Apple blocks Coinbase Wallet(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Apple blocks Coinbase Wallet
https://twitter.com/coinbasewallet/status/1598354819735031809
928 comments
Apple still makes great products. Nothing can beat a MacBook (especially the new ones), AirPods work pretty well. Many (most?) people that use iPhones or Apple Watches love them.
Hmm apple still makes great hardware but I think software wise quality has suffered and this quote applies…
For example on you phone you will get a red alert in settings … when you click it … says Try apple music for 3 months .. or will say setup apple pay … or sometimes say sign in with icloud. (even after declining multiple times)
These are just ads disguised as systems alerts … hurts the experience and comes off as cheap.
Also on Apple Computers and Phones alike it keeps asking to sign in and use icloud. But then gives you only 5gigs of space … not enough to even backup your phone and then tries to upsell a monthly fee for expanded storage.
The software is designed to confuse users into purchasing when simply taking photos. New iphone with 64 gigs of storage 40 gigs free …. user gets message they are out of space in icloud and can purchase more space. They are quite aware that many users are not savy enough to know they don’t need to use icloud at all with photos or anything. Every time you update the phone it prompts you to “sign in” or “create and account”. Again comes off as cheap and pushy.
I can go on and on but money crunchers are definitely at the table with software these days.
For example on you phone you will get a red alert in settings … when you click it … says Try apple music for 3 months .. or will say setup apple pay … or sometimes say sign in with icloud. (even after declining multiple times)
These are just ads disguised as systems alerts … hurts the experience and comes off as cheap.
Also on Apple Computers and Phones alike it keeps asking to sign in and use icloud. But then gives you only 5gigs of space … not enough to even backup your phone and then tries to upsell a monthly fee for expanded storage.
The software is designed to confuse users into purchasing when simply taking photos. New iphone with 64 gigs of storage 40 gigs free …. user gets message they are out of space in icloud and can purchase more space. They are quite aware that many users are not savy enough to know they don’t need to use icloud at all with photos or anything. Every time you update the phone it prompts you to “sign in” or “create and account”. Again comes off as cheap and pushy.
I can go on and on but money crunchers are definitely at the table with software these days.
I hated upvoting this but you’re right. I don’t use the App Store much anymore, nor Apple News that much even with an Apple One subscription and I just keep coming back to the fact that the only adware installed on my phone—and I’ve checked—is basically the system software itself.
This is a premium phone at a premium price paired up with a range of premium-priced accessories. I know I get more than the value out of these devices than I’m putting in but damn does it feel like Apple isn’t just double-dipping, they’re like quadruple-dipping at least.
There’s the money I paid, there’s the money I pay to Apple for services that I do actually want, which, fair, some things have an upkeep cost, there’s the money I pay to 3rd party developers which Apple takes a cut of, and then there’s the money they’re charging developers to put ads in my face when I do open the App Store. There is such a thing as a value-add, and your example of the 5GB iCloud storage? The fact that this is the base level no matter what model phone you purchase just feels downright cheap, and that’s theoretically shared with a Mac or an iPad or both. Actually gutter-dwelling penny-pinching coupon-clipping lentil-dieting cheap.
This is a premium phone at a premium price paired up with a range of premium-priced accessories. I know I get more than the value out of these devices than I’m putting in but damn does it feel like Apple isn’t just double-dipping, they’re like quadruple-dipping at least.
There’s the money I paid, there’s the money I pay to Apple for services that I do actually want, which, fair, some things have an upkeep cost, there’s the money I pay to 3rd party developers which Apple takes a cut of, and then there’s the money they’re charging developers to put ads in my face when I do open the App Store. There is such a thing as a value-add, and your example of the 5GB iCloud storage? The fact that this is the base level no matter what model phone you purchase just feels downright cheap, and that’s theoretically shared with a Mac or an iPad or both. Actually gutter-dwelling penny-pinching coupon-clipping lentil-dieting cheap.
I think App Store Search Ads were really the start of this trend. Think from a benefit perspective - do these ad placements help users? No, they lead them to apps they weren't looking for. Do these placements help good developers? No, they cost them money to ensure their own top placement isn't stolen in search. Does this benefit Apple? Of course - now every large developer on the platform is spending boatloads of cash to ensure they get the top result wherever possible. Essentially taxing developers to buy their own app name slot so that some other random company doesn't do it first. And it has the follow on problem of now allowing spam apps to have a voice on the platform - get your garbage ad-ridden, weekly subscription app approved, then just boost it up with search ads. The real problem is Apple still makes a boatload of cash from those scenarios, so they aren't incentivized to stop them.
iAd came before that - but it had a goal of benefiting everyone - users, developers and advertisers. "High quality" ads, privacy focused targeting, developers get a cut and as a result they remove other more invasive ad networks. Unfortunately it didn't work out, and with Tim Cook now at the helm the numbers for search ads spoke a little more loudly than before.
iAd came before that - but it had a goal of benefiting everyone - users, developers and advertisers. "High quality" ads, privacy focused targeting, developers get a cut and as a result they remove other more invasive ad networks. Unfortunately it didn't work out, and with Tim Cook now at the helm the numbers for search ads spoke a little more loudly than before.
Am I the only one who keeps having problems with iPhones backround music/video play and resume? It's linux level bad. I play something I stop it and I never know what might be playing.
For PiP videos I have to play, lock the phone then press on play and then it might either continue the background video or play music from my library which I never really use.
The other day my iPhone would just reload and I still have no idea why? Did it run out of memory? Screen would freeze and it would stop on a black screen and then reload.
I don't remember these bugs from when I used to use an iPhone, but maybe I just didn't pay attention to them. When I travel and use a travel SIM it keeps asking me to switch everything to the new SIM. Default calls, iCloud, default messages. I say no to all of them but it still switches some of them.
Using apps from two different countries is a nightmare as well.
I do appreciate the speed of this device but ALL of these things are non-issues on Android. Something is off IMHO
For PiP videos I have to play, lock the phone then press on play and then it might either continue the background video or play music from my library which I never really use.
The other day my iPhone would just reload and I still have no idea why? Did it run out of memory? Screen would freeze and it would stop on a black screen and then reload.
I don't remember these bugs from when I used to use an iPhone, but maybe I just didn't pay attention to them. When I travel and use a travel SIM it keeps asking me to switch everything to the new SIM. Default calls, iCloud, default messages. I say no to all of them but it still switches some of them.
Using apps from two different countries is a nightmare as well.
I do appreciate the speed of this device but ALL of these things are non-issues on Android. Something is off IMHO
I think your phone might be defective. The only time I've experienced random restarts was when my battery on an old 6S was dying. Battery got replaced and all was fine.
Not sure what's going on with the music. I sometimes have it play random Apple Music when first connecting to CarPlay. Outside of that itt fairly reliably removes music when paused from the lock screen after a few minutes which honestly can be annoying, but keeping it on there forever isn't great either.
Not sure what's going on with the music. I sometimes have it play random Apple Music when first connecting to CarPlay. Outside of that itt fairly reliably removes music when paused from the lock screen after a few minutes which honestly can be annoying, but keeping it on there forever isn't great either.
Are they still using a battery that's too small, just to keep the phone thin, and prevent you from replacing the battery yourself, then when the battery wears out prematurely they throttle the CPU to stretch battery life, which makes the phone slow, making you think the phone is dying, so you just buy a whole new $1000 phone instead, when all you really needed was a $30 battery?
I literally never understood this problem. Yes the battery isn't easily replacable by the user, but literally just pop into any nearby apple store, it's £69 and you get a new battery fitted in about 30 minutes. Are people who say that the only option is to buy a brand new phone just......uninformed? Unable to do this for some reason? I just don't get it. I wouldn't be able to swap the battery in my car either, but I don't go around saying that the only option is to buy a brand new car when the battery dies - I go to a workshop and they replace it. How is a phone any different?
Before they got caught Geniuses weren't recommending $100 battery replacements. They were recommending new phones because the old one was "too slow". And that "nearby" Apple store can literally be hours away.
And the problem is that Apple was considerably undersizing the battery compared to rivals and then compensating by throttling the CPU once it aged.
And the problem is that Apple was considerably undersizing the battery compared to rivals and then compensating by throttling the CPU once it aged.
I've never not had an extremely disappointing experience with Apple Geniuses. Absolutely horrendous support. Completely incompetent people running down a script.
That said, I've had two trusted Apple Premium Partners that I would go to when I was still an Apple user and they were an absolute delight. Unfortunately back then I was living in a major city in Germany with tons of Premium partners, so nowadays that I don't really have a homebase and only have an iPhone I don't really know where to go for competent support.
That said, I've had two trusted Apple Premium Partners that I would go to when I was still an Apple user and they were an absolute delight. Unfortunately back then I was living in a major city in Germany with tons of Premium partners, so nowadays that I don't really have a homebase and only have an iPhone I don't really know where to go for competent support.
Not everyone has the privilege of having an apple store at walking distance.
Sure, in which case at least here in UK Apple will send you a prepaid shipment label and you get the phone back within few days. It still doesn't sound to me like "buy a new iphone" is the better and/or only choice.
I have random issues with music too so can confirm the GPs experiences there.
Their point about restarts does feel like a defect though.
Their point about restarts does feel like a defect though.
Hmm, are you using BT headphones or speakers? AirPods are the biggest annoyance for me with auto-switching as I'll usually have a mac, iPad and iPhone at my desk, be listening via iPad to something then opening a random app on my iPhone will request audio and stop the iPad from playing as the airpods swap devices. I know - it can be switched off, but it has to be done on every Apple device they connect to.
My new problem is with Apple TV and the Dynamic Island. Now by default when I walk into a room where my wife is watching TV, the phone will pick up the proximity and show me the remote as a live activity (Which is great, usually.) Then I use my phone for something and have no sound as my volume is down and the buttons aren't responding at all (seemingly.) It turns out if ATV is in the dynamic island, your hardware volume buttons now exclusively control the TV volume, and the only way to change the phone volume is to go into control center and swipe around.
My new problem is with Apple TV and the Dynamic Island. Now by default when I walk into a room where my wife is watching TV, the phone will pick up the proximity and show me the remote as a live activity (Which is great, usually.) Then I use my phone for something and have no sound as my volume is down and the buttons aren't responding at all (seemingly.) It turns out if ATV is in the dynamic island, your hardware volume buttons now exclusively control the TV volume, and the only way to change the phone volume is to go into control center and swipe around.
[deleted]
Ha, I have that exact problem with Android, and I've been considering switching to an iPhone. It's crazy that it's also happening in Apple's ecosystem.
Weird. I had Android until Android 10, but I don't remember it being an issue. Who triages these bugs? Why are not considered worth fixing?
Interestingly, I started getting them after turning on Digital Wellness. The web browser will play audio in the background and even about 10 seconds after closing. It's crazy and drives me nuts.
On my last Android excursion I left because I was continuously plagued by audio issues. I’d cycle 11km to work every day and listen to podcast. With Android I had to stop at least once every day to fix audio issues. I switched back to an iPhone and it has been smooth sailing since then?
The total addressable market is saturated now. Gains from Android are slow and difficult. So continued growth depends on more money from existing customers.
No. That’s the line, that’s the word on Wall Street, but it’s also complete crap. Apple spent a decade and a half as the iPhone company and for a long time that was exactly the right call.
They have other product lines with more than enough room to grow in the market, but they have to hunger for it, like they did from 1998 to 2008 with the Mac, and 2007 through the current day with the iPhone. Almost anything Apple puts out will sell in quantity as long as it doesn’t have exactly a voice-controlled UI, and while Microsoft and Intel are busy shitting the Wintel bed Apple is putting out top-tier high margin computer hardware with obvious gaps on the low-end, the middle and the ultra high-end and the thing keeping Apple from fully capitalizing on that is they’re shitting the bed with their own OS and tunneled in on nickel-and-diming their existing install base.
The global music industry was $26B in 2021: https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-60837880
The global movie industry in 2021 was $90.2B: https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/movies-e...
The global TV industry in 2021 was $259.16B: https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/televisi...
Grand total: $375.36B
Apple’s revenue in 2021 was $394.3B, and some portion of that is already accounted for in the Music, Movies and Television revenue for 2021 but if they really want to grow, then they need to go back to their roots: hardware running software of quality. Services will only be a segment and most of their “services” revenue depends substantially on the size of their hardware’s install base. They can still offer those, but if you build good products, the profit will follow. Apple was the one that built their business on that philosophy.
Either that or become a bank.
They have other product lines with more than enough room to grow in the market, but they have to hunger for it, like they did from 1998 to 2008 with the Mac, and 2007 through the current day with the iPhone. Almost anything Apple puts out will sell in quantity as long as it doesn’t have exactly a voice-controlled UI, and while Microsoft and Intel are busy shitting the Wintel bed Apple is putting out top-tier high margin computer hardware with obvious gaps on the low-end, the middle and the ultra high-end and the thing keeping Apple from fully capitalizing on that is they’re shitting the bed with their own OS and tunneled in on nickel-and-diming their existing install base.
The global music industry was $26B in 2021: https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-60837880
The global movie industry in 2021 was $90.2B: https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/movies-e...
The global TV industry in 2021 was $259.16B: https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/televisi...
Grand total: $375.36B
Apple’s revenue in 2021 was $394.3B, and some portion of that is already accounted for in the Music, Movies and Television revenue for 2021 but if they really want to grow, then they need to go back to their roots: hardware running software of quality. Services will only be a segment and most of their “services” revenue depends substantially on the size of their hardware’s install base. They can still offer those, but if you build good products, the profit will follow. Apple was the one that built their business on that philosophy.
Either that or become a bank.
Market share is the wrong thing to look at, yes Apple has a small desktop/laptop market share, but they utterly dominate the profit share.
This is the real question: How is Apple going to fill the gaps you see in the low end PC market, where there are very small profits to be found, without cannibalising it's own high end profit margins?
For the wintel PC makers market share is all that matters because they are all trapped in the commodity sector, so volume is the only way to grow profits. Apple isn't, it's a premium brand, so the economics it lives by are completely different. Analysts have been getting this wrong about Apple for decades, in fact pretty much my entire adult life, and I'm in my 50s.
Commodity companies can afford to stagnate their products, Cocacola makes the same sugar water they did before I was born. Premium product companies cannot afford to do that, they have to constantly invest in renewing and updating their products. Apple has been doing that for almost their entire existence (modulo a period of stagnation in the 90s when the execs didn't understand their own business).
On the software side I don't really agree, yes they have quality issues, but so does all software and they have incredibly complex stacks these days. They're constantly pushing forward with new software features, that's part of the problem, new features means new bugs.
This is the real question: How is Apple going to fill the gaps you see in the low end PC market, where there are very small profits to be found, without cannibalising it's own high end profit margins?
For the wintel PC makers market share is all that matters because they are all trapped in the commodity sector, so volume is the only way to grow profits. Apple isn't, it's a premium brand, so the economics it lives by are completely different. Analysts have been getting this wrong about Apple for decades, in fact pretty much my entire adult life, and I'm in my 50s.
Commodity companies can afford to stagnate their products, Cocacola makes the same sugar water they did before I was born. Premium product companies cannot afford to do that, they have to constantly invest in renewing and updating their products. Apple has been doing that for almost their entire existence (modulo a period of stagnation in the 90s when the execs didn't understand their own business).
On the software side I don't really agree, yes they have quality issues, but so does all software and they have incredibly complex stacks these days. They're constantly pushing forward with new software features, that's part of the problem, new features means new bugs.
> They're constantly pushing forward with new software features, that's part of the problem, new features means new bugs.
Only if you don't invest in testing - and Apple sadly has fallen to the trap of "bananaware" (ripens at the customer) as well as everyone else. "We ship it once it is good quality" has been replaced by "we ship it as soon as it can survive the presentation at WWDC and fix the bugs later on". For commodity manufacturers this can be excused by low profit margins (even though I don't like it), but Apple could literally double their developer headcount and they wouldn't feel it in their bottom line.
Only if you don't invest in testing - and Apple sadly has fallen to the trap of "bananaware" (ripens at the customer) as well as everyone else. "We ship it once it is good quality" has been replaced by "we ship it as soon as it can survive the presentation at WWDC and fix the bugs later on". For commodity manufacturers this can be excused by low profit margins (even though I don't like it), but Apple could literally double their developer headcount and they wouldn't feel it in their bottom line.
I have been saying for quite some time now that apple could probably just buy greece or some other indebted frist world state.
Appleonia and Facebookistan. Even though the latter may turn out to be just a parking lot with a MCDondalds
Appleonia and Facebookistan. Even though the latter may turn out to be just a parking lot with a MCDondalds
Apple news is also very quietly very politically biased. When you watch CNN or Fox News, you know what side you're getting at least.
How?
They are just links to original work in other places. Now if you look over all media there is a bias in the US Republicans will see all non Fox as left wing in the UK all the papers are right wing.
I think News looks at what you choose and offers more of the same.
I think News looks at what you choose and offers more of the same.
They are biased in the work that they choose to present. Curation is a way to introduce bias as well. Doubly so when you consider that they post the headline as a notification, and most people stop there.
I don't have specific examples, I'm just going off the several times in the past year where I've seen a news story covered in five different ways, then I see an incredibly slanted headline notification from apple news that is woefully inaccurate.
Also, Fox is just the other side of the same coin- left or right wing, when it matters, Fox is no different from CNN. It's all fake garbage. Just wait until you're belief systems or personal experiences don't exist within the mainstream collection of proffered views, and you'll see how fake all of it is.
I don't have specific examples, I'm just going off the several times in the past year where I've seen a news story covered in five different ways, then I see an incredibly slanted headline notification from apple news that is woefully inaccurate.
Also, Fox is just the other side of the same coin- left or right wing, when it matters, Fox is no different from CNN. It's all fake garbage. Just wait until you're belief systems or personal experiences don't exist within the mainstream collection of proffered views, and you'll see how fake all of it is.
I hate upvoting this too but it's pretty clear that:
1) advertising does not belong in Settings
2) notifications - especially system notifications - should not be abused for pushing ads
With regard to iCloud - 5 gigs is stingy compared to Google drive etc., but it's more than enough for the most essential parts: iCloud keychain, continuity, and storage for non-media apps like contacts/calendar/reminders (if you use them). The part I object to is using the OS for advertising.
1) advertising does not belong in Settings
2) notifications - especially system notifications - should not be abused for pushing ads
With regard to iCloud - 5 gigs is stingy compared to Google drive etc., but it's more than enough for the most essential parts: iCloud keychain, continuity, and storage for non-media apps like contacts/calendar/reminders (if you use them). The part I object to is using the OS for advertising.
The issue is that a large number of their users have had iPhones for close to a decade now. 5GB worth of photos is absolutely nothing.
I pay the $0.99/mo for extra storage but every time I do it, I wince a little and it costs them literally pennies to avoid giving me a bad taste in my mouth. I wish there was a way to self-host iCloud backups.
I pay the $0.99/mo for extra storage but every time I do it, I wince a little and it costs them literally pennies to avoid giving me a bad taste in my mouth. I wish there was a way to self-host iCloud backups.
The problem is each photo is 5MB. It’s insane. We should have different levels of compression depending on the album it’s in; My meme folder should only contain 200KB images, my parents souvenirs should be 5MB each indeed.
iCloud backups of photos is possible without using iCloud. I use a photo syncing app on my phone that is paired with a SMB server in my home. It just dumps new photos whenever I’m on my home network. But I don’t get iCloud syncing photos to my Mac instantly.
iCloud backups of device backups requires a Mac, then setting to sync via Wi-Fi.
iCloud backups of device backups requires a Mac, then setting to sync via Wi-Fi.
does this work in the background or do you need to run the backup task? I'm setting up a home server atm and curious about this for iCloud
Mine runs in the background when I get home. It uses an iBeacon device to determine when it is home. It starts the photo sync in the background. If I take photos and want to sync immediately I do that by starting the sync in the app. Remotely is a two part process —- enable vpn, then sync.
Google Photos will also backup your iPhone photos.
And the back ups regularly lose data, a good percentage of the images are simply not to be found.
Must me my fault, certainly.
No more macs and iphones for me, that and the app "numbers" have been the very last straws.
No more macs and iphones for me, that and the app "numbers" have been the very last straws.
I have the same problem. When I contacted support I didn't get anywhere and nothing seemed wrong on their side.
I think it's definitely a you problem. I don't know of anyone who has had this issue with missing photos.
Yeah, I can’t say that I’ve run into your issue.
Would it belong as a separate app to configure if it wasn't in settings? Or maybe opt out when you setup the phone?
Apple makes me sad these days.
The ads are super irritating, I can't believe a phone by the company that supposedly cares about user experience is pushing a fucking credit card offer. But that really shouldn't be surprising, considering...
After the casino ads took over the App Store, it became apparent that they're just bullshitting about safety and trustworthy computing. Because why not, if you care about those things, where are you going to go, Android?
Today's Apple is a mercenary bucket of quarterly-reporting driven MBAs. Any brand loyalty or trust I used to feel is gone. I stay logged out of Icloud, because if I don't, things keep uploading... stuff... to them, which absolutely should not happen, but does.
So, Apple is qualitatively no better than MSFT at this point, worse in some ways. At least Redmond does't affect a smirky superior shithead attitude in their software.
The ads are super irritating, I can't believe a phone by the company that supposedly cares about user experience is pushing a fucking credit card offer. But that really shouldn't be surprising, considering...
After the casino ads took over the App Store, it became apparent that they're just bullshitting about safety and trustworthy computing. Because why not, if you care about those things, where are you going to go, Android?
Today's Apple is a mercenary bucket of quarterly-reporting driven MBAs. Any brand loyalty or trust I used to feel is gone. I stay logged out of Icloud, because if I don't, things keep uploading... stuff... to them, which absolutely should not happen, but does.
So, Apple is qualitatively no better than MSFT at this point, worse in some ways. At least Redmond does't affect a smirky superior shithead attitude in their software.
> After the casino ads took over the App Store, it became apparent that they're just bullshitting about safety and trustworthy computing. Because why not, if you care about those things, where are you going to go, Android? Ha-ha.
Hopefully they’re at least vetting the casino apps. The only thing worse than shady casino ads are ads for shady casinos.
Hopefully they’re at least vetting the casino apps. The only thing worse than shady casino ads are ads for shady casinos.
Not just the upsells, the software is declining in quality in terms of features as well. Both of these features used to work and now don't.
- They removed iPhone sync from Music (nee iTunes), which makes sense, but the replacement in Finder doesn't support directories in file transfer. It shows them, you cannot expand them, placing files in a directory is possible and results in the files becoming inaccessible. Doubly stupid that the working file sync was in the Music app and not in the file management app.
- AirDrop on macOS just hangs all the time. I am completely unable to send files from my laptop and the interface is just a beach ball.
It really gives me hope that Apple is letting Linux play catch-up; I'd love to see a Linux experience that targeted the low-level usability of macOS 10! I'm talking OS-wide support for bundles, proxy icons, unified notifications interface... The target isn't moving any more, so it's reachable.
- They removed iPhone sync from Music (nee iTunes), which makes sense, but the replacement in Finder doesn't support directories in file transfer. It shows them, you cannot expand them, placing files in a directory is possible and results in the files becoming inaccessible. Doubly stupid that the working file sync was in the Music app and not in the file management app.
- AirDrop on macOS just hangs all the time. I am completely unable to send files from my laptop and the interface is just a beach ball.
It really gives me hope that Apple is letting Linux play catch-up; I'd love to see a Linux experience that targeted the low-level usability of macOS 10! I'm talking OS-wide support for bundles, proxy icons, unified notifications interface... The target isn't moving any more, so it's reachable.
> software wise quality has suffered and this quote applies…
I agree but Apple had lot of software issues when Jobs was CEO. Software can get incredibly complex and subjective to the user using it.
I agree but Apple had lot of software issues when Jobs was CEO. Software can get incredibly complex and subjective to the user using it.
It’s also a different epoch. 1990 was all the rage about C. But now that a ReactJS dev can get paid 6 figures and move jobs easily in every big city, it’s much harder to find people who are passionate to build APFS or desktop apps for one vendor based in Cupertino.
I would be surprised if there was much overlap between those type of programmers.
The ReactJS type is doing fancy thin gs on screens and does it for the money and for all sorts of places. The APFS builders are more likely to be passionate and look for specific work. But 30 years ago the ReactJS types would be working for corporations using VB but the system programmers would be doing similar to now.
System programmers have always been rare and I suspectr less motivated by money more by having interesting work that affects many people.
The ReactJS type is doing fancy thin gs on screens and does it for the money and for all sorts of places. The APFS builders are more likely to be passionate and look for specific work. But 30 years ago the ReactJS types would be working for corporations using VB but the system programmers would be doing similar to now.
System programmers have always been rare and I suspectr less motivated by money more by having interesting work that affects many people.
Apple music is so obnoxious on mac that you can't delete it and it would popup by itself a lot
>Hmm apple still makes great hardware but I think software wise quality has suffered and this quote applies…
I'm of the opinion that nobody makes a really nice user experience. My #1 complaint on every platform, website, device, OS, and software can be summed up as "Stop doing what you're doing, and do what I want." Computers and software should be tools that serve the user. They need to know their place!
>These are just ads disguised as systems alerts … hurts the experience and comes off as cheap.
Devil's advocate: I think a lot of users are idiots. Anyone who's been in software for a while will discover this: https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*zffZ0ysfR4BokVvSxo...
I think you're not wrong that they're disguising these ads as alerts. But if it helps the user who doesn't care, or more importantly - doesn't understand - backup their photos for when they drop their phone in the lake will be better off, and overall happier with the whole experience. Save someone's irreplaceable photos one single time and you'll likely have a customer for life. Apple is very good at this kind of thing. People make fun of apple fans as idiots, but... it's hard to argue apple doesn't know their customers.
I'm of the opinion that nobody makes a really nice user experience. My #1 complaint on every platform, website, device, OS, and software can be summed up as "Stop doing what you're doing, and do what I want." Computers and software should be tools that serve the user. They need to know their place!
>These are just ads disguised as systems alerts … hurts the experience and comes off as cheap.
Devil's advocate: I think a lot of users are idiots. Anyone who's been in software for a while will discover this: https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*zffZ0ysfR4BokVvSxo...
I think you're not wrong that they're disguising these ads as alerts. But if it helps the user who doesn't care, or more importantly - doesn't understand - backup their photos for when they drop their phone in the lake will be better off, and overall happier with the whole experience. Save someone's irreplaceable photos one single time and you'll likely have a customer for life. Apple is very good at this kind of thing. People make fun of apple fans as idiots, but... it's hard to argue apple doesn't know their customers.
I mean maybe the software is less quality than it used to be but so is it everywhere else. Software is more complex than it was.
In OSes.. Windows, Android, Linux GUI are all jankier. Apple Music’s closest competitors are all electron-based resource hogs? Safari is still the best mobile browser
In OSes.. Windows, Android, Linux GUI are all jankier. Apple Music’s closest competitors are all electron-based resource hogs? Safari is still the best mobile browser
>Safari is still the best mobile browser
I think it only appears that way on an iPhone. I've long believed that there are extremely subtle problems with Chrome and Firefox on iPhone devices that somehow magically don't appear on their Safari browser. Slow scrolling, strange micro lag... somehow on Safari it's better. Yet on my Android phones Chrome and Firefox work smoothly with no issues whatsoever. Also Safari objectively lacks browser features.
I think it only appears that way on an iPhone. I've long believed that there are extremely subtle problems with Chrome and Firefox on iPhone devices that somehow magically don't appear on their Safari browser. Slow scrolling, strange micro lag... somehow on Safari it's better. Yet on my Android phones Chrome and Firefox work smoothly with no issues whatsoever. Also Safari objectively lacks browser features.
This is likely because Apple makes all browsers use Safari under the hood, so Firefox is a skinned Safari on iOS. They do a great job of making it behave similarly to 'real' firefox on other platforms, but where there are holes and weirdness, it's likely down to this.
> Safari is still the best mobile browser
Ha. https://caniuse.com/?compare=ios_saf+16.1&compareCats=all#re...
Ha. https://caniuse.com/?compare=ios_saf+16.1&compareCats=all#re...
This might sound odd, but there is an entirely different axis by which to evaluate the quality of a browser than the web developer axis. If you look at the omissions, while there are some things I would prefer Apple to support (e.g. AV1 decoding), there’s also plenty in there whose omission of I consider a feature (basically anything on there that can be used for fingerprinting).
