Brave Complies With Apple iOS Guidelines(brave.com)
brave.com
Brave Complies With Apple iOS Guidelines
https://brave.com/rewards-ios/
182 comments
Brave's ads don't leak your consumer profile to the advertisers. Only Brave themselves know who's seeing what (and even then, only client-side, unless they push a malicious update one day.) Advertisers only get to know how many impressions they got.
By contrast, every credit card with "rewards", retail loyalty card, or coupon app (e.g. Honey) you've ever signed up for is — very explicitly — selling your consumer profile to advertisers/market research companies. Then, to make you interested in being on the other side of that deal, they take some of the money they make from those data-buyers and pass it back to you as rewards/points/offers.
If neither of these business models already existed, and both were pitched at the same time, I think it'd be the second one that would put people in mind of dystopian speculative fiction.
By contrast, every credit card with "rewards", retail loyalty card, or coupon app (e.g. Honey) you've ever signed up for is — very explicitly — selling your consumer profile to advertisers/market research companies. Then, to make you interested in being on the other side of that deal, they take some of the money they make from those data-buyers and pass it back to you as rewards/points/offers.
If neither of these business models already existed, and both were pitched at the same time, I think it'd be the second one that would put people in mind of dystopian speculative fiction.
All machine learning happens locally with Brave. The user retains control of their data.
https://brave.com/intro-to-brave-ads/
https://brave.com/intro-to-brave-ads/
>Brave's ads don't leak your consumer profile to the advertisers. Only Brave themselves know who's seeing what (and even then, only client-side, unless they push a malicious update one day.) Advertisers only get to know how many impressions they got.
Isn't this how Google ads work?
Isn't this how Google ads work?
No. Almost all of Google’s revenue comes from gathering and monetizing user data, all while repeatedly saying they don’t “sell” user data.
No, Google has your entire life story associated with your verified name, server side and only under your control insofar as GDPR/CCPA deletion requests.
Not to say I personally have a problem with that (I looove my Google Maps history) but it's a very different model.
Not to say I personally have a problem with that (I looove my Google Maps history) but it's a very different model.
Can you ever ensure that the trusted computing base won't send all your info to a company?
Maybe there is a backdoor in Google Chrome or something.
What if they just "cache it", or make it available on other devices etc?
Apple does it with iCloud. And google does it too. You log in with your google account everywhere on your browsers, they don't even hide it.
Maybe there is a backdoor in Google Chrome or something.
What if they just "cache it", or make it available on other devices etc?
Apple does it with iCloud. And google does it too. You log in with your google account everywhere on your browsers, they don't even hide it.
Just because lots of companies do it, doesn't mean it's a good thing though, does it?
The point is that Brave is doing something different though?
Something where your privacy is not violated and the value generated from your attention goes directly to the content producers you like most.
Something where your privacy is not violated and the value generated from your attention goes directly to the content producers you like most.
Thank you for making the distinction between what brave is doing and what the rest of the market is doing. To little attention is directed at the soul selling privacy violating business practices of the advertising establishment. Long live Brave!
Well maybe... it's certainly a different approach than being tracked, surveilled and served up personal ads.
Brave is using cryptocurrency as an alternative revenue model for content creators than advertisements, and in some ways it's much more of a "white mirror" kind of tech.
Brave is using cryptocurrency as an alternative revenue model for content creators than advertisements, and in some ways it's much more of a "white mirror" kind of tech.
It's also fundamentally untenable in a world where the purpose of the ads they replace is to pay for the content you're viewing.
The web needs a real solution to the problems ads present at the moment, but we're unlikely to get one when the dominant browser vendor has deep interests in keeping users trackable.
The web needs a real solution to the problems ads present at the moment, but we're unlikely to get one when the dominant browser vendor has deep interests in keeping users trackable.
Why, because it places a price tag on user's attention? the price of which google and FB want to keep forever at $0?
If anything we should be asking google to name their own price
If anything we should be asking google to name their own price
I'm not sold on the crypto aspect, but this seems fairer than beaming ads into our brains, burning our glucose reserves.
Noise has a cost.
Noise has a cost.
It's just taking the current model and exposing all the gears so people see exactly how it works and cutting out the middle men.
If they allow you to load your own money into it and make the amount required explicit for transactions, all the better, we're even closer to direct payment for resources again. Then the watching of adds to pay for the content is just like doing the dishes at the restaurant to pay for your dinner (as long as you work it out in advance). I don't see any problem with that, it's still just an exchange of goods and services.
If they allow you to load your own money into it and make the amount required explicit for transactions, all the better, we're even closer to direct payment for resources again. Then the watching of adds to pay for the content is just like doing the dishes at the restaurant to pay for your dinner (as long as you work it out in advance). I don't see any problem with that, it's still just an exchange of goods and services.
It's like money. Welcome to money.
Can I just pay the sites that I visit with money directly? I would say "can I buy BAT" but I don't like that this makes brave the middleman.
Brave is only the middleman with advertisers.
You can buy BAT directly from any crypto exchange (or better yet exchange ETH / any ERC20 token for it on a decentralized exchange). Then you can put that BAT into a wallet on your Brave browser, enable a setting, and every month your browser will automatically disburse the BAT proportionally to the content creators you are consuming, as long as they have their own BAT wallet.
That's what I do. I don't opt in to the Brave Ads. But you can if you want, and it's worth pointing out that Brave's ad system is very privacy focused, in that all classification of you as an ad-target happens in your browser. The only thing sent to Brave is basically just a list of keywords. Then Brave lets advertisers bid on putting up ads for people with certain keywords.
You can buy BAT directly from any crypto exchange (or better yet exchange ETH / any ERC20 token for it on a decentralized exchange). Then you can put that BAT into a wallet on your Brave browser, enable a setting, and every month your browser will automatically disburse the BAT proportionally to the content creators you are consuming, as long as they have their own BAT wallet.
That's what I do. I don't opt in to the Brave Ads. But you can if you want, and it's worth pointing out that Brave's ad system is very privacy focused, in that all classification of you as an ad-target happens in your browser. The only thing sent to Brave is basically just a list of keywords. Then Brave lets advertisers bid on putting up ads for people with certain keywords.
As opposed to the status quo, where our attention is monetized and we get no benefit?
Of course you get to benefit, you get to see the content without paying for it.
But I'd rather pay for it than have my eyeballs mined for vastly more than the value I'm getting.
Brave allows me to do that easily.
Brave allows me to do that easily.
Most people don’t, and if enough people did it would invalidate the model for everyone since adverse selection would mean only the worst residual customers get left viewing ads.
It wouldn't invalidate the model, because advertisers aren't actually essential to the whole thing.
Advertisers are included because they're part of the status quo, but the system works pretty well if you just have content creators + users that pay them with BAT (the key part being it's automatic and doesn't require 10 different subscriptions to support 10 different creators).
Advertisers are included because they're part of the status quo, but the system works pretty well if you just have content creators + users that pay them with BAT (the key part being it's automatic and doesn't require 10 different subscriptions to support 10 different creators).
I have not watched Black Mirror. In what way is it similar? Can someone condense it in a few lines?
There's an episode where someone is forced to watch adverts for rewards, and they're harangued if they close their eyes. I can't remember the details, but it's the concept of explicitly selling your attention that caught my eye. It seems pretty dystopian to me.
It does not sound like the same thing if you are not forced to watch ads (I think you have to opt in to receive rewards). In fact what Brave does is they replace existing ads, iirc.
Brave doesn't replace ads. You can do either, or both of:
1) Block existing ads (like any other ad blocker)
2) Opt in to Brave ads (which are served via system notifications).
If you opt in, you can get "paid" in BAT. You can cash this out (from an exchange) or donate them to the sites you visit.
Realistically, it will never be an amount worth cashing out, so I suspect most people donate it to the sites and content creators they like. Thats what I do anyways.
1) Block existing ads (like any other ad blocker)
2) Opt in to Brave ads (which are served via system notifications).
If you opt in, you can get "paid" in BAT. You can cash this out (from an exchange) or donate them to the sites you visit.
Realistically, it will never be an amount worth cashing out, so I suspect most people donate it to the sites and content creators they like. Thats what I do anyways.
Each episode presents a dystopia based on an element of our current world, overstretched, in a way that makes you uncomfortable because it looks like we are almost there.
And actually, some episodes have been realized since their release.
And actually, some episodes have been realized since their release.
