iOS version's APIs?
99 / year is not enough???
Is it surprising that it isn't? To operate a car in the US, not only do you have to pay for vehicle registration fees, you also have to pay drivers license renewal fees and fuel surcharges.
It makes more sense to charge the end user of infrastructure to help pay for the development and maintenance of the infrastructure (fuel surcharges / iDevices cost money) than it does to charge the developers and maintainers of the infrastructure (the $99/yr).
That's like charging mechanics for repairing cars or charging road workers for the privilege of repairing roads.
That's like charging mechanics for repairing cars or charging road workers for the privilege of repairing roads.
Netherlands should respond with passing a law that any platform company that does that is subject to a 97% tax on the revenue generated via platform stores, payable 5 years in advance with the overpayments refunded at the end of the tax year.
When a company goes to war with the government, the company always loses. It is time for Cook to learn it. He is under a delusion that he is god.
When a company goes to war with the government, the company always loses. It is time for Cook to learn it. He is under a delusion that he is god.
The Netherlands population is a little more than half of Texas’s population. Apple could completely pull out of the Netherlands and wouldn’t even feel the affect.
Except they cannot. If you have an EU point of sale, you cannot deny service to any EU citizen based on nationality.
So, they can stop _selling_ in the Netherlands, but given how close is any Dutch to another EU state, I don't see it as a problem for purchasing a phone.
Apple will sustain that, given the phone wasn't bought in the Netherlands, they are not subject to their laws. Good luck with that.
So, they can stop _selling_ in the Netherlands, but given how close is any Dutch to another EU state, I don't see it as a problem for purchasing a phone.
Apple will sustain that, given the phone wasn't bought in the Netherlands, they are not subject to their laws. Good luck with that.
>> Apple could completely pull out of the Netherlands and wouldn’t even feel the affect.
>Except they cannot[...]
>[...] they can stop _selling_ in the Netherlands
I don't get it. Aren't you agreeing with the parent poster?
>Except they cannot[...]
>[...] they can stop _selling_ in the Netherlands
I don't get it. Aren't you agreeing with the parent poster?
Apple cannot "pull out" of the Netherlands by just not selling in the country. Dutch people can order phones from Belgium or elsewhere in the EU, and Apple will still be legally on the hook.
>Dutch people can order phones from Belgium or elsewhere in the EU, and Apple will still be legally on the hook.
Okay, so they'll have iPhones brick themselves (or disable all third party purchases) if location services detect they're within the netherlands.
Okay, so they'll have iPhones brick themselves (or disable all third party purchases) if location services detect they're within the netherlands.
That will run afoul of EU consumer protection laws, Dutch citizens are also EU citizens.
How is Apple legally on the hook for a product that they don’t sell in a given country?
How are the Dutch going to come after Apple if they don’t have a presence in the country?
How are the Dutch going to come after Apple if they don’t have a presence in the country?
The same way Attorneys General from midwestern states can sue coastal tech firms with no offices there: jurisdiction over where the users being harmed are.
> How are the Dutch going to come after Apple if they don’t have a presence in the country?
The EU is a single market, for good or for ill.
> How are the Dutch going to come after Apple if they don’t have a presence in the country?
The EU is a single market, for good or for ill.
Apple actively sells devices in every state. It accepts credit card users from every state.
If I only sold a physical product in GA and someone from Texas bought it and took it home. They could only sue me in GA under GA laws.
The US is also a “single market”. But each state has its own laws.
If I only sold a physical product in GA and someone from Texas bought it and took it home. They could only sue me in GA under GA laws.
The US is also a “single market”. But each state has its own laws.
There's also federal law. The AGs may not be (directly) involved - but there's an umbrella jurisdiction for consumers to get satisfaction. Just like the EU.
How do you punish a company because people bought a product that wasn’t for sale in your country?
This is completely incorrect. Apple will feel the hurt if they lose a market with 17 million people. They won’t go out of business, but whoever was adjacent to that decision will be losing their job.
Out of those 17 million (which when Apple was still giving out number of iPhones sold was about a quarter’s worth of sales in a low quarter)…
- not all are buying iPhones
- roughly 3 million of the population are under 15.
- not all are buying iPhones
- roughly 3 million of the population are under 15.
That doesn’t make a difference. The long term growth opportunities in a country are huge, and for a company the size Apple, any opportunity for growth is extremely valuable.
If Apple sold a $1500 maxed out iPhone Pro to everyone above the age of 15 in the Netherlands, that a little over $2 billion in revenue - or 1/8th the amount that Google reportedly pays Apple every year to be the default search engine on Apple devices.
Growth at all costs regardless of margin is what money losing unicorns do. Not what companies do that are worth 3 trillion dollars.
Growth at all costs regardless of margin is what money losing unicorns do. Not what companies do that are worth 3 trillion dollars.
The cost of losing an entire country is more than the hypothetical revenue of a year’s sales. Even ignoring the potential lifetime value of an Apple customer, that’s an entire country of children, engineers, businesses, influencers, etc who are not exposed to your products/brand.
And Apple is not a money losing unicorn. They don’t sell anything at a loss, and they wouldn’t be selling at a loss even if they made a good faith effort to comply with these regulations.
The question is what their margins look like: reasonable, or obscene? Apple is fighting to maintain the latter. Pulling out of the country would make them less money than complying.
And Apple is not a money losing unicorn. They don’t sell anything at a loss, and they wouldn’t be selling at a loss even if they made a good faith effort to comply with these regulations.
The question is what their margins look like: reasonable, or obscene? Apple is fighting to maintain the latter. Pulling out of the country would make them less money than complying.
Apple has a revenue of $365 billion last year. No matter how you spin it - and I was being wildly optimistic saying every adult is going to buy the most expensive iPhone - Netherlands will never be more than 1% of Apple’s total revenue. An “entire” country that is less than half the population of Texas wouldn’t even be considered “material”.
It's called "leaving money on the table" and Apple hates that.
Nah, Apple would never pull out of a country. If it does that in Netherlands, the next country is going to do the same..
NL would then take their concerns to the EU at large, and they have more levers they can pull at that level. This is the first step to "completely pull out of EU member countries or comply".
Because the EU really has a great history of tech laws…
It's just to stem any bleeding while they appeal.
Using the tail of a temperamental sleeping dog as a tourniquet may risk worse bleeding later.
In what way are any of these jerking the regulators’ chain? You list four facts, and you claim that these four facts are insufficient to regulators. Please provide the remainder of your viewpoint, so that we who don’t understand you yet can have a chance to consider it and be persuaded by it.
For example, here’s a question I can’t answer from this tweet or from this entire HN discussion:
“In what way do each of these four facts conflict with one country’s regulators’ decisions, characteristics, or historical tendencies?”