It's not only about features, there's a lot of bugs on Safari mobile you don't really see because basically web devs takes enough time to solve them. I've experienced SVG bugs, z-index bugs, form bugs and even a few dom events bugs to name a few.
Fortunately nowadays I don't need to support this browser anymore on my new company.
Fortunately nowadays I don't need to support this browser anymore on my new company.
There is also two completely different axis for 'feature support' and 'security', neither of which need to be mutually exclusive. WebKit is really not the 'best mobile browser' any more than Microsoft Edge is the best Xbox browser.
Is the Apple Music app honestly much better? The web interface was pretty garbage last time I tried too, constantly stopping for no reason.
And I'd say Firefox for Android has Safari for iOS beat by mile. I can use add-ons like Ublock Origin and no script, plus stuff like background video fixer to play YouTube videos in the background. And I can't think of a single thing it lacks over Safari.
And I'd say Firefox for Android has Safari for iOS beat by mile. I can use add-ons like Ublock Origin and no script, plus stuff like background video fixer to play YouTube videos in the background. And I can't think of a single thing it lacks over Safari.
Honestly the only thing it lacks for me is iCloud Keychain but even on macOS. I'd love to have that support + shared history so I can use it properly on desktop and mobile. I know about FF Sync but still I do prefer the iCloud sync.
That being said FF has made some stupid decisions - like the lack of homepage on Android. Like... WAT?!?!
That being said FF has made some stupid decisions - like the lack of homepage on Android. Like... WAT?!?!
> Software is more complex than it was.
In some cases software quality suffers not because of the inherent complexity but because it's changed for the sake of change.
One example is the Books app that was updated in iOS 16. The update brought some new features but also changed the UI/UX for no reason, making it unpleasant to use. There's no dearth of similar examples with Google's apps too.
In some cases software quality suffers not because of the inherent complexity but because it's changed for the sake of change.
One example is the Books app that was updated in iOS 16. The update brought some new features but also changed the UI/UX for no reason, making it unpleasant to use. There's no dearth of similar examples with Google's apps too.
> Safari is still the best mobile browser
I don't really mind having switched to an iPhone when I got one provided because for all the discussion, ios and Android are nearly identical but I miss both Chrome and especially Firefox. Android Firefox has actual uBlock. The experience is miles better than Safari.
I don't really mind having switched to an iPhone when I got one provided because for all the discussion, ios and Android are nearly identical but I miss both Chrome and especially Firefox. Android Firefox has actual uBlock. The experience is miles better than Safari.
I haven't use iOS in a while. What is better about Safari than other browsers?
I agree on the software. I used to love using iTunes and used it for playing all my music. Then they released the "Music" app on the desktop that just removed almost all the features I loved about iTunes and made the user interface drastically worse.
Apple software isn't perfect, but so are alternatives. IMO it's just better.
this.
Also, apple tries to lock with hardware so might, I find it too much frustrating. For example copy paste feature from iphone and mac os won't work if we don't login. And, 2fa is compulsory
Apple hardware is top notch but software is ewwww...
Also, apple tries to lock with hardware so might, I find it too much frustrating. For example copy paste feature from iphone and mac os won't work if we don't login. And, 2fa is compulsory
Apple hardware is top notch but software is ewwww...
It's true, but Windows is worse in these adware respects (I have both systems).
We don't usually carry Windows everywhere we go, though and look at it at 3am.
I’m surprised that Apple, as a company that had been carbon neutral since 2020 and had pledged to protect the environment hadn’t banned any use of Bitcoins from their platform altogether.
Crypto carbon footprint is mind-boggling, estimates are 200 million tonnes of CO2 since the launch, not including the CO2 emitted to manufacture the hardware.
Coinbase, that popularised all that mining to the general public should be considered as evil as other large CO2 emitters. And worse, all of these carbon emissions are for nothing, crypto seem only to be contributing to more exchanges crashes, fraud, money laundering and crime. With nothing to show on the positive side.
Crypto carbon footprint is mind-boggling, estimates are 200 million tonnes of CO2 since the launch, not including the CO2 emitted to manufacture the hardware.
Coinbase, that popularised all that mining to the general public should be considered as evil as other large CO2 emitters. And worse, all of these carbon emissions are for nothing, crypto seem only to be contributing to more exchanges crashes, fraud, money laundering and crime. With nothing to show on the positive side.
You are confusing Bitcoin with crypto. Ethereum uses drastically less energy after it transitioned to proof of stake. Many other cryptocurrencies are similar.
https://digiconomist.net/ethereum-energy-consumption
Nor do I agree with your assessment of banning Bitcoin because its power usage doesn’t match what we would like. I assume we all somewhat believe in the free market and the free market is solving this problem. Bitcoin price appreciation has been anemic at best and is only about 2% over the SP500 (+54%) in the past five years. Ethereum is quite a different story. +177%. Innovation is working.
How much power and materials are wasted when Apple releases incremental changes with a new number each year to resell the same thing to materialistic buyers annually? Should they ban themselves for the greater good of the planet? I’d say so.
https://www.zdnet.com/google-amp/article/apples-colossal-e-w...
>Assuming the ecosystem was made up entirely of iPhones, an iPhone, on average, weighs 150g and are 130mm long. This means that you're looking at a pile of iPhones weighing 250,000 metric tons (the Empire State Building weighs in at roughly 330,000 metric tons), and if laid end-to-end would circle the Earth more than five times.
And that’s just the e-waste. How much energy went into making them, how many dollars were wasted paying salaries and gas etc.?
https://digiconomist.net/ethereum-energy-consumption
Nor do I agree with your assessment of banning Bitcoin because its power usage doesn’t match what we would like. I assume we all somewhat believe in the free market and the free market is solving this problem. Bitcoin price appreciation has been anemic at best and is only about 2% over the SP500 (+54%) in the past five years. Ethereum is quite a different story. +177%. Innovation is working.
How much power and materials are wasted when Apple releases incremental changes with a new number each year to resell the same thing to materialistic buyers annually? Should they ban themselves for the greater good of the planet? I’d say so.
https://www.zdnet.com/google-amp/article/apples-colossal-e-w...
>Assuming the ecosystem was made up entirely of iPhones, an iPhone, on average, weighs 150g and are 130mm long. This means that you're looking at a pile of iPhones weighing 250,000 metric tons (the Empire State Building weighs in at roughly 330,000 metric tons), and if laid end-to-end would circle the Earth more than five times.
And that’s just the e-waste. How much energy went into making them, how many dollars were wasted paying salaries and gas etc.?
Crypto is bound to bitcoin. There is nothing that is holding that house of cards besides the bitcoins. As Ethereum and other coins do not have the cap. And near any investment into crypto contributes to the environmental damage from bitcoins.
You can read Apple’s environmental report. And read the recent publications that analyse the environmental impact of crypto. And one of the biggest moves that Apple and Google can do as companies, to lessen the environmental impact is actually banning bitcoins and crypto.
As someone who cares about the environment, I advocate for it. I don’t have any investments to Apple or Google or Bitcoins. Please, disclose any crypto investments, should you advocate for these.
You can read Apple’s environmental report. And read the recent publications that analyse the environmental impact of crypto. And one of the biggest moves that Apple and Google can do as companies, to lessen the environmental impact is actually banning bitcoins and crypto.
As someone who cares about the environment, I advocate for it. I don’t have any investments to Apple or Google or Bitcoins. Please, disclose any crypto investments, should you advocate for these.
If you are going down this route, you can also consider the environmental impact of electronics and aluminum production, which takes a lot of energy (and pollutes too).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_smelting#Environment...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_smelting#Environment...
True. Apple has at least been making efforts to use recycled aluminum - 59% last year.
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2022/04/apple-expands-the-use...
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2022/04/apple-expands-the-use...
What are the actual positives from crypto? Had any been demonstrated? I see a lot of positives in having an iPhone. Say, my children can video-call their mom when she is travelling. Isn’t that amazing? Isn’t that worth the environmental impact, especially considering that Apple is carbon-neutral?
What are the positives of crypto? I haven’t noticed any for 10 years it had been around. Only exchange crashes and hacks like MtGox, Fed investigators having to fight Silk Road and the crazy near-fraud exuberance of FTX and alike.
What are the positives of crypto? I haven’t noticed any for 10 years it had been around. Only exchange crashes and hacks like MtGox, Fed investigators having to fight Silk Road and the crazy near-fraud exuberance of FTX and alike.
I would recommend banning Netflix first while you are at it:
While BTC uses 87 TWh. [2]
1. https://blogs.salleurl.edu/en/energy-consumption-data-center....
2. https://ccaf.io/cbeci/index
data centers providing Netflix streaming services would consume around 370 TWh per year (Kamiya 2020) [1]
While BTC uses 87 TWh. [2]
1. https://blogs.salleurl.edu/en/energy-consumption-data-center....
2. https://ccaf.io/cbeci/index
Link 1 only references that claim to debunk it, mentioning that estimated energy usage from all datacenters in the world is less than 370 TWh.
True, it says "this value is 1.8 times larger than the 205 TWh estimated for all of the world’s data centers combined, which provide society with myriad other information services beyond just streaming Netflix videos."
See, this is your problem. Abhorrent business practices can exist alongside great products, just look at Nestle. Nothing will excuse them for pumping freshwater out of inland lakes, or paying for paramilitary organizations to oppress their slave labor camps. It just means that people are fine eating Hershey Bars without thinking about the child labor that made their chocolate.
So, p0pcult cited with a Steve Jobs quote which, in this context, can only be understood to mean, "Apple is becoming/has become a company where sales and marketing people are running the companies, and the product quality is suffering for it". shepherdjerred points out that the product quality is still extremely high, so the quote doesn't seem apt.
"Apple makes some good products but is evil" is valid criticism of Apple, which shepherdjerred hasn't disagreed with. "Apple is making bad products these days because they are lead by marketing and sales people" isn't valid criticism of Apple (in shepherdjerred's, and my, opinion).
"Apple makes some good products but is evil" is valid criticism of Apple, which shepherdjerred hasn't disagreed with. "Apple is making bad products these days because they are lead by marketing and sales people" isn't valid criticism of Apple (in shepherdjerred's, and my, opinion).
There is certainly proof of Apple's software quality declining in recent years (iTunes, MacOS, Xcode, APFS, Time Machine, oh god the list never ends) but there's a larger point to be made about how regulation can be a salve for our ills. Apple wouldn't need to be fighting this war if they played nice, but much like Nestle they refuse to heed our warning until it's too late.
Apple is at a scale where pithy Steve Jobs quotes don't aptly describe their relationship with the economy or world governments. We cannot trust them to do the right thing, so our best hope for turning them around is holding them accountable for the things we want.
Apple is at a scale where pithy Steve Jobs quotes don't aptly describe their relationship with the economy or world governments. We cannot trust them to do the right thing, so our best hope for turning them around is holding them accountable for the things we want.
> There is certainly proof of Apple's software quality declining in recent years (iTunes, MacOS, Xcode, APFS, Time Machine, oh god the list never ends)
Can you be more specific of the proofs you are talking about? I've been using Mac for 20 years and haven't noticed issues that indicate a declining trend.
As the GP mentioned there have been great products that Apple introduced in the last few years. So your evidence is wrong, or at most inconclusive, to show that marketing and sales people have taken over at Apple, resulting in worsening products and services.
> but much like Nestle they refuse to heed our warning until it's too late.
The fact is Apple has continued to grow phenomenally in the last decade. They may indeed head to a decline, but I can't see evidence of that. Can you? Are you confident that you can see the future where others can't?
Can you be more specific of the proofs you are talking about? I've been using Mac for 20 years and haven't noticed issues that indicate a declining trend.
As the GP mentioned there have been great products that Apple introduced in the last few years. So your evidence is wrong, or at most inconclusive, to show that marketing and sales people have taken over at Apple, resulting in worsening products and services.
> but much like Nestle they refuse to heed our warning until it's too late.
The fact is Apple has continued to grow phenomenally in the last decade. They may indeed head to a decline, but I can't see evidence of that. Can you? Are you confident that you can see the future where others can't?
Unless the defence for iTunes is "it was always crap" then I'd love to see the apologetic claiming it hasn't declined in quality. The last time it updated its UI was certainly a huge step backwards but if I could point at one thing it'd the persistent sign in pop ups any time I open it. I don't even use it as my main player anymore because of how crap it is.
What’s wrong with APFS?
It was a buggy rollout, but they managed to ship an entirely new file system to billions of devices while largely preserving user data. It should be heralded as a software achievement.
That was impressive, the less-impressive part was watching them completely fail to document the filesystem and (still) have yet to release the open source spec they promised. Par for the course with Apple, but still bothersome enough to mention.
I was expecting a Nestle product in your last sentence.
Also, pretty sure effectively all chocolate benefits from child labor because of where cocoa trees are located.
Also, pretty sure effectively all chocolate benefits from child labor because of where cocoa trees are located.
FWIW Hershey was also accused of child labor/slavery alongside Nestle, but you're right and I fumbled that one at the 95-yard-line.
Right. And that would be fumbling at the "5" yard line but the opponent touched and miraculously tipped the ball back to you, and you recovered and still made your points (puns intended).
there's no "the" 5 yard line, there's your 5 yard line and their 5 yard line, and there's 90 yard lines in between them.
oh gosh! I use to purchase hershey because i thought nestle bad others good :(
Is there any list of ethically sourced chocolate brands? The world is becoming stupid place to live with all these monopolies :(
Is there any list of ethically sourced chocolate brands? The world is becoming stupid place to live with all these monopolies :(
When you dig deep enough into how manufacturing really works, there are few products, especially consumables, that are ethically sourced.
The show The Good Place explores this idea; it's impossible to live a good life because everything in the supply chain eventually has some bad aspect to it.
There has to be outliers worth avoiding.
Not when the countries that all the cocoa trees are in are known to have not so accountable governments.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/263855/cocoa-bean-produc...
Same with mining for materials for electronics, as well as refining and manufacturing of them effectively happening in one country.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/263855/cocoa-bean-produc...
Same with mining for materials for electronics, as well as refining and manufacturing of them effectively happening in one country.
[deleted]
Is blocking Coinbase Wallet an abhorrent business practice?
They didn't block it, they just wanted a 30% cut. Yes it is abhorrent to rent seek 30% of every transaction when you literally contributed nothing whatsoever to that product.
I get why people have a negative reaction and it makes sense.
Then I look at retail where there are several wholeseller adding a %, stores adding a %, drop ship sellers adding a percent
There was a documentary that showed the price of a chicken sold in a store and how much the chicken farmer makes vs the retail price and I can’t say the situation is wildly out of tune with retail or the big SAP/ERP consulting
There was a documentary that showed the price of a chicken sold in a store and how much the chicken farmer makes vs the retail price and I can’t say the situation is wildly out of tune with retail or the big SAP/ERP consulting
They want 30% of the Network Fees which are paid to Validators (Ethereum nodes that staked 32ETH to help secure the network). Coinbase never get any of that, it's not their commission etc.
It's more like Apple demanding a cut of your call charges.
It's more like Apple demanding a cut of your call charges.
This might be a relevant comparison if the App Store had any businesses it competes with, like the ones grocery stores contend with.
I know we've debated this to death, but Android's market share is bigger than iPhone's.
The consumer owns one phone or the other, and the switching costs are ridiculously high (in no small part because of other properties of these anti-competitive store licensing models). The average consumer happily can shop at multiple grocery stores, even on the same day as part of the same trip... if isn't even uncommon. The segmentation of users into the ones that own an iPhone vs. the ones that own an Android device should be looked at as creating two separate markets, similar to how if you have a monopoly on groceries only in Wisconsin you somehow aren't considered a monopoly just because your national marketshare is small.
Yes, Android's share is much bigger, but the statement is too generalized to make a relative comparison. While Android has 70+% of global market share, it's important to understand how the users LTV of any consumer business varies based on geo dispersion, hardware price tier, user sophistication and sales distribution model. Apple delivers users that are quantifiably more valuable in every geo.
That said, Apple's monopolistic practices create a ripe oppty for Android to own web3's watershed moment
That said, Apple's monopolistic practices create a ripe oppty for Android to own web3's watershed moment
The equivalent situation would be if the world had two landlords which together owned essentially every single bit of commercial property on the planet (or at least most of the countries) and if you wanted to sell chicken, you'd have to agree to whatever terms those landlords set, which are mostly identical between them.
But it's ok because you have the option of building your own store on your own island and convincing enough people to relocate to your island to buy chicken direct.
But it's ok because you have the option of building your own store on your own island and convincing enough people to relocate to your island to buy chicken direct.
If it actually mattered to enough people, they would sail over to that island. The fact that most don't is extremely telling about what people actually want, I think.
(F-Droid is right there. It's relatively trivial to install on an Android device. As is, last I checked, replacing the whole Android OS).
(F-Droid is right there. It's relatively trivial to install on an Android device. As is, last I checked, replacing the whole Android OS).
[deleted]
In the US a large portion of phones are via carrier contract and hardware locked. So no.
The law mandated phone number portability in 2003. Everything else is buyer beware. Why is the answer not just "Don't get in a contract with Apple hardware if you don't want to be stuck playing Apple's ballgame?"
In the US I can just buy an iPhone from Apple with no hardware lock. So no.
That's the responsibility of the consumer to read the contract. You also can leave with a penalty.
Libertarianism is like the tide on hackernews, it's quite confusing
Libertarianism is like the tide on hackernews, it's quite confusing
Idk
A chicken farmer doesn’t even dream of keeping 70% the retail price of a chicken
I think we are both pushing the metaphor beyond usefulness
I think we are both pushing the metaphor beyond usefulness
The was a study in Denmark that from the money people pay in a supermarked 25% goes to advertising industry while the farmers receive less.
That’s not what rent seeking is. Apple has a very strong distribution channel, in part because of how trustworthy it is, that costs money to run, so it’s fair they take a cut of sales.
> contributed nothing whatsoever
The hardware it's running on?
I don't see an issue. If users have a concern, they can use another platform.
ETA: it does seem to be the kind of thing that the market will sort out... If apple is going to build a reputation for being hostile to use as a crypto transaction platform, then Android is just a quick trip to the nearest Best Buy away.
The hardware it's running on?
I don't see an issue. If users have a concern, they can use another platform.
ETA: it does seem to be the kind of thing that the market will sort out... If apple is going to build a reputation for being hostile to use as a crypto transaction platform, then Android is just a quick trip to the nearest Best Buy away.
They didn't contribute that, the user already payed for it (and Apple pocketed ~40% of the MSRP). The hardware is paid for, same as the software it comes pre-installed with.
> If users have a concern, they can use another platform.
They can't. Apple locks the bootloader even after purchasing/unlocking the device. It would be nice if we could though!
> it does seem to be the kind of thing that the market will sort out...
No, I think the arbitrary limitation of what you can execute on hardware you purchased will be a bit more of a sticking point than that. At least when we're addressing the single largest corporation in modern American history, Europe seems to agree with me.
> If users have a concern, they can use another platform.
They can't. Apple locks the bootloader even after purchasing/unlocking the device. It would be nice if we could though!
> it does seem to be the kind of thing that the market will sort out...
No, I think the arbitrary limitation of what you can execute on hardware you purchased will be a bit more of a sticking point than that. At least when we're addressing the single largest corporation in modern American history, Europe seems to agree with me.
Another hardware platform, these days Apple functionally sells computing appliances, not general purpose computers. It's why I recommend Apple to all my relatives who don't want to think about the guts of the machine and I recommend windows or Linux to everyone I know who wants to write their own software.
That's great! Giving me bootloader access has nothing to do with how your grandma uses her iPhone though, at least if I'm understanding your grandma right.
It requires more than zero engineering effort on their part so they won't. It is also, technically, an attack vector... A sufficiently sophisticated phisher might be able to convince somebody to replace their bootloader, but we both know that's not why Apple does it.
They do it because it allows them to capture the revenue for use of their computing appliances and it saves them every headache of having to provide customer support for hardware they sell that isn't running an operating system they wrote.
Serving your use case isn't what they make computers for. Google does though. I recommend switching platforms.
They do it because it allows them to capture the revenue for use of their computing appliances and it saves them every headache of having to provide customer support for hardware they sell that isn't running an operating system they wrote.
Serving your use case isn't what they make computers for. Google does though. I recommend switching platforms.
Serving my use case is what computers are. If Apple doesn't make those devices, then why are their devices capable of doing everything I described? They already wrote the bootloader. They already wrote the sideloading code, app sandboxing model, filesystem isolation APIs and even the packaging standard needed to distribute iOS applications. What's the major engineering hurdle they're struggling with, relative to everything they've already done?
I don't follow. They don't let you replace the bootloader; I thought that was your concern. So they can't do everything you want them to.
I can run Doom on a refrigerator but it's still a refrigerator. Apple makes computing appliances.
I can run Doom on a refrigerator but it's still a refrigerator. Apple makes computing appliances.
> I recommend switching platforms.
Well, there are other options.
Other options, such as how the EU is going to force Apple under threat of government force to make changes.
Anti trust laws have existed for a century now. We can make new ones, or use those existing uncontroversial laws to apply to the newer tech monopolies.
If Apple doesn't like it's then they can stop selling their product in every country where this is the law. (So that includes the entire EU, and hopefully the USA soon, as there are laws in Congress being considered right now).
Well, there are other options.
Other options, such as how the EU is going to force Apple under threat of government force to make changes.
Anti trust laws have existed for a century now. We can make new ones, or use those existing uncontroversial laws to apply to the newer tech monopolies.
If Apple doesn't like it's then they can stop selling their product in every country where this is the law. (So that includes the entire EU, and hopefully the USA soon, as there are laws in Congress being considered right now).
EU antitrust differs from American antitrust, IIUC, because American is couched in harm to consumers while Europe is couched in harm to merchants.
So I can see how the EU might see a way towards saying "Your ownership of the vertical stack makes you a market-maker and market-caller on a very lucrative app market; you bear some responsibility to making that market fair and competitive." This is the same kind of thinking that caused France to crack down on Amazon offering discounts on books that undercut local booksellers because they could collapse the booksellers' guild (even though Amazon's shipping integration means they actually can afford to charge so little).
But in the US, the first hurdle such a case has to cross[1] is "Why doesn't the user and app maker just go to Android if Apple's so bad?" Which, indeed, is the question I'm asking myself here; Coinbase could just jump ship and offer their app only on Android, and then, hey, the Android ecosystem is slightly better than their competition.
[1] ... unless the law changes, of course, as you've observed. I can imagine something coming out of the John Deere tractor "right to repair" angle, though I haven't been following this space.
So I can see how the EU might see a way towards saying "Your ownership of the vertical stack makes you a market-maker and market-caller on a very lucrative app market; you bear some responsibility to making that market fair and competitive." This is the same kind of thinking that caused France to crack down on Amazon offering discounts on books that undercut local booksellers because they could collapse the booksellers' guild (even though Amazon's shipping integration means they actually can afford to charge so little).
But in the US, the first hurdle such a case has to cross[1] is "Why doesn't the user and app maker just go to Android if Apple's so bad?" Which, indeed, is the question I'm asking myself here; Coinbase could just jump ship and offer their app only on Android, and then, hey, the Android ecosystem is slightly better than their competition.
[1] ... unless the law changes, of course, as you've observed. I can imagine something coming out of the John Deere tractor "right to repair" angle, though I haven't been following this space.
> They can't. Apple locks the bootloader...
There are other hardware manufacturers than Apple?
There are other hardware manufacturers than Apple?
Nope. Choosing your software platform on iPhone isn't an option though, if it was then we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.
I mean yes they are - there are so many manufacturers.
With the same argument you can say - open access to every device which will diminish a lot of the security by increasing the attack vector.
Why isn't my TV open or my Xbox or my PS? Why can't I edit the code of Windows is not such a stretch based on your arguments?
Also why should companies be forced to open stuff? They market it as a closed system - maybe respect the consumers who like closed systems. There are options for you - it's other vendors. So you have a choice. But even if you didn't there is no reason or expectation you should have a choice if the market doesn't want to cater.
One possible solution is for apple and other manufacturers to be forced to sell developer devices where the restrictions are minimal or non-existent. That I think will solve your quarrel.
With the same argument you can say - open access to every device which will diminish a lot of the security by increasing the attack vector.
Why isn't my TV open or my Xbox or my PS? Why can't I edit the code of Windows is not such a stretch based on your arguments?
Also why should companies be forced to open stuff? They market it as a closed system - maybe respect the consumers who like closed systems. There are options for you - it's other vendors. So you have a choice. But even if you didn't there is no reason or expectation you should have a choice if the market doesn't want to cater.
One possible solution is for apple and other manufacturers to be forced to sell developer devices where the restrictions are minimal or non-existent. That I think will solve your quarrel.
Would you be ok to paying 30% more rent to use a bank app from an iphone to pay the rent?
This analogy doesn’t make sense to me. This isn’t a bank transfer, it’s a purchase of a digital artifact. Is Apple wrong to ask for 30% of IAPs in Candy Crush? Because this seems pretty much the same to me.
So what makes digital artifacts (especially those that don't have anything to do with Apple's platforms) different from physical products. Would Apple be wrong to ask for 30% of purchased made through the eBay or Amazon apps?
It seems like it's their product and their right to draw the line wherever they see fit. They risked investing a lot of time and money into a platform that apparently now counts as best user experience. There is no ethical challenge, software developer gets access to wealthy customers thanks to Apple's decades of work.
30% seems a lot though. Credit card processors take somewhere around 2-3%.
Then don't use Apple - who is forcing you to build for their OSes? Your customers are there? Well maybe they have made a choice to be there for some reason. Respect that or don't go after those customers.
I have made a choice to use apple because I know all purchases for digital products go through iAP so my card details are never passed to the developer in any way. It makes me sleep better at night. I don't want other options.
I don't want to be offered the choice with 28-27% discount because it will make me share my creds (we know most ppl will choose the cheeper option and I admit I will do so as well from time to time).
I don't need the additional cognitive overhead because some developers are unhappy they have signed up to terms they don't like.
Honestly everyone that complains about the 30% so far hasn't given me a good reason other than greed. It's not a better UX, it's not a more secure option, it's not in my best interest (except the argument it will be cheaper but we all know that if possible most if not all companies will just pocket the 28-27%), it's not respectful of my choice of OS (again my reason is that I WANT the iAP as the only option).
I have made a choice to use apple because I know all purchases for digital products go through iAP so my card details are never passed to the developer in any way. It makes me sleep better at night. I don't want other options.
I don't want to be offered the choice with 28-27% discount because it will make me share my creds (we know most ppl will choose the cheeper option and I admit I will do so as well from time to time).
I don't need the additional cognitive overhead because some developers are unhappy they have signed up to terms they don't like.
Honestly everyone that complains about the 30% so far hasn't given me a good reason other than greed. It's not a better UX, it's not a more secure option, it's not in my best interest (except the argument it will be cheaper but we all know that if possible most if not all companies will just pocket the 28-27%), it's not respectful of my choice of OS (again my reason is that I WANT the iAP as the only option).
How is this an argument for whether it's abhorrent. I would love to pay zero for all products and services.
No. That's why I don't use iPhone.
But it's just capitalism. I'm not going to take the phone out of the hands of those for whom the answer is "Yes."
But it's just capitalism. I'm not going to take the phone out of the hands of those for whom the answer is "Yes."
But most people don't even know.
Didn't apple ban that game company because of showing an itemised bill to customers, showing how much apple was getting at every purchase?
Didn't apple ban that game company because of showing an itemised bill to customers, showing how much apple was getting at every purchase?
Which company? I'm very curious actually?
But devil's advocate - It's agains apple's Dev ToS and I don't get an itemised bill showing me a breakdown of how much Visa or MS charge me when making other payments.
I want to know the name of the company to see if they do the same when I make a purchase with a debit card.
But devil's advocate - It's agains apple's Dev ToS and I don't get an itemised bill showing me a breakdown of how much Visa or MS charge me when making other payments.
I want to know the name of the company to see if they do the same when I make a purchase with a debit card.
The problem is either you go with iPhone or android. And, android is rife with so much ads, we can't even use phone properly.
We need something to break this duopoly mobile market otherwise it is always gonna be problematic.
We need something to break this duopoly mobile market otherwise it is always gonna be problematic.
I've seen exactly zero apps on Android in the last 5 years. I understand there's a lot of apps infested with ads out there, but why would you install those?
Agreed on breaking duopoly though. I'm pretty hopeful about Linux on mobile these days, there's some pretty big developments lately.
Agreed on breaking duopoly though. I'm pretty hopeful about Linux on mobile these days, there's some pretty big developments lately.