In the episode “Fifteen Million Merits” the main character is fed ads on the walls of his bedroom and his eyes are tracked. If he wants the ads to stop and close his eyes in peace he has to pay a small fee each time.
this would be after <attention token> has become the new fluid currency and you've gone deep into debt by paying more attention than you had
Well, the economy in general didn't make much sense in that episode. The people "working hard just to get by" spend all day on these bicycle things that generate power, but thermodynamically there's no way they could be producing more than what it costs to feed them. Nor do I recall any sort of education or training for actual careers going on. And that's not something I can entirely ignore, when "how empty everyone's lives are" is relevant to the general plot.
Maybe they could have substituted some kind of factory assembly work, although that might have raised questions of why it's not automated.
Maybe they could have substituted some kind of factory assembly work, although that might have raised questions of why it's not automated.
There is an episode where you essentially directly pay with attention. Each episode is different, often inducing "mind fuck" with respect to alternative futures based on differing societal or behavioral standards
BAT sounds to me like just another form of airline miles or cryptocurrency?
It is a cryptocurrency, so that's a fair understanding.
Wouldn't "Black Mirror stuff" be the current way things are done with Google, Facebook, and all the other companies engaging in surveillance capitalism?
Brave is privacy preserving. Tips and contributions are anonymous.
Brave is privacy preserving. Tips and contributions are anonymous.
Fair point - it's probably a mix of both. But I find the idea of selling attention to be a fundamentally unsettling one.
Selling attention is what twitter, facebook, google, and co do. They just don't name it "attention token" and they don't give you anything for yours. Brave pays for your attention with "BAT", and you have to opt-in for it. Once you have BAT then you can pay it forward however you see fit - for most frequently visited sites, for sites you chose manually, for git-hub commits, individual reddit comments, etc (Brave has separate buttons near those). Or you can decide to keep it for yourself.
I am pretty sure it is a massive improvement over the current way of doing things. Sure Brave would get a big cut because of being in the middle of this. But it manages to use ads in a way that profits everyone: users, content creators, ad companies, and Brave themselves.
I am pretty sure it is a massive improvement over the current way of doing things. Sure Brave would get a big cut because of being in the middle of this. But it manages to use ads in a way that profits everyone: users, content creators, ad companies, and Brave themselves.
> they don't give you anything for yours.
Well they give you access to a bunch of useful services.
Well they give you access to a bunch of useful services.
In their case the ads are not used to support the services, rather the services are used as a trap to feed customers for advertising.
But you have a point, I have to admit.
But you have a point, I have to admit.
> Say what you want about Apple here
Okay.
"A shitty company uses its monopolistic power to forbid another shitty company to apply its shitty business model".
Okay.
"A shitty company uses its monopolistic power to forbid another shitty company to apply its shitty business model".
A lot of people in this thread don't understand how Brave works -- despite commenting on multiple submissions regarding Brave. It's peculiar because the HN crowd prides itself on being technical and correct.
a token as proxy for (the value of) your actual attention is just the innocent prerequisite to some incredible dystopia. as with javascript, Brendan Eich appears to be channeling technology up from the depths of hell. I wonder if he created the prototype in a 10-day fit of a fever dream as well.
> as with javascript, Brendan Eich appears to be channeling technology up from the depths of hell. I wonder if he created the prototype in a 10-day fit of a fever dream as well.
This made me laugh! But hyperbole aside, this premise would seem to (by nature of efficient laziness) eventually result in people spam watching ads with bots - despite any ways of preventing this, people will find a way.
This made me laugh! But hyperbole aside, this premise would seem to (by nature of efficient laziness) eventually result in people spam watching ads with bots - despite any ways of preventing this, people will find a way.
All systems with value at stake attract fraud, including paywalls (credit card fraud, obviously; circumvention too). This does not mean we give up and go home. On the contrary, Google and FB take all your data and do strong antifraud work on their native ad-inventory properties. Brave aims to do the same on your device without all that tracking, along with other projects such as https://hcaptcha.com and its protocol foundation, https://www.hmt.ai/.
The protocol foundation whitepaper looks like an interesting read - how far along are the open source implementations?
I'm particularly interested in applications of dynamic open-sourced metrics (ranging from corporate carbon footprinting to labour tokenization) - is this the vision for hmt? Only things I've found online so far are Grafana/Prometheus (etc) and Uber's m3, which is built on top of the former. Anything else you know of tackle that topic?
I'm particularly interested in applications of dynamic open-sourced metrics (ranging from corporate carbon footprinting to labour tokenization) - is this the vision for hmt? Only things I've found online so far are Grafana/Prometheus (etc) and Uber's m3, which is built on top of the former. Anything else you know of tackle that topic?
Brave's model fixes very little. Being tracked by advertisers is just part of the problem, the other is ads are a horrible business model.
The best case for content creators is that they have to worry about upsetting their advertisers and them pulling their ads.
The worst case is that content creators turn into traffic farms with click bait titles and shallow content.
The worst case for society is the use of AI to pull people into spending more and more time on websites and redicalising them into conspiracy theorists or worse.
This is all due to the advertisement model as opposed to paying directly for the content we consume. Most bad incentives would disappear and creators would focus on the quality of their content.
So Brave 'removing' adverisements that track you, if that is even truly possible with regards to fingerprinting, just fixes a small piece of the problem and in a way that thinks like uBlock Origin are already doing anyway. And something that would already be fixed by not having the ad model in the first place.
The best case for content creators is that they have to worry about upsetting their advertisers and them pulling their ads.
The worst case is that content creators turn into traffic farms with click bait titles and shallow content.
The worst case for society is the use of AI to pull people into spending more and more time on websites and redicalising them into conspiracy theorists or worse.
This is all due to the advertisement model as opposed to paying directly for the content we consume. Most bad incentives would disappear and creators would focus on the quality of their content.
So Brave 'removing' adverisements that track you, if that is even truly possible with regards to fingerprinting, just fixes a small piece of the problem and in a way that thinks like uBlock Origin are already doing anyway. And something that would already be fixed by not having the ad model in the first place.
> The worst case is that content creators turn into traffic farms with click bait titles and shallow content.
That's basically the case now. Most content by volume on the web is click bait farms littered with Ads.
At least Brave and BAT make it more of a transaction between you and the advertiser. The advertiser now pays you for your attention to their ad, rather than paying a third party to do their best to trick you into viewing the Ad.
I dislike Ads as much as the next person, I block ads, and when I tried brave I opted out of any Ads. But BAT does seem like a viable answer to the constant complain from "publishers" about how ad block is ruining their businesses.
That's basically the case now. Most content by volume on the web is click bait farms littered with Ads.
At least Brave and BAT make it more of a transaction between you and the advertiser. The advertiser now pays you for your attention to their ad, rather than paying a third party to do their best to trick you into viewing the Ad.
I dislike Ads as much as the next person, I block ads, and when I tried brave I opted out of any Ads. But BAT does seem like a viable answer to the constant complain from "publishers" about how ad block is ruining their businesses.
I think Brave is a useful proof of concept for an unproven business model but I agree it's an uphill battle. Consumers need to own the data we create. We should be able to monetize it how we see fit with whatever technology partners make us the best offers. The fact that tech companies own our data is hopefully a very temporary (in the grand scheme of things) mistake we can correct with new laws.
Yeah this has been my take on them as well.
They position themselves as a user focused privacy company, but they’re not really.
They’re just trying to insert themselves as the middleman selling attention in place of the ads.
It keeps the same problem and bad incentives that the ad model has and still involves tracking behavior.
I get that they’re trying to come up with some model that does the same monetizing that ads do without the ads (and of course inserting themselves in the middle of that to capture all that ad revenue).
I think a true focus on users would block all ads and tracking. If this leads to the ad supported model collapse causing business failure that’s good - it creates a space for competition in the for pay space again.
They position themselves as a user focused privacy company, but they’re not really.
They’re just trying to insert themselves as the middleman selling attention in place of the ads.
It keeps the same problem and bad incentives that the ad model has and still involves tracking behavior.
I get that they’re trying to come up with some model that does the same monetizing that ads do without the ads (and of course inserting themselves in the middle of that to capture all that ad revenue).
I think a true focus on users would block all ads and tracking. If this leads to the ad supported model collapse causing business failure that’s good - it creates a space for competition in the for pay space again.
I think by now it is clear that if you are developing a SAAS that is somehow going to run on iPhones, then you have to give 30% of your revenue to Apple.
You should plan your business accordingly and if you feel that you will not be profitable with this arrangement, then you should seriously reconsider if you want to spend the time and resources to build and maintain this business as you will face heartache later on when Apple takes either a major chunk of your revenue or outright removes your app.
You should plan your business accordingly and if you feel that you will not be profitable with this arrangement, then you should seriously reconsider if you want to spend the time and resources to build and maintain this business as you will face heartache later on when Apple takes either a major chunk of your revenue or outright removes your app.