(However, if your goal is simply to preach to the choir, then your comment is certainly sufficient for that purpose — so long as it’s acceptable that it won’t persuade anyone that doesn’t already agree with whatever viewpoint is left unexplained here.)
For example, here’s a question I can’t answer from this tweet or from this entire HN discussion:
“In what way do each of these four facts conflict with one country’s regulators’ decisions, characteristics, or historical tendencies?”
(However, if your goal is simply to preach to the choir, then your comment is certainly sufficient for that purpose — so long as it’s acceptable that it won’t persuade anyone that doesn’t already agree with whatever viewpoint is left unexplained here.)
I'm sure I'm in a minority here, but I think this is good. As a consumer, I want to be warned if there's something that's going to deviate from my system's norms, especially if it could take money from me.
I actually agree with you.
On Android, you can side load, but you're warned if you destroy your life via some strange binary you found on the internet, that's on you.
On iOS, it's more than a reasonable to say you're using an third-party payment service which is not subject to Apple security.
If your tech savvy, you know that this is just fear-mongering on Apple's part.
And if you're not tech savvy, then stick to using Apple payments for everything
On Android, you can side load, but you're warned if you destroy your life via some strange binary you found on the internet, that's on you.
On iOS, it's more than a reasonable to say you're using an third-party payment service which is not subject to Apple security.
If your tech savvy, you know that this is just fear-mongering on Apple's part.
And if you're not tech savvy, then stick to using Apple payments for everything
> If your tech savvy, you know that this is just fear-mongering on Apple's part.
Apple has a policy where every subscription model that is paid for via the app store needs to be one-click cancelable, and from a single system menu that shows all of your subscriptions. That's an actual protection that the app store gives me, the customer, and which I might not receive from other payment processors... so it's not really as much "fear mongering" as you're making it out to be.
Apple has a policy where every subscription model that is paid for via the app store needs to be one-click cancelable, and from a single system menu that shows all of your subscriptions. That's an actual protection that the app store gives me, the customer, and which I might not receive from other payment processors... so it's not really as much "fear mongering" as you're making it out to be.
But if you're going through manual app review anyway can they just enforce one-click subscription cancellation like they do with one-click user account deletion?
It’s not just that it’s one-click, it’s that there’s a single menu in Settings.app that shows you all of your subscriptions, which is helpful in case you forgot you had one, and will show you exactly how much it costs per month, how long a trial period has left, will notify when your trial period is about to end, etc.
You can really only do that with third party payment processors if there’s some standard API/protocol/standard for the management of subscriptions… which would be great, but probably isn’t all that feasible in the medium term. It would be great if Apple did that though.
You can really only do that with third party payment processors if there’s some standard API/protocol/standard for the management of subscriptions… which would be great, but probably isn’t all that feasible in the medium term. It would be great if Apple did that though.
Yeah, I think it's a great feature of iOS. I think long term there isn't any reason Apple could not offer a way to integrate with the Settings.app, maybe in the similar way that they allow apps to build their own settings page into the Settings.app and make it a requirement of using a third-party payment processor during review.
It's not just fear mongering though. The risk that Apple will steal your credit card details is exactly zero. With a third-party it's definitely not zero, and there are plenty of people who are suspicious enough to barely trust Apple with their credit card.
I personally will probably stick to only using Apple payments, but I respect the right of others to want to use different payment systems.
Plus other payment providers, such as PayPal and stripe have their own dispute resolution processes.
Plus other payment providers, such as PayPal and stripe have their own dispute resolution processes.
I'm tech savvy and that's exactly why I'll be avoiding third-party payment systems on iOS. But yeah, I don't need an explicit reminder to do that.
I think there are more than one "norms" when it comes to payment. Here in Sweden you can expect to use klarna or swish if you pay something online, i wouldnt be worried if they forward me those payment services.
The point isn't the payment itself, it's about the management of your purchase. Apple App Store makes you able to easily cancel subscribtions etc - will I be able to cancel a subscribtion paid over klarna or swish as easily as I can cancel these bough through App Store?
The issue with the app store is there's a clear conflict of interest. Also it restricts users freedom.
A 'nit' about your phraseology - not aimed at you but at what has become 'received' usage.
I always take care to replace "users freedom" with "OWNERS freedom" in my conversations since so many people seem to have forgotten the distinction. Relatedly, I talk about "computer operators" not "computer users" to try remind people of this important distinction.
I always take care to replace "users freedom" with "OWNERS freedom" in my conversations since so many people seem to have forgotten the distinction. Relatedly, I talk about "computer operators" not "computer users" to try remind people of this important distinction.
Do you 'own' the OS or do you 'use' it?
In my case, I 'own' it. Building kernel and several core packages from source frequently.
I think most of us agree, we’re just a bit miffed by the unnecessarily incendiary language.
I think this is great, too. I just wish all the folk on hackernews that want to trash what apple have built would just go buy an Android phone and leave it alone. If you don’t like the AppStore, don’t buy an iPhone.
You understand only one of two things are going to happen here:
Either the Netherlands government ignores the fact that the spirit of their law was completely ignored and allows Apple to set the precedent of subverting the demands of lawmakers and regulators for Google to follow.
Or the Netherlands pass a new laws in retaliation to target this.
Telling users to just use phones by the other member of the mobile duolopoly doesn't address anything here. If Apple can get away with this, Google will follow.
Either the Netherlands government ignores the fact that the spirit of their law was completely ignored and allows Apple to set the precedent of subverting the demands of lawmakers and regulators for Google to follow.
Or the Netherlands pass a new laws in retaliation to target this.
Telling users to just use phones by the other member of the mobile duolopoly doesn't address anything here. If Apple can get away with this, Google will follow.
I envision a third option: Apple successfully appeals the regulator decision in Netherlands. It's not far fetched: Apple successfully appealed EC fine on Irish tax break (pending new appeal from the regulator), Intel successfully appealed older fine for anticompetitive behaviour. It seems to me that many laws in the EU are built on shaky legal grounds.
> I just wish all the folk on hackernews that want to trash what apple have built
It wasn't just Apple though, the value of their platforms is greatly reduced without the work of third-party developers (probably many of whom are on HN) that build software for them.
It wasn't just Apple though, the value of their platforms is greatly reduced without the work of third-party developers (probably many of whom are on HN) that build software for them.
I also have applications in the AppStore (x2). I knew what I was getting into when I built them. Apple are very clear about their pricing and value. If I had to drop either my iOS or Android apps then I would drop the Android apps in a heartbeat, supporting them is a headache.
But, if you run a fruit and veg stall on the local market, you pay the local council for the pitch. Don't like it, set up in a lay-by by the side of the motorway out of town and see how much that affects your bottom line.
Developers didn't build the software for Apple, they built it to sell to consumers and Apple provides them with a pitch on the market for a fee. It's how the world works. Don't like it, go make apps for Pine Phone.