> exactly zero ads
Fixed :')
Fixed :')
Hershey bars are made by Hershey, not by Nestle.
There is the oddity of KitKat in the US being made by Hershey but Nestle internationally.
Is it really their problem? Blaming the consumer has consistently proven the least effective way to effect change.
Exactly, so we need to stop blaming the consumer and start making systemic change with regulation. If the largest player doesn't agree to play nice, then it's time that we change the rules.
[deleted]
What products do Nestle make that you consider "great"?
When I'm hacking? Coffee-mate and Perrier.
When nobody's looking I've been known to enjoy a Hot Pocket or two, though... I can feel my dignity slipping through my fingers as I type this.
When nobody's looking I've been known to enjoy a Hot Pocket or two, though... I can feel my dignity slipping through my fingers as I type this.
They are getting worse particularly in the software department. Two that really grind my gears (there are others):
MacOS on Apple Silicon for an extremely long time (maybe it's solved now? 2 years later?) which caused incredibly glitchy, almost unusable cursor movement if you let your battery drain to 0%, then plugged it back in and woke it from hibernate.
Screen Time in macOS is unbelievably, ludicrously, fully broken. Nothing about it works almost at all. Metrics for children don't show up. Web filtering falls open after a few hours at random (presumably because the background services crash). The "site not allowed" page predates HTML5 and randomly doesn't work. You can't block built-in apps like Apple News, the best you can do is set a 1-minute time limit. Tons of IP Addresses and Apple phone-home addresses get blocked on the "allowed sites only" mode resulting in constant popups. I had to pay for Qustodio because it's just useless. Also, it has elementary bugs that are horrifying. For example, the pane where you add allowed websites doesn't remember websites you just added when you dismiss it - so if you open the pane again without a reboot, and add another site, it forgets the one you added last time you opened the pane.
However janky other things might be on macOS, Screen Time with "Allowed Sites Only" is by far the most broken thing on macOS, bar none. Try using it with your younger children and rage in frustration as it crashes-open silently and allows Private Browsing with no filtering after a few hours.
MacOS on Apple Silicon for an extremely long time (maybe it's solved now? 2 years later?) which caused incredibly glitchy, almost unusable cursor movement if you let your battery drain to 0%, then plugged it back in and woke it from hibernate.
Screen Time in macOS is unbelievably, ludicrously, fully broken. Nothing about it works almost at all. Metrics for children don't show up. Web filtering falls open after a few hours at random (presumably because the background services crash). The "site not allowed" page predates HTML5 and randomly doesn't work. You can't block built-in apps like Apple News, the best you can do is set a 1-minute time limit. Tons of IP Addresses and Apple phone-home addresses get blocked on the "allowed sites only" mode resulting in constant popups. I had to pay for Qustodio because it's just useless. Also, it has elementary bugs that are horrifying. For example, the pane where you add allowed websites doesn't remember websites you just added when you dismiss it - so if you open the pane again without a reboot, and add another site, it forgets the one you added last time you opened the pane.
However janky other things might be on macOS, Screen Time with "Allowed Sites Only" is by far the most broken thing on macOS, bar none. Try using it with your younger children and rage in frustration as it crashes-open silently and allows Private Browsing with no filtering after a few hours.
All the children comments to this post are amusing... Some things get worse, some get better, some things depend on the use case.
They all miss the point. The problem with Apple in it's relentless mission of maximising vertical integration, is that you are forced to align with their decisions at every single level, whether it's technical, social or political. "Cult" doesn't do it justice, Apple is has gone far beyond this.
Most other proprietary tech is not like this because the pieces are smaller with some reasonable degree of either interchangeability or combinability. Apple isn't neutral technology it's some kind of political entity. When you sign up, you are handing over all control, which is fine until they do something you don't like at which point your only choice is abandon the entire thing or accept it - I don't give a crap about NFTs, but I give a crap about some things, and I don't want to be part of an ecosystem where I can be pushed around. I don't blame the people who are stuck in it, it's hard to exit something that can define a lot about how you work with technology, they are essentially the victim of a big bully with a very difficult to stomach exit strategy.
They all miss the point. The problem with Apple in it's relentless mission of maximising vertical integration, is that you are forced to align with their decisions at every single level, whether it's technical, social or political. "Cult" doesn't do it justice, Apple is has gone far beyond this.
Most other proprietary tech is not like this because the pieces are smaller with some reasonable degree of either interchangeability or combinability. Apple isn't neutral technology it's some kind of political entity. When you sign up, you are handing over all control, which is fine until they do something you don't like at which point your only choice is abandon the entire thing or accept it - I don't give a crap about NFTs, but I give a crap about some things, and I don't want to be part of an ecosystem where I can be pushed around. I don't blame the people who are stuck in it, it's hard to exit something that can define a lot about how you work with technology, they are essentially the victim of a big bully with a very difficult to stomach exit strategy.
tomxor, you may survive us yet. Unfortunately, many of the hackers on this site aren't willing to see the forest for the trees. We're too busy fighting over myopic identity politics to imagine a future without the problems we face today.
The first example is oddly specific. I think you can find flaws like that with almost any software or hardware manufacturer, regardless of monopoly status.
The second example is, I think, a perfect example of what most large companies do, which is to neglect specific features in favor of others. People want to work on the "new hotness" rather than maintain something written 10 years ago by a team that no longer exists.
I don't think either suggests that Apple software is getting worse as a whole. The simple fact that they rolled out an entirely new architecture and it's worked pretty flawlessly (except for some fraction of people when the battery drains to 0 and it hibernates and needs a restart) suggests to me that they aren't just resting and pulling in money based on their monopoly status (which they don't even have in any industry).
The second example is, I think, a perfect example of what most large companies do, which is to neglect specific features in favor of others. People want to work on the "new hotness" rather than maintain something written 10 years ago by a team that no longer exists.
I don't think either suggests that Apple software is getting worse as a whole. The simple fact that they rolled out an entirely new architecture and it's worked pretty flawlessly (except for some fraction of people when the battery drains to 0 and it hibernates and needs a restart) suggests to me that they aren't just resting and pulling in money based on their monopoly status (which they don't even have in any industry).
There was a time when Apple would release a new version that was basically a maintenance release. And they would squash a bunch of bugs. I think a lot of people still remember this. Perhaps through some objective measure, it’s still ok. But I agree it all feels worse.
Old macOS versions were usually extremely buggy. People have just forgotten this
I don't know man. I used to work on tons of PPC and early Intel Macs that ran OSX (before iPhone and all that). Those were pretty great machines, and the OS basically just was an OS. No shit software preinstalled on top of it.
The first real shit app was iTunes. And ever since then, the OS has just stagnated while they put more software in to sell music, apps, and cloud storage.
The first real shit app was iTunes. And ever since then, the OS has just stagnated while they put more software in to sell music, apps, and cloud storage.
There were plenty of bugs. But there were at least a few releases that addressed these. Snow Leopard is probably the most notable which shipped with no new features. I think I first started on Panther and there was at least 1 upgrade during the PowerPC times that really cleaned things up and improved performance quite a bit.
Which is why I speculate that overall, it might not be better. You had to wait a couple years to get the fixes. Now they probably ship the fixes and new features on a more regular basis.
Which is why I speculate that overall, it might not be better. You had to wait a couple years to get the fixes. Now they probably ship the fixes and new features on a more regular basis.
> The first example is oddly specific. I think you can find flaws like that with almost any software or hardware manufacturer, regardless of monopoly status.
True... but this one has caught me, over and over, and it makes me paranoid of a low battery. Before I just had a lazy habit of not getting off the couch until the battery actually died from 0%. Now I panic the moment it turns red, because the cursor bug quickly makes working miserable and requires a restart for my sanity.
> I don't think either suggests that Apple software is getting worse as a whole.
To me, it suggests they are letting more surface-level bugs get a pass than previously. Before, they might have had poorly designed software once in a while, but not things this basic and easily discoverable.
True... but this one has caught me, over and over, and it makes me paranoid of a low battery. Before I just had a lazy habit of not getting off the couch until the battery actually died from 0%. Now I panic the moment it turns red, because the cursor bug quickly makes working miserable and requires a restart for my sanity.
> I don't think either suggests that Apple software is getting worse as a whole.
To me, it suggests they are letting more surface-level bugs get a pass than previously. Before, they might have had poorly designed software once in a while, but not things this basic and easily discoverable.
Seems to have been finally fixed on MacOS Venture 13.0.
But 2 years of this bug was embarrassing.
But 2 years of this bug was embarrassing.
Gawd... a restart... unthinkable.
You should try windows...
You should try windows...
> They are getting worse particularly in the software department.
I would argue the opposite.
Their software has historically been terrible.
OG iTunes ranks at the top of the worst pieces of software I've ever used - rendered the iPod almost useless for me.
Their software is still unimpressive, but I'd argue it's trending in the right direction.
The App Store is functional. Safari is not terrible. Their email client is fine. The Apple TV UI is pretty snazzy, etc.
I would argue the opposite.
Their software has historically been terrible.
OG iTunes ranks at the top of the worst pieces of software I've ever used - rendered the iPod almost useless for me.
Their software is still unimpressive, but I'd argue it's trending in the right direction.
The App Store is functional. Safari is not terrible. Their email client is fine. The Apple TV UI is pretty snazzy, etc.
The Apple TV is a multi-user device with extremely poor multi-user support. Considering how long it has been used by B&Bs it amazes me that Apple has never allowed guest access.
Music App sometimes breaks. It just doesn't play certain sections of some songs, even on replay, closing the app doesn't help; a device reboot is required to play songs in their entirety. And this happens on both devices that are connected via hardwire as well as wifi/LTE.
Considering Apple's revenue it is ridiculous how long bugs persist in their applications.
Music App sometimes breaks. It just doesn't play certain sections of some songs, even on replay, closing the app doesn't help; a device reboot is required to play songs in their entirety. And this happens on both devices that are connected via hardwire as well as wifi/LTE.
Considering Apple's revenue it is ridiculous how long bugs persist in their applications.
I can't speak for the original iTunes (I used it but not heavily and too long ago to remember), but I've been a consistent user of iTunes between Snow Leopard and Monterey and my experience is that it's gotten worse with every release. With Music being the worst iteration yet, and significantly worse than the last version of iTunes I used (on High Sierra).
I actually have a whole laundry list of things I consider regressions in the Music app, but I'll just regale you with the most frustrating one for my use case:
If you use Home Sharing with wired headphones, it works. If you use wireless headphones with a local music library, it works. If you use wireless headphones and Home Sharing, it does not work. The program refuses to play anything. This was a nice surprise when I first tried to use Music after getting this laptop.
(I'm actually really curious if anybody else experiences this behavior -- anybody reading please chime in if so!)
I actually have a whole laundry list of things I consider regressions in the Music app, but I'll just regale you with the most frustrating one for my use case:
If you use Home Sharing with wired headphones, it works. If you use wireless headphones with a local music library, it works. If you use wireless headphones and Home Sharing, it does not work. The program refuses to play anything. This was a nice surprise when I first tried to use Music after getting this laptop.
(I'm actually really curious if anybody else experiences this behavior -- anybody reading please chime in if so!)
Yea I don't get this either. I find while maybe lacking some features, a lot of their applications work either just fine or great. Apple Maps for example, the Podcasts app, many others.
You have to be kidding, right? The Apple Podcasts app is widely considered one of Apple's worst - and before Apple started playing "rating pop up" shenanigans, it was rated only 1.8 stars on the App Store.
https://9to5mac.com/2021/11/19/apple-podcasts-app-store-rati...
https://9to5mac.com/2021/11/19/apple-podcasts-app-store-rati...
I use it every day and it works just fine for me. What's wrong with it?
Before iTunes, I think the OS was great. I think iTunes was the catalyst that pushed OSX down the priority list.
Once they saw they could make money selling music, they started focusing on that and pushing that POS down your throat. Then when they finally realized they could sell apps on iPhones, that's where the focus went. The OS has stagnated since then, IMO. Their bread and butter has been selling apps, music and cloud storage, and it's clear (IMO) that's where all the actual development focus has gone.
Also the e-mail client is trash. It is supposed to support MS Exchange, and my co-workers and I used to use it at work just fine with OS 10.14. It was an awesome replacement for shitty Outlook. Once 10.15 came out, it would quit syncing, freeze up, stop sending email, etc. This was not just once in a while, it would literally quit working almost immediately. I was forced back into Outlook again. It felt like they never tested it with Office 365 even once. But of course, their own e-mail services work fine with it.
Once they saw they could make money selling music, they started focusing on that and pushing that POS down your throat. Then when they finally realized they could sell apps on iPhones, that's where the focus went. The OS has stagnated since then, IMO. Their bread and butter has been selling apps, music and cloud storage, and it's clear (IMO) that's where all the actual development focus has gone.
Also the e-mail client is trash. It is supposed to support MS Exchange, and my co-workers and I used to use it at work just fine with OS 10.14. It was an awesome replacement for shitty Outlook. Once 10.15 came out, it would quit syncing, freeze up, stop sending email, etc. This was not just once in a while, it would literally quit working almost immediately. I was forced back into Outlook again. It felt like they never tested it with Office 365 even once. But of course, their own e-mail services work fine with it.
>Safari is not terrible
It abso-fucking-lutely is terrible
It abso-fucking-lutely is terrible
> almost unusable cursor movement if you let your battery drain to 0%, then plugged it back in and woke it from hibernate.
Argh. I hate it when this happens. It's infuriating that this hasn't been fixed yet.
Argh. I hate it when this happens. It's infuriating that this hasn't been fixed yet.
> They are getting worse particularly in the software department.
I actually just found one that has me scratching my head...
If I plug a USB-C -> Ethernet adapter in to my M1 MBP on OSX Ventura...it brings down the entire network.
Just ethernet + adapter + power is fine, plug it into the laptop, entire network dies.
I actually just found one that has me scratching my head...
If I plug a USB-C -> Ethernet adapter in to my M1 MBP on OSX Ventura...it brings down the entire network.
Just ethernet + adapter + power is fine, plug it into the laptop, entire network dies.
That's a weird one. When you say it brings it down, what do you mean is actually occurring? I have a USB ethernet adapter in use on my M1 MBP running Ventura as I write this, and it's been completely fine. But if there's a gotcha out there lurking, I'd be interested to know what triggers it.
> When you say it brings it down, what do you mean is actually occurring?
All wired devices on the network (except for an AP strangely enough) drop all connections and can't get DNS responses.
I haven't had the time to dig in further than that yet though.
Someone did reply with this link[0], which may be the same or similar to what I'm experiencing just a different scenario.
[0]: https://mjtsai.com/blog/2022/05/11/usb-c-hubs-breaking-ether...
All wired devices on the network (except for an AP strangely enough) drop all connections and can't get DNS responses.
I haven't had the time to dig in further than that yet though.
Someone did reply with this link[0], which may be the same or similar to what I'm experiencing just a different scenario.
[0]: https://mjtsai.com/blog/2022/05/11/usb-c-hubs-breaking-ether...
We actually had a very similar issue in the office but maybe a bit different. From time to time an entire part of the office would start having slow internet or almost no internet. Took us a few months to fix (it wasn't really on the priority list and was super random when it happened).
Turned out that it happened when one specific USB-C dongle with ethernet and PD was left powered on but not connected to the computer (I think there were other preconditions as well like it was powered-off and you connect power to it but not a computer to it). The device will then decide to go into DHCP server mode and start sending advertisement packets and the switch would start broadcasting them, the internal firewall would see this and start blocking the switch and in turn turn off the AP that was connected to it so 26 ports would be offline essentially. Most of us were on wifi and everyone who was on an ethernet (3 ppl) would go "FFS internet is unstable again. Stupid switch is probably buggy", disconnect their cable and go on wifi. Plus they never really reported it as they had work to do and Wifi kinda worked so not a big issue.
It was just a really cool moment when we found out what caused it and we fired up Wireshark and looked at the traffic and we were right. I haven't had a moment of so much joy in a really long time.
Turned out that it happened when one specific USB-C dongle with ethernet and PD was left powered on but not connected to the computer (I think there were other preconditions as well like it was powered-off and you connect power to it but not a computer to it). The device will then decide to go into DHCP server mode and start sending advertisement packets and the switch would start broadcasting them, the internal firewall would see this and start blocking the switch and in turn turn off the AP that was connected to it so 26 ports would be offline essentially. Most of us were on wifi and everyone who was on an ethernet (3 ppl) would go "FFS internet is unstable again. Stupid switch is probably buggy", disconnect their cable and go on wifi. Plus they never really reported it as they had work to do and Wifi kinda worked so not a big issue.
It was just a really cool moment when we found out what caused it and we fired up Wireshark and looked at the traffic and we were right. I haven't had a moment of so much joy in a really long time.
That is fascinating, thanks for the link! Hopefully I'll remember that if either of my USB/Ethernet adapters seems to be related to a network problem. Sometimes I think USB-C hubs are simultaneously the best thing ever, and the bane of my existence. I'm finally happy with the CalDigit one I use now, but it took a couple attempts to find something that didn't have some glaring problem. One of my MacBooks just uses a plan USB->Ethernet adapter successfully, but that's because I don't need it to do anything more complicated.
It’s probably a bug in your network switch: https://mjtsai.com/blog/2022/05/11/usb-c-hubs-breaking-ether...
I don't think it would be since that mentions the bug is when it's connected to everything but a computer and mine's the opposite. Everything is fine except when it's connected to the laptop, could still be the same bug though.
Do they run their own DHCP server on a laptop maybe?
Which USB-C -> Ethernet adapter is that?
It's a Insignia one from BB[0], so probably not the best QA on it.
Still trying to determine why and when though, as this adapter used to be fine.
[0]: https://www.bestbuy.com/site/insignia-7-port-type-c-hub-with...
Still trying to determine why and when though, as this adapter used to be fine.
[0]: https://www.bestbuy.com/site/insignia-7-port-type-c-hub-with...
My M1 Pro still randomly loses internet requiring a restart.
I haven't seen mine lose Internet entirely, but I have seen it randomly switch between the two Wi-Fi networks I have set up where I live. I eventually got frustrated with this and then told it it can't automatically connect to one of them anymore.
Likely that it is related to Bluetooth as well. Especially if you have AirPods connected. I noticed the wireless connection quality degrades significantly when the device is connected to an AirPod.
Have you tried flushing the DNS cache?
This has almost become a meme at this point. Anyone in the office who has a problem with their internet on the Macbook, I just send them this:
sudo dscacheutil -flushcache;sudo killall -HUP mDNSResponder
sudo dscacheutil -flushcache;sudo killall -HUP mDNSResponder
yep, been a part of my bash aliases for about a decade now?
My asus wifi card in my pc does that too
A lot of folks are disagreeing with you in the replies but I actually agree with you to be honest. I recently got a new Macbook Pro after my old one unexpectedly died and there are a lot of things in Monterey that I find highly annoying relative to the last version I was on (High Sierra). I complained about Music in another reply.
One thing that really annoys me that I don't remember from High Sierra is this weird "overbounce"/"overscroll" functionality. This drives me absolutely nuts! Preview does this for example, and actually so does Firefox (but you can disable it there).
If you open up a PDF in Preview, set the zoom so that a full page width is entirely within view (i.e. no scrolling needed), then scroll a bit to the side anyway, you'll see what I'm talking about. The viewport moves even though the full page width is in view. I've found that this triggers even when I'm trying to scroll down, resulting in a weird, glitchy scroll feel.
I feel like I should temper the bad with the good a bit though. For example I have not had Bluetooth fail randomly with this new computer, whereas it failed quite a lot on my last one -- often requiring a reboot to fix.
One thing that really annoys me that I don't remember from High Sierra is this weird "overbounce"/"overscroll" functionality. This drives me absolutely nuts! Preview does this for example, and actually so does Firefox (but you can disable it there).
If you open up a PDF in Preview, set the zoom so that a full page width is entirely within view (i.e. no scrolling needed), then scroll a bit to the side anyway, you'll see what I'm talking about. The viewport moves even though the full page width is in view. I've found that this triggers even when I'm trying to scroll down, resulting in a weird, glitchy scroll feel.
I feel like I should temper the bad with the good a bit though. For example I have not had Bluetooth fail randomly with this new computer, whereas it failed quite a lot on my last one -- often requiring a reboot to fix.
Similar frustration and mind boggling for me when I found that the "custom focus" feature on iOS just does... nothing. It's a feature where you're supposed to be able to select which specific apps can send notifications to you, so I made one which allows Slack to come through (for work) and blocks everything else. Instead, it just allows everything through as if the "custom focus" wasn't enabled at all.
No seriously, I'm baffled. How was this released?
No seriously, I'm baffled. How was this released?
I just switched to iPhone from Android after 10+ years on Android.
iPhone is everything that I expected Android to be, but has failed to become. As the smartphone market has matured, iPhone and Android are essentially at parity in functionality.
Android is completely fragmented and isolated. Every brand is pushing their slightly broken version of their integration. Everything is buried behind clicks/apps/configurations. I've been amazed at how well my various Apple devices integrate and how well they optimize for the flows that I care about most.
For example, using the AndroidTV remote requires closing your current app, pulling up the app launcher, scrolling to AndroidTV, waiting for the app to load, waiting for the app to find devices, pick a target device, wait for the device to load, try to use a half-assed AndroidTV app. Switch back to whatever app you were using before.
By contrast, iPhone places it in the command center. Pull down from anywhere, click the remote-icon, boom, control your TV. Doesn't even mess with your current app.
iPhone is everything that I expected Android to be, but has failed to become. As the smartphone market has matured, iPhone and Android are essentially at parity in functionality.
Android is completely fragmented and isolated. Every brand is pushing their slightly broken version of their integration. Everything is buried behind clicks/apps/configurations. I've been amazed at how well my various Apple devices integrate and how well they optimize for the flows that I care about most.
For example, using the AndroidTV remote requires closing your current app, pulling up the app launcher, scrolling to AndroidTV, waiting for the app to load, waiting for the app to find devices, pick a target device, wait for the device to load, try to use a half-assed AndroidTV app. Switch back to whatever app you were using before.
By contrast, iPhone places it in the command center. Pull down from anywhere, click the remote-icon, boom, control your TV. Doesn't even mess with your current app.
> By contrast, iPhone places it in the command center. Pull down from anywhere, click the remote-icon, boom, control your TV. Doesn't even mess with your current app.
It's exactly the same on Android - pull down the notifications shade and click on the TV remote icon.
It's exactly the same on Android - pull down the notifications shade and click on the TV remote icon.
Perhaps this works correctly with some combination of Android devices, but it has not ever worked on the devices I've owned.
I will vehemently disagree. I've owned multiple iterations of MacBook Pro laptops over the last decade. At least 6 different, top tier, variations including Intel and M series. They all have had glaring flaws. From garbage keyboards to excessive CPU utilization. My current 16" M1, with 32GB of RAM's keyboard is still a joke for as premium as Apple claims it to be and external video, even with Thunderbolt, is still riddled with quirks.
Is it good hardware? Yes. It's pretty. It's manufactured well. But to me it's basically akin to a Porsche skinned car with a motor & transmission from a US manufacturer circa 2001. It just isn't as great as everyone makes them out to be. The M series is a huge improvement, but if I'm spending my personal money I'm not plunking it down on any Apple laptop. I get far more bang for my buck with shopping out a top tier Lenovo quite honestly. They're not perfect either but I've recently invested in a new T series and handed down a T470 to a family member. Over the course of that time I've replaced one of the two batteries (in less than 20 minutes) with common tools, I've upgraded the RAM, I've upgraded the NVME and I've upgraded the wireless. All making the laptop faster and more relevant. Sure, Apple wins hands down on the convenience ecosystem. But to get things done and build things the Lenovo is my choice all day long. I don't need a Retina screen and I could care less if a pair of Airpods connects to it.
If paying the premium is worth it for those frivolous things then great. But I'm sick of the hardcore shilling of Apple as a serious work machine. Sure if you're doing A/V - I get that. But besides being better on power consumption (I still get ~7 hours out of the T470) there's no draw anymore for me. The software ecosystem has taken a huge hit over the years in quality on OS X and Apple has made too many breaking transitions for me to trust their hardware with my dollars anymore.
Finally, privacy. It's clear at this point Apple's position on privacy is a marketing effort and little else. They do just as little as they really need to make it feel "better". But Apple doesn't much care about privacy but would rather control the walled (with dollars) garden.
To clarify I'm not running Windows on my personal hardware.
Is it good hardware? Yes. It's pretty. It's manufactured well. But to me it's basically akin to a Porsche skinned car with a motor & transmission from a US manufacturer circa 2001. It just isn't as great as everyone makes them out to be. The M series is a huge improvement, but if I'm spending my personal money I'm not plunking it down on any Apple laptop. I get far more bang for my buck with shopping out a top tier Lenovo quite honestly. They're not perfect either but I've recently invested in a new T series and handed down a T470 to a family member. Over the course of that time I've replaced one of the two batteries (in less than 20 minutes) with common tools, I've upgraded the RAM, I've upgraded the NVME and I've upgraded the wireless. All making the laptop faster and more relevant. Sure, Apple wins hands down on the convenience ecosystem. But to get things done and build things the Lenovo is my choice all day long. I don't need a Retina screen and I could care less if a pair of Airpods connects to it.
If paying the premium is worth it for those frivolous things then great. But I'm sick of the hardcore shilling of Apple as a serious work machine. Sure if you're doing A/V - I get that. But besides being better on power consumption (I still get ~7 hours out of the T470) there's no draw anymore for me. The software ecosystem has taken a huge hit over the years in quality on OS X and Apple has made too many breaking transitions for me to trust their hardware with my dollars anymore.
Finally, privacy. It's clear at this point Apple's position on privacy is a marketing effort and little else. They do just as little as they really need to make it feel "better". But Apple doesn't much care about privacy but would rather control the walled (with dollars) garden.
To clarify I'm not running Windows on my personal hardware.
I think there's something to be said about the general appreciation on Hacker News for the ARM MacBook. It's sounds like you've had a bad experience.
Some of those things (e.g. 'garbage keyboard') are subjective. Others, like high CPU usage and external video issues, are things that most don't seem to run into. I'm not saying that excuses the problems or invalidates your experience, but I hope that you can acknowledge that most people don't have that problem with their MacBooks.
I agree that the software side of Apple products in general aren't great. There are so many issues.
Some of those things (e.g. 'garbage keyboard') are subjective. Others, like high CPU usage and external video issues, are things that most don't seem to run into. I'm not saying that excuses the problems or invalidates your experience, but I hope that you can acknowledge that most people don't have that problem with their MacBooks.
I agree that the software side of Apple products in general aren't great. There are so many issues.
Did no one here get utterly destroyed when updating to Ventura deleted your git, requiring you to either:
1. install xcode, which requires apple id, which your company might not support
Or
2. Side load git, which your company's security policy might prohibit?
1. install xcode, which requires apple id, which your company might not support
Or
2. Side load git, which your company's security policy might prohibit?
Run `xcode-select —-install` on your terminal. It’ll install the Xcode command line tools only, no apple account required. I’ve used multiple macs at work and never sign in with an Apple ID on them.
Aha, thanks!
I doubt that many people here would stick with companies who had both of those policies.
99% of the time it's not a problem, but yes, I am leaving the company for other reasons
That sounds unpleasant. Hasn't been a problem for me, however, my work laptop is managed 100% through our corporate IT folks, including the Apple OS updates and packages. I've never needed a personal Apple ID to get Xcode.
Sounds like a crappy company.
The root cause is the apple update deleting git. I mean wtf
I'm curious about that. Git has been part of xcode CLI tools for years, I can't recall the last time it came by default with the OS.
Same as every major release? Accept the xcode bojo and continue?
Just install git with Homebrew.
Nothing can beat a macbook at what? I literally can't think of one thing. Maybe battery life? Maybe? It's surely not compatibility, long term support, reparability, or performance per $1.
They dropped support for every graphics APIs except their own. They launched a greenwashing campaign that is always out of stock of parts, updates are mandatory regularly regress performance on old hardware, and we all know you're paying an apple premium for the same performance as something 60-70% the price.
They used to define good build quality, but most laptops are pretty sturdy these days.
They dropped support for every graphics APIs except their own. They launched a greenwashing campaign that is always out of stock of parts, updates are mandatory regularly regress performance on old hardware, and we all know you're paying an apple premium for the same performance as something 60-70% the price.
They used to define good build quality, but most laptops are pretty sturdy these days.
While I haven't used every laptop out there, the Macbook track pad is the only one that I have used that has not made my fingertip skin hurt after a short time of use.