Super interesting. I'm still excited and hopeful about Brave. It's got quite the whos-who leadership list[1]. Yan (bcrypt) is awesome.
[1] https://brave.com/about/
[1] https://brave.com/about/
they push for yet another closed model for remuneration, their effort doesn't really fix the web, it makes it worse.
browser independence should be the first pillar of a real free web.
browser independence should be the first pillar of a real free web.
They hijack ads to show their own ads.
The only interesting thing about Brave is they haven't yet been sued into oblivion.
The only interesting thing about Brave is they haven't yet been sued into oblivion.
Content providers don't get to dictate what happens on my computer just because I accessed data from an HTTP server they made available to me. If I want Braze to replace their ads, that's my choice.
I actually don't want it, but this argument that Braze is doing something wrong is stupid and ridiculous.
I actually don't want it, but this argument that Braze is doing something wrong is stupid and ridiculous.
On what basis could they be sued that wouldn't take out a) ad blockers; and consequently b) a user's ability to modify information displayed on their own computers?
> They hijack ads to show their own ads.
This is 100% false. The opt-in ads are not injected into the page.
This is 100% false. The opt-in ads are not injected into the page.
Huh, that was one of their original pitches, but I guess they changed their implementation at some point
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/01/mozil...
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/01/mozil...
They have talked about displaying ads in-page for publishers that opt in. But in that case why would the publisher display ads to Brave users? It doesn't sound like replacement to me.
They did. Brave ads are opt-in only, and served via system notifications.
[deleted]
How is a cryptocurrency that anyone can transact with a closed model??
Boo hoo. Crocodile tears.
I know this is probably the wrong audience here but I’m getting fed up with whining from companies who have dubious funding models based on trading something less honest and more invasive than money for gain. Operating like this is an existential business risk when regulation and platforms are heading in the direction of privacy and data security so get over it. Come up with a product which is worth throwing actual money at not proxy money, advertising, tracking, data collection or invasive crap. If you can’t do that, bugger off.
I know this is probably the wrong audience here but I’m getting fed up with whining from companies who have dubious funding models based on trading something less honest and more invasive than money for gain. Operating like this is an existential business risk when regulation and platforms are heading in the direction of privacy and data security so get over it. Come up with a product which is worth throwing actual money at not proxy money, advertising, tracking, data collection or invasive crap. If you can’t do that, bugger off.
> Brave Rewards is built on the Basic Attention Token (BAT) and is a new way to value attention, connecting users, content creators, and advertisers.
Yea no thanks. As you said come we should be heading towards privacy not finding new ways to value “attention”.
Yea no thanks. As you said come we should be heading towards privacy not finding new ways to value “attention”.
Those aren't mutually exclusive are they?
Eg lets say we have 100% privacy tomorrow. Some magical browser, 100% anonymous. That doesn't mean no one is going to try and have an ROI for published content on the internet.. producers still want to get paid for content and/or products, and consumers still want to avoid paying.
So yay we got privacy, but what is the next step? You said it, finding new ways to value attention - or more specifically adjusting monetization to this new anonymous reality.
Not that i'm defending BAT here at all - just that the idea of both respecting privacy and paying content creators are not mutually exclusive.
The internet doesn't exist without cash flow, simply put. And no one wants to pay.. so....
(note: i do want to pay, but i'm the minority - imo. "Free to Play Internet" reigns supreme)
Eg lets say we have 100% privacy tomorrow. Some magical browser, 100% anonymous. That doesn't mean no one is going to try and have an ROI for published content on the internet.. producers still want to get paid for content and/or products, and consumers still want to avoid paying.
So yay we got privacy, but what is the next step? You said it, finding new ways to value attention - or more specifically adjusting monetization to this new anonymous reality.
Not that i'm defending BAT here at all - just that the idea of both respecting privacy and paying content creators are not mutually exclusive.
The internet doesn't exist without cash flow, simply put. And no one wants to pay.. so....
(note: i do want to pay, but i'm the minority - imo. "Free to Play Internet" reigns supreme)
I think the problem is actually that content has no value because it’s cheap to copy. It never did have hence why we had to come up with other parasitic models to make money out of it. One way was to stick a wall around it but because it’s so easy to get content elsewhere without that wall it’s a dead end.
For me, if I was to write content it’d be open, free and be used for marketing my skills which you can’t copy easily.
Value comes from scarcity, consumer apathy, skill and trade off gains. Content doesn’t win anything there.
For me, if I was to write content it’d be open, free and be used for marketing my skills which you can’t copy easily.
Value comes from scarcity, consumer apathy, skill and trade off gains. Content doesn’t win anything there.
Without advertising sites would require direct payment and that would make most sites unavailable to all but the rich.
I rather miss the days when sites were operated by enthusiasts in a field, rather than by opportunists outside of the field, hoping to cash in on advertising dollars and privacy violations. Maybe that's rose-tinted glasses, but that's how it feels.
You can have advertising without invasive tracking.
Honestly, if Brave made sure that no BAT was spent on websites that haven't joined their program, I'd consider it an improvement over the existing ad-supported internet.
As it stands, their system is just a crypto implementation of Flattr that site authors never asked to participate in.
As it stands, their system is just a crypto implementation of Flattr that site authors never asked to participate in.
The creator only gets that tip if they verify with Brave.
no BAT can be spent on websites that haven't joined the program, even if a user tips a website that is currently not in the program, there's a limited window of time, after which if the website is still not part of the program, the tip comes back in the user's wallet.
I didn’t see any crocodile tears. It was a very sober write up of changes and why they were made.
"Today Brave is releasing a new version (1.22) of its iOS browser in order to comply with recent stipulations made by Apple."
Imagine the end user chooses/creates an OS (e.g., I use NetBSD plus own software; Apple uses FreeBSD plus Apple software). Then you make "stipulations". And all these browser companies have to comply. That is how things should be. It is the user's computer, not Apple's.
Imagine the end user chooses/creates an OS (e.g., I use NetBSD plus own software; Apple uses FreeBSD plus Apple software). Then you make "stipulations". And all these browser companies have to comply. That is how things should be. It is the user's computer, not Apple's.
BAT has always seemed fishy to me. All the crypto advertising inside Brave asking users to connect wallets has nothing to do with the BAT rewards system, but they present it in a way that implies it’s somehow related. BAT itself is not really what they claim either because as a user you are not actually given tokens, you are given entries in a database which they then reconcile monthly and send you some amount of BAT of their choosing once you’ve passed KYC with a single sketchy KYC provider. There is no way around this if you want to actually sell your tokens. So the fact that it’s a “token” is for marketing only.
The formula for receiving tokens is public. Uphold requires KYC because it isn't sketchy.
In the crypto world many users want to move tokens around without paying tax. Catering to these users is not how you build a legitimate business.
In the crypto world many users want to move tokens around without paying tax. Catering to these users is not how you build a legitimate business.
[deleted]
I genuinely think platform like brave is in the position to do good things with ads. A few things I have in mind:
First, I want my browser to be upfront about what they are doing. "We monetize through ads distribution." Honestly that won't throw me off. I don't dislike ads. In fact, I used to insist on not running ad-blockers when YouTube started to play ads. "that's how you support internet", I thought to myself at the time. My attitude changes when I realize YouTube is not a great representative for the internet.
Second, I want to see more diverse ads. Not new amazon prime titles, not the same mobile games, not Udemy, not square space, not the same thing over and over. I remember the first few years the ads on podcasts are quite interesting and diverse, and I can even find helpful business and products from the ads. Maybe it is because the entry fee is low so small businesses have a chance to market themselves. And maybe all you need is to write a appealing script instead of hiring professionals to make a Hollywood grade video with celebrities shouting brand names. Unfortunately that dynamics is certainly lost today.
I know I am asking too much as someone who's opinion does not matter at all. But place like Show HN and products hunts kind of give me hope that someday maybe paid ads can become something useful instead of hateful, someday maybe people with good products and honest marketing strategy can have the equal chances to get attention as big players.
First, I want my browser to be upfront about what they are doing. "We monetize through ads distribution." Honestly that won't throw me off. I don't dislike ads. In fact, I used to insist on not running ad-blockers when YouTube started to play ads. "that's how you support internet", I thought to myself at the time. My attitude changes when I realize YouTube is not a great representative for the internet.
Second, I want to see more diverse ads. Not new amazon prime titles, not the same mobile games, not Udemy, not square space, not the same thing over and over. I remember the first few years the ads on podcasts are quite interesting and diverse, and I can even find helpful business and products from the ads. Maybe it is because the entry fee is low so small businesses have a chance to market themselves. And maybe all you need is to write a appealing script instead of hiring professionals to make a Hollywood grade video with celebrities shouting brand names. Unfortunately that dynamics is certainly lost today.