Developers didn't build the software for Apple, they built it to sell to consumers and Apple provides them with a pitch on the market for a fee. It's how the world works. Don't like it, go make apps for Pine Phone.
>you pay the local council for the pitch
Unless you're a huge corporation like Apple which can sidestep a lot of it.
Either way tho it seems that analogy boils down to Apple having a monopoly-like position.
>for a fee
A high one propped up by a lack of competition.
>Don't like it, go make apps for Pine Phone.
Yeah I support some more push behind projects like that. In the meantime tho I don't think me or many others are going to suddenly love anticompetitive practices.
Unless you're a huge corporation like Apple which can sidestep a lot of it.
Either way tho it seems that analogy boils down to Apple having a monopoly-like position.
>for a fee
A high one propped up by a lack of competition.
>Don't like it, go make apps for Pine Phone.
Yeah I support some more push behind projects like that. In the meantime tho I don't think me or many others are going to suddenly love anticompetitive practices.
Should people who didn’t like Microsoft forcing Internet Explorer 20 years ago, also just go and not buy Windows?
Yeah, that's what I did.
Yep. I bought a Mac…
This kind of thinking isn't helpful. The reason this is a massive problem for app companies is because 90% of users aren't computer litterate and don't read. They expect their devices to just work with no effort (we at hn can't relate). We should all be mad at apple because we as devs can't control the devices default settings like Apple can. And that's how their winning... They're basically pulling an Amazon basics or a Costco's Kirkland.
Modal before the Modal: “we are about to display a message required by Apple. We use a non-Apple payment provider that is also private and secure. Please tap Proceed to continue”
This is a somewhat common pattern in the world of game console homebrew where the hardware boot process requires a specific “produced by or under license” screen to be displayed, e.g. https://i.imgur.com/PN3QQE4.jpg
[deleted]
I wonder what's their reasoning here, it is obvious that this is will not satisfy anybody. Are they buying time? Or do they want to show that they are above everybody and don't try to mess with us (except if you're China of course)?
We used to hate Microsoft for much less than this. I wonder how Apple can still have so many fans, even on this forum.
We used to hate Microsoft for much less than this. I wonder how Apple can still have so many fans, even on this forum.
> We used to hate Microsoft for much less than this. I wonder how Apple can still have so many fans, even on this forum.
Right.
I mean I am an Apple kit user (albeit mostly the cheap/secondhand stuff these days), but you're right -- this is a ghastly display of entitlement and I hope it costs them.
Right.
I mean I am an Apple kit user (albeit mostly the cheap/secondhand stuff these days), but you're right -- this is a ghastly display of entitlement and I hope it costs them.
It's about running the clock. They know full well that requiring the extra modal and demanding a 27% tax on top runs flagrantly against the intent of the law.
But they both discourage people from introducing third party payments and continue to collect their cut while the government now has to start the enforcement process again, take them to court again, etc.
When the profit scheme is so good, you just want to keep it running as long as possible, and this does that. Most court appeals you'll see in each case sound incredibly stupid on their face and you wonder why they'd pay a lawyer to argue it... but it's just because legal proceedings take time. The profits they make are so obscene, and the fines they'll pay for it are minimal in comparison.
Apple and Google are just crooks, full stop.
But they both discourage people from introducing third party payments and continue to collect their cut while the government now has to start the enforcement process again, take them to court again, etc.
When the profit scheme is so good, you just want to keep it running as long as possible, and this does that. Most court appeals you'll see in each case sound incredibly stupid on their face and you wonder why they'd pay a lawyer to argue it... but it's just because legal proceedings take time. The profits they make are so obscene, and the fines they'll pay for it are minimal in comparison.
Apple and Google are just crooks, full stop.
> We used to hate Microsoft for much less than this. I wonder how Apple can still have so many fans, even on this forum.
If you build a lifestyle product, people can and will struggle to separate their own identity from the products they own. People take an insult on Apple like it's an insult on them, which is not a basis for healthy discourse in the slightest. We end up with apologist takes like "I actually like having 30% of my revenue forfeited to Apple because [they deserve it | I would have given it to them anyways | it's not that much | (YOUR EXCUSE HERE)]" that don't really do anything to diffuse the situation.
Unfortunately, this dysfunction is not exclusive to technology, it's a problem with capitalism as a whole. The same "thought guards" exist with other lifestyle brands like Disney, Gucci, Ferrari, and anyone else who sells the idea of elitism to people who lack self-respect.
If you build a lifestyle product, people can and will struggle to separate their own identity from the products they own. People take an insult on Apple like it's an insult on them, which is not a basis for healthy discourse in the slightest. We end up with apologist takes like "I actually like having 30% of my revenue forfeited to Apple because [they deserve it | I would have given it to them anyways | it's not that much | (YOUR EXCUSE HERE)]" that don't really do anything to diffuse the situation.
Unfortunately, this dysfunction is not exclusive to technology, it's a problem with capitalism as a whole. The same "thought guards" exist with other lifestyle brands like Disney, Gucci, Ferrari, and anyone else who sells the idea of elitism to people who lack self-respect.
If all the folks who think Apple is all flash & marketing with no substance would get together and make products that are actually competitive with Apple's on substance, that'd be awesome and they might well get my business.
So 60% of the US population have iPhones because it’s a “lifestyle product”?
Yeah, weird. I thought I was an (softish) Android fan who got converted to Apple by working at a place developing on both platforms, and being exposed daily to just how much wildly better an experience my phones and tablets could be.
Guess I was wrong.
Guess I was wrong.
You're obviously entitled to your own opinions, but your experience as a software developer doesn't reflect the experiences or thought process of the average American at all.
It was both factors. Both user-stuff and developer-stuff were far more pleasant on i-devices. And because of testing needs, I got to use a huge range of devices from both ecosystems.
I don't develop in my spare time on my i-devices, so gain none of the benefits of the nicer development experience directly. I use them for tons of stuff, but I don't write personal software for them (never had a need to).
[EDIT] To head off any "but I think Android development is nicer"—most of the bad things about it don't kick in until you're working at (even smallish) scale. Much of it's due to the huge range of versions, customizations (Samsung's alternative web view implementation, say), and device capabilities in the wild. It's probably somewhat easier to develop for than iOS if you're targeting just your own device or small set of devices, are free to make the UI whatever you like rather than having to style it to be "on brand", et c.
I don't develop in my spare time on my i-devices, so gain none of the benefits of the nicer development experience directly. I use them for tons of stuff, but I don't write personal software for them (never had a need to).
[EDIT] To head off any "but I think Android development is nicer"—most of the bad things about it don't kick in until you're working at (even smallish) scale. Much of it's due to the huge range of versions, customizations (Samsung's alternative web view implementation, say), and device capabilities in the wild. It's probably somewhat easier to develop for than iOS if you're targeting just your own device or small set of devices, are free to make the UI whatever you like rather than having to style it to be "on brand", et c.