I know this is a little weird, and I have never talked to another person with this problem, but all of the cheap plastic ones, strangely textured ones, smooth-yet-somehow-massively-friction ones all make my skin hurt. The Apple one doesn't for whatever reason.
I think I had a Gateway laptop a long time ago that also didn't heat my fingers to temperatures comparable to the surface of the sun or cause me pain to use. Like a really long time ago.
I go to the local store and try out track pads every so often (like once per year maybe?), and they are all just shit. That's enough to keep me buying Macbooks for now.
Like I said, this is a weird issue that I have never known anyone else to have, but it is a pretty critical one for me.
Also, I just want to point out, that I only mean the materials of the track pad itself, not the drivers or anything. I have no complaints about e.g. Linux track pad drivers. I put Fedora on my wife's Surface Pro 8, and the track pad drivers there are fine, for example.
I know this is a little weird, and I have never talked to another person with this problem, but all of the cheap plastic ones, strangely textured ones, smooth-yet-somehow-massively-friction ones all make my skin hurt. The Apple one doesn't for whatever reason.
I think I had a Gateway laptop a long time ago that also didn't heat my fingers to temperatures comparable to the surface of the sun or cause me pain to use. Like a really long time ago.
I go to the local store and try out track pads every so often (like once per year maybe?), and they are all just shit. That's enough to keep me buying Macbooks for now.
Like I said, this is a weird issue that I have never known anyone else to have, but it is a pretty critical one for me.
Also, I just want to point out, that I only mean the materials of the track pad itself, not the drivers or anything. I have no complaints about e.g. Linux track pad drivers. I put Fedora on my wife's Surface Pro 8, and the track pad drivers there are fine, for example.
You're not evaluating laptops holistically. You can always find something that is lighter, runs faster,or has a longer battery, but right now it's tough to find any laptop that can compete with the current crop of MacBooks in all these metrics at once. The only place Apple really falls behind some of the competition is repairability.
If you ignore price, sure
Laptops comparable to Apple laptops in performance metrics AND build quality are usually priced pretty similarly.
My iPhone hostname is Capitulation because I reluctantly switched back because Graphene is worse.
I miss ssh clients that don't Philip K Dick me. I miss syncthing. I miss being able to use non-Apple services to sync my photos. I miss being able to run any apps I want from the web without identifying myself to a vendor. I miss NewPipe and I miss background apps and I miss basic local mp3 players that don't report what I play to remote parties against my will.
I miss ssh clients that don't Philip K Dick me. I miss syncthing. I miss being able to use non-Apple services to sync my photos. I miss being able to run any apps I want from the web without identifying myself to a vendor. I miss NewPipe and I miss background apps and I miss basic local mp3 players that don't report what I play to remote parties against my will.
Hilariously (at least to me), that was the hostname for my first iPhone when I gave up on the HTC I was using and got a 1st-gen iPhone.
WinMo was SO AWFUL, man.
re: SSH clients, what does "PKD me" mean? Have you tried Blink?
WinMo was SO AWFUL, man.
re: SSH clients, what does "PKD me" mean? Have you tried Blink?
Blink is the one in question. Never before have I ever been enraged by an ssh client.
Wow! I love it. What's not working for you?
Wondering why you found Graphene to be worse?
The cellular Apple watch has a terrible flaw. The networks only support it on the premium feature post paid contract plans and not on any prepaid plan. There’s no way to have a prepaid cell plan and add a watch for yourself. It’s an awful user experience. This limitation has no logical reason other than short sighted cell company greed and lack of Apple pushback
Nothing can beat a MacBook except for all of the computers that can.
How many computers come with a USB baseball bat?
Honestly, the current status of iOS is sh*t. I left macOS and am doing my own Linux config because I found it's actually a better experience even if I suffer config hell from time to time.
I need my phone, however. Some stuff like having a Google maps with GPS are very valuable. Being able to join a meeting call while still going out is also another advantage. Then you have a bunch of apps that now I can live without but don't want to (like Apple Pay, Banking Apps, Taking a photo...)
Point is: If there is an alternative, I'd switch immediately. And please don't suggest Android as that is Apple with extra-messy-steps.
I need my phone, however. Some stuff like having a Google maps with GPS are very valuable. Being able to join a meeting call while still going out is also another advantage. Then you have a bunch of apps that now I can live without but don't want to (like Apple Pay, Banking Apps, Taking a photo...)
Point is: If there is an alternative, I'd switch immediately. And please don't suggest Android as that is Apple with extra-messy-steps.
> Nothing can beat a MacBook
At what? Price? Performance? Gaming? I/O?
At what? Price? Performance? Gaming? I/O?
I'm a Linux guy, not an Apple fan. But the hardware is always top notch. If you look at the MacBook: the trackpad, the sound, the battery life, the overall quality, ... I haven't found any laptop hardware that comes even close to it.
If you know a product that does, please let me know so I can buy one and run Linux on it :).
If you know a product that does, please let me know so I can buy one and run Linux on it :).
To me it’s the same conundrum as for the iPad: the hardware is really well made, but it stays very conservative on the form factor, and the software doesn’t take full advantage of it.
For the iPad it’s obvious, for the mac:
- third party OS support non existent (Asahi linux is good, but nowhere near completion), no dual-boot for windows anymore
- unix compatibily has fallen behind with the Apple Silicon move
- GPU capabilities unavailable for existing windows/Linux frameworks (gaming and ML impacted)
- kernel extensions getting deprecated impacts many hacks that were QOL improvements
- no touchscreen (you may want it or not, but arguably it has potential for use)
- no flip screen (goes hand in hand with the touchscreen)
They could solve these in the near future, and none of these are individually deal breakers, but cumulatively these are enough limitations that a worse hardware platform coming with better software becomes a viable choice in many cases.
Personally I’m planning moving away to probably a Chromebook + linux or windows laptop when my current setup finally dies.
For the iPad it’s obvious, for the mac:
- third party OS support non existent (Asahi linux is good, but nowhere near completion), no dual-boot for windows anymore
- unix compatibily has fallen behind with the Apple Silicon move
- GPU capabilities unavailable for existing windows/Linux frameworks (gaming and ML impacted)
- kernel extensions getting deprecated impacts many hacks that were QOL improvements
- no touchscreen (you may want it or not, but arguably it has potential for use)
- no flip screen (goes hand in hand with the touchscreen)
They could solve these in the near future, and none of these are individually deal breakers, but cumulatively these are enough limitations that a worse hardware platform coming with better software becomes a viable choice in many cases.
Personally I’m planning moving away to probably a Chromebook + linux or windows laptop when my current setup finally dies.
I have a Dell XPS from around 2018 that I run arch on. Only issue I've had is needing to replace the battery once due to swelling (very easy to swap), but otherwise the hardware and specs are on par with my work assigned Macbook.
I have had a few dell XPSs, newest one was a 2019 one and they work, but they were not even close to the quality of the full macbook package. The keyboard was dogshit, the webcam didn't work on linux, the mic picked up huge amounts of fan noise, finger print scanner didn't work on linux and the maintainers of the open source drivers believed the hardware to be critically insecure so there is no reason you'd want it supported anyway.
You could upgrade the ram on the 16" versions though which is nice. Although this is still not something I have ever done on a laptop. The new Macbooks now have easily replaceable batteries which is a welcome change.
You could upgrade the ram on the 16" versions though which is nice. Although this is still not something I have ever done on a laptop. The new Macbooks now have easily replaceable batteries which is a welcome change.
But how does it feel to use? On my MacBook Pro, the trackpad and keyboard feel like I am manipulating text and windows at the speed of thought. On my work-assigned Dell, with specs ~matching my MacBook, it feels like there's a hidden friction to everything I do. Like going from skating on ice to jogging on sand.
I have never noticed any friction when performing any task on my XPS. I will admit I'm not a Mac/Apple guy myself, so for me it's the opposite (I'm much slower on my work Mac than doing the same thing on my personal Dell)
Had a 2019 16" XPS and I'd describe the keyboard as borderline unusable. It was weirdly squeaky and if you hit a key on the edge a bit it just wouldn't register so I had so many typing mistakes.
Apple hardware is only top notch when you limit yourself to apple's walled garden of software and peripherals. The hardware (and software) is over-fit and has proprietary processes that make otherwise simple hardware tasks on most platforms impossible in an apple latop. The M1/M2 processors are great, but don't try to change the SSD or run an external monitor in an apple laptop.
Agree. I have so many problems with my Mac Mini it is by far the worst device I ever owned.
- It randomly disconnects bluetooth for 30-40s. Especially annoying during calls. When your headset & keyboard stop working and you don't have a way of make anyone know.
- The processor goes full throttle out of blue. Makes my fan go 100% for good 5-10 minutes.
- From time to time it refuses to wake up my monitor and I need to force shut down it.
- It randomly disconnects bluetooth for 30-40s. Especially annoying during calls. When your headset & keyboard stop working and you don't have a way of make anyone know.
- The processor goes full throttle out of blue. Makes my fan go 100% for good 5-10 minutes.
- From time to time it refuses to wake up my monitor and I need to force shut down it.
> or run an external monitor in an apple laptop.
I have a Dell monitor with a mouse connected to it. I can connect my Linux laptop with a single USB3 for monitor, mouse and power. The MacBook does the same.
I have a Dell monitor with a mouse connected to it. I can connect my Linux laptop with a single USB3 for monitor, mouse and power. The MacBook does the same.
> but don't try to change the SSD or run an external monitor in an apple laptop.
I run two monitors off my M1 mbp - works for me
I run two monitors off my M1 mbp - works for me
> I run two monitors off my M1 mbp - works for me
Lucky you. It works horribly for me - any time the screen is locked (corporate policy locks it after a certain period of inactivity) the OS forgets all about the external screens.
When I unlock the machine, all my windows are on the internal screen.
There's a setting somewhere along the lines of "each display is an individual workspace" that "fixes" the issue by making each screen an independent workspace, which still won't remember where the windows are.
Lucky you. It works horribly for me - any time the screen is locked (corporate policy locks it after a certain period of inactivity) the OS forgets all about the external screens.
When I unlock the machine, all my windows are on the internal screen.
There's a setting somewhere along the lines of "each display is an individual workspace" that "fixes" the issue by making each screen an independent workspace, which still won't remember where the windows are.
Record your preferred screen config using displayplacer [1] and then run that via a shortcut.
[1]: https://github.com/jakehilborn/displayplacer
[1]: https://github.com/jakehilborn/displayplacer
Nothing beats the keyboard on Thinkpads. You can also get insanely good warranties on them. X1 Carbons match Apple on build quality, displays and price. Apple probably wins on performance, sound and battery life.
Doesn’t randomly (physically) break in the first 5 years of ownership. Good tradeoffs between battery and performance. Best monitors.
I didn’t believe the hype until I got one at work and it just had… zero jankiness. And it is as good as the day I got it
I didn’t believe the hype until I got one at work and it just had… zero jankiness. And it is as good as the day I got it
* Price/performance as of the M series
* Battery life
* Resale value
* Build quality
Who has a better trackpad than a Macbook ?
Especially now that they’ve abandoned the race to be ever thinner and eliminate keys for a touch bar
Happiest I've been about a computer in a while was when they backtracked on the things they'd removed from the MBP and put them back. Combined with the M1, it finally became the first MBP since 2015 that I thought was an actual improvement over all previous versions.
Now if they can just put a fucking headphone jack back in the iPhone, kthx. Batteries are getting denser, mainboards are getting smaller, phones are bigger than ever... but no room for a headphone jack! I guess they just want to sell more AirPods.
The interesting thing that I have found happening is that I just don't listen to music/podcasts on my iPhone much anymore. I don't at all when I am out anymore, and I only do at home when I can have it on speaker. I guess Bluetooth'd to my car once in a while. That's about it. I wonder if/assume that the profits from Air Pods bought by everyone else makes up for the loss in music purchase from people like me? I dunno...
Apple is still one of the best, but it is not immune to this (others are worse).
Just tonight my phone updated, and the time now looks completely different.
Small rant ahead.
In the last updates they changed how alarms are set (rotatory dial to enter the numbers one by one and back to rotatory dial next update). Why did they change that? I believe just for change sake. Also I could see if I had an alarm set at a quick glance (next to wifi indicator top right); now it only shows on the lock screen. I wish they would let it be or hid it under a configuration option, but that goes against Apple minimalism.
While all of these changes were happening there were small bugs on the alarms, like the one with different timezones documented on a short video here https://twitter.com/mejutoco/status/1526100127668224002
Don't get me wrong, Apple is so ahead of other companies. I think until more companies rise to their standards they won't polish these issues, since they face no competition. But they are not perfect.
Small rant ahead.
In the last updates they changed how alarms are set (rotatory dial to enter the numbers one by one and back to rotatory dial next update). Why did they change that? I believe just for change sake. Also I could see if I had an alarm set at a quick glance (next to wifi indicator top right); now it only shows on the lock screen. I wish they would let it be or hid it under a configuration option, but that goes against Apple minimalism.
While all of these changes were happening there were small bugs on the alarms, like the one with different timezones documented on a short video here https://twitter.com/mejutoco/status/1526100127668224002
Don't get me wrong, Apple is so ahead of other companies. I think until more companies rise to their standards they won't polish these issues, since they face no competition. But they are not perfect.
My mother also can't use the redesigned alarm easily and is now forced to ask Siri (which always works great!). She's legally blind and can't see red and black contrast. What a stupid design from Apple that can't be changed. I'm convinced Apple's accessibility team is either for optics or is full of people that have never met someone with a disability.
Depends on what you need vs how much money you have.
Outside the US it's far more common to see Android phones and PCs. If you make 1k per month, buying a 1500$ phone makes less sense.
Don't get me wrong, I love my Air, but my big Windows laptop can do different thing. For music Logic alone is worth buying a cheaper Mac. But good luck gaming on a MacBook air vs a gaming laptop. Both cost the same price after all
But that gaming laptop will have your back in serious pain if you carry it every day around a college campus.
When I was younger I had the most fantastic time installing Ubuntu on a Chromebook
Outside the US it's far more common to see Android phones and PCs. If you make 1k per month, buying a 1500$ phone makes less sense.
Don't get me wrong, I love my Air, but my big Windows laptop can do different thing. For music Logic alone is worth buying a cheaper Mac. But good luck gaming on a MacBook air vs a gaming laptop. Both cost the same price after all
But that gaming laptop will have your back in serious pain if you carry it every day around a college campus.
When I was younger I had the most fantastic time installing Ubuntu on a Chromebook
Dunno, maybe? I personally am reasonably happy with my new ryzen-based thinkpad. If nothing else, the macbook has so little ports and everything needs an adapter.
> Nothing can beat a MacBook
You can't upgrade the RAM, it has a weird processor that tons of code won't run on, and it starts at $2K. I have the latest one sitting on my desk right now from my work and it is a useless brick that I can't do any actual work on because so much code we use simply won't compile on it. I use a mini from 2018 for actual work and the macbook runs teams and zoom. Complete joke of a computer.
If they ever lock up MacOS the way they do iOS, I'll be on Ubuntu or Windows by the end of the week. I'm sure I'll miss the UX. Oh well.
Macbooks and iPhones really aren't that great. There's some sort of mass delusion going on.
Macbooks are just overpriced basic laptops. A lot of people just use them to run Linux software but it's way worse than running it on Linux. Performance is great if all you're doing is video editing, which is what youtube reviewers love to focus on. For the rest of us, it's bleh.
Macbooks are just overpriced basic laptops. A lot of people just use them to run Linux software but it's way worse than running it on Linux. Performance is great if all you're doing is video editing, which is what youtube reviewers love to focus on. For the rest of us, it's bleh.
I think that nothing today can beat the M1/M2 CPU/GPU, but a ThinkPad, in my humble opinion, is much better than any MacBook (again, not counting CPU/GPU):
- mate screen
- trackpoint (if you haven't used it you don't know what you are missing)
- keyboard
- carbon body (much more warm than the metal unibody).
I would love for apple to license the M1/M2 to Lenovo.
I would love for apple to license the M1/M2 to Lenovo.
I think the sweet spot is a $600 lenovo (or other brand). They have a reasonably good screen, 16GB of RAM, a good gfx card (gtx3050), if you need one.
I find it really difficult to fork out an additional $1500 for something marginally better (and in certain ways more limiting).
I've used android for a few yesrs and ios for an year. I can confidently say that iphone has much much worse ux than a stock android. Every standard action 5 additional clicks, devices have much less battery size and life, doing anything in general is a pain in the a*.
My experience is that ios feels a lot like Niagara if you use the app library. Applications are pretty much the same. Notifications are marginally more annoying on ios but only marginally. I miss some intents, Firefox and Android clients are better on Android. The Apple watch is a lot better than the Android offering however.
All things considered, it wasn't much of a change. Ios and Android are not particularly different.
All things considered, it wasn't much of a change. Ios and Android are not particularly different.
Companies that get complacent and lazy tend to get eaten by competitors, even if they are fat-cat monopolists, eventually. Apple knows this, I think, which may be why they keep on making pretty good products. Although, to be fair, they are not monopolists but part of a duopoly.
They are really good compared to whats out there but they are far from excellent in many details. They are still quite far from Microsoft where almost every detail is atrocious and only the whole is making the cut because the sum of the parts is quite terrible.
iPads are also the class leader in tablets, there really isn't anything close.
The problem is all of these product lines were likely already in R&D during the Jobs era (With the exception of maybe AirPods.) Not the current designs of course, but the ideas. I think the real test will be this upcoming year and the supposed launch of the Apple headset, as I don't think there will be any greater test of Apple's current design/marketing/hardware/software prowess. People are already sour on the idea of the "metaverse" so it'll be interesting if Apple can sell something new/different/useful in the space.
The problem is all of these product lines were likely already in R&D during the Jobs era (With the exception of maybe AirPods.) Not the current designs of course, but the ideas. I think the real test will be this upcoming year and the supposed launch of the Apple headset, as I don't think there will be any greater test of Apple's current design/marketing/hardware/software prowess. People are already sour on the idea of the "metaverse" so it'll be interesting if Apple can sell something new/different/useful in the space.
MacBook is twice the price of comparable hardware in a Dell or Lenovo. I mean it varies based on models being compared, but when I bought my laptop last year, that was the price difference. I like Macs, but not enough to justify that.
Unfortunately, none of that is true. Apple hasn't made a product worth owning in a long long time.
Macbooks no longer can run Windows and don't quite run Linux yet (the two largest OSes in the world, and Linux On The Desktop(tm) is a bigger market share than OSX), iPhones still can't run Android after all these years (the majority phone OS), and Apple Watches suffer the issues all the smart watches have (no real good use case, battery lives of a day or less, violates "zero distraction" ethical concerns, sensors are fulltime uploaded to the cloud and there are no good Federal controls on personal data in the US, etc).
I see no reason to ever buy Apple until they actually catch up to the rest of the world. Apple is a cult, and a very expensive one to buy into.
Macbooks no longer can run Windows and don't quite run Linux yet (the two largest OSes in the world, and Linux On The Desktop(tm) is a bigger market share than OSX), iPhones still can't run Android after all these years (the majority phone OS), and Apple Watches suffer the issues all the smart watches have (no real good use case, battery lives of a day or less, violates "zero distraction" ethical concerns, sensors are fulltime uploaded to the cloud and there are no good Federal controls on personal data in the US, etc).
I see no reason to ever buy Apple until they actually catch up to the rest of the world. Apple is a cult, and a very expensive one to buy into.
Defining a phone as worth owning as "being able to run android" is very arbitrary. I believe that nothing but the iphone is worth owning because the other's can't run iOS yet. Android just isn't suitable for real world usage yet.
Hand me an iPhone, and I have zero clue what to do beyond the superficial launcher similarities; I'd have to Google anything that's not immediately obvious. Android is simple to use because it already uses the semi-universal UI language that all other OSes (Windows, Linux's gaggle of DEs, ChromeOS, etc) and apps use.
The only people I know that own iPhones IRL are older people who aren't tech savvy (and all of them admit they don't know how to use their phone, and only make phone calls, text messages, and Facebook shit with it); I don't know a single Gen X, Millennial, or Gen Z (in or outside of the tech industry, in or outside of the US) with one.
If Android is "not suitable for real world usage", then no phone is.
The only people I know that own iPhones IRL are older people who aren't tech savvy (and all of them admit they don't know how to use their phone, and only make phone calls, text messages, and Facebook shit with it); I don't know a single Gen X, Millennial, or Gen Z (in or outside of the tech industry, in or outside of the US) with one.
If Android is "not suitable for real world usage", then no phone is.
They’re both targeted for dumb consumers. There’s no reason to pretend that either OS is somehow incomprehensibly difficult for the end user
> I don't know a single Gen X, Millennial, or Gen Z (in or outside of the tech industry, in or outside of the US) with one.
*what?*
*what?*
Majority of people in US who use a phone use an iPhone, that’s just a fact. Their comment isn’t credible.
It can be vacuously true if GGP doesn't know any millenials!
it's a pretty slim majority 55%
If like 50% of people use iPhones, which they do, how can it be possible to not know anyone young who uses one? Just doesn’t pass a common sense test to be true.
How does that change if the majority is small or large? Like 1% or 10% what difference do you think that makes?
How does that change if the majority is small or large? Like 1% or 10% what difference do you think that makes?
> The only people I know that own iPhones IRL are older people who aren't tech savvy
Where do you live? Overwhelming majority of tech people I know in the US and UK use MacBooks and iPhones. That’s academia, systems programming, web services. Very very rarely see anyone using anything but macOS.
Where do you live? Overwhelming majority of tech people I know in the US and UK use MacBooks and iPhones. That’s academia, systems programming, web services. Very very rarely see anyone using anything but macOS.
Probably a developing country. In the US iPhones have almost 100% market share among young people. I'm in Australia and almost everywhere I have worked has been a Mac place. Schools also all use Macbooks unless they can't afford them.
US.
Most of the tech people I know have long since dropped Apple because of death by a thousand cuts. If you would have asked me even 5 years ago, I would have said half of them still belong to the cult of Mac, but not anymore; the only ones remaining are non-tech older folk.
A lot of HN's userbase lives in the silicon valley and the SF area, so maybe this is just a rather narrow focused regional thing? I only ever hear of cult members living in either the valley or SF, or alternatively, in Seattle, hardly anywhere else.
Most of the tech people I know have long since dropped Apple because of death by a thousand cuts. If you would have asked me even 5 years ago, I would have said half of them still belong to the cult of Mac, but not anymore; the only ones remaining are non-tech older folk.
A lot of HN's userbase lives in the silicon valley and the SF area, so maybe this is just a rather narrow focused regional thing? I only ever hear of cult members living in either the valley or SF, or alternatively, in Seattle, hardly anywhere else.
The proportion nationally is literally over 50%. They can't all be older people - that just doesn't factually add up, does it? You must be living in a very strange bubble, completely unrepresentative of the rest of the country.
The reality is most people with a phone use an iPhone. Any tech or academic conference I go to, most people are using MacBooks.
The reality is most people with a phone use an iPhone. Any tech or academic conference I go to, most people are using MacBooks.
The people I know who used to only buy Macbooks have switched to Surfaces or those Dells and HPs that have milled aluminum bodies like Macs; and now, recently, I know several that recently bought Frameworks (and love them).
Are you sure you aren't just confusing all the milled aluminum laptops with Macs, and all the black glass slabs with iPhones? I've even had someone confuse my OnePlus as an iPhone (until I showed them that I didn't have that giant ugly notch that iPhones have; apparently running Android wasn't a big enough hint to them).
Are you sure you aren't just confusing all the milled aluminum laptops with Macs, and all the black glass slabs with iPhones? I've even had someone confuse my OnePlus as an iPhone (until I showed them that I didn't have that giant ugly notch that iPhones have; apparently running Android wasn't a big enough hint to them).
> Are you sure you aren't just confusing all the milled aluminum laptops with Macs, and all the black glass slabs with iPhones?
No it’s literally over 50% iPhone.
https://www.oberlo.com/statistics/us-smartphone-market-share
https://hypebeast.com/2022/9/apple-iphone-overtakes-androids...
https://www.engadget.com/iphone-overtakes-android-us-market-...
See?
No it’s literally over 50% iPhone.
https://www.oberlo.com/statistics/us-smartphone-market-share
https://hypebeast.com/2022/9/apple-iphone-overtakes-androids...
https://www.engadget.com/iphone-overtakes-android-us-market-...
See?
Yeah, I've seen those.
I don't know how they qualify those results; they don't publish anything resembling scientific work. Like, how do they counter-balance that Android users need to replace their phones less often? Apple users usually buy the new phone every gen, instead of every 3rd or 4th gen (Apple screens and batteries tend to die quickly); so, it seems active Apple users should be 1/3rd or 1/4th of active devices, not half.
Sales in of themselves don't mean much if you're comparing Apples to oranges (ahem) with a disposable phone vs one that isn't.
I don't know how they qualify those results; they don't publish anything resembling scientific work. Like, how do they counter-balance that Android users need to replace their phones less often? Apple users usually buy the new phone every gen, instead of every 3rd or 4th gen (Apple screens and batteries tend to die quickly); so, it seems active Apple users should be 1/3rd or 1/4th of active devices, not half.
Sales in of themselves don't mean much if you're comparing Apples to oranges (ahem) with a disposable phone vs one that isn't.
> Apple users usually buy the new phone every gen, instead of every 3rd or 4th gen (Apple screens and batteries tend to die quickly);
This is unsubstantiated nonsense. The resale values of iPhones are indisputable evidence that you are full of it.
Your comments in this thread are beyond stupid. Everything you’ve said is the opposite of true.
This is unsubstantiated nonsense. The resale values of iPhones are indisputable evidence that you are full of it.
Your comments in this thread are beyond stupid. Everything you’ve said is the opposite of true.
> that Android users need to replace their phones less often
That is not true. In fact the opposite is true. The average iPhone will last longer than the average Android phone.
https://valorvortech.com/how-long-can-a-smartphone-last/
You are also saying on one hand that most iPhones are purchased by older non tech-savvy people while at the same time claiming that those same people buy a new phone every generation. That is hard to believe.
That is not true. In fact the opposite is true. The average iPhone will last longer than the average Android phone.
https://valorvortech.com/how-long-can-a-smartphone-last/
You are also saying on one hand that most iPhones are purchased by older non tech-savvy people while at the same time claiming that those same people buy a new phone every generation. That is hard to believe.
...according to some.
Nothing like the trifecta of ipod/itunes/iphone under Steve.
Nothing like the trifecta of ipod/itunes/iphone under Steve.
> Apple still makes great products. Nothing can beat a MacBook
I have quite a few computers on my desk these days.
* Late model Windows laptop
* M1 MAcOS laptop
* iPad
* Android phone
* Raspberry Pi
The point of telling this story is the computer with, by a long distance, best development environment/tools is the Raspberry Pi.
As for user experience, the Windows machine is not too bad, the iPad and Android phone are horrid limited little things. I prefer the Pi, but I can recognise the quality of the MacOS environment. My taste is with the Raspberry Pi. Especially because I can turn of the (fucking) GUI and use it in true text mode.
I learnt programming on the then magical Macintosh computers 1989-1992. They were really something technologically. So far ahead of anything else within ten times the cost.
Those days are gone for Apple. Thank you for the memories.
I have quite a few computers on my desk these days.
* Late model Windows laptop
* M1 MAcOS laptop
* iPad
* Android phone
* Raspberry Pi
The point of telling this story is the computer with, by a long distance, best development environment/tools is the Raspberry Pi.
As for user experience, the Windows machine is not too bad, the iPad and Android phone are horrid limited little things. I prefer the Pi, but I can recognise the quality of the MacOS environment. My taste is with the Raspberry Pi. Especially because I can turn of the (fucking) GUI and use it in true text mode.
I learnt programming on the then magical Macintosh computers 1989-1992. They were really something technologically. So far ahead of anything else within ten times the cost.
Those days are gone for Apple. Thank you for the memories.
> best development environment/tools is the Raspberry Pi
The best development environment for _you_ is the Raspberry Pi.
Most people are going to want a GUI. Most users (even the vast majority of developers!) are not comfortable using a terminal 24/7. Most are going to be using whatever IDE they learned on, or whatever their team uses. That's certainly going to be a full GUI IDE that is resource-hungry. Even not considering those aspects, just compiling code takes forever.
I've tried using a Raspberry Pi before as a day-to-day device. It works okay, but you're going to miss speed quickly
The best development environment for _you_ is the Raspberry Pi.