I know I am asking too much as someone who's opinion does not matter at all. But place like Show HN and products hunts kind of give me hope that someday maybe paid ads can become something useful instead of hateful, someday maybe people with good products and honest marketing strategy can have the equal chances to get attention as big players.
> Apple’s guideline 3.1.1 prevents apps from allowing users to give to, or tip a person, company, or service — unless what is given is purchased via an Apple in-app purchase.
How is this not extortion?
How is this not extortion?
Thanks apple, the worlds richest, most petty company ever
The walls in the garden continue to rise.
> Guideline 3.2.2 prevents something loosely termed “tasks for cash.”
I know there is some nuance to this but a paragraph or two earlier they say:
> Users are rewarded in BAT with 70% of the ad revenue share of the privacy-preserving ads they opt into viewing,
It kind of sounds like "tasks for BAT". I couldn't find out if you could actually exchange BAT for fiat currency but maybe I'm missing something.
I know there is some nuance to this but a paragraph or two earlier they say:
> Users are rewarded in BAT with 70% of the ad revenue share of the privacy-preserving ads they opt into viewing,
It kind of sounds like "tasks for BAT". I couldn't find out if you could actually exchange BAT for fiat currency but maybe I'm missing something.
[deleted]
Anyone else think google will follow apples lead here? Seems like good cover to deal a major blow to an alternative advertising business model.
I sure hope not. One of the reasons I still stick with Android is because of Firefox on Android
Apple is a mega-monopoly.
They control all ingress onto their platform. Nothing gets on that they don't want.
Then they proceed to control the economic activity of everyone in the Apple ecosystem.
You literally cannot do business with Apple customers.
This is as bad as Standard Oil.
They control all ingress onto their platform. Nothing gets on that they don't want.
Then they proceed to control the economic activity of everyone in the Apple ecosystem.
You literally cannot do business with Apple customers.
This is as bad as Standard Oil.
And as a customer, I'm super happy about this. You can't charge me a subscription that I can't figure out how to cancel. You have a much harder time slipping in "features" that abuse my privacy. You don't get my email address or my information unless I want you to. I am guaranteed that this is all true on any iPhone I pick up.
You might even say I'm paying them to protect me from your poor business practices.
You might even say I'm paying them to protect me from your poor business practices.
That's fine, use the App Store if you want!
It's the fact that Apple doesn't let you, the owner of your phone and licensed user of iOS, take full advantage of what you purchased.
The inability to side load apps you want to use outside of the App Store (or to use another app store) is an artificial limitation. It's created from greed or fear of competition from a better managed app store.
I think what people are arguing for is a similar model to macOS. Have you ever heard anyone get mad that they were able to download apps outside of the App Store on macOS? No! You can use the App Store if you want, but you're still able to trust a third-party developer to use the device you purchased to it's full potential.
It's the fact that Apple doesn't let you, the owner of your phone and licensed user of iOS, take full advantage of what you purchased.
The inability to side load apps you want to use outside of the App Store (or to use another app store) is an artificial limitation. It's created from greed or fear of competition from a better managed app store.
I think what people are arguing for is a similar model to macOS. Have you ever heard anyone get mad that they were able to download apps outside of the App Store on macOS? No! You can use the App Store if you want, but you're still able to trust a third-party developer to use the device you purchased to it's full potential.
"And that's fine, buy a device that doesn't have the walled garden feature!" (yes, feature here is a bit tongue in cheek)
You know what other benefit I get from it? My parents, children, and friends who have iPhones have the same benefits. When my mom calls me for help, I know for sure where all her apps came from. I know that they've been at least somewhat vetted and come from a singular trusted source. I know that "some kid from school" didn't show my kid how to use this "cool other app store" where you can download "all kinds of free stuff". I have not yet had to help one of them get malware off of their iOS devices.
My point here is that this has been the deal for over a decade. If you bought an iOS device, you knew the deal. This isn't new. Many of us bought it BECAUSE of these. And you may think that having access to other app stores doesn't affect me, but it does. At this point, I don't understand why people who don't like it are buying iOS devices. There are options out there that do exactly what you want. Why did you buy an option that doesn't have the features you want, and now you want to take away a feature many of us like?
You know what other benefit I get from it? My parents, children, and friends who have iPhones have the same benefits. When my mom calls me for help, I know for sure where all her apps came from. I know that they've been at least somewhat vetted and come from a singular trusted source. I know that "some kid from school" didn't show my kid how to use this "cool other app store" where you can download "all kinds of free stuff". I have not yet had to help one of them get malware off of their iOS devices.
My point here is that this has been the deal for over a decade. If you bought an iOS device, you knew the deal. This isn't new. Many of us bought it BECAUSE of these. And you may think that having access to other app stores doesn't affect me, but it does. At this point, I don't understand why people who don't like it are buying iOS devices. There are options out there that do exactly what you want. Why did you buy an option that doesn't have the features you want, and now you want to take away a feature many of us like?
> My parents, children, and friends who have iPhones have the same benefits.
Your parents are consenting adults. What makes you think your parents don't deserve to be trusted to use an app they want to use?
As for children, just don't give out your Apple ID password. Children under 13 are not allowed to create accounts.
> I have not yet had to help one of them get malware off of their iOS devices.
This is a completely different issue. Apps can still be sand-boxed for security.
> Why did you buy an option that doesn't have the features you want, and now you want to take away a feature many of us like?
You have nothing to lose here. I really don't understand why you're still calling this a feature.
Your parents are consenting adults. What makes you think your parents don't deserve to be trusted to use an app they want to use?
As for children, just don't give out your Apple ID password. Children under 13 are not allowed to create accounts.
> I have not yet had to help one of them get malware off of their iOS devices.
This is a completely different issue. Apps can still be sand-boxed for security.
> Why did you buy an option that doesn't have the features you want, and now you want to take away a feature many of us like?
You have nothing to lose here. I really don't understand why you're still calling this a feature.
Developers are pissed of because there’s something that can be technically possible and can benefit them but they are not allowed to do it.
It’s the exactly same mentality of intelligence agencies: There’s a microphone, location tracker and communication logger in the pocket of every citizen but they are not allowed to access those! Ban encryption to make my job easier! Give me a backdoor to everyone to make my job easier!
I am a developer too but I try not forgetting that I am also a user. As a user I don’t feel obligated to make developers job easier who screwed me many times before, I love dealing with Apple and I like keeping it that way.
If you think you can do it better, go do it on Android and if it happens to be good I may switch. There’s no monopoly.
I don’t know why developers think they have right to access me. Apple made the thing and I bought it from them knowing what I am getting into and I have no complaints. I am being taken care well and I will ditch Apple if this changes.
It’s the exactly same mentality of intelligence agencies: There’s a microphone, location tracker and communication logger in the pocket of every citizen but they are not allowed to access those! Ban encryption to make my job easier! Give me a backdoor to everyone to make my job easier!
I am a developer too but I try not forgetting that I am also a user. As a user I don’t feel obligated to make developers job easier who screwed me many times before, I love dealing with Apple and I like keeping it that way.
If you think you can do it better, go do it on Android and if it happens to be good I may switch. There’s no monopoly.
I don’t know why developers think they have right to access me. Apple made the thing and I bought it from them knowing what I am getting into and I have no complaints. I am being taken care well and I will ditch Apple if this changes.
This mindset is the basis of half the dystopian fiction on my bookshelves, and Aldous Huxley wasn't even the first.
But that is exactly what PayPal pioneered and still does. So why can’t I use PayPal to buy iOS apps?
(There are other problems with PayPal, so if that bothers you, replace X with PayPal that has the same privacy and subscription management features)
(There are other problems with PayPal, so if that bothers you, replace X with PayPal that has the same privacy and subscription management features)
I wouldn't say that in this context which is an entirely voluntary proposition.
> You can't charge me a subscription that I can't figure out how to cancel.
This we need to regulate. This is what our lawmakers should be doing.
Apple isn't doing this out of their own generosity. They're trying to get a slice of the pie.
It's also why they shut down mobile advertising IDs, which on the surface sounds delightful. Ultimately that's more commerce going through Apple rails. More pie.
Apple is strong-arming here to put more people in their walled garden. The government should craft legislation to protect privacy and should stop the "pretend privacy" game Apple is playing.
Apple doesn't care about you, otherwise you wouldn't have to pay extra for a phone charger and they wouldn't squash 3rd party repair shops.
> You don't get my email address or my information unless I want you to.
This prevents businesses from establishing their own, hard-earned relationships with customers.