He is saying he had a much better experience on iPhone. The average American is buying iPhones 60% to 40%.
Sure. The "blue bubble" effect is strongest in the United States, and Apple's most iconic catchphrase under Steve Jobs was "it just works". If that's not the hallmark of a technology product being adapted to a lifestyle product, I'm really not sure what is.
So you believe that 60% of Americans on average spend twice as much on iPhone, just for the “blue bubble”? There couldn’t possibly be any other reason?
So technology products shouldn’t “just work”?
So technology products shouldn’t “just work”?
The "blue bubble" isn't just about iMessage, it's a colloquialism for how Apple's social marketing works. They have proprietary, closed protocols like Airdrop and Facetime that intentionally create friction between people on iOS and Android. It's a phrase for their marketing gimmicks that make vulnerable shoppers buy the products their friends have because they don't want to be left out. It's about the fashion statement and social pressure that goes into buying and owning a phone; Apple markets themselves as the solution to that. Much in the same way that celebrities spend inordinate amounts of money on useless and gaudy accessories, the iPhone is a token of mediocre wealth and being socially "in".
And 60% of the US population fall for this marketing? Google makes 80% of their revenue from ad sales and they can’t convince more than 40% of people to buy their supposedly superior OS? Are the US so full of dummies compared to the rest of the world that we are succumbing to Apple’s nefarious marketing?
People have been saying that the only reason people buy Apple products since the iPod was introduced in 2001. The rest of the industry has had 20 years to catch up with Apple if it were that easy, they couldn’t?
Also Google has how many active and failed messenger apps in the last decade?
People have been saying that the only reason people buy Apple products since the iPod was introduced in 2001. The rest of the industry has had 20 years to catch up with Apple if it were that easy, they couldn’t?
Also Google has how many active and failed messenger apps in the last decade?
> And 60% of the US population fall for this marketing?
Sure. They spend more money on it than any other company does.
> Google makes 80% of their revenue from ad sales and they can’t convince more than 40% of people to buy their supposedly superior OS?
First off, this is a false dichotomy. The 80% you're referencing is not what they spend on actual marketing of any of their products.
Secondly, I don't believe I ever called Android superior, or even insinuated that superiority was a component here. The average first-worlder doesn't give a shit about what the "superior product" is, this rings true for every market: cars, computers, TVs, and cell phones. Everything is disposable in the end, as long as they get their money's worth they're happy. Such is life under capitalism.
> The rest of the industry has had 20 years to catch up with Apple if it were that easy, they couldn’t?
The rest of the industry has no interest in building walled gardens and exclusive experiences. Apple is unique in that they have a massive software ecosystem of protocols and applications that they have made impossible to use on third-party devices. If any other company tried this without a majority share of the hardware market, it would be a suicide mission.
> Also Google has how many active and failed messenger apps in the last decade?
I don't really see how this is pertinent. If Apple really wanted to change the world of messenger apps, they could put iMessage on other platforms (hell, they could charge a fee for it if they want extra capitalism cookie points). They didn't.
The argument here is that Apple has no right to abuse their position in the market to extort developers for an arbitrary amount of money without competitors in that space. Apple is the largest company in the world; their antitrust scrutiny deserves to be through the roof, and actions like this are going to ultimately bury them when regulators come knocking. You're entitled to use whatever you want, but this isn't about individual technology politics (as much as Apple would like to frame it that way). This is about a large-scale failure of regulation, and the complete lack of consequence for refusing to build technology that empowers everyone.
Sure. They spend more money on it than any other company does.
> Google makes 80% of their revenue from ad sales and they can’t convince more than 40% of people to buy their supposedly superior OS?
First off, this is a false dichotomy. The 80% you're referencing is not what they spend on actual marketing of any of their products.
Secondly, I don't believe I ever called Android superior, or even insinuated that superiority was a component here. The average first-worlder doesn't give a shit about what the "superior product" is, this rings true for every market: cars, computers, TVs, and cell phones. Everything is disposable in the end, as long as they get their money's worth they're happy. Such is life under capitalism.
> The rest of the industry has had 20 years to catch up with Apple if it were that easy, they couldn’t?
The rest of the industry has no interest in building walled gardens and exclusive experiences. Apple is unique in that they have a massive software ecosystem of protocols and applications that they have made impossible to use on third-party devices. If any other company tried this without a majority share of the hardware market, it would be a suicide mission.
> Also Google has how many active and failed messenger apps in the last decade?
I don't really see how this is pertinent. If Apple really wanted to change the world of messenger apps, they could put iMessage on other platforms (hell, they could charge a fee for it if they want extra capitalism cookie points). They didn't.
The argument here is that Apple has no right to abuse their position in the market to extort developers for an arbitrary amount of money without competitors in that space. Apple is the largest company in the world; their antitrust scrutiny deserves to be through the roof, and actions like this are going to ultimately bury them when regulators come knocking. You're entitled to use whatever you want, but this isn't about individual technology politics (as much as Apple would like to frame it that way). This is about a large-scale failure of regulation, and the complete lack of consequence for refusing to build technology that empowers everyone.
You really believe that the “rest of the industry” would not like to do everything they can to make more money? You think the rest of the industry are saints that believe in being “open”?
And Apple didn’t start off with some magical majority share. When the iPhone was introduced, there were already 1 billion phones being sold every year. SJ said specifically he would be happy if he sold 10 million to capture 1% of the market. Did Apple do something magical that any of the incumbents couldn’t have done? How did Apple stop RIM, MS, or Google from creating a better experience?
How is the iPhone - where Apple supports phones back to 2015 with OS upgrades and 2013 with security updates - more “disposable” than Android phones where you probably don’t get two years worth of updates?
And Apple didn’t start off with some magical majority share. When the iPhone was introduced, there were already 1 billion phones being sold every year. SJ said specifically he would be happy if he sold 10 million to capture 1% of the market. Did Apple do something magical that any of the incumbents couldn’t have done? How did Apple stop RIM, MS, or Google from creating a better experience?
How is the iPhone - where Apple supports phones back to 2015 with OS upgrades and 2013 with security updates - more “disposable” than Android phones where you probably don’t get two years worth of updates?
Yes and Windows was a fantastic product and Microsoft the best company in the world because 90% of Americans "chose" Windows in the 90s.
Yes, people chose Windows because after seeing the other choices, Windows met their needs the best. What were they going to choose? Linux? An overpriced under powered Mac? I chose a Mac until 95. But Macs really did suck before OS X came out.
But going back to the point. When the iPhone was introduced, there was Palm, Windows Mobile, and Blackberry. Did someone make users choose iPhones?