Most people are going to want a GUI. Most users (even the vast majority of developers!) are not comfortable using a terminal 24/7. Most are going to be using whatever IDE they learned on, or whatever their team uses. That's certainly going to be a full GUI IDE that is resource-hungry. Even not considering those aspects, just compiling code takes forever.
I've tried using a Raspberry Pi before as a day-to-day device. It works okay, but you're going to miss speed quickly
[deleted]
Honestly, the Pixel Buds are better than the AirPods. So it's not a guarantee that Apple makes the best products. However, I do like their phones and laptops better.
Apple is incredibly profitable, but Lenovo, dell, hp combined ship 60% of the laptops worldwide. Customers overwhelmingly choose non-Apple laptops.
Apple routinely has 90%+ of the laptop marketshare for computers that cost $1,000 or more. Seems weird to compare their marketshare to markets they're not competing in.
How does that say anything except that Apple laptops are so expensive that for anything they don't need Apple for they don't have to spend $1k?
Apple laptops are not invisible or unknown to buyers, and customers overwhelmingly choose non-Apple laptops, as shown by the sales numbers. I don't get what we're disagreeing over. Or is it the case that secretly everyone wants to purchase Apple products but they just don't have the money?
their hardware is good and the ecosystem is good, but their software is god awful. macos has essentially zero window management to speak of and it's refusal to adopt vulkan has siloed it off from the rest of the industry. if they would just stop being stupid and adopt vulkan they would pick up support for a large number of games for free. it also has really bad multimonitor support.
Give me consumer choice over great products any time.
Do games even work on a MacBook?
Does it have Excel with macros?
Does it have Excel with macros?
> Do games even work on a MacBook?
Windows games and Steam games? Some. See https://applesilicongames.com
App Store games, including iPad games? Lots of them.
Apple Arcade? Check, some 200+ curated games including some interesting exclusives like Fantasian.
Game streaming services? Yep.
Remote play from Steam/Xbox/PlayStation/etc.? Yep.
> Does it have Excel with macros?
Yes, it does. You might be surprised to learn that the first release of Excel was for the Macintosh in 1985. A Windows version was released in 1987.
Windows games and Steam games? Some. See https://applesilicongames.com
App Store games, including iPad games? Lots of them.
Apple Arcade? Check, some 200+ curated games including some interesting exclusives like Fantasian.
Game streaming services? Yep.
Remote play from Steam/Xbox/PlayStation/etc.? Yep.
> Does it have Excel with macros?
Yes, it does. You might be surprised to learn that the first release of Excel was for the Macintosh in 1985. A Windows version was released in 1987.
While you responded factually, it feels disingenuous to portray an Apple computer as a capable gaming device. It is not. Not for the newest, not for the best. Not for the classics, not for the indies. Streaming has failed to impress the market, and the Apple Arcade remains an unfulfilling curiosity for those who think of gamers as a bit stinky and unproductive.
On the other hand, having both Windows and Mac, I probably use my Mac more often when it comes to gaming. At the very least 1:1. Or 1:1:1 if I include my iPad.
Some of the games I play on Mac: Slay the Spire, Civ 6, Through the Ages, Nova Drift, Wizard of Legend and quite a few visual novels/text based games.
Hmmm, I would call most of them indies.
Some of the games I play on Mac: Slay the Spire, Civ 6, Through the Ages, Nova Drift, Wizard of Legend and quite a few visual novels/text based games.
Hmmm, I would call most of them indies.
Last time I checked Excel macros / VBA didnt work on Macs at all, so I wonder if they added them?
Can you confirm this change? It must have been in last few years.
Macs had Excel for a long time, but in the past it was a simplified, toy version of the program not suitable for real work.
Can you confirm this change? It must have been in last few years.
Macs had Excel for a long time, but in the past it was a simplified, toy version of the program not suitable for real work.
the most popular results on that website, require emulating windows or game streaming.
from personal experiance the mouse movement in almost any game on my m1-pro before i sold it was borked, and even 'native' games that were supposed to work didn't feel good at all
tabbing out of counter-strike go usually froze my macbook requiring a restart
the ergonomics of the laptops are generally also poor (keyboard is flat, glossy screen, limited angle on the screen hinge so it requires serious hunching )
from personal experiance the mouse movement in almost any game on my m1-pro before i sold it was borked, and even 'native' games that were supposed to work didn't feel good at all
tabbing out of counter-strike go usually froze my macbook requiring a restart
the ergonomics of the laptops are generally also poor (keyboard is flat, glossy screen, limited angle on the screen hinge so it requires serious hunching )
Yup!
I mostly play strategy games like Civilization and Stellaris. Sometimes Factorio and League of Legends.
I replaced my gaming desktop with the $700 entry-level Mac Mini that came out in 2020; it had the same hardware as a MacBook, just a different form factor. It worked well. I wasn't playing at high graphics, but games worked well. I went back to my full desktop after a few months because I wanted better graphics.
My Mac Mini only had 8 graphics cores on the base M1 with 8GB of RAM. If you bought one of the newer M series devices I think you'd have a pretty good experience if gaming isn't your top priority.
> Does it have Excel with macros?
Didn't Microsoft do a full port of Excel in the last year or two?
I mostly play strategy games like Civilization and Stellaris. Sometimes Factorio and League of Legends.
I replaced my gaming desktop with the $700 entry-level Mac Mini that came out in 2020; it had the same hardware as a MacBook, just a different form factor. It worked well. I wasn't playing at high graphics, but games worked well. I went back to my full desktop after a few months because I wanted better graphics.
My Mac Mini only had 8 graphics cores on the base M1 with 8GB of RAM. If you bought one of the newer M series devices I think you'd have a pretty good experience if gaming isn't your top priority.
> Does it have Excel with macros?
Didn't Microsoft do a full port of Excel in the last year or two?
[deleted]
I disagree. While they may make decent products, the quality and attention to detail has gone down. Especially the UX has gone downhill entirely. Look at how bad the wallpaper changing UX is on iOS 16 for example.
HP zbook can surely beat a MacBook?
Well, if you ignore the price
[deleted]
However this is not Apple products. This is other peoples' products. For example, other peoples' software. Following the "tech" company playbook, Apple is simply acting as a middleman. And in this case a 30% tax man.
Is the volume of crypto transactions rising. Coinbase announced something about increased volume back in September. Perhaps those sales and marketing people at Apple see an opportunity to profit as crypto investors lose their shirts.
Is the volume of crypto transactions rising. Coinbase announced something about increased volume back in September. Perhaps those sales and marketing people at Apple see an opportunity to profit as crypto investors lose their shirts.
> However this is not Apple products.
The App Store is a product and it’s a bad product for developers and users when Apple is using their market position to take 30% of revenue.
The App Store is a product and it’s a bad product for developers and users when Apple is using their market position to take 30% of revenue.
Where can I purchase an App Store. Not sold separately.
Why would I want one, if I am not in control of it. I just want to run a program on a computer I bought.
Maybe one can argue a consumer will buy a computer in order to get the "App Store product", although it seems to me more like a product feature than a product itself. Personally, I would intentionally choose a computer without an App Store, where I can install whatever I want, and without reporting all the software I use to Apple.
After all, I know what software I want to install. As a NetBSD user I prefer to compile programs myself. The only "curation" I want is small source code size so I can read through the program before deciding whether to compile and test. Thus I have to do the "curation" myself. It cannot be delegated or outsourced. I do not need Apple to recommend software to me. Especially software they did not write. But who cares about me, if I am in a minority, because to the "tech" company proponents, only the majority matters. To the "tech" worker what is not popular is irrelevant. No surprise given the "tech" racket depends on selling adevertising services.
"Discovery" of unpopular software in an App Store is exceedingly difficult. The search capabilities are crude. The design appears to be display "Top 10" type lists and funnel computer owners toward popular programs, creating a lottery for whomever makes the "Top 10" and larger audiences for advertising.
Why would I want one, if I am not in control of it. I just want to run a program on a computer I bought.
Maybe one can argue a consumer will buy a computer in order to get the "App Store product", although it seems to me more like a product feature than a product itself. Personally, I would intentionally choose a computer without an App Store, where I can install whatever I want, and without reporting all the software I use to Apple.
After all, I know what software I want to install. As a NetBSD user I prefer to compile programs myself. The only "curation" I want is small source code size so I can read through the program before deciding whether to compile and test. Thus I have to do the "curation" myself. It cannot be delegated or outsourced. I do not need Apple to recommend software to me. Especially software they did not write. But who cares about me, if I am in a minority, because to the "tech" company proponents, only the majority matters. To the "tech" worker what is not popular is irrelevant. No surprise given the "tech" racket depends on selling adevertising services.
"Discovery" of unpopular software in an App Store is exceedingly difficult. The search capabilities are crude. The design appears to be display "Top 10" type lists and funnel computer owners toward popular programs, creating a lottery for whomever makes the "Top 10" and larger audiences for advertising.
So, you think you don't need curation but actually you do. There is some malware filtering that goes on, and some minimum (and I do mean minimum) quality control. There are content restrictions and such, that make the platform widely appealing. You might not want them, but the reason more and more and more apps are written for the platform is because of market power that comes from being content friendly. So the app you think doesn't need gatekeeping might not have ever even been written had it not been for this gatekeeping.
Kind of like saying, what has a cop ever done for me?
That said, yes, everything about it could be better. I very much detest app discovery in the app store, and it's almost as difficult via web or other means. At least in amazon you can filter out under 4-star products. And if you apply at least one category filter then you can also filter out marketplace sellers. The app store should have at a minimum some kind of stars filter.
Kind of like saying, what has a cop ever done for me?
That said, yes, everything about it could be better. I very much detest app discovery in the app store, and it's almost as difficult via web or other means. At least in amazon you can filter out under 4-star products. And if you apply at least one category filter then you can also filter out marketplace sellers. The app store should have at a minimum some kind of stars filter.
There's no transparency or real studies if there's some effective malware filtering by forcing the app store model so at this point it's difficult to take it seriously.
> You might not want them, but the reason more and more and more apps are written for the platform is because of market power that comes from being content friendly
[Citations needed] again basically, there's only two platforms on mobile, it's not like developers can get the luxury to chose a platform.
> You might not want them, but the reason more and more and more apps are written for the platform is because of market power that comes from being content friendly
[Citations needed] again basically, there's only two platforms on mobile, it's not like developers can get the luxury to chose a platform.
> There's no transparency or real studies if there's some effective malware filtering by forcing the app store model so at this point it's difficult to take it seriously.
Maybe look at the Android situation: Malware is at least two orders of magnitude more prevalent, and it's mostly because you can type "free fortnite vbucks android" into the search bar, get on a YT video that links to a shady site, that shady site tells the user how to enable sideloading and install spyware apps masquerading as coin generators.
Maybe look at the Android situation: Malware is at least two orders of magnitude more prevalent, and it's mostly because you can type "free fortnite vbucks android" into the search bar, get on a YT video that links to a shady site, that shady site tells the user how to enable sideloading and install spyware apps masquerading as coin generators.
You don't need to go that far to get spyware, they are already available on the play store if you look enough
At this point iPhone isn't a product. It's control, manipulation, and extortion of the free market well beyond any notion of fair competition.
Apple won 51+% of American consumers. Now it taxes all of the computing and commerce workloads they engage in.
Imagine if Tesla charged Starbucks money to drive you to coffee. Because that's exactly what Apple has been doing for the last decade. They've buttoned up every single industry and put them all under thumb.
Apple is taxing the internet, basically. (And Google's scary and hidden side loading isn't much better.)
Apple won 51+% of American consumers. Now it taxes all of the computing and commerce workloads they engage in.
Imagine if Tesla charged Starbucks money to drive you to coffee. Because that's exactly what Apple has been doing for the last decade. They've buttoned up every single industry and put them all under thumb.
Apple is taxing the internet, basically. (And Google's scary and hidden side loading isn't much better.)
The iPhone isn't a product. The Apple ecosystem is. I purchased it to ensure (A) nobody can take my phone, punch in my passcode and Apple ID and install malware that hides itself or otherwise flash the software to look like iOS but with malware on top, and (B) when I use native apps, the chance of having malware distributed to me there is almost 0.
Pegasus says hi.
Apple IS a product and the world isn't America. There is not a monopoly of Apple products all over the world. The people and specially in America can vote with their money and buy an Android if you disagree with Apple. Apple is not taxing the Internet when you have other options.
> At this point iPhone isn't a product.
What? This is a weird statement. iPhone is 100% a product. There are many alternatives.
> Imagine if Tesla charged Starbucks money to drive you to coffee. Because that's exactly what Apple has been doing for the last decade.
This is not the current scenario. Using your example, it would be like if Tesla owned a building, a coffee shipping company, and coffee making equipment and Starbucks sold coffee using Tesla resources. In this example, it would be expected for Tesla to charge Starbucks a premium for this full service coffee company being white labeled by Starbucks.
>Apple is taxing the internet, basically.
No. Apple is charging a fee to list products for sale on their store. Similar to every other store in existence.
What? This is a weird statement. iPhone is 100% a product. There are many alternatives.
> Imagine if Tesla charged Starbucks money to drive you to coffee. Because that's exactly what Apple has been doing for the last decade.
This is not the current scenario. Using your example, it would be like if Tesla owned a building, a coffee shipping company, and coffee making equipment and Starbucks sold coffee using Tesla resources. In this example, it would be expected for Tesla to charge Starbucks a premium for this full service coffee company being white labeled by Starbucks.
>Apple is taxing the internet, basically.
No. Apple is charging a fee to list products for sale on their store. Similar to every other store in existence.
> And in this case a 30% tax man.
Do you mean that in a good way or a bad way? Taxes pay for roads, bridges, military and so on. Healthcare, in most of the developed world.
Do you mean that in a good way or a bad way? Taxes pay for roads, bridges, military and so on. Healthcare, in most of the developed world.
Taxation without representation. Those paying the tax have generally no control over how Apple spends the corresponding revenue.
With respect to those in the US who pay the "30% tax", most of Apple's income is kept offshore so Apple pays minimal if any taxes on it. Compared this to the majority of people in the US who buy Apple computers who keep their income in the US and do pay significant US taxes on it.
With respect to those in the US who pay the "30% tax", most of Apple's income is kept offshore so Apple pays minimal if any taxes on it. Compared this to the majority of people in the US who buy Apple computers who keep their income in the US and do pay significant US taxes on it.
> Those paying the tax have generally no control over how Apple spends the corresponding revenue.
Sure you do. The consumer has a voice. If AirPods Pro 2 sucked, you vote by not purchasing them, and if enough other people do the same they'll can Airpods Pro 2 and create a third version in hopes it's good enough to "win back" your vote/money. This is the basis of free market capitalism and allows Apple to make a "product" (the Apple ecosystem) that people don't have to buy into, but they do because of the R&D Apple has invested into their product for over a decade.
Sure you do. The consumer has a voice. If AirPods Pro 2 sucked, you vote by not purchasing them, and if enough other people do the same they'll can Airpods Pro 2 and create a third version in hopes it's good enough to "win back" your vote/money. This is the basis of free market capitalism and allows Apple to make a "product" (the Apple ecosystem) that people don't have to buy into, but they do because of the R&D Apple has invested into their product for over a decade.
If Apple is collecting a "30% tax" and, without any input from the "taxpayer", they choose to spend the tax revenue on producing rechargeable Bluetooth earbuds, how was the taxpayer given a vote on the decision to spend the tax revenue on producing rechargeable Bluetooth earbuds (versus something else). By the time they go to market with the overpriced earbuds, the money has already been spent.
More "planned obsolescence" electronics waste in the landfills.
Going back to the original comment to which I responded, where the commenter compared Apple's "30% tax" to government-levied taxes for public services, this is like giving residents a vote on a new public services project after only it has been completed. At that point, the money has been spent. It's too late to for voters stop the government from spending their money on the project.
Going back to the original comment to which I responded, where the commenter compared Apple's "30% tax" to government-levied taxes for public services, this is like giving residents a vote on a new public services project after only it has been completed. At that point, the money has been spent. It's too late to for voters stop the government from spending their money on the project.
This is why there’s no longer a HomePod, but there are HomePod minis.
Apple has already gone through this of course, and I wonder if it’s going to happen again. And I wonder if a company can survive it. It certainly almost killed Apple the first time, and required Jobs’ return to steer it away from the cliff (I suspect that only someone charismatic like Jobs, in a strongly loyal-customer-base company like Apple could pull it off)
I think we’re probably still a good 5 years away from something like that.
I think we’re probably still a good 5 years away from something like that.
they've certainly become the very thing they've set out to disrupt
[deleted]
Apple doesn't have any monopolistic positions. None. At all. And they also manifestly have not "driven out" their product people. They're still making genius products.
Submitting this without comment is the smartest thing to do - because if one truly implies what I think parent intends, they’re about as bone headed as they come.
The product is making insanely powerful api’s so that you go from thought to code and from code to customer base at the speed of ideas while still maintaining amazing performance for the end user.
That is still happening - whether or not we agree on SwiftUI - it’s obvious they still care. These ideas BUNDLED with the AppStore is the product for developers and end users. Either enjoy it - or enjoy life on the web, the cross browser compatibilities, the crazy header vulnerabilities, the css not shaping right, the js everywhere… you name it. Just try other fields for a real commercial app - then you’ll see the iOS native app is valuable for a reason.
The product is making insanely powerful api’s so that you go from thought to code and from code to customer base at the speed of ideas while still maintaining amazing performance for the end user.
That is still happening - whether or not we agree on SwiftUI - it’s obvious they still care. These ideas BUNDLED with the AppStore is the product for developers and end users. Either enjoy it - or enjoy life on the web, the cross browser compatibilities, the crazy header vulnerabilities, the css not shaping right, the js everywhere… you name it. Just try other fields for a real commercial app - then you’ll see the iOS native app is valuable for a reason.
People can agree to disagree on the value of the walled garden. The problem is that "Just try other fields for a real commercial app" isn't really an option; not for a commercial app that wants to make money. Clearly this is not because the App Store offers a better developer ecosystem than other platforms. It just enjoys entrenched market share.
Why do you think Apple has so much market share? Because people hate their products?
Most users do not know they are facilitating Apple's extortion racket, nor have they thought about what that implies for them. They just see a shiny iphone and think "oooh I want that"
The real genius is in why these customers want it. And that is, to paraphrase John Mulaney, “the everything about it”.
It's because they have some great marketing. But people aren't choosing the app store. They choose a phone, and then they are forced to use the app store if they want to add any apps.
Good marketing. Sticky ecosystem. For a while, they were extremely innovative (facetime/ipod/itunes/iphone). Network effects (facetime/imessage).
I’ll take me a good Steve Jobs quote any day. Thank you
It is absolutely ridiculous that Apple and Google demand 30% cut of all transactions happening in the apps that run on their OS. Imagine if Windows had done that or if Netscape/Firefox/Opera had demanded 30% cut of transactions happening on their browsers.
Back in the days when App Stores hadn't launched Android and iOS did not exist, apps for platforms like Palm, Pocket PC, Symbian, Blackberry etc worked like how Windows software still works today - you bought them directly from the developer's website. Stores like Handdango and Pocketgear were multi platform app stores who were taking 30% cut. I remember even back then there were voices being raised against those fees. But back then, those were not the only ways one could distribute their apps. None of the smartphone platforms back then mandated developers to distribute their apps only through their store. Even when Android launched, it was open and these stores carried Android apps as well. Apple launched the app store and changed everything in the name of security and user experience. It was just a shameless money grab by a giant corporation.
Microsoft got all the flack just for bundling a browser for free with OS while Google and Apple have been arm twisting developers into paying 30% of their revenue for years.
Back in the days when App Stores hadn't launched Android and iOS did not exist, apps for platforms like Palm, Pocket PC, Symbian, Blackberry etc worked like how Windows software still works today - you bought them directly from the developer's website. Stores like Handdango and Pocketgear were multi platform app stores who were taking 30% cut. I remember even back then there were voices being raised against those fees. But back then, those were not the only ways one could distribute their apps. None of the smartphone platforms back then mandated developers to distribute their apps only through their store. Even when Android launched, it was open and these stores carried Android apps as well. Apple launched the app store and changed everything in the name of security and user experience. It was just a shameless money grab by a giant corporation.
Microsoft got all the flack just for bundling a browser for free with OS while Google and Apple have been arm twisting developers into paying 30% of their revenue for years.
It really boils my piss how Apple refuses to acknowledge that their relationship with developers is symbiotic.
Sure, Apple has built up a platform with tens of millions of paying customers, and invests in development of APIs (though they certainly aren’t investing in any fucking documentation or quality control). But anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see that without third party apps there would be nothing left to invest in.
Did Windows Phone fail because the devices and system software were inherently worse? Of course not, it failed because Microsoft couldn’t convince developers to support it.
I know it’s in company interests to act this way—to the tune of dozens of billions of dollars—but when you read some of the things Cook, Federighi, and Schiller said during the Epic trial, it gives an impression that they genuinely do believe that all economic activity on an iPhone or iPad is thanks solely to Apple. Absolute lunacy.
Sure, Apple has built up a platform with tens of millions of paying customers, and invests in development of APIs (though they certainly aren’t investing in any fucking documentation or quality control). But anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see that without third party apps there would be nothing left to invest in.
Did Windows Phone fail because the devices and system software were inherently worse? Of course not, it failed because Microsoft couldn’t convince developers to support it.
I know it’s in company interests to act this way—to the tune of dozens of billions of dollars—but when you read some of the things Cook, Federighi, and Schiller said during the Epic trial, it gives an impression that they genuinely do believe that all economic activity on an iPhone or iPad is thanks solely to Apple. Absolute lunacy.
Symbiotic? I think parasitic, or possibly predatory, night be a battery description :-/
It has prevented me from pursuing a couple of business ideas that would not be viable if we didn’t have iPhone coverage.
When I see that their own software quality is lagging years behind the hardware despite effectively unlimited funding; and the App Store is so chaotic that big-name apps can do Porn while startups have to fear the underpaid reviewer’s wrath on every random detail —
Well I don’t feel like that’s a very stable bet to place on your business. And it makes me sad because the devices, especially the MacBooks, are still the best on many measures.
When I see that their own software quality is lagging years behind the hardware despite effectively unlimited funding; and the App Store is so chaotic that big-name apps can do Porn while startups have to fear the underpaid reviewer’s wrath on every random detail —
Well I don’t feel like that’s a very stable bet to place on your business. And it makes me sad because the devices, especially the MacBooks, are still the best on many measures.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you are mistaken because pornographic content is forbidden on both major app stores so I find it unlikely Apple would allow even a big company to have such an app on their platform
There is a lot of porn on Twitter, and the app doesn’t do anything to block it.
> ...Apple and Google demand 30% cut of all transactions happening in the apps that run on their OS.
While I too think 30% is ridiculous, Google is the only one of the two here that allows for alternative app stores and side loading. Yes, the side loading process could be better, but Apple provides no such option.
While I too think 30% is ridiculous, Google is the only one of the two here that allows for alternative app stores and side loading. Yes, the side loading process could be better, but Apple provides no such option.
Microsoft got the flack for using their near total market dominance in PC operating systems to destroy Netscape. Short memories I guess...
Yes, by giving IE away for free while bundling it with Windows, at a time when Netscape was trying to sell their browser - basically the polar opposite of what Google and Apple are doing with their app stores.
Since then, it has become completely expected that any consumer OS includes a bundled web browser for free.
Not that MS is not doing many other shady things to try to control what you do and push their products in today's Windows, mind you. The only point is that, as bad as consumer computing was in the 90s, it's much much worse today in terms of user and developer freedom/choice.
Since then, it has become completely expected that any consumer OS includes a bundled web browser for free.
Not that MS is not doing many other shady things to try to control what you do and push their products in today's Windows, mind you. The only point is that, as bad as consumer computing was in the 90s, it's much much worse today in terms of user and developer freedom/choice.
No. By blackmailing hardware vendors. If they shipped their computers with Netscape installed, they wouldn't let them license Windows.
Microsoft never prevented you from installing anything you like on their OS.
This is true, but what Google do with the play store (install it by default, take 30% of everything, make it hard to install without it) is so much worse.
And Apple's app store where you can't even get around it if you want to is an order of magnitude worse again.
And Apple's app store where you can't even get around it if you want to is an order of magnitude worse again.
Google are currently having significant issues with antitrust about how they deal with the play store and their requirements on manufacturers.
> Even when Android launched, it was open and these stores carried Android apps as well.
Android is still open and you still absolutely can DIY your app distribution. You can completely ignore the existence of Google and their services if you so desire. As a user, you can set up your new phone completely offline, then disable all Google services, and only then give it an internet connection.
Android is still open and you still absolutely can DIY your app distribution. You can completely ignore the existence of Google and their services if you so desire. As a user, you can set up your new phone completely offline, then disable all Google services, and only then give it an internet connection.
You know what baffles me? That Apple doesn't have a separate, "VIP" review process for apps that are from established, known companies.
When I see a independent developer complaining about Apple (or Google) being arbitrary in their app review process, I can at least understand how it's some low-paid employee trying to fulfill a daily quota. It still sucks, but I see the economic rationale of low-paid, low-skilled app reviewers there.
But it really surprises me that when it comes to apps from well-known tech companies like Coinbase, that Apple isn't doing a higher-quality review by people who actually know what they're doing and understand the industry. That there isn't a knowledgeable team inside of Apple making sure that corporate partners are treated like partners rather than niche indie developers.
I'm not saying a two-tier system would be more fair, because obviously it wouldn't be. I'm just saying it surprises me that a company like Apple shoots itself in the foot like this with bad decisions that then lead to bad press. It's such an own-goal. (Because in this case, the 30% cut doesn't even make sense conceptually, it's like trying to tax Amazon 30% on physical goods sold through its app.)
When I see a independent developer complaining about Apple (or Google) being arbitrary in their app review process, I can at least understand how it's some low-paid employee trying to fulfill a daily quota. It still sucks, but I see the economic rationale of low-paid, low-skilled app reviewers there.
But it really surprises me that when it comes to apps from well-known tech companies like Coinbase, that Apple isn't doing a higher-quality review by people who actually know what they're doing and understand the industry. That there isn't a knowledgeable team inside of Apple making sure that corporate partners are treated like partners rather than niche indie developers.
I'm not saying a two-tier system would be more fair, because obviously it wouldn't be. I'm just saying it surprises me that a company like Apple shoots itself in the foot like this with bad decisions that then lead to bad press. It's such an own-goal. (Because in this case, the 30% cut doesn't even make sense conceptually, it's like trying to tax Amazon 30% on physical goods sold through its app.)
>> Apple doesn't have a separate, "VIP" review process for apps
It's shocking that this isn't part of the $99/year developer program. 15-minute quarterly check-ins with an Apple developer seem fully within their means.
It sort of is. You get 2 developer technical support tickets (DTS). These are essentially at the level of having an engineer look at your code and help you figure it out. With these they’ve done things like review my build settings when I was having difficulty with a complex build. I believe App Store consultation is one of the available topics, but if not it would be worth trying anyway. These tickets are clearly worth a lot more than $50 each if used well.
Interesting, I didn't now that. Still though, my recommendation is mostly tongue-in-cheek because even spending 5 hours with an Apple engineer won't fix OP's problem. Nevertheless though, thanks for sharing!
What's OP's problem? Everyone has told them that there are multiple tiers of attention in the review department. Plus you get the support credits for specific issues (i.e. ones that aren't a business problem like the 30% cut.)
I imagine OPs problem is that Apple wants 30% of all the Blockchain transactions. Which is insane.
If that's what he was referring to, then agreed. There is no red telephone access to appeal broadly strategic decision-making, no matter who is the developer, sadly.
A review of the above three exchanges:
"Apple doesn't have dedicated support for established devs"
"They do, I was in it"
"Why don't they support all devs this way? Apple sux."
Added:
"They do, you get 2 free support tickets"
"Oh they do? It still wouldn't fix every problem. Apple still sux."
In this lose-lose environment, I can only expect Apple will simply end up pissing people off no matter what it does.
I realize we all know this but I've never seen it expressed so succinctly in a thread.
"Apple doesn't have dedicated support for established devs"
"They do, I was in it"
"Why don't they support all devs this way? Apple sux."
Added:
"They do, you get 2 free support tickets"
"Oh they do? It still wouldn't fix every problem. Apple still sux."
In this lose-lose environment, I can only expect Apple will simply end up pissing people off no matter what it does.
I realize we all know this but I've never seen it expressed so succinctly in a thread.