Apple has your email and sends you promotional material all the time. Do you send those to trash?
> slipping in "features" that abuse my privacy
Apple already abuses your privacy, and if you don't see it you're being naive.
They track which apps are running on Mac, and they recently caused an outage doing so. This is part of their push to ultimately lock down that platform behind an App Store.
They do the same on iPhone. They know your location, your files, your chat history. You trust them. Mark Zuckerberg had a quote for that.
Sorry for the privacy-invading Giphy/Facebook link, but Apple is literally this: http://gph.is/XJxIL3
This we need to regulate. This is what our lawmakers should be doing.
Apple isn't doing this out of their own generosity. They're trying to get a slice of the pie.
It's also why they shut down mobile advertising IDs, which on the surface sounds delightful. Ultimately that's more commerce going through Apple rails. More pie.
Apple is strong-arming here to put more people in their walled garden. The government should craft legislation to protect privacy and should stop the "pretend privacy" game Apple is playing.
Apple doesn't care about you, otherwise you wouldn't have to pay extra for a phone charger and they wouldn't squash 3rd party repair shops.
> You don't get my email address or my information unless I want you to.
This prevents businesses from establishing their own, hard-earned relationships with customers.
Apple has your email and sends you promotional material all the time. Do you send those to trash?
> slipping in "features" that abuse my privacy
Apple already abuses your privacy, and if you don't see it you're being naive.
They track which apps are running on Mac, and they recently caused an outage doing so. This is part of their push to ultimately lock down that platform behind an App Store.
They do the same on iPhone. They know your location, your files, your chat history. You trust them. Mark Zuckerberg had a quote for that.
Sorry for the privacy-invading Giphy/Facebook link, but Apple is literally this: http://gph.is/XJxIL3
> This prevents businesses from establishing their own, hard-earned relationships with customers.
It requires them to earn the relationship instead of leveraging a single transaction into an unwanted intrusion.
It requires them to earn the relationship instead of leveraging a single transaction into an unwanted intrusion.
"You literally cannot do business with Apple customers."
This sounds rather hyperbolic. Sure, if you want to do business with customers through Apple's platform then you need to abide by their terms, but you can do business with them.
On the surface it feels a bit like complaining that you can't do business with customers through Stripe, because Stripe has Ts&Cs that you need to abide by. Apple's situation is more complex, but I think the underlying reasoning on this specific point is the same isn't it?
This sounds rather hyperbolic. Sure, if you want to do business with customers through Apple's platform then you need to abide by their terms, but you can do business with them.
On the surface it feels a bit like complaining that you can't do business with customers through Stripe, because Stripe has Ts&Cs that you need to abide by. Apple's situation is more complex, but I think the underlying reasoning on this specific point is the same isn't it?
I can drop Stripe as quickly as I can add another payment processor to my codebase and still have access to the same market.
I can't do the same with Apple.
I can't do the same with Apple.
It feels a little like arguing you can’t do business with visa’s customers if you refuse visa’s terms.
You could only accept MasterCard, but you’re choosing to limit your audience.
You could only accept MasterCard, but you’re choosing to limit your audience.
Presumably you can pay visa's customers with cash as well as using Visa and perhaps Mastercard? Possibly even Discover or even Diner's Club (is that still a thing?)
I am not sure the analogy holds up.
I am assuming merchants are the customers here. You can offer "rewards points" or other mechanisms of remuneration to Visa card holders.
No because Visa isn't crossing markets with it's users. Payment processing is a separate market than mobile operating systems and hardware.
I can't reach iOS customers for payment processing without going through Apple's offering in payment processing (which interestingly enough takes a 10x higher cut than Visa, Stripe, et al.)
If Visa used their market leadership in payment processing to try to dominate other markets, then it would be comparable (and then they should absolutely get antitrust scrutiny).
I can't reach iOS customers for payment processing without going through Apple's offering in payment processing (which interestingly enough takes a 10x higher cut than Visa, Stripe, et al.)
If Visa used their market leadership in payment processing to try to dominate other markets, then it would be comparable (and then they should absolutely get antitrust scrutiny).
[deleted]
Monopoly doesn't mean what you suggest - it's different from a locked-down ecosystem. Every monopoly dispute comes down to defining the market in question. Whether the market is phones, tablets, smartwatches or personal computers, Apple's market share comes nowhere near close to being a monopoly.
That is flatly incorrect. The market in question is the $150 billion mobile applications market, of which Apple controls 60% worldwide, well above the threshold for regulatory attention in many jurisdictions. The jurisprudence varies regionally on what "enough market power" means, before you may be accused of having abused it, but (for example) in Europe this starts at around 40%.
So If I sell 1 app for $101 Billion do I now have a Monopoly on the mobile app market since I will have >40% of the revenue?
I think the considered response to that must be, "Good luck with your startup".
It's a legitimate question highlighting the absurdity of defining a monopoly by revenue.
Since you cannot sell an app for that much money, it is not a legitimate question, and there is no reductio ad absurdum. Therefore it is a joke question. If you could sell one app for that much money, and real money or genuinely equivalent value is actually exchanged, then other apps would be worth similar amounts, and the entire segment would simply rescale to be quintillions of dollars; alternatively, if you or others were unable to repeat the sale, then the market has a weird transient spike one quarter, then goes back to normal, and everyone discounts the outlier as a Spiders Georg.
Notwithstanding which, sure, monopolies are indeed not defined by revenue, they are defined by market control, which is enabled by market share, which is quantified by value (there being no other universal measure), i.e. by sales i.e. revenue, which is why it's part of the consideration but you still need some qualification to support the quantification. Such as, by way of painfully topical example, Apple successfully forcing other market participants to actively mislead the consumer or withdraw products, which is not merely a naked display of market power but also an egregious misuse thereof.
Notwithstanding which, sure, monopolies are indeed not defined by revenue, they are defined by market control, which is enabled by market share, which is quantified by value (there being no other universal measure), i.e. by sales i.e. revenue, which is why it's part of the consideration but you still need some qualification to support the quantification. Such as, by way of painfully topical example, Apple successfully forcing other market participants to actively mislead the consumer or withdraw products, which is not merely a naked display of market power but also an egregious misuse thereof.
>and there is no reductio ad absurdum
Hate to break it to you but there is and I showed it which is why you made this salty reply. Certainly in the US there is no major Anti-Trust case which revolved around revenue as a measure of monopoly. Not Microsoft, not ATT and not Standard Oil.
Hate to break it to you but there is and I showed it which is why you made this salty reply. Certainly in the US there is no major Anti-Trust case which revolved around revenue as a measure of monopoly. Not Microsoft, not ATT and not Standard Oil.
I can only say how much I look forward to the announcement of your $101 billion dollar app sale.
Sadly I fear it is as grounded in reality as the rest of this ... scrawl.
Sadly I fear it is as grounded in reality as the rest of this ... scrawl.
You misunderstand. Having a monopoly is not against the law. There's nothing wrong with it.
Abusing your monopoly position in the market, to the detriment of consumers and fair competition is against the law.
Abusing your monopoly position in the market, to the detriment of consumers and fair competition is against the law.
But the apps are not just mobile anymore. They are macOS apps, which happen to run on iOS
Again, it depends on how you define the market. They have fewer devices, fewer apps, fewer app downloads, and more revenue. You just picked the one that they have the biggest share in. And even 60% of revenue isn't enough to determine a monopoly depending on other market dynamics.
There are no goalposts to move around here in some PR flack's hapless dream of muddying the issue. The market in question is the mobile applications market.
It is one that is separately analyzed, well reported, clearly delineated, demonstrably an arena of choice, and significant to the consumer. This makes it difficult to ignore on any taxonomic basis of irrelevance.
No threshold is itself enough, since there's no strict liability; generally speaking, it's not unlawful to have market power, it's unlawful to abuse it. Any regulatory or private action has to make a qualified case. But as far as thresholds go: that 60%, plus Apple's contractual requirement for market participants to actively mislead the consumer, is pretty terminal.
It is one that is separately analyzed, well reported, clearly delineated, demonstrably an arena of choice, and significant to the consumer. This makes it difficult to ignore on any taxonomic basis of irrelevance.
No threshold is itself enough, since there's no strict liability; generally speaking, it's not unlawful to have market power, it's unlawful to abuse it. Any regulatory or private action has to make a qualified case. But as far as thresholds go: that 60%, plus Apple's contractual requirement for market participants to actively mislead the consumer, is pretty terminal.
> There are no goalposts to move around here in some PR flack's hapless dream of muddying the issue.
It's specifically about the goalposts, that's my entire point. It's not as straightforward and clear-cut as you're suggesting.