Android was available on every major carrier when Apple started expanding beyond AT&T, once iPhones were available, Android phone sales dropped. What unfair advantage did Apple have over large companies like MS, Google, Motorola and Samsung?
But going back to the point. When the iPhone was introduced, there was Palm, Windows Mobile, and Blackberry. Did someone make users choose iPhones?
Android was available on every major carrier when Apple started expanding beyond AT&T, once iPhones were available, Android phone sales dropped. What unfair advantage did Apple have over large companies like MS, Google, Motorola and Samsung?
None as Microsoft didn't have any unfair advantage (well, kind of), but then things changed, and it became very unfair.
Same is happening here...
Same is happening here...
I think that the best way for Apple to conform to all those regulations would be dual-tiering the iPhone (which I know they avoided for years) in software or even by two box designs.
One would be "casual" iPhone (called just iPhone or iPhone Family), that'd have all the safety warnings, walled garden exits notification etc. etc., and then there would be "expert" edition or whatever, where there would be minimal notifications + link to menu where one could disable those notification/customize more/allow for more unsafe automations and such. Maybe even with swapping one to another in a hard way (for example requiring resetting full phone and re-linking it again - so it cannot be casually by convincing someone to).
I understand that for some people Apple is monopolist and closed garden, but for me my family this is exactly what I want. They don't care for security, 3rd party providers, iCloud storage options or how to not lose their photos and videos - and I don't want to be made to care for them for updates, configuration, security etc, and receive a call phone very single time they are confused by dialog (with state-mandated COVID app I spent ~40m with multiple people each on phone clicking them through the app).
I always believed that if someone wanted to tinker and hack around Android was the choice, if someone didn't care and wanted a phone that "just works" with sensible defaults and lack of knobs they'd go for iPhone. What's the dumb option now?
One would be "casual" iPhone (called just iPhone or iPhone Family), that'd have all the safety warnings, walled garden exits notification etc. etc., and then there would be "expert" edition or whatever, where there would be minimal notifications + link to menu where one could disable those notification/customize more/allow for more unsafe automations and such. Maybe even with swapping one to another in a hard way (for example requiring resetting full phone and re-linking it again - so it cannot be casually by convincing someone to).
I understand that for some people Apple is monopolist and closed garden, but for me my family this is exactly what I want. They don't care for security, 3rd party providers, iCloud storage options or how to not lose their photos and videos - and I don't want to be made to care for them for updates, configuration, security etc, and receive a call phone very single time they are confused by dialog (with state-mandated COVID app I spent ~40m with multiple people each on phone clicking them through the app).
I always believed that if someone wanted to tinker and hack around Android was the choice, if someone didn't care and wanted a phone that "just works" with sensible defaults and lack of knobs they'd go for iPhone. What's the dumb option now?
> Maybe even with swapping one to another in a hard way (for example requiring resetting full phone and re-linking it again - so it cannot be casually by convincing someone to).
This is the idea I've liked the most, require plugging into Apple Configurator or Xcode to put the device into developer "beware all ye who enter here" mode which forces a wipe. I've never heard of anyone casually unlocking their bootloader on Android, which requires a similar process. You'd lose most people once you said "plug it into a computer", and everyone who isn't a dev once you said "wipe the phone".
This is the idea I've liked the most, require plugging into Apple Configurator or Xcode to put the device into developer "beware all ye who enter here" mode which forces a wipe. I've never heard of anyone casually unlocking their bootloader on Android, which requires a similar process. You'd lose most people once you said "plug it into a computer", and everyone who isn't a dev once you said "wipe the phone".
One reason they're not doing that is that more than 99% of people would buy the family edition.
>I understand that for some people Apple is monopolist and closed garden, but for me my family this is exactly what I want. They don't care for security, 3rd party providers, iCloud storage options or how to not lose their photos and videos - and I don't want to be made to care for them for updates, configuration, security etc, and receive a call phone very single time they are confused by dialog (with state-mandated COVID app I spent ~40m with multiple people each on phone clicking them through the app).
But don't be selfish. You and your family are fine today but tomorrow some Apple decision will affect you and only then will you start complaining. You need to just the option to leave the garden , nobody is forcing you , say if buying an audio book and paying with PayPal is 25% cheaper but you love Apple so, so much you want o pay more nobody would force you not to pay with Apple(Apple could demand an Apple payment option but should not force that they get the smaller prices like Amazon do). Same with applications, nobody forces you to install a third party App Store, Apple can make this setting hidden, make a clear video on why this is bad (they should be honest though and not spread FUD). The truth is that on OSX you don't see the MAc users installing like retards malware and on Android I did not see any major app refusing to publish in the Google Play Store, Unfortunetly the reverse is true, you can't find most apps directly on the source website but you are forced to install the Google Store.
TL:DR
1 is not about security, it is about money.
2 nobody is forced to use anything else then Apple(no FB will not move their app from the store, they did not do it in Android and there is no intelligent argument they would do it for iOS)
But don't be selfish. You and your family are fine today but tomorrow some Apple decision will affect you and only then will you start complaining. You need to just the option to leave the garden , nobody is forcing you , say if buying an audio book and paying with PayPal is 25% cheaper but you love Apple so, so much you want o pay more nobody would force you not to pay with Apple(Apple could demand an Apple payment option but should not force that they get the smaller prices like Amazon do). Same with applications, nobody forces you to install a third party App Store, Apple can make this setting hidden, make a clear video on why this is bad (they should be honest though and not spread FUD). The truth is that on OSX you don't see the MAc users installing like retards malware and on Android I did not see any major app refusing to publish in the Google Play Store, Unfortunetly the reverse is true, you can't find most apps directly on the source website but you are forced to install the Google Store.
TL:DR
1 is not about security, it is about money.
2 nobody is forced to use anything else then Apple(no FB will not move their app from the store, they did not do it in Android and there is no intelligent argument they would do it for iOS)
I do not want Apple to enable side loading, as it will enable people like employers, Government shady companies to build apps and mandate it to install for accessing some very important functionality, also will trigger, carriers provided phones to have non app store crap installed like in Android phones. At the same time i think Apple is sabotaging all of us by insisting on getting this steep 30% cut. As no government will allow such a huge additional tax on its companies apart from its national tax in long run. This is becoming a lose-lose situation for us.
>as it will enable people like employers, Government shady companies to build apps and mandate it to install for accessing some very important functionality
1. can't tell already do that with enterprise provisioning profiles?
2. can't you refuse them access to your personal phone and demand that they provide you a work phone?
1. can't tell already do that with enterprise provisioning profiles?
2. can't you refuse them access to your personal phone and demand that they provide you a work phone?
Most of them don’t bother with employee provisioning profiles, also not everyone has sufficient leverage to demand a iphone with their employer.
Despite Apple's warnings about "security" and "privacy", the 27% commission shows their bottom line is really about getting a cut.