The problem isn't Apple's lack of transparency (at least for me) but the fact that they charge $99/year for features that should be a God-given right. They will always piss people off as long as they charge them for a product that should be included with their computer by-default. Until then, I may as well demand Apple include a few rocks from Mars and astronaut ice-cream every year, at least then I'd be getting my $99's worth.
> features that should be a God-given right.
What features are you asking for that apply to this thread?
You do not have a god given right for them to follow your policies.
> They will always piss people off as long as they charge them for a product that should be included with their computer by-default.
The goalposts move with every comment. You don't have the right to determine what parts of their products are free vs. paid.
What features are you asking for that apply to this thread?
You do not have a god given right for them to follow your policies.
> They will always piss people off as long as they charge them for a product that should be included with their computer by-default.
The goalposts move with every comment. You don't have the right to determine what parts of their products are free vs. paid.
Being able to develop and build an application I’ll only ever side load for myself should be available on any platform, for free. All the App Store stuff can be a billion dollars for all I care, but it’s a travesty that you need a friggin’ Mac and a hundred bucks to make software for your own damn phone.
You can sideload your own apps through Xcode without a full developer account. They only last for 7 days however, so you'll have to keep sideloading them.
Have you submitted an app to the app store? Have you dealt with their reviewers? The stupidity of these reviewers is maddening. I'm certain I do not want a phone call with them, even though they are extorting $99/year from me.
Everyone has faced this to some degree. You want to get your work or message out there and it gets shut down by the powers that be. The question is how to encourage a level playing field. You could have the government step in, however, that comes with its own issues. I wouldn't want a larger entity who has guns being the decision maker.
Apple has been the vanguard of selling software for years. People don't buy desktop software anymore, and it wasn't all that successful to begin with. They do buy software on phones, though, and Apple enables an ecosystem that might not otherwise exist. It's not clear to me that Google needs paid apps. They were happy with ads before that.
Apple has been the vanguard of selling software for years. People don't buy desktop software anymore, and it wasn't all that successful to begin with. They do buy software on phones, though, and Apple enables an ecosystem that might not otherwise exist. It's not clear to me that Google needs paid apps. They were happy with ads before that.
Ask yourself this - if we didn't need to pay to publish apps to the Store (or even less, if we could just publish apps that could be side-loaded), how many of us would voluntarily pay $99 per year for Apple's developer support? You could probably count them on one hand.
If the $99 also gets you Apple's 'verified' stamp of approval that guarantees the app won't mess up your phone or drain your battery like crazy, the number might go up a bit. But I agree that it would be great if we could publish apps without the app review process, for users who don't care about verification.
But then it wouldn't be free money.
Even government with unlimited resources will do that
We aren't in the top 100, but I've had conversations with real people about app review issues...
> You know what baffles me? That Apple doesn't have a separate, "VIP" review process for apps that are from established, known companies.
What makes you confident that they don't?
What makes you confident that they don't?
My experience working with a very large app is that, yea, they basically do.
Or at the very least, you get yourself in a certain relationship with Apple that it sort of is like this.
When we had a version we needed to get through quickly due to a bad bug, we'd shoot our contact an email, a few leadership members had this contact's phone number if needed. We'd make a call, and within an hour we usually had the version approved. Sometimes it did come with a caveat of "you're going to need to fix this issue before the next update" or whatever if we hadn't quite followed the rules, but they gave us a bit of leeway in emergency situations.
This does not really mean all updates went through this super fast process. We had to wait weeks at times for app approvals. So it's not really VIP reviewing, it's more like VIP treatment if you're big enough and know the right people.
Edit: and yes, we often ran into the situation of the previous version did something that we figured was fine, and approved by one reviewer but then the next update was flagged as no good by the next reviewer despite the last one approving it.
Or at the very least, you get yourself in a certain relationship with Apple that it sort of is like this.
When we had a version we needed to get through quickly due to a bad bug, we'd shoot our contact an email, a few leadership members had this contact's phone number if needed. We'd make a call, and within an hour we usually had the version approved. Sometimes it did come with a caveat of "you're going to need to fix this issue before the next update" or whatever if we hadn't quite followed the rules, but they gave us a bit of leeway in emergency situations.
This does not really mean all updates went through this super fast process. We had to wait weeks at times for app approvals. So it's not really VIP reviewing, it's more like VIP treatment if you're big enough and know the right people.
Edit: and yes, we often ran into the situation of the previous version did something that we figured was fine, and approved by one reviewer but then the next update was flagged as no good by the next reviewer despite the last one approving it.
This process seems to be available to regular apps too now. When Apple rejects an update, they ask whether it's a bug fix update you need approved quickly. If yes, you can resolve the identified issues with the next update.
They started mentioning this in the past few weeks when I was updating clients' apps.
They started mentioning this in the past few weeks when I was updating clients' apps.
it's a little different. In our case we were circumventing requests to make changes to the app to get approval. We were effectively getting a free pass to ship the version with a possible App Store rule breakage, this one time, and getting it approved super fast.
They do. Small developers get apps rejected for now including detailed update notes whereas big companies like FB, Uber, Google routinely put out updated with generic update notes which is against Apple's developer guidelines.
Uber geofenced Apple’s Cupertino headquarters to hide that it was tracking iPhones and yet they weren't banned entirely from the App Store. They got a mere threat from Tim Cook.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/23/15399438/apple-uber-app-s...
Uber geofenced Apple’s Cupertino headquarters to hide that it was tracking iPhones and yet they weren't banned entirely from the App Store. They got a mere threat from Tim Cook.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/23/15399438/apple-uber-app-s...
> You know what baffles me? That Apple doesn't have a separate, "VIP" review process for apps that are from established, known companies.
I'm not sure this is true. I know years ago they had an expedited track you could get on. Once we got on it, we had very quick reviews, re-reviews, and releases. I would read about people waiting weeks while we almost always had 48h turn around. I don't think expedited exists anymore since turn around is always quick now, but I could easily see them routing big names towards a senior review team.
I'm not sure this is true. I know years ago they had an expedited track you could get on. Once we got on it, we had very quick reviews, re-reviews, and releases. I would read about people waiting weeks while we almost always had 48h turn around. I don't think expedited exists anymore since turn around is always quick now, but I could easily see them routing big names towards a senior review team.
Echoing the other comments here, why do you think they don't? I worked on <insert_very_large_game_here> and we had dedicated contacts at apple, special agreements for (some) rules and a different SLA to what I now know is standard.
> That Apple doesn't have a separate, "VIP" review process for apps that are from established, known companies.
Something tells me you've never worked on a top 20 app before then. These VIP review processes absolutely do exist, and any company with an app consistently in the top rankings usually has a contact at Apple on the review team.
Coinbase is a very, very small fry with an app which probably less than 0.1% of iPhone users have installed. I'm not at all surprised they wouldn't make the cutoff for special treatment from Apple. Why should they?
Something tells me you've never worked on a top 20 app before then. These VIP review processes absolutely do exist, and any company with an app consistently in the top rankings usually has a contact at Apple on the review team.
Coinbase is a very, very small fry with an app which probably less than 0.1% of iPhone users have installed. I'm not at all surprised they wouldn't make the cutoff for special treatment from Apple. Why should they?
They do. Source: I work for a major bank in Canada and I know people with direct lines to people at Apple who handle this kind of thing.
This is what doomed Twitter early on. Not respecting the devs, Apple has its day of reckoning approaching as well.
[deleted]
I suspect they very much do have those two separate tracks, but make it look as though it's a single track. When Coinbase get their rejection, I very much doubt that it's due to lack of consideration within Apple.
As others have said, they do. Apple also has dedicated representatives to handle communications with the top apps and partners in various App Store categories, like Games, Travel, etc.
> ... Apple doesn't have a separate, "VIP" review process for apps that are from established, known companies.
Why do you say that they don't?
Why do you say that they don't?
The problem is being an established, known company doesn't mean you can be trusted to not behave badly on the platform with regard to security vulnerabilities or user privacy. See Facebook as a prime example.
The bad press doesn't really matter as long as they have such a dominant profit share on all mobile software sales.
The bad press doesn't really matter as long as they have such a dominant profit share on all mobile software sales.
An old example of well known companies behaving badly...
https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/23/15399438/apple-uber-app-s...
> The practice, called fingerprinting, is prohibited by Apple. To prevent the company from discovering the practice, Uber geofenced Apple headquarters in Cupertino, changing its code so that it would be hidden from Apple Employees. Despite their efforts, Apple discovered the activity, which led to the meeting between the two CEOs, in which Cook told Kalanick to end the practice. If Uber didn’t comply, Cook told him, Uber’s app would be removed from the App Store, a move that would be a huge blow to the ride-sharing company. According to the article, “Mr. Kalanick was shaken by Mr. Cook’s scolding, according to a person who saw him after the meeting,” and ended the practice.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/23/15399438/apple-uber-app-s...
> The practice, called fingerprinting, is prohibited by Apple. To prevent the company from discovering the practice, Uber geofenced Apple headquarters in Cupertino, changing its code so that it would be hidden from Apple Employees. Despite their efforts, Apple discovered the activity, which led to the meeting between the two CEOs, in which Cook told Kalanick to end the practice. If Uber didn’t comply, Cook told him, Uber’s app would be removed from the App Store, a move that would be a huge blow to the ride-sharing company. According to the article, “Mr. Kalanick was shaken by Mr. Cook’s scolding, according to a person who saw him after the meeting,” and ended the practice.
Well, this is why we can't have nice things.
I get so ticked off with these other tech companies that on the one hand want me to support them in their fight to get more laisez faire access to Apple devices, and on the other actively engage in what are undoubtedly some of the most consumer hostile privacy invading practices on the planet. They actively compromise security, and then lobby and payoff senators to get better access because they are unable to compromise consumer security enough to make the profits they need.
The entire industry from Apple on down to startups needs to be nuked with a "no use of user information for any commercial purposes at all" law. Coupled with draconian fines that pierce the corporate veil and are assessed per user violation. We need something like GDPR in the US, but more strict. Apple isn't the problem. I'm starting to see that this entire industry is problematic.
Apologies for the rant.
I get so ticked off with these other tech companies that on the one hand want me to support them in their fight to get more laisez faire access to Apple devices, and on the other actively engage in what are undoubtedly some of the most consumer hostile privacy invading practices on the planet. They actively compromise security, and then lobby and payoff senators to get better access because they are unable to compromise consumer security enough to make the profits they need.
The entire industry from Apple on down to startups needs to be nuked with a "no use of user information for any commercial purposes at all" law. Coupled with draconian fines that pierce the corporate veil and are assessed per user violation. We need something like GDPR in the US, but more strict. Apple isn't the problem. I'm starting to see that this entire industry is problematic.
Apologies for the rant.
Cook love money.
Meanwhile he is cracking down on Chinese protestors and doesn’t bat an eye.
Meanwhile he is cracking down on Chinese protestors and doesn’t bat an eye.
You read that story and Cook is the villain? Uber deserved to get slapped down for that behavior. Should have knocked them off the store for a week just to punish them for the attempt.
It just shows he has principles when he gets paid more.
Uber doesn't pay any cut to apple. The money collected by Uber is for services and clearly falls under:
> 3.1.3(e) Goods and Services Outside of the App: If your app enables people to purchase physical goods or services that will be consumed outside of the app, you must use purchase methods other than in-app purchase to collect those payments, such as Apple Pay or traditional credit card entry.
> 3.1.3(e) Goods and Services Outside of the App: If your app enables people to purchase physical goods or services that will be consumed outside of the app, you must use purchase methods other than in-app purchase to collect those payments, such as Apple Pay or traditional credit card entry.
> The bad press doesn't really matter as long as they have such a dominant profit share on all mobile software sales.
It also doesn’t matter because there’s no alternative.
“Side-loading” can’t come quick enough. I have no issue with the App Store vetting apps arbitrarily, but there needs to be an alternative where developers can provide their apps direct to consumers without this BS.
It also doesn’t matter because there’s no alternative.
“Side-loading” can’t come quick enough. I have no issue with the App Store vetting apps arbitrarily, but there needs to be an alternative where developers can provide their apps direct to consumers without this BS.
> “Side-loading” can’t come quick enough. I have no issue with the App Store vetting apps arbitrarily, but there needs to be an alternative where developers can provide their apps direct to consumers without this BS.
I'd have agreed with you up until I heard about that Facebook Onavo thing and now I don't trust even that. Turns out companies whose whole business is emotional manipulation are really good at dark patterning users into doing unwise and unsafe things with their machines.
I'd have agreed with you up until I heard about that Facebook Onavo thing and now I don't trust even that. Turns out companies whose whole business is emotional manipulation are really good at dark patterning users into doing unwise and unsafe things with their machines.
Curious what would the criteria for VIP status be if there was such system?
They could charge a few tens of thousands a year for the status, and most non-small companies would pay for it easily.
Most non-small tech companies. I work for a medium-sized non-tech company where the total resource spend on the apps for our customers doesn’t amount to tens of thousands a year.
You're right, obviously as a medium-size company can have a very little digital activity.
Such companies probably don't fit in a “VIP category” for an app store though.
Such companies probably don't fit in a “VIP category” for an app store though.
> You know what baffles me? That Apple doesn't have a separate, "VIP" review process for apps that are from established, known companies.
That sounds elitists and what is wrong with capitalism. It gets distorted by big corporations having their way with their big elbows inhibiting growth and competition. Then you have people supporting the VIP lane are part of the problem.
Corporations should get equal treatment regardless of their size or in fact small business should get _more_ help than big corporations.
That sounds elitists and what is wrong with capitalism. It gets distorted by big corporations having their way with their big elbows inhibiting growth and competition. Then you have people supporting the VIP lane are part of the problem.
Corporations should get equal treatment regardless of their size or in fact small business should get _more_ help than big corporations.
Why?
If a company is giving me millions of dollars a year which is going to my employee salaries I am answering their call first. The guy paying me $10k a year will have to wait.
If a company is giving me millions of dollars a year which is going to my employee salaries I am answering their call first. The guy paying me $10k a year will have to wait.
What difference do you think a "higher quality review" would make? Apple is enforcing their strict policy that all purchases from within apps (with some documented exceptions) must use Apple's IAP and cough up the 30%.
This has nothing to do with Apple's kafkaesque review process and everything to do with their policies, which have been increasingly strictly enforced for the last couple of years.
This has nothing to do with Apple's kafkaesque review process and everything to do with their policies, which have been increasingly strictly enforced for the last couple of years.
I think he means the "people who actually know what they're doing and understand the industry" part. Someone who understands how crypto works would understand that the user is not making a payment to the app developer and therefore Apple has no claim to a cut of the transaction. If this is the way that Apple wants to enforce their policy, they'll have to take a cut of the transaction when I open my banking app and use that app to pay a bill.
Isn't it obvious that making crypto payments easier allows devs to circumvent Apple's cut?
I don't think people would accept any percentage taken of crypto exchanges.
Let's not beat around the bush. This is Apple protecting the way it earns money, not trying to levy fines on crypto to make more money. I'm pretty sure they understand that this decision makes them unpopular with some people. Their bet is that it preserves the model where there is still a functional review system for code that runs on your phone.
I don't think people would accept any percentage taken of crypto exchanges.
Let's not beat around the bush. This is Apple protecting the way it earns money, not trying to levy fines on crypto to make more money. I'm pretty sure they understand that this decision makes them unpopular with some people. Their bet is that it preserves the model where there is still a functional review system for code that runs on your phone.
Apple doesn’t ask for or take a mandatory cut of in-app money transfer services. They also don’t take a cut of any physical goods sales (e.g. grocery shopping) or physical services (e.g. Uber car rides).
They take a 15% or 30% cut of all in-app experiences (e.g. entertainment, productivity software, content subscriptions). This is levied through the App Store and IAP.
(They take 0.15% of card payments if they are routed through Apple Pay, levied from the regular merchant fee associated with all card payments. However this is not forced on anyone and bank pays anyway, willingly, as the lower rate of fraud means the fee represents good value.)
They take a 15% or 30% cut of all in-app experiences (e.g. entertainment, productivity software, content subscriptions). This is levied through the App Store and IAP.
(They take 0.15% of card payments if they are routed through Apple Pay, levied from the regular merchant fee associated with all card payments. However this is not forced on anyone and bank pays anyway, willingly, as the lower rate of fraud means the fee represents good value.)
> Apple doesn’t ask for or take a mandatory cut of in-app money transfer services.
I suppose you mean like when I use Venmo or my bank. Okay, but I can't readily use those to buy other in-app things like subscriptions, right? So it's consistent.
I suppose you mean like when I use Venmo or my bank. Okay, but I can't readily use those to buy other in-app things like subscriptions, right? So it's consistent.
I’m not sure what the point you’re trying to make is.
If you want to try to use Venmo to pay for in-app content, nobody is stopping you. But if the developer accepts the payment and provides the in-app content to you, they have breached their contract with Apple.
If you want to try to use Venmo to pay for in-app content, nobody is stopping you. But if the developer accepts the payment and provides the in-app content to you, they have breached their contract with Apple.
> Isn't it obvious that making crypto payments easier allows devs to circumvent Apple's cut?
No, it isn't. Please enlighten us.
No, it isn't. Please enlighten us.
It is another form of payment. What's to get?
How exactly would you accept crypto payments in your app in a way that avoids the 30% fee?
That feature wouldn't make it through the review process, just like any other form of payment that skips the fee.
That feature wouldn't make it through the review process, just like any other form of payment that skips the fee.
Points/karma acquired in-game that can be exchanged off-app for crypto. Since crypto is so easy to exchange with no verification of buyer/seller needed, you can keep moving around how that works to make Apple's task of reviewing your apps more and more complex until you find a way to do it that they overlooked.
Apple’s 30% tax on IAPs is ultimately a convenience fee on impulse buys. Whereas inherent in the process of sneaking Apple-taxable-purchasable under their nose necessarily requires a very inconvenient process: buying crypto from a retail exchange, then moving it off-exchange to a tumbler, then back again to to buy something from the same (or another) retail exchange is far from convenient - and definitely not instant - so it is not in any appreciable way to circumvent Apple’s IAP tax, because it simply comes down to the fact you can’t make impulse-buys through that system - never mind the txn/gas fees in cryptocurrencies make it very wasteful for microtransactions, or really any transaction below tens-of-dollars.
I’d agree with you provided Bitcoin’s Lightning network worked the way we hoped it would back in the early-2010s, but it doesn’t. Otherwise, your argument reads like is saying Apple should tax every PayPal transaction made through PayPal’s iOS app.
I’d agree with you provided Bitcoin’s Lightning network worked the way we hoped it would back in the early-2010s, but it doesn’t. Otherwise, your argument reads like is saying Apple should tax every PayPal transaction made through PayPal’s iOS app.
[deleted]
This reminds me of the last time Coinbase had its app removed from the app store in 2013. Our secure messaging app, Gliph, had the ability to send bitcoin and was still live in the App Store.
Our companies shared an investor, and our app was the first to implement Coinbase's API. Between that and SF Bitcoin meetups, I interacted with Brian regularly enough and the App Store was a common topic because in that first year of funding for crypto, the goal was generally find a way to breaking Bitcoin mainstream. (It seemed like it might happen soon, but was in fact still quite early.)
After some press, Apple took our app down. I blogged about it [0], (I believe the first survey of App Store policy toward bitcoin) and that got picked up by Tech Crunch. [1]
I remember speaking with Brian about it on the phone. Apple's objection was on legality of sending Bitcoin in the regions our app was available, so I suggested we could file a legal brief as part of our appeal.
Brian's response was they had already tried that and that Apple was unswayed by their brief. There wasn't much we could really do other than commiserate on being under the thumb of the App Store.
Those were some heady, yet comparatively innocent days in crypto compared to now.
[0] https://blog.gli.ph/2013/12/09/the-state-of-bitcoin-mobile-a...
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2013/12/09/how-does-apple-really-feel...
Our companies shared an investor, and our app was the first to implement Coinbase's API. Between that and SF Bitcoin meetups, I interacted with Brian regularly enough and the App Store was a common topic because in that first year of funding for crypto, the goal was generally find a way to breaking Bitcoin mainstream. (It seemed like it might happen soon, but was in fact still quite early.)
After some press, Apple took our app down. I blogged about it [0], (I believe the first survey of App Store policy toward bitcoin) and that got picked up by Tech Crunch. [1]
I remember speaking with Brian about it on the phone. Apple's objection was on legality of sending Bitcoin in the regions our app was available, so I suggested we could file a legal brief as part of our appeal.
Brian's response was they had already tried that and that Apple was unswayed by their brief. There wasn't much we could really do other than commiserate on being under the thumb of the App Store.
Those were some heady, yet comparatively innocent days in crypto compared to now.
[0] https://blog.gli.ph/2013/12/09/the-state-of-bitcoin-mobile-a...
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2013/12/09/how-does-apple-really-feel...
> Apple's objection was on legality of sending Bitcoin in the regions our app was available, so I suggested we could file a legal brief as part of our appeal.
> Brian's response was they had already tried that and that Apple was unswayed by their brief.
A legal brief would go to a judge. This sounds like an appeal written by a lawyer, submitted on behalf of one company to another. Not the same thing.
Or maybe there was a legal case and they filed a brief. Then it would be a judge who decides whether the brief is convincing, not Apple.
> Brian's response was they had already tried that and that Apple was unswayed by their brief.
A legal brief would go to a judge. This sounds like an appeal written by a lawyer, submitted on behalf of one company to another. Not the same thing.
Or maybe there was a legal case and they filed a brief. Then it would be a judge who decides whether the brief is convincing, not Apple.
Thanks for clarifying this. It has been a long time since this happened.
You might not have seen it, but Phillip Shoemaker seems to talk specifically about your case: https://youtu.be/tJeEuxn9mug?t=1708
(I recommend watching the entire talk)
(I recommend watching the entire talk)
It sounds like he might be talking about this time period. If so, he may be mixing up or mixing together multiple events in retelling what happened. The description of the blog post sounds right, the post went bananas. But I don't remember this rifle video thing, a fast walk back (it took months) though, and we definitely were not the biggest wallet provider.
I'd be curious to talk with him about it, though.
I'd be curious to talk with him about it, though.
Imagine a bunch of game developers join forces to create something called the Game Asset Service. When you unlock a feature in a game by one of these developers, it gets delivered through the GAS.
The GAS is legally a separate entity from the game companies (although controlled by them), and it sets a varying fee for its delivery network. Maybe the fee is quite high, and unlocking a $6 game feature actually consists of $5.50 fees paid to the GAS and $0.50 paid to the game developer.
Would Apple say: “Sure, this delivery fee you’re paying to GAS is something completely separate from the in-app purchase. We’ll just take our cut only from the $0.50 and let you pass all of the $5.50 through to this GAS corporation that you partially own.”
Of course not, because that structure would be such a transparent attempt by the game developers to evade Apple’s fee.
The situation in crypto isn’t all that different. These gas fees are ultimately paid to Ethereum stakeholders, and Coinbase happens to be a big one.
The GAS is legally a separate entity from the game companies (although controlled by them), and it sets a varying fee for its delivery network. Maybe the fee is quite high, and unlocking a $6 game feature actually consists of $5.50 fees paid to the GAS and $0.50 paid to the game developer.
Would Apple say: “Sure, this delivery fee you’re paying to GAS is something completely separate from the in-app purchase. We’ll just take our cut only from the $0.50 and let you pass all of the $5.50 through to this GAS corporation that you partially own.”
Of course not, because that structure would be such a transparent attempt by the game developers to evade Apple’s fee.
The situation in crypto isn’t all that different. These gas fees are ultimately paid to Ethereum stakeholders, and Coinbase happens to be a big one.
This is true and matters, but there is a key difference that affects our sense of justice and morality.
Coinbase didn't create Ethereum, and the vast majority of Ethereum stakeholders are not apps on the app store. The fact that ETH gas is mostly unrelated to Coinbase and the app store should also matter in determining how we feel about this.
Coinbase didn't create Ethereum, and the vast majority of Ethereum stakeholders are not apps on the app store. The fact that ETH gas is mostly unrelated to Coinbase and the app store should also matter in determining how we feel about this.
Even if Coinbase created ethereum and gas went directly to their wallet, would that be any different than Chase collecting a fee when I send a wire using their mobile app? Does Apple collect 30% of bank fees that are the results of actions taken within the various bank's apps? Does Apple charge Venmo a portion of the bank fees that are a part of the stransaction when users transmit money between each other?
Sending dollars is not the same thing as trading NFTs.
The latter is essentially similar to pseudo-gambling in-app purchases like loot boxes, of which Apple certainly takes their cut.
The latter is essentially similar to pseudo-gambling in-app purchases like loot boxes, of which Apple certainly takes their cut.
Strawman.
Besides, I can go gamble my money on stock options via Robinhood, but Apple doesn’t take a cut of that.
Besides, I can go gamble my money on stock options via Robinhood, but Apple doesn’t take a cut of that.
You start off saying "this is true and matters", but then describe a bunch of reasons it's not true. What are you saying?
No, reread. Both are true, both matter. It's true that apple would not allow the scheme described. It's true that it's similar to gas on Ethereum. But there are also differences that are important.
I read you. Their analogy only "matters" if it closely aligns with the Coinbase situation. It makes no sense to say the comment "is true and matters" if it doesn't work by the same logic ("important differences"). You could say it's "true" that Apple wouldn't tolerate the proposed scheme, but it doesn't matter if no one actually does that. With the failure of the analogy one of "true" and "matters" will be wrong.
I guess I'm using the word "matters" differently. I'm using "matters" to mean, "we ought to consider this when we think about the justice or morality of the situation". Similar to "relevant" or "useful".
I guess we agree on substance, then, and I just think you used a confusingly mild and conciliatory phrasing for criticizing an obviously, shall we say, silly analogy.
> that structure would be such a transparent attempt by the game developers to evade Apple’s fee.
That’s the core of this of course. It’s not the scheme, or how many intermediary there is, or wether entities are separate or not.
It’s about money flowing on the platform that Apple doesn’t get a cut of. Some cases have been grandfathered in at the start of the App Store (mainly physical goods and traditional banking) because there was no way for them to tax that at that time.
I trust Apple to fight tooth and nails to not let any additional money flow escape their tax, whatever it is.
That’s the core of this of course. It’s not the scheme, or how many intermediary there is, or wether entities are separate or not.
It’s about money flowing on the platform that Apple doesn’t get a cut of. Some cases have been grandfathered in at the start of the App Store (mainly physical goods and traditional banking) because there was no way for them to tax that at that time.
I trust Apple to fight tooth and nails to not let any additional money flow escape their tax, whatever it is.
You’re suggesting that coinbase launched NFT support on its app so it could make a pittance in gas fees?
An even easier analogy as to what Apple is probably trying to prevent is a "wallet" app which allows purchasing NFTs for the immediate and continued use and consumption of digital content such as music and music videos which would creating an alternate content store for distribution.
The purchase page for the content would show the purchase price in crypto coins but list the USD equivalent price just below.
The purchase page for the content would show the purchase price in crypto coins but list the USD equivalent price just below.
To go even further, because of volatility, it would probably be a fixed USD price driving the crypto coin price displayed.
Yeah but the GAS is run by artists and they transact in Tater Tots (TOT). When users unlock the feature in the game the developer charges $2 which covers the cost of the content ($0.50) which is delivered outside of the app to their Windows PC at home running the game and so is not subject to the in app purchase restrictions in the first place, and actually is a TOT anyway, plus overhead in case the developer needs to buy more TOTs (which they already have on hand) and then, because they employ a small army of artists who contribute assets to the GAS, have structured their own product such that many of the Tots that the GAS is expecting for the transaction would be paid right back out to their own artists. Never mind that TOTs are worthless because everyone else eats french fries (FFX). But the artists aren't picky and have to eat so they don't complain. Apple is getting hungry for TOTs but realize they have no artists to eat them because they don't participate in the GAS and their designers eat FFX just like everyone else. So instead Apple seems to want to demand 30% of the fair market value of however many TOTs change hands every time the GAS distributes assets to a user who initiated the request from their phone. How does any of this make sense?
At this point in the "30% is unfair" game, I'm fascinated by the general reaction by the crowd. In every high profile case, it comes down to which company you have more affinity for. I watched a lot of the gaming community side with Apple against Epic, because from their perspective it was Epic being greedy and not the other way around.
This time, I'm sure anyone still excited about web3 will side against Apple. It's going to take a coalition of companies with enough goodwill amongst enough people to break the general conception that Apple is, overall, working more in the interests of the consumer than other businesses.
This time, I'm sure anyone still excited about web3 will side against Apple. It's going to take a coalition of companies with enough goodwill amongst enough people to break the general conception that Apple is, overall, working more in the interests of the consumer than other businesses.