Even saying something like "mobile applications market" doesn't make it clear whether we're talking about number of users, revenue, number of apps, number of app downloads, which mobile devices and so on.
It's specifically about the goalposts, that's my entire point. It's not as straightforward and clear-cut as you're suggesting.
Even saying something like "mobile applications market" doesn't make it clear whether we're talking about number of users, revenue, number of apps, number of app downloads, which mobile devices and so on.
Marketplaces are quantified by economic value, there being no other universal unit.
There's an arrogance in tech that we can make up definitions to suit ourselves. I guess it's related to the fallacy that the law is some kind of programming language.
There's an arrogance in tech that we can make up definitions to suit ourselves. I guess it's related to the fallacy that the law is some kind of programming language.
> Marketplaces are quantified by economic value
So if Apple had 100% of all phone users and 100% of all apps but the apps were entirely free, that wouldn't be a monopoly?
> there being no other universal unit.
I suggested a number of other units above.
> There's an arrogance in tech that we can make up definitions to suit ourselves.
The question of defining the market is the basis of how the decision is made in court and the biggest point of argument between the legal teams. This isn't about tech arrogance.
I also feel like this back-and-forth isn't constructuve so I'll stop here.
So if Apple had 100% of all phone users and 100% of all apps but the apps were entirely free, that wouldn't be a monopoly?
> there being no other universal unit.
I suggested a number of other units above.
> There's an arrogance in tech that we can make up definitions to suit ourselves.
The question of defining the market is the basis of how the decision is made in court and the biggest point of argument between the legal teams. This isn't about tech arrogance.
I also feel like this back-and-forth isn't constructuve so I'll stop here.
Just take the L and move on, dude. This is getting embarrassing.
Well only if it’s not good for the consumer. Amazon is bad for suppliers, but good for consumers.
Perhaps in the short term. But having fewer, less profitable suppliers can hamper innovation, and lead to less consumer choice in the long term.
> Every monopoly dispute comes down to defining the market in question. Whether the market is phones, tablets, smartwatches or personal computers, Apple's market share comes nowhere near close to being a monopoly.
Exactly, which is why it's in no way clear that "Apple's market share comes nowhere near close to being a monopoly." If you defined Standard Oil's market as "fuels," it wasn't a monopoly because it was competing against coal and wood. If you defined AT&T's market as "communication services," it wasn't a monopoly because it was competing against TV, Radio, and the Post Office. And if you defined Apple's market as "3rd party software distribution, in general," you'd get the same result, but maybe not if its market is "3rd party software distribution for ~45% of all American phone users."
Since the advent of antitrust law, every monopolist has a definition of its market that magically makes it not a monopoly and obscures its anticompetitive behavior; but that's not the definition we should use to judge them.
Exactly, which is why it's in no way clear that "Apple's market share comes nowhere near close to being a monopoly." If you defined Standard Oil's market as "fuels," it wasn't a monopoly because it was competing against coal and wood. If you defined AT&T's market as "communication services," it wasn't a monopoly because it was competing against TV, Radio, and the Post Office. And if you defined Apple's market as "3rd party software distribution, in general," you'd get the same result, but maybe not if its market is "3rd party software distribution for ~45% of all American phone users."
Since the advent of antitrust law, every monopolist has a definition of its market that magically makes it not a monopoly and obscures its anticompetitive behavior; but that's not the definition we should use to judge them.
I think there’s a pretty clear difference between “3rd party smartphone software distribution” and “3rd party smartphone software distribution for ~45% of all American phone users, and I get to pick which users, and coincidentally I only pick Apple users”. You’re the one stacking the deck in that instance, not Apple.
> I think there’s a pretty clear difference between “3rd party smartphone software distribution” and “3rd party smartphone software distribution for ~45% of all American phone users, and I get to pick which users, and coincidentally I only pick Apple users”. You’re the one stacking the deck in that instance, not Apple.
Not really, if you look at it from the perspective of software developers. If an Android developer no longer wants to be a customer of the Play Store (or gets rejected by them), they can go to a 3rd party app store or tell their users to sideload. An iOS developer has no options besides Apple: they either stick with them or essentially `rm -rf AllMyIOsInvestment/`.
Not really, if you look at it from the perspective of software developers. If an Android developer no longer wants to be a customer of the Play Store (or gets rejected by them), they can go to a 3rd party app store or tell their users to sideload. An iOS developer has no options besides Apple: they either stick with them or essentially `rm -rf AllMyIOsInvestment/`.
Can I sue Red Hat if my software worked on RHEL 8 but they remove some key component I rely on in RHEL 9, if all my customers use RHEL? How about when Microsoft dropped Silverlight and basically killed any products built on it and the ability to put “Silverlight developer” on one’s resume? Or Adobe and Flash for that matter?
I think it’s reasonable to put some restrictions on the choices a company can make about their product direction, but just “it screwed a third party that built on my product” is a bad one.
I think it’s reasonable to put some restrictions on the choices a company can make about their product direction, but just “it screwed a third party that built on my product” is a bad one.
Sure, but I think there's a tendency to try and make this seem way more clear-cut in either direction than it really is, e.g., Apple clearly {is | is not} guilty of antitrust violation by using their position as platform owner to dictate what applications and services are legally allowed on their platform. There's very little precedence in computing history for this other than game consoles, and it's not super crazy to ask whether that's a model that should apply to smartphones and tablets. (To me, that seems to be actually be a fundamental question, and I don't think I have an answer.)
That's why I like to use the "anti-competitive" terminology when I talk about this. Anti-competitive behavior is the problem, a monopoly is a specific very problematic example of anti-competitive behavior, but it's that it's anti-competitive that makes it a problem.
Apple may not be a monopoly. They've definitely set up the ecosystem to be anti-competitive. Whether that's harmful to consumers (which is what matters) is debatable. I tend to think it's harmful, but they've done such a complete job of locking it down that it's hard to even compare without having to change a lot or things, since they control and exclude others from the hardware all the way up to sales transactions for services, and everything in between.
That said, the fact that Apple was able to quickly cut their fees from 30% to 15% for some developers just because of growing public sentiment seems to indicate that competition is not working well to normalize these app store fees, and that likely means developers and by extension users are paying more because of that.
Apple may not be a monopoly. They've definitely set up the ecosystem to be anti-competitive. Whether that's harmful to consumers (which is what matters) is debatable. I tend to think it's harmful, but they've done such a complete job of locking it down that it's hard to even compare without having to change a lot or things, since they control and exclude others from the hardware all the way up to sales transactions for services, and everything in between.
That said, the fact that Apple was able to quickly cut their fees from 30% to 15% for some developers just because of growing public sentiment seems to indicate that competition is not working well to normalize these app store fees, and that likely means developers and by extension users are paying more because of that.
Monopoly is not defined by market share.
Monopoly (n) (an organization or group that has) complete control of something, especially an area of business, so that others have no share
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/monopoly
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/monopoly
Rolling out a dictionary definition works in seventh grade debate class, not in a court of law.
Amazingly, hundreds of very thick books about what legally defines a monopoly are not the same as a single sentence from a web site.
Amazingly, hundreds of very thick books about what legally defines a monopoly are not the same as a single sentence from a web site.
I don't think you needed the snark. I was responding directly to the comment which says that a monopoly is not defined by market share. But that is exactly what a monopoly is defined as - it's the "mono" part in the word. If what the parent comment was talking about is not a monopoly, then they could have said that and pointed out what it is instead.
The snark was uncalled for indeed.
But keep in mind that there are legal definitions of some things, and those often differ greatly from the colloquial definitions we use from day-to-day.
But keep in mind that there are legal definitions of some things, and those often differ greatly from the colloquial definitions we use from day-to-day.
Let's let the Department of Justice decide.
I thought it was a step beyond that?
Market dominance paired with leveraging that dominance in a way that hurts consumers.
If it’s levered in a way that doesn’t hurt consumers, that may be hyper competitive and other businesses may not like it, but that’s not a monopoly abuse.
At least that’s my layman’s understanding of the law.
Apple’s behavior is arguably good for most users (restricting tracking/spying). I don’t think Apple’s behavior meets that consumer harm standard.
Market dominance paired with leveraging that dominance in a way that hurts consumers.
If it’s levered in a way that doesn’t hurt consumers, that may be hyper competitive and other businesses may not like it, but that’s not a monopoly abuse.
At least that’s my layman’s understanding of the law.
Apple’s behavior is arguably good for most users (restricting tracking/spying). I don’t think Apple’s behavior meets that consumer harm standard.
[deleted]
Except that customers loves and trust them.