Meh, mixed feelings about this.
I like Apple's payment system. It works, it's consistent, I can cancel things from a single menu. There are real benefits to me, the consumer, to using Apple's system.
On the flip side, other payment systems can be a hodgepodge of unsecured, user hostile (cancellations), and inconsistent. There can be real negatives to using other systems. More so some systems that don't have a consistent UX (ie, don't bump me into PayPal's UX or similar and have a branded payment page instead).
Basically, I'm not a fan of Apple being this heavy-handed. There has to be a happy middle ground. But, I also hate inconsistent payment workflows and loathe cancelling subscriptions elsewhere. Not sure what the right answer is, but as a consumer, I'm finding it hard to care about this.
I like Apple's payment system. It works, it's consistent, I can cancel things from a single menu. There are real benefits to me, the consumer, to using Apple's system.
On the flip side, other payment systems can be a hodgepodge of unsecured, user hostile (cancellations), and inconsistent. There can be real negatives to using other systems. More so some systems that don't have a consistent UX (ie, don't bump me into PayPal's UX or similar and have a branded payment page instead).
Basically, I'm not a fan of Apple being this heavy-handed. There has to be a happy middle ground. But, I also hate inconsistent payment workflows and loathe cancelling subscriptions elsewhere. Not sure what the right answer is, but as a consumer, I'm finding it hard to care about this.
If you like Apple’s payment system, then you can choose to not use an app with a third party system. That’s your choice as a consumer, and if Apple’s service really is superior, then it will win on it’s own merits.
But Apple doesn’t want to compete. Even if their service is better and they’re confident that users will choose them over third parties, they know that allowing competition will force them to lower their obscene fees in the long term. Market forces do that in a competitive market.
That’s all there is to it. It has absolutely nothing to do with user security or privacy. Apple isn’t going to sit idly by while regulators make decisions that threaten their long term profits. They’re going to fight it for as long as they possibly can. Anything less would be laziness on the part of their executive team.
But Apple doesn’t want to compete. Even if their service is better and they’re confident that users will choose them over third parties, they know that allowing competition will force them to lower their obscene fees in the long term. Market forces do that in a competitive market.
That’s all there is to it. It has absolutely nothing to do with user security or privacy. Apple isn’t going to sit idly by while regulators make decisions that threaten their long term profits. They’re going to fight it for as long as they possibly can. Anything less would be laziness on the part of their executive team.
The thing is, you don't _have_ to buy things through a third party and you don't _have_ to buy anything if you don't like the payment processor. The market will correct itself when shitty applications with shitty UX don't get any sales, unless it turns most customers don't care and people like you are the minority.
In a perfect world, there'd be a "pay with Apple Pay (€2,60)" button right next to the "pay with iDeal (€2,25)" button, just like on most web shops. If you prefer to use Apple's services, you can pay the extra costs for the 30% Apple tax and lose nothing you have now. Apple are the ones putting extra restrictions on app developers, I'm sure devs would love to have the easy Apple option available right next to the cheaper option!
To me, Apple's behaviour reads like they know they can't compete in an open market with their payment processor fees so they'll fight tooth and nail to keep any form of competition out. Their cut is simply unreasonable compared to any other payment provider, but of course they'll try to fight their billions in profits whenever they can. They go so far to force developers to increase their prices and even forbid them from showing the transaction costs in the checkout screen.
In a perfect world, there'd be a "pay with Apple Pay (€2,60)" button right next to the "pay with iDeal (€2,25)" button, just like on most web shops. If you prefer to use Apple's services, you can pay the extra costs for the 30% Apple tax and lose nothing you have now. Apple are the ones putting extra restrictions on app developers, I'm sure devs would love to have the easy Apple option available right next to the cheaper option!
To me, Apple's behaviour reads like they know they can't compete in an open market with their payment processor fees so they'll fight tooth and nail to keep any form of competition out. Their cut is simply unreasonable compared to any other payment provider, but of course they'll try to fight their billions in profits whenever they can. They go so far to force developers to increase their prices and even forbid them from showing the transaction costs in the checkout screen.
> The market will correct itself when shitty applications with shitty UX don't get any sales
I think your assumption is too optimistic. The only way the market would correct itself in this situation is toward user hostility with easy signups but hard cancellations (e.g. New York Times). So yes there will be some market correction, but only in ways that increase sales at the cost of user tolerance.
I think your assumption is too optimistic. The only way the market would correct itself in this situation is toward user hostility with easy signups but hard cancellations (e.g. New York Times). So yes there will be some market correction, but only in ways that increase sales at the cost of user tolerance.
The current situation only applies to the Netherlands where the law says that you have to be able to cancel a service online if you subscribed online (no phone calls/letters/telegrams/etc. can be required for cancellation) so I doubt that would be the case here.
That said, I don't think Apple should be the one to fix this system. The government should prevent such harmful behaviour through legislation rather than relying on private parties.
Besides, users can always choose not to pay for items in their apps if they can't use their preferred payment processor. People living in places where this predatory behaviour is still legal can choose not to pay through payment providers that don't allow them to easily cancel for the extra fees those providers (like Apple) charge.
That said, I don't think Apple should be the one to fix this system. The government should prevent such harmful behaviour through legislation rather than relying on private parties.
Besides, users can always choose not to pay for items in their apps if they can't use their preferred payment processor. People living in places where this predatory behaviour is still legal can choose not to pay through payment providers that don't allow them to easily cancel for the extra fees those providers (like Apple) charge.
100% agreement on their 30% cut. I was speaking strictly from the consumer's perspective, assuming they would never be shown two different prices.
I'm not sure why they wouldn't show two prices. In fact, the checkout screen could just as easily show the price with and without payment processor fees applied.
From "Distributing dating apps in the Netherlands" (https://developer.apple.com/support/storekit-external-entitl...) section "Displaying the in-app modal sheet".
I did not know about this. Clearly shows how Apple will fight to keep it's abuses on each country individually and each sector individually, EU needs to intervene and make this global for EU.
Can we also acknowledge that Apple says that you must use a Payment Service Provider that also supports Apple Pay?
"Your PSP will need to offer the following:[...] - Broad payment support including cards, iDEAL, and Apple Pay."
This just seems evil.
"Your PSP will need to offer the following:[...] - Broad payment support including cards, iDEAL, and Apple Pay."
This just seems evil.
And it needs to support iDEAL, with Apple doesn't even support for IAP.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202631
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202631
Oh my god it just gets better and better.
To make matters worse, the Dutch translation of the mandated text has awkward style. It feels grammatically incorrect to me although I can't pin-point why.
It feels a bit like
It feels a bit like
This app does not supporting App Store's privately and secure-payment system
For the added insult.
I think all the verbiage and display of these types of regulatory-enforced modals should be specifically defined by the regulations.