Honestly, I hate web3 but this move is absolutely bullshit on Apple's part. I think it goes a step further than just "30% of IAP money" since there's no download or product that the user is really buying. It would be like Apple demanding fees for Cash App or some other related service.
Exactly. This seems analogous to Apple demanding 30% of the bank fees I pay because I use my bank's app.
Yeah.....I use Schwab as bank/brokerage and pay fees for trading. Should apple get a 30% cut......
[deleted]
I placed a stock trade that carried a 50 cent commission from my iPhone this morning.
I sincerely can't tell if this is real or parody. Which is it?
Neither, I just suck at English. I did place a stock trade this morning, using my brokerage’s iPhone app. It had a commission.
Should Apple get 30%?
Should Apple get 30%?
If it is, it may not be soon. I have never been a fan of these app stores. I like a gatekeeper making sure malicious content doesn't get on our devices, but there should be the option to easily use other stores without jailbreaking the device.
Ironically, this wouldn't be an issue if your hated web3 was the defacto app store. Maybe Apple sees crypto as a game, and buying/selling/trading crypto on the Coinbase app is in-game purchases to Apple.
I mean, decentralized app stores have existed for decades without blockchain. I don't see how its introduction helps anything.
Except that NFTs are supposed to be a good and not a currency.
I'm convinced at this point that Coinbase intended for people to be confused about this: Apple is claiming a 30% cut of the transaction fees that Coinbase charges their customers. If Cash App charged a fee to transfer money, Apple would claim their cut of that fee.
The reason this is different is because the fee does not go to Coinbase at all. It goes to the Ethereum network. If cash app could prove they got zero profit from a service fee that could be one thing. In this case, Coinbase can prove exactly how much the gas fee was and that they do not take a cut of this "fee"
Yes, I think I was mistaken. My thinking was based on a previous title, which didn't specify Coinbase "Wallet" and included the phrase "exchange fees". If they were the fees from Coinbase's trading application, they wouldn't be strictly the gas fees as charged by the Ethereum network. Tweets in the thread also specify gas fees and this is exclusive to NFTs, so I suspect the fees in question are indeed the network gas fees.
Sorry for the confusion.
Sorry for the confusion.
Totally understandable :)
> If Cash App charged a fee to transfer money, Apple would claim their cut of that fee.
They do, at least for rapid transfers to banks. It was perhaps not the greatest analogy on my part since transfers within the app are free, but I fully understand what Apple is claiming here. You don't see them claiming Cash App's transfer fees, or bank fees, or other similar charges.
They do, at least for rapid transfers to banks. It was perhaps not the greatest analogy on my part since transfers within the app are free, but I fully understand what Apple is claiming here. You don't see them claiming Cash App's transfer fees, or bank fees, or other similar charges.
I should apologize since I misunderstood the fees being collected; they are the gas fees as presented in the Wallet app (I'd been thinking the separate app they release that includes the exchange trading, which has transaction fees). It's likely that the gas fees as presented by the Ethereum network are simply being passed along to the app user, which is definitely not the same as I'm suggesting.
If Cash App charges their own fee (ie, it's not a bank fee that Cash App is passing along to the consumer) then I would actually expect Apple to want to claim their cut of that fee. At least, that would be consistent with how they've gone after this in, e.g., the Epic case. (Different type of in-app "purchase", but consistent considering who would be receiving the profit of the fee is the app developer.)
If Cash App charges their own fee (ie, it's not a bank fee that Cash App is passing along to the consumer) then I would actually expect Apple to want to claim their cut of that fee. At least, that would be consistent with how they've gone after this in, e.g., the Epic case. (Different type of in-app "purchase", but consistent considering who would be receiving the profit of the fee is the app developer.)
Do you have a source for this? If this is true, then this tweetstorm seems completely out of line.
I believe in the title I originally saw, it specified "exchange fees".
But also from the tweet thread (second tweet):
> Apple’s claim is that the gas fees required to send NFTs need to be paid through their In-App Purchase system, so that they can collect 30% of the gas fee.
But also from the tweet thread (second tweet):
> Apple’s claim is that the gas fees required to send NFTs need to be paid through their In-App Purchase system, so that they can collect 30% of the gas fee.
That's a fee paid to the Ethereum network, not to Coinbase itself, isn't it?
I'm not actually sure about this because it's their Wallet app rather than the trading app. If they obfuscate the gas fee behind their own transaction fee the way they do with their trading app, I believe my take is correct.
Otherwise, it actually seems way more open for debate. It's possible I am mistaken and this is a reach from Apple. It might also be that Apple is claiming that Coinbase needs to obfuscate the fee in such a manner, which sounds kinda crazy to me.
At any rate, this confusion about it being the assets themselves being cut is what I intended to be speaking about, so apologies if this response is not helpful.
Otherwise, it actually seems way more open for debate. It's possible I am mistaken and this is a reach from Apple. It might also be that Apple is claiming that Coinbase needs to obfuscate the fee in such a manner, which sounds kinda crazy to me.
At any rate, this confusion about it being the assets themselves being cut is what I intended to be speaking about, so apologies if this response is not helpful.
Agreed, but I'm not sure we're anywhere near the tipping point. Apple users really love Apple and will (nearly) always interpret Apple's actions with the absolute best of intentions/benefit of the doubt. The company is not stupid. Like most of silicon valley they will always come up with some justification for doing what they want to do, and odds are good that they'll actually convince themselves that those are the real reasons.
Having been someone who also sided with Apple against Epic but has changed his tune, I think a big point there was that it was the first notable company that spoke up about Apple's practices.
While I tend to think most of this web3 stuff is trash (especially the centralized stuff), I think by now so many cases of Apple's excessive control have piled up that changing opinions is understandable. Especially as someone who hasn't had to deal directly with Apple's restrictive ecosystem before.
While I tend to think most of this web3 stuff is trash (especially the centralized stuff), I think by now so many cases of Apple's excessive control have piled up that changing opinions is understandable. Especially as someone who hasn't had to deal directly with Apple's restrictive ecosystem before.
People are against Epic because the CEO is obviously acting in bad faith and so shameless about it. He claims to be in favor of open platforms when it is beneficial to his bottom line, but refuses to do the bare minimum to support Linux. Obviously tech nerds aren't going to like that.
I’m not sure it’s worse than what every CEO of dominant international companies say and do (Tim Cook included…he had to do a lot of declarations for the Epic trial, and boy were they bullshit).
I suppose it’s the sheer lack of linux support that pisses them, which is an impacting situation that goes beyond how they feel about the CEO ?
I suppose it’s the sheer lack of linux support that pisses them, which is an impacting situation that goes beyond how they feel about the CEO ?
While Epic is definitely a shady company, an open platform is still free to choose what operating systems it supports. Epic doesn't support Linux, Flatpak doesn't support Windows, and neither are technical problems that can't be fixed.
Obviously Epic will never be as open as Flatpak, but just because they don't want to deal with Linux doesn't mean they should be barred from any other platform they do want to support.
The Android situation is a bit different they can absolutely support that. They choose not to and went after Google's fees instead, which is a bit harder to defend (but still shouldn't need to be defended, Google should still allow app developers to opt out of their payment processing, perhaps in exchange for footing the bill for storage and network traffic).
With EU regulations coming into effect next year, I think we're going to see big tech companies squirm even more, right up to the point where they'll lose a huge lawsuit. After that we'll either see Apple leave the EU out of spite or concessions will be made, paving the way for installing iPhone applications of your choice.
Obviously Epic will never be as open as Flatpak, but just because they don't want to deal with Linux doesn't mean they should be barred from any other platform they do want to support.
The Android situation is a bit different they can absolutely support that. They choose not to and went after Google's fees instead, which is a bit harder to defend (but still shouldn't need to be defended, Google should still allow app developers to opt out of their payment processing, perhaps in exchange for footing the bill for storage and network traffic).
With EU regulations coming into effect next year, I think we're going to see big tech companies squirm even more, right up to the point where they'll lose a huge lawsuit. After that we'll either see Apple leave the EU out of spite or concessions will be made, paving the way for installing iPhone applications of your choice.
If anything this makes me sympathize with consumer rights professionals. How could you work full time to protect and empower people who actively work against themselves and your work and not be severely depressed? No wonder so many end up switching sides.
care to mention some of these companies that have enough goodwill?. Hopefully it is not Twitter and facebook because they lead the attack on app store policy ( beside epic of course)
Apple's evil AppStore monopoly should be dismantled by the lawmakers. Users should own the device, not rent it from Apple. Until the users are in complete control which apps they can run, it is rent, not ownership.
For people happy with the current state of affairs: nobody will be forcing you to install third party stores or sideload apps.
For people happy with the current state of affairs: nobody will be forcing you to install third party stores or sideload apps.
I think its days are numbered and Apple will be forced to open their product to other app stores.
Only a few more trillion dollars and its days are numbers.
Maybe, just maybe, Apple has so much money nobody can stop it.
Maybe, just maybe, Apple has so much money nobody can stop it.
It literally takes commenting out a single if statement to end this. The one that checks whether the certificate the app is signed with was issued by Apple. Imagine this many suffering caused by a single conditional branch instruction!
The problem is that the lawmakers all have iPhones.
That should give them more incentive.
And apple has their search histories...
Your ISP does, Google does, but I don’t think Apple has them in an identifiable way
these days ISPs only have the list of the IPs you have visited. With many things hosted on AWS and hidden behind Cloudflare, this list is almost useless.
CloudFlare probably has a list of most websites you have visited, though. And the contents of all CloudFlare-"protected" pages get proxied through their edge. They are effectively a Global Active Adversary.
I haven't seen them abusing this power except for some incompetence (i.e. injecting JS into pages that customers didn't sign up for) but maybe they're just really good at hiding it.
I haven't seen them abusing this power except for some incompetence (i.e. injecting JS into pages that customers didn't sign up for) but maybe they're just really good at hiding it.
The problem is republican lawmakers don't like writing laws interfering with businesses + democrat lawmakers benefit from Apple's politics.
If I were a Coinbase and iphone user, I would be irate. I'm neither but that's besides the point.
Will Apple demand 30% of bank transfers made with a bank app? 30% of a firstborn if the hookup happened on Tinder?
Will Apple demand 30% of bank transfers made with a bank app? 30% of a firstborn if the hookup happened on Tinder?
Wouldn't a better comparison be 30% of the add-on fees that a bank charged you for a bank transfer? And that does seem like something they would expect if it were paid via the app.
Or possibly any extra fees eBay charges on a purchase.
FWIW, I am both and I am not irate.
Mostly because I think it’s reasonable to give Apple some time to respond here.
It's hard not to see that Apple is playing with fire here, but they've gotten away with so much and they have so much to lose.
The "right" way to fix this is:
1. Apple allows users to download/install software that is not on the app store. If a user owns the device they should be able to do what they want with it, even if it's "risky" or whatever. But this means those users that feel the most comfortable continuing to only use apple-approved apps in the app store can continue to do so.
2. Software downloaded from the app store, using apple servers and services, must give Apple the cut (30%) they ask for. If the app doesn't use apple's infrastructure or payment system, apple shouldn't have any right to a cut of the payment.
Apple has billions of dollars of revenue at stake here, so of course they're going to fight it as long as they can.
The "right" way to fix this is:
1. Apple allows users to download/install software that is not on the app store. If a user owns the device they should be able to do what they want with it, even if it's "risky" or whatever. But this means those users that feel the most comfortable continuing to only use apple-approved apps in the app store can continue to do so.
2. Software downloaded from the app store, using apple servers and services, must give Apple the cut (30%) they ask for. If the app doesn't use apple's infrastructure or payment system, apple shouldn't have any right to a cut of the payment.
Apple has billions of dollars of revenue at stake here, so of course they're going to fight it as long as they can.
> If a user owns the device
This is the hard question.
What in the world could possibly be enough to where enabling sideloading is ONLY possible by the owner of the device, and not just someone who looked over your shoulder for an hour and saw you type in your passcode+Apple ID, and has now swiped your phone to install spyware that utilizes a 0-day to hide itself from you?
This is the hard question.
What in the world could possibly be enough to where enabling sideloading is ONLY possible by the owner of the device, and not just someone who looked over your shoulder for an hour and saw you type in your passcode+Apple ID, and has now swiped your phone to install spyware that utilizes a 0-day to hide itself from you?
That's kind of insane reasoning.
Do you worry about that with your MacBook or Windows laptop?
Is it an attack vector? Sure...I guess. Is it a reasonable reason to disallow sideloading apps? Absolutely not.
Do you worry about that with your MacBook or Windows laptop?
Is it an attack vector? Sure...I guess. Is it a reasonable reason to disallow sideloading apps? Absolutely not.
Thanks for sharing, but I absolutely do not want to live in a world where one single company determines what I can and cannot install on my own devices. That type of fear-mongering leading to more restrictions is a disaster.
I own a mac and love it, but if Apple ever attempts to lock it down the way they have the iPhone/iPad, myself and many others will leave that ecosystem forever.
I own a mac and love it, but if Apple ever attempts to lock it down the way they have the iPhone/iPad, myself and many others will leave that ecosystem forever.
i don't really worry about it myself much. i just err on the side of not installing things i'm unsure about
but my boomer mother? whewwwwwwwwww if someone told her she had to install a 3rd party app store to see pictures of her friend's birthday cake or some terrible grape salad recipe, she'd do it. and she'd give them all of her personal info too.
sadly this is the norm, not the exception
but my boomer mother? whewwwwwwwwww if someone told her she had to install a 3rd party app store to see pictures of her friend's birthday cake or some terrible grape salad recipe, she'd do it. and she'd give them all of her personal info too.
sadly this is the norm, not the exception
The exchange is NFT for eth. In order to do that, it requires gas. That is a fee imposed on the user, meaning they have to pay something in order to pursue a digital transaction for digital goods. Payments in iOS for digital goods and services must go through the App Store. It's right there in the developer terms, and has largely not changed since the App Store was introduced.
Doesn't matter that it's gas. It's a purchase the user is trying to make. The rules apply.
Coinbase may think it's unfair, but that's what they agreed to when they put the app in the App Store. Apple can continue to enforce this rule as long as they're legally allowed to, which doesn't seem to be changing anytime soon.
No sympathy for Coinbase here. They chose to whine in public when they could just sue Apple like a grown up.
Doesn't matter that it's gas. It's a purchase the user is trying to make. The rules apply.
Coinbase may think it's unfair, but that's what they agreed to when they put the app in the App Store. Apple can continue to enforce this rule as long as they're legally allowed to, which doesn't seem to be changing anytime soon.
No sympathy for Coinbase here. They chose to whine in public when they could just sue Apple like a grown up.
If apologists like you ran the world, I would probably have to pay Apple 30% premium on the value of my entire house if I tried to sign mortgage paperwork on an iphone
Oh, you can do better than that. You'd pay 30% on the mortgage, the seller would pay 30% on the mortgage, the title company would pay 30% on the mortgage, the listing agent would pay 30% on the listing.... my point here not merely being sarcasm, though it is that as well, but it isn't scalable to have every little person involved in facilitating some transaction trying to take 30%.
You mean like how the title company, listing agent, mortgage broker, notary etc. all take money from the simple transaction that should be just between buyer and seller? Same idea.
You are free to hand a willing seller a few hundred thousand dollars in cash and submit the updated deeds to the county.
Just be ready to deal with any problems yourself.
Just be ready to deal with any problems yourself.
Generally they are taking money roughly proportional to the value being added. You may grumble, but as lotsofpulp also points out, you're welcome to do it yourself. If you didn't, you were presumably still OK with the money being spent. The existence of a reasonable self-serve option keeps the fees reasonable; they can't charge literally 30% of the mortgage for these fees because then everyone would just do it for themselves. (And some of those people would get good at it, and open new businesses that did it for you for a more reasonable price.)
There is some inherent subjectivity to "roughly proportional to the value being added", but in my opinion, it becomes reasonably objective at some point when the value isn't being added. Not 100%, but reasonably so. I think part of the problem with Apple's policy here is that it is another example of trying to jam too large a set of cases into the roof of one policy, a pervasive problem right now with many Silicon Valley-style businesses that try to substitute expensive human insight with cheap computer code for economic decisions. There are perhaps cases where 30% is justified, because Apple is providing that much value to the target transaction. I'll leave that to the reader to decide.
But there are clearly other sorts of transactions that were going to take place anyhow, and it basically just happens to be taking place through an app. Apple did not introduce any significant number of people to Coinbase by putting the Coinbase app on the store. It does not provide a huge amount of service to Coinbase on a per-transaction basis; Coinbase has the financial infrastructure, the technical infrastructure, etc. One way you can tell Apple is not terribly involved is, what are they responsible for in this case? Not very much; even if Apple totally vaporized and all Apple services disappeared, the user could still perform the target transaction on a different platform with virtually no effort. Contrast with the answer to "what if Coinbase totally vaporized and all their services disappeared?" This transaction would become impossible.
For a transaction like this, where Apple did no marketing, where Apple provides essentially no irreplaceable technical service, where the transaction can trivially be done elsewhere and it is just happening to occur on Apple services, where the value flow doesn't need to involve Apple at all, a 30% charge seems outrageously large.
I think some of the problem in debating this, and arguably all the way down to people understanding this, is that both these cases exist simultaneously, and they are both "true". There are apps that exist and thrive only because of Apple infrastructure, services, and promotion. 30% doesn't seem unreasonable, at least in the abstract. But other apps don't have anything like that service or support from Apple, but get hit with the exact same fee. This is the sort of thing that really starts to look like monopolistic rent seeking. (Or at least oligopolistic rent seeking.)
There is some inherent subjectivity to "roughly proportional to the value being added", but in my opinion, it becomes reasonably objective at some point when the value isn't being added. Not 100%, but reasonably so. I think part of the problem with Apple's policy here is that it is another example of trying to jam too large a set of cases into the roof of one policy, a pervasive problem right now with many Silicon Valley-style businesses that try to substitute expensive human insight with cheap computer code for economic decisions. There are perhaps cases where 30% is justified, because Apple is providing that much value to the target transaction. I'll leave that to the reader to decide.
But there are clearly other sorts of transactions that were going to take place anyhow, and it basically just happens to be taking place through an app. Apple did not introduce any significant number of people to Coinbase by putting the Coinbase app on the store. It does not provide a huge amount of service to Coinbase on a per-transaction basis; Coinbase has the financial infrastructure, the technical infrastructure, etc. One way you can tell Apple is not terribly involved is, what are they responsible for in this case? Not very much; even if Apple totally vaporized and all Apple services disappeared, the user could still perform the target transaction on a different platform with virtually no effort. Contrast with the answer to "what if Coinbase totally vaporized and all their services disappeared?" This transaction would become impossible.
For a transaction like this, where Apple did no marketing, where Apple provides essentially no irreplaceable technical service, where the transaction can trivially be done elsewhere and it is just happening to occur on Apple services, where the value flow doesn't need to involve Apple at all, a 30% charge seems outrageously large.
I think some of the problem in debating this, and arguably all the way down to people understanding this, is that both these cases exist simultaneously, and they are both "true". There are apps that exist and thrive only because of Apple infrastructure, services, and promotion. 30% doesn't seem unreasonable, at least in the abstract. But other apps don't have anything like that service or support from Apple, but get hit with the exact same fee. This is the sort of thing that really starts to look like monopolistic rent seeking. (Or at least oligopolistic rent seeking.)
There may be an anti-trust case against Apple, but if there is, hanging it on crypto is not the place to do it.
Personally I am more concerned about Comcast's monopoly and would prioritize the FTC to look at that, but that's been out of style since 2014.
Personally I am more concerned about Comcast's monopoly and would prioritize the FTC to look at that, but that's been out of style since 2014.
Yeah, I hate everything web3 and still think Apple is being ridiculous.
let’s not give apple ideas!
Apple store people just don't know how cryptocurrencies work. The gas fee doesn't go to Coinbase, it's going to completely random people, called miners or stakers. Why Coinbase should pay for the fees it doesn't receive?
They don't need to know because it doesn't matter and they don't care. They see it as you buying a digital item. It doesn't matter to them if it's coins for virtual slots or NFTs—it's all the same. It's up to you to figure it out. Coinbase could, conceivably, charge you through the app store and then process the transaction for you. This would be a nightmare to do and defeat the "purpose" of crypto, but it's possible.
One of the benefits of Apple's enforcement here is their extremely generous refund policy. If you ever buy something by accident (or even on purpose, really, and just later regret it) you can ask Apple for a refund and it's almost guaranteed they grant it.
Obviously crypto users don't really think about refunds because nothing is reversible… although who knows, maybe they do.
Honestly, Apple and Google should ban ALL software crypto wallets. No one is checking to see how secure they are. A seed generated on a software wallet may appear random to the user, but there is NO REASON AT ALL to believe that it is, and no way to verify that it is. IMO every iOS software wallet is compromised simply by virtue of the fact that it's impossible to know whether the seed was generated securely.
I 100% guarantee you there will eventually be a massive "hack" on a major iOS software wallet which is nothing more than the person who wrote the code intentionally making it such that they know how the seed is generated. It would be trivial to generate seeds that appear random but are based on nothing more than a passphrase you know and a timestamp that you can increment over, allowing you at any time to generate all possible private keys for every wallet ever made with your app. That app is probably already out there and people are using it, blissfully unaware that at any time all their crypto could just disappear. If the attacker is smart they can later patch the app, remove their proprietary seed generation and no one will EVER know. They can drain wallets randomly and everyone will assume that the victim must be responsible for the compromised seed, when in reality it was compromised on generation. The attacker will never get caught. I would be honestly surprised if this isn't happening right now.
One of the benefits of Apple's enforcement here is their extremely generous refund policy. If you ever buy something by accident (or even on purpose, really, and just later regret it) you can ask Apple for a refund and it's almost guaranteed they grant it.
Obviously crypto users don't really think about refunds because nothing is reversible… although who knows, maybe they do.
Honestly, Apple and Google should ban ALL software crypto wallets. No one is checking to see how secure they are. A seed generated on a software wallet may appear random to the user, but there is NO REASON AT ALL to believe that it is, and no way to verify that it is. IMO every iOS software wallet is compromised simply by virtue of the fact that it's impossible to know whether the seed was generated securely.
I 100% guarantee you there will eventually be a massive "hack" on a major iOS software wallet which is nothing more than the person who wrote the code intentionally making it such that they know how the seed is generated. It would be trivial to generate seeds that appear random but are based on nothing more than a passphrase you know and a timestamp that you can increment over, allowing you at any time to generate all possible private keys for every wallet ever made with your app. That app is probably already out there and people are using it, blissfully unaware that at any time all their crypto could just disappear. If the attacker is smart they can later patch the app, remove their proprietary seed generation and no one will EVER know. They can drain wallets randomly and everyone will assume that the victim must be responsible for the compromised seed, when in reality it was compromised on generation. The attacker will never get caught. I would be honestly surprised if this isn't happening right now.
> Payments in iOS for digital goods and services must go through the App Store. It's right there in the developer terms, and has largely not changed since the App Store was introduced.
I think Apple is forward thinking here. The Apple store is a very big business.
And crypto is looking for a use case.
Buy NFT to access this app features.
See?
And crypto is looking for a use case.
Buy NFT to access this app features.
See?
Then Coinbase can sue them just like Epic did
Making a system that bypasses intentional hoops doesn't make the company go "Oh, good job!". They close those loopholes, as they're intentional.
It's not a technical problem to be solved, it's part of the terms for using the platform.
It's not a technical problem to be solved, it's part of the terms for using the platform.
Coinbase isn’t on the other end of this. Apple demanding 30% from gas fees would be like them taking that cut from every Venmo or PayPal transaction.
They're not asking for the platform fee, they're asking for the underlying banking fee, they're essentially asking for fees from swift transfers coming out of your bank account.
They've lost it.
They've lost it.
exactly! this makes no sense to me. the rules are not being equally applied.
This is not what is happening here. It's worse. If you want to send a NFT to another address, you need gas to complete the transaction.
Coinbase does not get gas fees to complete the transaction. This isn't a swap. This isn't an exchange for ETH.
Absurd and I've downvoted you.
Coinbase does not get gas fees to complete the transaction. This isn't a swap. This isn't an exchange for ETH.
Absurd and I've downvoted you.
Public visibility helps their case by both pressuring apple and getting customers on their side. It's not whining, it's PR.
If Apple told the FBI to go pound sand in the San Bernardino shooter case, where the government wanted a back door to the iPhone, what makes you think they’re going to pressures by some crypto geeks?
> what makes you think they’re going to pressures by some crypto geeks?
They wouldn't be the ones being pressured. Instead it would be lawmakers.
The EU has already passed a law, and the USA is considering one, that has already passed out of committee.
Governments can just start confiscating Apple's funds. What, is there going to be an Apple private military, that invades bank of America, and forces them at gone point to not follow a court order? Yeah no. The courts will order them to pay money, and the banks will send the money, no matter what Apple thinks.
The Fines in EU would be something like 10% of global revenue. They can't ignore that.
They wouldn't be the ones being pressured. Instead it would be lawmakers.
The EU has already passed a law, and the USA is considering one, that has already passed out of committee.
Governments can just start confiscating Apple's funds. What, is there going to be an Apple private military, that invades bank of America, and forces them at gone point to not follow a court order? Yeah no. The courts will order them to pay money, and the banks will send the money, no matter what Apple thinks.
The Fines in EU would be something like 10% of global revenue. They can't ignore that.
Yeah who do these crypto guys think they are the CCP?
It's actually kinda funny because it's exactly right. The US has less power than the CCP to control Apple. Perks of being too big to fail. Apple doesn't bend the knee to the CCP -- gtfo. Apple doesn't bend the knee to the US gov't -- five years and a massive political battle later some Apple exec gets dragged to a congressional hearing to get mildly berated by a 70 year old white dude who doesn't even care outside of scoring some political points for the next midterm election and a fine, maybe? Not too big though, it can't actually hurt them because that's jobs and American business.
> The US has less power than the CCP to control Apple.
The US has the same power as the CCP, it’s just that the US & CCP legal frameworks are different
The US has the same power as the CCP, it’s just that the US & CCP legal frameworks are different
That was coordinated marketing between the FBI and Apple.
Apple does not have the power or authority to tell the USG to pound sand:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusiv...
There is already a backdoor in the iPhone, and Apple already preserves it for the FBI.
Apple does not have the power or authority to tell the USG to pound sand:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusiv...
There is already a backdoor in the iPhone, and Apple already preserves it for the FBI.
For those who don’t know: you can fully encrypt your iPhone backups and store them locally on your computer if you prefer. You do not need to use iCloud backup to use an iPhone.
You can also skip backups entirely if you want.
You can also skip backups entirely if you want.
Is apple supposed to take 30% of the transaction fee when I purchase investments in an online banking app?
No because investments are not digital goods. Just because something is not physical does not mean it is digital. For example, a right to mine iron is not a physical thing, nor is it a digital thing; instead it is a legal thing.
I think this is a great question. Stocks and NFTs are largely the same in my eyes - but I can't imagine Fidelity even bothering with an iPhone app if they lost 30% of each transaction people make (unless it was solely on the fees - I'm not sure where Apple draws the lines).
Also - does Apple take 30% from each Amazon purchase? I overwhelmingly just use the Amazon app for purchasing - I can't imagine the amount of money Apple makes from Amazon alone, if so.
Also - does Apple take 30% from each Amazon purchase? I overwhelmingly just use the Amazon app for purchasing - I can't imagine the amount of money Apple makes from Amazon alone, if so.
No, physical goods are exempted.
Ah, that makes sense - why Kindle + Audible purchases have to be made on the web.
It’s only for digital goods
If Fidelity sold you app skins and customization features they’d have to pay
If Fidelity sold you app skins and customization features they’d have to pay
How do banking apps work on iOS? If my friend sells me his vase and I pay him through banking app making a money transfer, does Apple get 30% cut?
No.
A vase is a tangible real-world product. That falls under the "Apple Pay" contract route, and only if you want to use Apple Pay.
This coinbase thing, afaik, is for a digital product.
Coinbase could workaround all this if they simply launch a web browser to do the purchases, in my view.
A vase is a tangible real-world product. That falls under the "Apple Pay" contract route, and only if you want to use Apple Pay.
This coinbase thing, afaik, is for a digital product.
Coinbase could workaround all this if they simply launch a web browser to do the purchases, in my view.
How would Apple know it wasn't just the picture of the vase? Would they scan my private messages between my friend to determine that?