Trust is the key. People can not trust thousands of random companies/developers. Trust is built up over time through a relationship.
Without Apple, most of these transactions would not take place. This trust, App Store etc., has been built up and cannot be transferred automatically to another party.
Trust is the key. People can not trust thousands of random companies/developers. Trust is built up over time through a relationship.
Without Apple, most of these transactions would not take place. This trust, App Store etc., has been built up and cannot be transferred automatically to another party.
> They control all ingress onto their platform. Nothing gets on that they don't want.
> Then they proceed to control the economic activity of everyone in the Apple ecosystem.
> You literally cannot do business with Apple customers.
This describes every brick & mortar store ever and just about every gaming console since the NES. I'm not sure what differentiates Apple from Nintendo or Target here.
> Then they proceed to control the economic activity of everyone in the Apple ecosystem.
> You literally cannot do business with Apple customers.
This describes every brick & mortar store ever and just about every gaming console since the NES. I'm not sure what differentiates Apple from Nintendo or Target here.
Where's this trillion dollar brick & mortar store?
NTDOY's market cap is two orders lower than AAPL and their impact on the worldwide software application market is comparably quite small. TGT is also under $100B and they have essentially no impact on the software application market.
What makes Apple different? Their size and market power. How much of the world economy is now dependent on their devices and services?
NTDOY's market cap is two orders lower than AAPL and their impact on the worldwide software application market is comparably quite small. TGT is also under $100B and they have essentially no impact on the software application market.
What makes Apple different? Their size and market power. How much of the world economy is now dependent on their devices and services?
> Where's this trillion dollar brick & mortar store?
Amazon.com
Edit: Actually I wish Amazon exercised the kind of control that Apple does so I wouldn't have to guess if the phone charger I bought will set my house on fire.
Amazon.com
Edit: Actually I wish Amazon exercised the kind of control that Apple does so I wouldn't have to guess if the phone charger I bought will set my house on fire.
"Brick & mortar" == physical stores.
Amazon.com takes in hundreds of billions from online stores, tens from physical:
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/amazon-revenue-model-2020
https://www.amazon.com/find-your-store/b/?node=17608448011
Amazon.com takes in hundreds of billions from online stores, tens from physical:
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/amazon-revenue-model-2020
https://www.amazon.com/find-your-store/b/?node=17608448011
Walmart, Target? I mean if you want your goods in Target you also have to follow their rules and use their payment system.
Software is different than retail.
Retail has limited space. Also, I can buy milk from dozens of different places.
"Cyperbunk 2077" is being sold just about everywhere, retail and digital. Target, Walmart, Amazon, Steam, ...
Where do I buy games and productivity apps for my iPhone?
Software sales and the marketplace capacity are infinite. Apple is artificially limiting it and should open up. They have no argument other than platform protectionism. (They're doing it for themselves, not you. They sure as hell track you and run experiments on your usage.)
Retail has limited space. Also, I can buy milk from dozens of different places.
"Cyperbunk 2077" is being sold just about everywhere, retail and digital. Target, Walmart, Amazon, Steam, ...
Where do I buy games and productivity apps for my iPhone?
Software sales and the marketplace capacity are infinite. Apple is artificially limiting it and should open up. They have no argument other than platform protectionism. (They're doing it for themselves, not you. They sure as hell track you and run experiments on your usage.)
I mean they specifically asked for brick & mortar stores as examples. You can buy software all over the place, limiting it to iOS devices doesn't make sense if your issue is competition from a consumer's perspective. Sure there are exclusives but lots of platforms have those. Where the arguments start to stand up is competition from a seller's perspective. If all your potential customers only shop at Target then you're in a bind and Target suddenly has a lot of leverage over you.
These kinds of dynamics already exist in brick & mortar retail with wholesale clubs. Very few people have memberships to more than one and are usually very loyal to the one they like so if you want to reach their customers you don't have many options.
These kinds of dynamics already exist in brick & mortar retail with wholesale clubs. Very few people have memberships to more than one and are usually very loyal to the one they like so if you want to reach their customers you don't have many options.
It's not about competition and dynamics abstractly, it's about actual market power. I see no numbers here. This is only about numbers.
AAPL is 5x WMT.
The issue with Walmart is the monopsony concerns:
https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/51289
The issue with Walmart is the monopsony concerns:
https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/51289
dude just buy an android.
I really don't understand all this hyperbole on this subject. Somehow everyone on HN decided to become democratic socialist only when it pertains to App Store commissions lmao
I really don't understand all this hyperbole on this subject. Somehow everyone on HN decided to become democratic socialist only when it pertains to App Store commissions lmao
Argument in bad taste. You probably wouldn't get to use an iPhone today if antitrust hadn't reeled in Microsoft.
Remember, MS bundling IE is nothing compared to the tightly coupled ecosystems of today.
Remember, MS bundling IE is nothing compared to the tightly coupled ecosystems of today.
I mean there's nothing stopping me from creating a physical analog to this. I buy a space and set up stalls for businesses to set up shop. The conditions for being part of this market are:
* You have to use my payment system.
* I get 30% of your gross revenue.
* You have to follow my guidelines about what you can and can't sell and how you're allowed to sell it.
* You can't, while you're at the market, advertise how customers can reach you outside the market. I'm not about to just let you use my space as an advertising channel for free.
And in this hypothetical universe my customers love it! They do all their shopping here. I can both see how businesses that don't want to follow my rules would feel super frustrated but those rules are what makes my market worth coming to. My rules basically boil down to "fuck you pay me" and treat my customers well.
* You have to use my payment system.
* I get 30% of your gross revenue.
* You have to follow my guidelines about what you can and can't sell and how you're allowed to sell it.
* You can't, while you're at the market, advertise how customers can reach you outside the market. I'm not about to just let you use my space as an advertising channel for free.
And in this hypothetical universe my customers love it! They do all their shopping here. I can both see how businesses that don't want to follow my rules would feel super frustrated but those rules are what makes my market worth coming to. My rules basically boil down to "fuck you pay me" and treat my customers well.
I buy a space and set up stalls for businesses to set up shop. The conditions for being part of this market are:
This exact thing exists. From bazaars to food courts to antiques centers. There are hundreds of thousands of these situations around the world.
But for some reason because "it's on the interwebs!" it's supposed to be magically different.
This exact thing exists. From bazaars to food courts to antiques centers. There are hundreds of thousands of these situations around the world.
But for some reason because "it's on the interwebs!" it's supposed to be magically different.
To have this analogy encompass the full situation, you're also a residential landlord who owns 50% of all residential housing in the US. Your tenants are only allowed to have things in their home that came from the market you control. Things bought in the market also cannot be placed in housing you do not control.
You argue you don't have a monopoly because your tenants can always move, even though most of their possessions cannot be moved to other housing.
Reasoning by analogy is bad, but I think it's important to note that most people's phones are their digital home. It is not a low friction situation to just "shop elsewhere" for a single product when it wouldn't be compatible with your home.
You argue you don't have a monopoly because your tenants can always move, even though most of their possessions cannot be moved to other housing.
Reasoning by analogy is bad, but I think it's important to note that most people's phones are their digital home. It is not a low friction situation to just "shop elsewhere" for a single product when it wouldn't be compatible with your home.
This is where I think the disconnect is. I see the entire iOS device as Apple's marketplace and so the housing analogy doesn't make sense to me. The app is your stall where you're allowed to sell things and conduct business.
I'm not saying it's low friction at all. Hell I would try to make my hypothetical market as high-friction as possible by having a prepaid high-cost membership fee, as many exclusives as I could find, and lots of benefits and services tied to it. This just seems like business.
I'm not saying it's low friction at all. Hell I would try to make my hypothetical market as high-friction as possible by having a prepaid high-cost membership fee, as many exclusives as I could find, and lots of benefits and services tied to it. This just seems like business.
iJohnDoe(1)
I know folks love to hate on Apple for keeping iOS locked down. Some of those folks like to say it is anti-user or anti-customer.
I respectfully disagree. As an iOS user who interacts with android devices daily (and used to be primarily an android user, Moto 360 watch and all), I really like that it’s locked down.
Yes, there are things I can’t do, like run v8, or have a built-in IR blaster, or sell my attention.
What’s more important to me is what hostile actors (Google, AT&T, Verizon) can’t do. My phone doesn’t get malware, it doesn’t show me notifications that can’t be dismissed (I don’t know how android users tolerate this), it doesn’t prevent me from removing apps like Facebook (also something android phones like to do), and it generally doesn’t let app developers get away with nonsense.
If anything, my biggest concern with the state of iOS is that it isn’t strict enough with the larger players. From the the business side of things there are some self-owns on Apple’s part that I won’t go into.