Why are these any different from nutrition labels? In the US, nutrition labels always look pretty much exactly the same, down to the font. I don't have to look in 30 different places to find the calorie count. Compare that with cookie dialogs, where each website has its own different version so you've got to figure out which of 10 different options means "no, don't track me".
Why are these any different from nutrition labels? In the US, nutrition labels always look pretty much exactly the same, down to the font. I don't have to look in 30 different places to find the calorie count. Compare that with cookie dialogs, where each website has its own different version so you've got to figure out which of 10 different options means "no, don't track me".
This is not a "regulatory-enforced" modal. Nothing in the regulations said they had to add this nonsense, Apple chose to add it to make third-party payments as painful as possible.
Apple knows it is a scam and they are getting away with it by making the user experience painful for the user and developers, whilst still being 'compliant'.
(And also collecting the 27% regardless. 3% goes to the payment processors)
Quite an unsurprising string of negatives for everyone which frustrates the user to choose in-app purchases in the end. Deliberately making outside payments not worth it for everyone.
(And also collecting the 27% regardless. 3% goes to the payment processors)
Quite an unsurprising string of negatives for everyone which frustrates the user to choose in-app purchases in the end. Deliberately making outside payments not worth it for everyone.
Consider the situation if Apple didn’t require this in some way, shape, or form.
There’d be dozens of articles about your tech-unsavvy grandma and how they couldn’t unsubscribe the way they normally do, and would blame Apple for it.
I, for one, would not want to deal with the trouble of teaching my parents that some purchases in the App Store are through the App Store, and some aren’t.
There’d be dozens of articles about your tech-unsavvy grandma and how they couldn’t unsubscribe the way they normally do, and would blame Apple for it.
I, for one, would not want to deal with the trouble of teaching my parents that some purchases in the App Store are through the App Store, and some aren’t.
If Apple didn’t do this, we would blame Apple for doing nothing to prevent dark patterns.
Imagine what average users will do after reading "This app does not support (Apple's) secure and private payments system". Clearly they would cancel the payment and probably uninstall the "insecure" app
Is Apple a virtual millipede? Does it have any unshot feet left. As Marco says = GOLD.
I am sure this whole thing will rebound against Apple, as well it should.
[deleted]
Not sure I see the issue here - if I'm subscribing to something on iOS I expect to be able to cancel it in 1 click from my subscription settings.
But apparently it should be fine to circumvent that AND not alert the user to the fact that's happening.
But apparently it should be fine to circumvent that AND not alert the user to the fact that's happening.
Is there a technical reason third part payments cannot co-exist with the requirement that subscriptions register with the iOS subscription manager?
There's no technical reason. But why would anyone use it if apple didn't require it? That's a loss to me as a consumer.
It’s the exact opposite for me. I don’t care what payment processor I use but I 100% want the ability to cancel any subscriptions with a single click from the control panel.
Who's your "evil empire" now? :)
Not bad, although it should be automatic, not like forcing the devs to do it, but i guess ios devs don't have any ego left.
This will also train people to dismiss these dialogs blindly like they do with cookie dialogs.
This will also train people to dismiss these dialogs blindly like they do with cookie dialogs.
The whole ecosystem around Apple products seems to be a commitment to producing e-waste in the short-term. It's really bizarre.
A 20 year old PC still works. It might be slow, but as long as it's 64-bit, you can run modern software. If it's older and 32-bit you might be struggling but it's at least theoretically possible.
By contrast Apple seem hell-bent on creating this environment in which they control the software environment so completely that as soon as they stop supporting it, that's it, you now have a brick.
I feel like this is the angle that needs to be pushed on harder. The payment processing thing is just one aspect of a wider system which is that they're selling a subscription to a device rather than the device itself because they attempt to control your use of the device end-to-end and will eventually remove your ability to meaningfully use it.
A 20 year old PC still works. It might be slow, but as long as it's 64-bit, you can run modern software. If it's older and 32-bit you might be struggling but it's at least theoretically possible.
By contrast Apple seem hell-bent on creating this environment in which they control the software environment so completely that as soon as they stop supporting it, that's it, you now have a brick.
I feel like this is the angle that needs to be pushed on harder. The payment processing thing is just one aspect of a wider system which is that they're selling a subscription to a device rather than the device itself because they attempt to control your use of the device end-to-end and will eventually remove your ability to meaningfully use it.
> A 20 year old PC still works
A horse and buggy still work, that doesn’t mean the only purpose of cars is creating waste.
A horse and buggy still work, that doesn’t mean the only purpose of cars is creating waste.
Well, my 20 year old car still works.
There are 50 year old cars on my road - our cars could probably go on forever (though they won't, within 10 or 20 years my city will probably mandate electric drivetrains).
I think that newer cars are more likely to create waste for many of the same reasons.
Of course we can't extend the timeline out forever, but we can at least take steps to not _artificially_ cause obsolescence, this is distinct from the way in which a car is inherently far more useful than a horse and buggy.
There are 50 year old cars on my road - our cars could probably go on forever (though they won't, within 10 or 20 years my city will probably mandate electric drivetrains).
I think that newer cars are more likely to create waste for many of the same reasons.
Of course we can't extend the timeline out forever, but we can at least take steps to not _artificially_ cause obsolescence, this is distinct from the way in which a car is inherently far more useful than a horse and buggy.
Planned obsolescence is the entire backbone of the American economy. We could get rid of it in one fell swoop, but then basically every company in the country would go bankrupt and then the world. A sad state of affairs. Perhaps incremental improvements and clawing back of Right-to-Repair etc. can give us some semblence of not being facebooters, but also allow our shit-tier companies to adjust.
> Planned obsolescence is the entire backbone of the American economy
Your response to a comment about decades-old cars still working is to pitch a planned-obsolescence conspiracy theory?
Your response to a comment about decades-old cars still working is to pitch a planned-obsolescence conspiracy theory?
Let me know if your 2011 car lasts 20 years.
So you're betting on Hacker News still being here in 2031? How come you're so sure this site doesn't fall under the great obsolesence plan?
I have to admit this thread is the first time Ive ever heard someone calling planned obsolescence a 'conspiracy theory'. I thought it was pretty well understood. Live and learn I guess, couldn't let the tinfoil hat folks have all the fun!
It’s a well understood phenomenon. But to claim it manifests at large across the American economy is to claim every producer is intentionally crippling their products. That’s a conspiracy theory by definition. It’s also unfounded. Yes, there are industries which promote fads to make their precious products less desirable. But that’s different from designing them from the start to fail early for the purpose of selling a replacement (versus designing cheaply for a consumer who doesn’t care for longevity).
I think a horse and buggy and a car are different classes of technology.
A better comparison is old cars and new cars. Creating waste is not the only purpose of cars, but manufacturers sure do like to push newer models for the sake of sales, disregarding the waste problem.
Right now my 40 year old car still runs just fine. But that's because public infrastructure still supports it. With tricks like manufacturer-specific garages and forced software obsolescence, a car I buy today might well not be usable in 40 year's time.
A better comparison is old cars and new cars. Creating waste is not the only purpose of cars, but manufacturers sure do like to push newer models for the sake of sales, disregarding the waste problem.
Right now my 40 year old car still runs just fine. But that's because public infrastructure still supports it. With tricks like manufacturer-specific garages and forced software obsolescence, a car I buy today might well not be usable in 40 year's time.
> Right now my 40 year old car still runs just fine
But it doesn’t have modern safety features, to say nothing of its fuel efficiency.
> that's because public infrastructure still supports it
Public infrastructure supports old computers fine. Just like with old cars, people value the new things being brought to the table.
That doesn’t mean every new feature is wanted. But on the balance, most people upgrade their phones and computers out of choice.
But it doesn’t have modern safety features, to say nothing of its fuel efficiency.
> that's because public infrastructure still supports it
Public infrastructure supports old computers fine. Just like with old cars, people value the new things being brought to the table.
That doesn’t mean every new feature is wanted. But on the balance, most people upgrade their phones and computers out of choice.
Computers and phones are in fundamentally different categories because one has open software and the other doesn't.
Whether you or people in aggregate choose to do things is distinct from whether they are effectively forced via planned obsolescence. That's what makes it planned.
I know that my old car has lower fuel efficiency. It's actually not that bad, my 20 year old car gets about 45-50 UK MPG, a new one of the same shape etc would get about 60-70. The distinction is small enough that scrapping the car and making a new one would be worse overall from an emissions perspective.
But again, that's my choice. New phones have better cameras than mine. I don't care, I have a real camera for that.
Whether you or people in aggregate choose to do things is distinct from whether they are effectively forced via planned obsolescence. That's what makes it planned.
I know that my old car has lower fuel efficiency. It's actually not that bad, my 20 year old car gets about 45-50 UK MPG, a new one of the same shape etc would get about 60-70. The distinction is small enough that scrapping the car and making a new one would be worse overall from an emissions perspective.
But again, that's my choice. New phones have better cameras than mine. I don't care, I have a real camera for that.
> Computers and phones are in fundamentally different categories because one has open software and the other doesn't
I have a grandparent who uses the same phone we got her a decade ago. It runs entirely on closed-source software. It works fine. Same for the Windows computer we got her five years before that. Meanwhile, my friend who runs AOSP on his phone has a new device every six months.
I have a grandparent who uses the same phone we got her a decade ago. It runs entirely on closed-source software. It works fine. Same for the Windows computer we got her five years before that. Meanwhile, my friend who runs AOSP on his phone has a new device every six months.
And I switched from an old phone ('13 model) to one a single year newer so I could run open software on it.
(Just counteracting your anecdote about the friend...shrug)
(Just counteracting your anecdote about the friend...shrug)
I have an iPad from 2013 that works just fine. It only runs iOS 12.5.5, so some modern apps using newer APIs one cannot install. But many things run perfectly ok, just a tad slow. And, if an app doesn't run, the App store offers to install the latest version still compatible with the OS, if available. I don't see how that's compatible with your claim that:
> as soon as they stop supporting it, that's it, you now have a brick
> as soon as they stop supporting it, that's it, you now have a brick
By contrast, your computer from 2013 is a computer from 2022 but a bit slower.
The fact that you view "some stuff is broken but like, it's old" as okay is in my view an enormous concession. It should fully work, there is no reason for it not to other than them locking it down.
It's fair enough that an original Motorola Razr isn't a smartphone because there are physical constraints. If the only thing preventing it from working is that they've gone closed source, locked the bootloader and told you to get fucked that's planned obsolescence and I'm gonna call it out as being bullshit.
The fact that you view "some stuff is broken but like, it's old" as okay is in my view an enormous concession. It should fully work, there is no reason for it not to other than them locking it down.
It's fair enough that an original Motorola Razr isn't a smartphone because there are physical constraints. If the only thing preventing it from working is that they've gone closed source, locked the bootloader and told you to get fucked that's planned obsolescence and I'm gonna call it out as being bullshit.
I’d be surprised if your 2013 computer can install the latest version of Windows.
It can, but you have to work around the new planned obsolescence built into the newest version of Windows...a requirement for TPM 2.0.
At least from what I've heard, you can bypass the installer's check, and guess what, Windows 11 can still run even without TPM 2.0.
At least from what I've heard, you can bypass the installer's check, and guess what, Windows 11 can still run even without TPM 2.0.
I have a counter example, my ipad mini is effectively a brick, I can't install a modern browser on it because it's too old. period. Allowing external stores could definitely help make it work again.
The original iPad can still browse the internet - when it doesn’t crash because it only has 256MB of RAM.
Yes my 2009 Core Duo 2.66Ghz Dell laptop with 8GB RAM and a 250GB hard drive can run Windows 10 fine and most modern apps. Many low end configurations still come with 8GB of RAM today and smaller but faster SSDs.
A 2009 iPhone had 128MB of RAM and 4-8GB of storage, along with a 320x480 3.5 inch display. Currently iPhones have at minimum 3GB RAM and 64GB of storage. Not to mention that 2G cell phone service has been cut out by all the carriers and 3G is on its way out. Your phone would still be useless.
But using your car analogy, the Apple //e came out in 1980 with 64K of RAM and a 1Mhz processor. 10 years later by 1991, processors were 30x faster and computers came with 40x more RAM. You now see smart phone performance increases slowing down and phones are useful a lot longer than they were a decade ago.
A 2009 iPhone had 128MB of RAM and 4-8GB of storage, along with a 320x480 3.5 inch display. Currently iPhones have at minimum 3GB RAM and 64GB of storage. Not to mention that 2G cell phone service has been cut out by all the carriers and 3G is on its way out. Your phone would still be useless.
But using your car analogy, the Apple //e came out in 1980 with 64K of RAM and a 1Mhz processor. 10 years later by 1991, processors were 30x faster and computers came with 40x more RAM. You now see smart phone performance increases slowing down and phones are useful a lot longer than they were a decade ago.
How many 20 year old PCs are 64bit? AMD didn't introduce Athlon 64 until 2003 and good luck running IA-64 with anything resembling a modern OS.
I want the EU to force Apple and Google to allow 3rd party app stores with the exact same rights as theirs (auto updated etc.). Just like back in the day when Microsoft was forced to let users allow other browser when it wasn't even being blocked. Just theirs was pre-installed!
The security excuse doesn't cut it, sorry. 3rd party app stores can be just as secure if not even more being smaller and able to properly vet apps.
This closed eco-system hinders innovation. Apps that compete with apple or google routinely get blocked or removed.