Tl;dr please stay the f* away from my iPhone, I chose it for all the reasons you hate it.
I respectfully disagree. As an iOS user who interacts with android devices daily (and used to be primarily an android user, Moto 360 watch and all), I really like that it’s locked down.
Yes, there are things I can’t do, like run v8, or have a built-in IR blaster, or sell my attention.
What’s more important to me is what hostile actors (Google, AT&T, Verizon) can’t do. My phone doesn’t get malware, it doesn’t show me notifications that can’t be dismissed (I don’t know how android users tolerate this), it doesn’t prevent me from removing apps like Facebook (also something android phones like to do), and it generally doesn’t let app developers get away with nonsense.
If anything, my biggest concern with the state of iOS is that it isn’t strict enough with the larger players. From the the business side of things there are some self-owns on Apple’s part that I won’t go into.
Tl;dr please stay the f* away from my iPhone, I chose it for all the reasons you hate it.
I don't understand why you can't have the Apple controlled platform you want while I have the freedom to use the hardware I bought however I want. I really don't get why Apple won't let me opt out of this restrictive stuff you like so much on the phone I paid for.
Because Apple knows what we all know: that as soon as you introduce a flag to turn off the nanny state, every company who wants to do something Apple doesn’t allow will tell their users to toggle that flag, and users will do what users do.
Facebook, for example, could immediately take their app off the App Store and tell their users that in order to keep using it, they have to effectively jailbreak themselves.
Whether that’s a good enough reason to disallow the existence of the switch is certainly something we’ll argue about until the end of time.
Facebook, for example, could immediately take their app off the App Store and tell their users that in order to keep using it, they have to effectively jailbreak themselves.
Whether that’s a good enough reason to disallow the existence of the switch is certainly something we’ll argue about until the end of time.
Right but that just sounds like a user having control over their hardware. Who knows maybe some of them will like it.
So don't buy their hardware? It's not a secret it's locked down so why are you giving them money and then complaining?
Yeah I'm not talking about the world I currently live in. I'm talking about what I would like. I'm not going to buy a new iphone of course but that doesn't mean I wouldn't like to under different circumstances. Obviously they don't have to care about that.
In the decade that I've had an android phone (and my father, and my wife), I've not once encountered:
* malware
* a notification that can't be dismissed that doesn't justify not being able to be dismissed
* bundleware can exist on android, especially on budget phones. Pay the price you pay for an iPhone and this generally is no longer an issue. On the off chance there is something bundled, you can disable system installed apps, which removes them visually from everything except for deep within the settings app.
* The only time I've encountered what I would consider "nonsense" is on shared testing devices. Sometimes they have all sorts of strange apps installed that cause the phones to behave strangely. I've never ran into this myself on an actual device used by someone. However I also don't install a bunch of random apps. And neither does anyone in my family it seems (at least that I'm aware of--and I'm the go to for technical issues within my extended family). So my opinion here is limited. I'd also add that Apple's rules create "nonsense" in some peoples opinions (app developers for one, but also iPhone owners who can't install what they want, or can't pay the way they want to pay).
For what it's worth, I also interact with iPhone(s) on a daily basis (for testing software primarily).
* malware
* a notification that can't be dismissed that doesn't justify not being able to be dismissed
* bundleware can exist on android, especially on budget phones. Pay the price you pay for an iPhone and this generally is no longer an issue. On the off chance there is something bundled, you can disable system installed apps, which removes them visually from everything except for deep within the settings app.
* The only time I've encountered what I would consider "nonsense" is on shared testing devices. Sometimes they have all sorts of strange apps installed that cause the phones to behave strangely. I've never ran into this myself on an actual device used by someone. However I also don't install a bunch of random apps. And neither does anyone in my family it seems (at least that I'm aware of--and I'm the go to for technical issues within my extended family). So my opinion here is limited. I'd also add that Apple's rules create "nonsense" in some peoples opinions (app developers for one, but also iPhone owners who can't install what they want, or can't pay the way they want to pay).
For what it's worth, I also interact with iPhone(s) on a daily basis (for testing software primarily).
Yeah, IDK, just looking at the Samsung Galaxy Note 10 in front of me, I see:
* Two notifications that can't be hidden, one about a postponed update, the other about a system configuration update it probably should handle on its own.
* Another unhidable notification about there not being a SIM card, but that is niche enough I can't feel bothered about it.
* Pre-installed apps I can't remove: Netflix, Facebook, Samsung Notes, OneDrive, YouTube, Duo, Maps, GMail, Bixby. This phone cost $300 more than my iPhone new
I'm glad you've never experienced malware. Unfortunately, it is common enough on Play and other stores that users have to worry about antivirus: https://www.pcmag.com/picks/the-best-android-antivirus-apps Even if users don't seek it out, many phones come with it preinstalled.
* Two notifications that can't be hidden, one about a postponed update, the other about a system configuration update it probably should handle on its own.
* Another unhidable notification about there not being a SIM card, but that is niche enough I can't feel bothered about it.
* Pre-installed apps I can't remove: Netflix, Facebook, Samsung Notes, OneDrive, YouTube, Duo, Maps, GMail, Bixby. This phone cost $300 more than my iPhone new
I'm glad you've never experienced malware. Unfortunately, it is common enough on Play and other stores that users have to worry about antivirus: https://www.pcmag.com/picks/the-best-android-antivirus-apps Even if users don't seek it out, many phones come with it preinstalled.
You don't need an antivirus on android. Not unless you're sideloading apps and your device doesn't have Google Play on it.
Notifications about phone os updates seems like a bit of a stretch. When my Windows device has updates I can't remove those notifications. And on MacOS I can't close the update window though the notification can be dismissed (at least for the Big Sur update I just did last week).
iPhone's have apps that can't be removed that come from Apple. Ever tried removing Siri? Bixby seems like Samsung's rough equivalent. Some Apple apps you can remove but then the phone's "system functionality" becomes questionable (https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208094).
Seeing as android=Google, and Samsung=Note10 it's not too much of a stretch for them to bundle apps. I'd agree--it'd still be nice to be able to remove everything. But the bundleware you're complaining about, outside of the device manufacturers and OS owner, amount to Netflix, Facebook, and OneDrive. Yea less than ideal. But disable them if you don't want them there and they'll be as good as gone aside from a few mb of space. Again--not ideal, but it's hard to believe this is that big of a deal breaker.
Notifications about phone os updates seems like a bit of a stretch. When my Windows device has updates I can't remove those notifications. And on MacOS I can't close the update window though the notification can be dismissed (at least for the Big Sur update I just did last week).
iPhone's have apps that can't be removed that come from Apple. Ever tried removing Siri? Bixby seems like Samsung's rough equivalent. Some Apple apps you can remove but then the phone's "system functionality" becomes questionable (https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208094).
Seeing as android=Google, and Samsung=Note10 it's not too much of a stretch for them to bundle apps. I'd agree--it'd still be nice to be able to remove everything. But the bundleware you're complaining about, outside of the device manufacturers and OS owner, amount to Netflix, Facebook, and OneDrive. Yea less than ideal. But disable them if you don't want them there and they'll be as good as gone aside from a few mb of space. Again--not ideal, but it's hard to believe this is that big of a deal breaker.
> bundleware can exist on android, especially on budget phones.
Have you bought a Samsung in the past 5 years? Literally filled to the brim with "Bundleware" and these are considered the top tier Android phones so I don't know what your are talking about. It's extremely pervasive.
Have you bought a Samsung in the past 5 years? Literally filled to the brim with "Bundleware" and these are considered the top tier Android phones so I don't know what your are talking about. It's extremely pervasive.
What aspect of Brave's model here was specifically anti-consumer? Instead of just being, say, anti-Apple-IAP.
In this particular case the harm isn’t obvious, but the benefit isn’t either.
Safari and Firefox both have good options for blocking ads on iOS.
The larger point is that the benefits of lots of garbage being filtered out are worth it even at the expense of niche capabilities, like IR blasters or selling my attention.
Safari and Firefox both have good options for blocking ads on iOS.
The larger point is that the benefits of lots of garbage being filtered out are worth it even at the expense of niche capabilities, like IR blasters or selling my attention.
Shouldn't that be up to the user, not Apple? Why shouldn't I be allowed to use my preferred browser w/ its features?
"Brave Rewards is built on the Basic Attention Token (BAT) and is a new way to value attention, connecting users, content creators, and advertisers. Users are rewarded in BAT with 70% of the ad revenue share of the privacy-preserving ads they opt into viewing, and they can support content creators they love by rewarding them with BAT."
This is, almost literally, Black Mirror stuff.