I’m disappointed to see such nonsense on HN not flagged to death. Is this a troll comment that I’m too slow to get?
You're completely right in that this is exactly what the app store rules will describe as a digital transaction.
It also highlights the insanity of the app store rules. I though Facebook being blocked from showing the percentage of purchases being sent to Apple was peak ridiculousness, but this is yet another step.
It also highlights the insanity of the app store rules. I though Facebook being blocked from showing the percentage of purchases being sent to Apple was peak ridiculousness, but this is yet another step.
Sue Apple?
They have enough money to stretch any process until the opponents funds are empty.
Not when your opponent is also a Fortune 500 company. Lawsuits don't stretch on that long.
Apple has more money, power and influence than Coinbase by orders of magnitude. If Coinbase doesn't have a really strong case (like it would be in this case) going to court would be a disaster.
Lawsuits of this sort don't really hinge on "power" or "influence", they hinge on legal arguments and precedent.
As far as money goes, both companies have enough to be able to see a lawsuit through to completion.
So it doesn't matter much that Apple has "more money, power and influence". Coinbase would either have a case or have no case, irrespective of those factors.
As far as money goes, both companies have enough to be able to see a lawsuit through to completion.
So it doesn't matter much that Apple has "more money, power and influence". Coinbase would either have a case or have no case, irrespective of those factors.
I'm sorry but I don't trust the legal system to be so ideal as you do. From my point of view money first, and power and influence second, can bend anything to the favor of those who have them in our current society.
I believe that US state and federal judges generally use sound legal reasoning when deciding civil suits, and I'm pretty sure that they don't take bribes, but I'm not a lawyer so I can't profess to be close to that whole process.
Sure it's true that if one party can't afford legal representation, the other party will have a better outcome. But that's not the case here.
Sure it's true that if one party can't afford legal representation, the other party will have a better outcome. But that's not the case here.
Try and get an abortion in Texas for yourself or someone you care about and let me know how those precedents and legal arguments work out for you kiddo.
> let me know how those precedents and legal arguments work out
They would work out in such a way as to respect the law as written. The law as written in Texas is to outlaw abortion.
A Coinbase vs Apple lawsuit would likewise work out in such a way as to respect the law as written.
That's the point I've been arguing. What's yours?
They would work out in such a way as to respect the law as written. The law as written in Texas is to outlaw abortion.
A Coinbase vs Apple lawsuit would likewise work out in such a way as to respect the law as written.
That's the point I've been arguing. What's yours?
You edited the comment I responded to and removed the "precedent" related part, which is supposed to be an important part of US jurisprudence; discussing edited comments without original context/comment is pointless.
I believe I edited it before we went off on this tangent, but to be honest I can't be sure. Your comment was posted 40 minutes after mine, and I don't usually go back that late to edit my comments. If I did, I didn't do it intentionally.
Precedent is itself no more than an interpretation of law, in other words a line of legal reasoning that's already been ossified. I probably edited out the part about precedent because I felt it was redundant to "legal reasoning".
In any case, I don't see how "precedent" makes or breaks anyone's argument here.
Precedent is itself no more than an interpretation of law, in other words a line of legal reasoning that's already been ossified. I probably edited out the part about precedent because I felt it was redundant to "legal reasoning".
In any case, I don't see how "precedent" makes or breaks anyone's argument here.
Epic vs. Apple showed that money is a factor because after the decision come the appeals.
Same happened during the SCO–Linux disputes.
Same happened during the SCO–Linux disputes.
There's a different reason Apple should block the feature: NFTs are a scam. I have zero interest in falling for scams, I want walled gardens to protect me from them. Unfortunately they did not use this reason.
Be serious. You are refering to "Art NFTs". Yes, those are scams. But they are not all about art.
Tickets as NFTs are an absolutely valid use for example, and many others.
Tickets as NFTs are an absolutely valid use for example, and many others.
NFT's are no more a scam than any digital goods.
Yes, NFT proponents and those invested in the swindle try to imply such. They try to imply NFTs are worth anything outside their ecosystem. They try to imply this by relying on blockchain technology while in reality its centralized and there is no consensus on the intellectual property because the authority isn't verified. Its as if you run a digital notary which would rely on law to be enforced, but the law would only work within the notary vicinity. If I own the copy of the artwork (say a digital equivalent of a Picasso) because I made it or bought the rights from the owner then I will have that copy even when all NFTs are purged off the earth. And copyright law is recognized nearly worthwide while a NFT blockchain... is not.
I'm always fascinated by opinions like this.
Did the apple employee who delisted coinbase wallet write this?
WOW that is rude @rybosworld.
Agreed. They should pull their wallets and become web-only.
No sympathy for Coinbase or any other app participating in the system.
No sympathy for Coinbase or any other app participating in the system.
Apple at this point has no fear of regulatory action.
I think both Red and Blue can agree they need to be reigned in and split up.
I think both Red and Blue can agree they need to be reigned in and split up.
I think you overestimate the extent to which the political parties will look at the most profitable company in America and say "hmm, time to disrupt that".
Profitable and generally well-regarded by consumers.
Even if it were blatantly monopolistic, that only matters if its bad for consumers. The vast majority of non-HN crowd is super, super happy being inside of Apple's walled garden.
Even if it were blatantly monopolistic, that only matters if its bad for consumers. The vast majority of non-HN crowd is super, super happy being inside of Apple's walled garden.
Therein lies the rub. Consumer welfare has no definition[0].
[0]: https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=897001005069000...
[0]: https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=897001005069000...
Split up? They're not a monopoly in the phone market and only barely have a majority market share.
I don't defend Apple's actions but I don't think this is a company-sized anticompetition problem. This is a regulation problem where it should be a user right to have access to alternate app stores, and to choose to run whatever software we want.
I don't defend Apple's actions but I don't think this is a company-sized anticompetition problem. This is a regulation problem where it should be a user right to have access to alternate app stores, and to choose to run whatever software we want.
A monopoly is not a pre-requisite to engage in anticompetitive behavior.
We need a progressive tax on corporate revenue: billion dollar companies should be taxed a significantly higher rate than million dollar companies. (we currently have the opposite)
The power disparity between corporations and citizens is huge and growing. It should be expensive to be mega powerful, and trillion dollar companies should be paying huge taxes to incentivize them breaking up into smaller units: a vertically integrated trillion dollar company is enough of a monopoly to hurt the market even if there are other competitors. It's bad for society.
The power disparity between corporations and citizens is huge and growing. It should be expensive to be mega powerful, and trillion dollar companies should be paying huge taxes to incentivize them breaking up into smaller units: a vertically integrated trillion dollar company is enough of a monopoly to hurt the market even if there are other competitors. It's bad for society.
I'm all for this if government would outlaw all the bad behavior I can currently pay Apple to protect me from, first. Which they really ought to do anyway. Like, do that and I'll join you with the pitchforks demanding Apple change its ways or be destroyed. Meanwhile... please don't.
That's an awfully vague demand. Apple protects you from a handful of things and exposes you to others, it's not a binary situation in any sense (nor will "outlawing" everything you disagree with).
Mind you, neither of us need to be at each other's throat. Apple can give me a Developer Mode toggle without taking anything away from you.
Mind you, neither of us need to be at each other's throat. Apple can give me a Developer Mode toggle without taking anything away from you.
> That's an awfully vague demand.
It's a response to saying Apple needs to be "reined in" which is hardly a concrete proposal.
It's a response to saying Apple needs to be "reined in" which is hardly a concrete proposal.
What prevents you from opting into a more closed garden or having apple outline clear walls that you can jump off you prefer?
A law like this only gives you more choice.
A law like this only gives you more choice.
It's been discussed to death on here.
One side believes there's a risk of companies leaving the App Store if that monopoly's broken, which would make things worse for them than the current situation.
The other thinks that's bullshit because that hasn't happened on Android.
The first notes that Android hasn't restricted Facebook practices such that Facebook's blaming them for significant earnings misses, so, you know, things might play out a little differently on iOS than it did on Android, and also this group prefer the status quo to even the best-likely outcome from shaking that up, so no amount of risk to it is worth it to them (us).
Except usually instead of writing it out plainly like that, the pro-Apple poster writes something shorter and less well-considered, probably assuming certain parts of that are obvious and don't need to be written out, the other jumps on it, a flamewar ensues, and the next time around we get a sea of comments that are like "I just don't understand how this would hurt Apple-lovers, they can just stay on the App Store" and it all repeats.
One side believes there's a risk of companies leaving the App Store if that monopoly's broken, which would make things worse for them than the current situation.
The other thinks that's bullshit because that hasn't happened on Android.
The first notes that Android hasn't restricted Facebook practices such that Facebook's blaming them for significant earnings misses, so, you know, things might play out a little differently on iOS than it did on Android, and also this group prefer the status quo to even the best-likely outcome from shaking that up, so no amount of risk to it is worth it to them (us).
Except usually instead of writing it out plainly like that, the pro-Apple poster writes something shorter and less well-considered, probably assuming certain parts of that are obvious and don't need to be written out, the other jumps on it, a flamewar ensues, and the next time around we get a sea of comments that are like "I just don't understand how this would hurt Apple-lovers, they can just stay on the App Store" and it all repeats.
Its BS to think Apple is the cop that is going to fight your fights. Apple only cares about money, and they're going to obediently abide by local laws - see China. We need more/stronger laws, we don't need to give Apple more power.
Yes, of course, I agree. Again, I'd rather a bunch of the stuff Apple prohibits were simply illegal (plus a few things they don't) and that several huge companies, including Apple, were broken up into a dozen or more parts. But in the meantime I'm glad to have one platform where some of those practices are effectively illegal, at least. The second government steps up I'll be thrilled to see them smashed to bits (and hopefully not only them—and hey, those others don't have to wait as far as I'm concerned!).
Money = Power. Why would Apple allow this breaking up? Its naive to think otherwise, see what is happening in South Korea with Samsung accounting for like 25% of the economy. They're untouchable in South Korea.
That is an umbrella of 15+ companies in multiple segments of the market.
Yes, that structure is complex by-design. Its to do with inheritance taxes, and the family trying to maintain control via holding companies.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62501514
Apple has a somewhat complicated (though common for large US corporations) structure too.
https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-subsidiaries-are-named...
https://www.wired.com/2016/08/apple-rest-silicon-valley-avoi...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62501514
Apple has a somewhat complicated (though common for large US corporations) structure too.
https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-subsidiaries-are-named...
https://www.wired.com/2016/08/apple-rest-silicon-valley-avoi...
thinking of "freedom" as a singular thing that exists is misleading, there's multiple kinds of freedom, that's why GPL exists vs BSD/MIT, there is an inherent conflict between end-user freedom vs developer freedom and the obvious solution (MIT "do anything you want" license is more free than one with licensing stipulations and limitations, right?) doesn't actually maximize freedom for everybody.
We literally already are in a situation where people have opted into a more closed garden, that's the Apple model right now, and people are arguing that it needs to be forcibly opened up, which effectively destroys the walled-garden model. Like, the reason Facebook and Google are arguing that isn't because it's the right thing to do and they're on your side, they're doing it because app review is successfully and significantly holding back their spyware bullshit and this is the mechanism they want to use to get around it, they've found the most-appealing argument that will get nerds arguing on their side to produce the desired outcome. But ultimately they're not arguing for your freedoms here, just like Sony wasn't arguing that they should have to open up their own app store on ps5. They are arguing for their freedoms, not end-users.
Facebook literally already got caught using their dev credentials to deploy a spyware build to users who opted in to additional surveillance that normally would have been prevented by the walled-garden. If you "open it up", the next step is Facebook withdraws their app from the normal app-store, and now you need to install the Facebook App-Store to use facebook, which will demand full permissions to spy on everything, just like their spyware build already did with the dev credentials. This shit is literally already ready to go, they just need the ability to pull the trigger.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-...
Yes, in a notional sense it will be "optional", in the sense you can choose to just not use google or facebook, but in the real world people need those things if they want to maintain their social networks/etc, so in effect merely allowing sideloading to exist completely neuters any possibility of a walled garden existing at all, especially against the largest players from whom you need the most protection. There are dozens of horoscope apps or whatever, there is only one facebook, so you play by their rules or you don't play, that is what the walled garden is really about preventing. Apple is using their leverage to hold back some of the facebooks of the world from preying on users with permissions bullshit and spying.
If you want to "allow some people to choose a walled garden" that's the apple position here. You can still choose a not-walled-garden option for yourself personally, if you want. People are ideologically opposed to the walled-garden existing at all, they want it eliminated, not as merely a choice. It's sort of like the people who "aren't pro-abortion or anti-abortion, they just think everyone should have all the information and as safe an environment as possible and can make their own choice". Congrats that's the pro-choice position, and if you want the option of being able to choose a walled garden but nobody is actually forced to use it then congrats, that's the apple position here, go buy an android phone. Nobody is arguing you shouldn't be able to buy an android like people are arguing about apple, these sides aren't equivalent at all. It is quite literally an "anti-choice" argument from the android side here, they want that choice to be eliminated and walled gardens to cease to exist entirely.
To go back to the original point, BSD/MIT vs GPL... Apple is the GPL freedom model in this situation. Apple is concerned about maximizing end-user freedom even if it kills developer freedom, and even if some specific kinds of user-freedoms are decreased. Yes, you are giving up the ability to sideload apps for free... and that restriction allows the app-review model to exist, which protects user freedoms in the bigger picture. Android is the BSD model, anything goes, and that means giving freedom to large players whose interests run counter to users' interests and user freedoms as a whole. You have lots of freedom on Android, as long as they're freedoms to use google services or facebook or wechat or other closed proprietary all-in-one platforms. And if you want to run google-less replacement builds... go for it but that's not the experience 99.9% of people get out of android, they are just as locked-in to google services as apple people are on apple, but they also get much less protection via app-review etc.
(and again, reminder that sideloading has NEVER been unavailable on ios... it's just not free. the cost of sideloading apps is $99 a year. If you allow anyone to do sideload with no friction, then you just enable the facebooks of the world to demand that you do it, there has to be a friction there if the walled-garden model is ever going to exist.)
And besides app review... in the big picture... what do you think happens when iOS Safari gets killed off? Google already has a basically 95% monoculture of Chrome and Chromium-derivatives (like Edge). When you look at how manifest-v3 has been handled (contrary to the interests of end-users), do anybody really think Google crushing the last 5% of the market that's holding out is going to result in more end-user freedoms? Safari on IOS is a bulwark that nobody likes using but it holds back an ocean of salty consequences if Google can assume complete control of the Browser-As-An-OS platform. Like yeah Safari iOS is trash but it’s load-bearing trash as far as the broader internet and google monoculture...
We literally already are in a situation where people have opted into a more closed garden, that's the Apple model right now, and people are arguing that it needs to be forcibly opened up, which effectively destroys the walled-garden model. Like, the reason Facebook and Google are arguing that isn't because it's the right thing to do and they're on your side, they're doing it because app review is successfully and significantly holding back their spyware bullshit and this is the mechanism they want to use to get around it, they've found the most-appealing argument that will get nerds arguing on their side to produce the desired outcome. But ultimately they're not arguing for your freedoms here, just like Sony wasn't arguing that they should have to open up their own app store on ps5. They are arguing for their freedoms, not end-users.
Facebook literally already got caught using their dev credentials to deploy a spyware build to users who opted in to additional surveillance that normally would have been prevented by the walled-garden. If you "open it up", the next step is Facebook withdraws their app from the normal app-store, and now you need to install the Facebook App-Store to use facebook, which will demand full permissions to spy on everything, just like their spyware build already did with the dev credentials. This shit is literally already ready to go, they just need the ability to pull the trigger.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-...
Yes, in a notional sense it will be "optional", in the sense you can choose to just not use google or facebook, but in the real world people need those things if they want to maintain their social networks/etc, so in effect merely allowing sideloading to exist completely neuters any possibility of a walled garden existing at all, especially against the largest players from whom you need the most protection. There are dozens of horoscope apps or whatever, there is only one facebook, so you play by their rules or you don't play, that is what the walled garden is really about preventing. Apple is using their leverage to hold back some of the facebooks of the world from preying on users with permissions bullshit and spying.
If you want to "allow some people to choose a walled garden" that's the apple position here. You can still choose a not-walled-garden option for yourself personally, if you want. People are ideologically opposed to the walled-garden existing at all, they want it eliminated, not as merely a choice. It's sort of like the people who "aren't pro-abortion or anti-abortion, they just think everyone should have all the information and as safe an environment as possible and can make their own choice". Congrats that's the pro-choice position, and if you want the option of being able to choose a walled garden but nobody is actually forced to use it then congrats, that's the apple position here, go buy an android phone. Nobody is arguing you shouldn't be able to buy an android like people are arguing about apple, these sides aren't equivalent at all. It is quite literally an "anti-choice" argument from the android side here, they want that choice to be eliminated and walled gardens to cease to exist entirely.
To go back to the original point, BSD/MIT vs GPL... Apple is the GPL freedom model in this situation. Apple is concerned about maximizing end-user freedom even if it kills developer freedom, and even if some specific kinds of user-freedoms are decreased. Yes, you are giving up the ability to sideload apps for free... and that restriction allows the app-review model to exist, which protects user freedoms in the bigger picture. Android is the BSD model, anything goes, and that means giving freedom to large players whose interests run counter to users' interests and user freedoms as a whole. You have lots of freedom on Android, as long as they're freedoms to use google services or facebook or wechat or other closed proprietary all-in-one platforms. And if you want to run google-less replacement builds... go for it but that's not the experience 99.9% of people get out of android, they are just as locked-in to google services as apple people are on apple, but they also get much less protection via app-review etc.
(and again, reminder that sideloading has NEVER been unavailable on ios... it's just not free. the cost of sideloading apps is $99 a year. If you allow anyone to do sideload with no friction, then you just enable the facebooks of the world to demand that you do it, there has to be a friction there if the walled-garden model is ever going to exist.)
And besides app review... in the big picture... what do you think happens when iOS Safari gets killed off? Google already has a basically 95% monoculture of Chrome and Chromium-derivatives (like Edge). When you look at how manifest-v3 has been handled (contrary to the interests of end-users), do anybody really think Google crushing the last 5% of the market that's holding out is going to result in more end-user freedoms? Safari on IOS is a bulwark that nobody likes using but it holds back an ocean of salty consequences if Google can assume complete control of the Browser-As-An-OS platform. Like yeah Safari iOS is trash but it’s load-bearing trash as far as the broader internet and google monoculture...
Yes, in a notional sense it will be "optional", in the sense you can choose to just not use google or facebook, but in the real world people need those things if they want to maintain their social networks/etc
Also in the real world a lot of people "need" to use iMessage or FaceTime, so they have to use iOS whether or not they want the walled garden. Let Apple open up those protocols, and then we can talk about having a real choice.
Nobody is arguing you shouldn't be able to buy an android
Apple was arguing exactly that for many years.
they want that choice to be eliminated and walled gardens to cease to exist entirely
I'll almost bite that bullet. Walled gardens are terrible for freedom and innovation, as we've seen just recently when Apple crippled AirDrop under orders from the Chinese government. I wouldn't say that they shouldn't exist at all, but it should be something that you very explicitly opt in to rather than the default.
what do you think happens when iOS Safari gets killed off?
Alternatively, allowing competition might force Apple to spend some effort making Safari not suck so that doesn't happen.
Also in the real world a lot of people "need" to use iMessage or FaceTime, so they have to use iOS whether or not they want the walled garden. Let Apple open up those protocols, and then we can talk about having a real choice.
Nobody is arguing you shouldn't be able to buy an android
Apple was arguing exactly that for many years.
they want that choice to be eliminated and walled gardens to cease to exist entirely
I'll almost bite that bullet. Walled gardens are terrible for freedom and innovation, as we've seen just recently when Apple crippled AirDrop under orders from the Chinese government. I wouldn't say that they shouldn't exist at all, but it should be something that you very explicitly opt in to rather than the default.
what do you think happens when iOS Safari gets killed off?
Alternatively, allowing competition might force Apple to spend some effort making Safari not suck so that doesn't happen.
> what do you think happens when iOS Safari gets killed off?
I will cheer and laugh and celebrate the death of the most cancerous and terrible browser commonly used today.
I will cheer and laugh and celebrate the death of the most cancerous and terrible browser commonly used today.
Have you ever totaled up how much money you are spending on Apple's protection every month to verify it is actualy worth it? And are you really sure that same tradeoff makes sense for larger transactions? Like, if someone is spending hundreds of dollars on gas fees or consumable access credits every month, does it really make sense that they should be paying Apple $30/mo for "protection"? If someone gets really into some app and wants to plunk down $1000 for it, is there any amount of protection in the world that makes $300 feel right?
Very little. The devices & OS are otherwise better-enough than the competition (in the case of iOS, the sole competitor, which goes a long way to explaining why the market sucks so bad) that I'd still be buying them absent app store regulations, so that doesn't count, and anyway the premium's pretty low if you're comparing them to actually-comparable products and factor in resale value. I think the 30% cut (which isn't always that high, these days, for smaller players) of my purchases amounts to low-tens of dollars per year and almost all of that is from a single subscription. So, less than I spend on any one streaming service.
Yes I have. Yes it is.
You do not need to protect people. People should learn to protect themselves. If you are stupid and exploited by malware, next time maybe you'll learn the basics of the device you are using. Otherwise you will be forever a slave an electronic device's slave.
Do you just not use a computer? Why would it be any different?
I feel like Apple sells false safety and there's still scams and still malware in there.
I feel like Apple sells false safety and there's still scams and still malware in there.
Been using computers since... oh, '91 or '92, Apple stuff only since ~2010. Having at least one platform I can use as an actually-useful-in-real-life tool without constantly having to scrutinize and second-guess and mistrust and un-fuck everything is damn nice. They could absolutely be better—a lot better, yes bad stuff gets into the store, yes some practices like loot box gambling really ought to be on their naughty-list except those make them tons of money, et c.—but I like having an option for that kind of experience—even if it's far from perfect, even if they're not as privacy-respecting as they claim, even if App Store rule enforcement and sandboxing protections are less than 100% effective, et c.—especially with government asleep at the wheel, regulation-wise. I like that Apple's in a position to force other companies not to be shitty, while also having an ecosystem too tempting for those companies to ignore. That's great for me.
I'd rather the worst behavior they protect against were simply illegal. I'd rather Apple had other competitors offering similar things (though, absent regulation, that kinda depends on their leveraging monopoly power, so it's hard to see how robust competition would fit into that dynamic). I'd rather no companies were as big as Apple (or Microsoft, or Google, or Facebook, or...) with hands in as many pies. But given the broader environment I'd rather have Apple the way it is, than broken up or destroyed. Ideally, yes, that's what would happen, but the rest of the situation's far from ideal. Fix some of that first, so losing them doesn't remove an option I like having, and I'm with you, let's break them up.
I'd rather the worst behavior they protect against were simply illegal. I'd rather Apple had other competitors offering similar things (though, absent regulation, that kinda depends on their leveraging monopoly power, so it's hard to see how robust competition would fit into that dynamic). I'd rather no companies were as big as Apple (or Microsoft, or Google, or Facebook, or...) with hands in as many pies. But given the broader environment I'd rather have Apple the way it is, than broken up or destroyed. Ideally, yes, that's what would happen, but the rest of the situation's far from ideal. Fix some of that first, so losing them doesn't remove an option I like having, and I'm with you, let's break them up.
My understanding was that the new EU rules would force Apple to open up their platform to competing app stores, no? In that view, this would seem to be a last gasp by Apple to capture profit that they soon won't be able to seek.
Apple may be forced to have competing app stores but:
a) They would be allowed to then ban apps that exist on alternate stores.
b) They can still collect their 30% cut which no-one has ever said was not permitted. They already have telemetry about what apps are being installed on their phones and can simply bill the third party App Store. Non-payment would result in the store being banned.
Similar situation happened when Apple was forced to support alternate payment processors in Netherlands. Nobody used it because it ended up being less profitable than simply using Apple.
a) They would be allowed to then ban apps that exist on alternate stores.
b) They can still collect their 30% cut which no-one has ever said was not permitted. They already have telemetry about what apps are being installed on their phones and can simply bill the third party App Store. Non-payment would result in the store being banned.
Similar situation happened when Apple was forced to support alternate payment processors in Netherlands. Nobody used it because it ended up being less profitable than simply using Apple.
> My understanding was that the new EU rules would force Apple to open up their platform to competing app stores, no?
It gave companies 6 months to comply. They are still within that period. Then the fine hammer will start coming down.
It gave companies 6 months to comply. They are still within that period. Then the fine hammer will start coming down.
When it comes to politicians, both red and blue rely on big tech money.
It could be as simple as investment portfolios, or the more likely lobbyist money which fills their war chest
It could be as simple as investment portfolios, or the more likely lobbyist money which fills their war chest
The politicians can just take short positions, their investments will be fine as always
Yes and recent years they're great traders anyway. High ROI then many funds and market avg. Great people
>I think both Red and Blue can agree they need to be reigned in and split up.
Well I'm not too sure about one of them.
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/apple-inc/totals?id=D000021...
Well I'm not too sure about one of them.
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/apple-inc/totals?id=D000021...
I think they need to be reigned in, but what is the reason to split them up?
I would love it if public companies were forced to take a niche and stick with it - because the horizontal integration becomes a major anti-competitive tool. Imagine if iOS was developed independently and available for other phone makers as an Android competitor, the iPhone just being one of them. The App Store could be its own thing, as could Apple Music. AirPods could be its own business. Sure, things might be less integrated and tight-knit, but the market would be far more competitive.
At this point I'm almost willing to say horizontal integration is the source of so many competitive problems and anti-consumer behavior.
At this point I'm almost willing to say horizontal integration is the source of so many competitive problems and anti-consumer behavior.
Yeah but some things would never have seen the light of day. The M1 chips for example were a huge investment that wouldn’t have been made without the behemoth that is Apple behind it.
There comes a point though when you have to break monopoly's for the market's sake.
For example, remember Standard Oil? They made oil super cheap, researched new oils, basically were great for customers almost like Amazon - but they were monopolistic and were shattered for being so. Similar monopolies in the past like Bell Telephone or, arguably, Amazon now are great from the consumer's perspective but terrible for businesses.
In the past, we were less afraid to say, "you're doing great, but you're still too powerful."
For example, remember Standard Oil? They made oil super cheap, researched new oils, basically were great for customers almost like Amazon - but they were monopolistic and were shattered for being so. Similar monopolies in the past like Bell Telephone or, arguably, Amazon now are great from the consumer's perspective but terrible for businesses.
In the past, we were less afraid to say, "you're doing great, but you're still too powerful."
I just don’t see a monopoly though. Apple has simply been successful, and there’s no anti-consumer angle to just making incredibly popular products.
A big part of that popularity comes from the tight vertical integration. That’s why so many Apple users see this kind of talk as an attack on us, you want to make the things we like about these products illegal or commercially infeasible. I just don’t see how that is in our interests as consumers.
If you want to use products that work a different way, fine, but I don’t see how that’s our problem.
A big part of that popularity comes from the tight vertical integration. That’s why so many Apple users see this kind of talk as an attack on us, you want to make the things we like about these products illegal or commercially infeasible. I just don’t see how that is in our interests as consumers.
If you want to use products that work a different way, fine, but I don’t see how that’s our problem.
And it isn't like quality Android phones are somehow niche, hard to find, or cost more. The competitions is strong and Apple only maintains its lead (in fairly short 1-2 year product cycles) with innovation. If it stopped innovating or charging excessive amounts, they would lose their market share very quickly.
[deleted]
With the benefit of hindsight was breaking up Standard Oil worth it?
It's this ridiculous "everything should be a market" concept.
Would you expect a LG microwave to be forced to support other operating systems ?
And how do warranties and support work for this.
Would you expect a LG microwave to be forced to support other operating systems ?
And how do warranties and support work for this.
And as importantly, if the company making iPhones and the company making Macs were forced to be different entities, how would the A-series chips have evolved into the M-series? Apple took a decade of hard-earned architectural knowledge and evolution to create the M1.
I don't really understand how the M1 chip is any different than other speciality SOC offerings though.
https://techcrunch.com/2020/11/17/yeah-apples-m1-macbook-pro...
2-3x more energy efficient + the same performance (if not better) than other (Intel) chips ~2 times more expensive. I don't think there's been another leap like that in the last 20-25 years.
2-3x more energy efficient + the same performance (if not better) than other (Intel) chips ~2 times more expensive. I don't think there's been another leap like that in the last 20-25 years.
Apple has had over a decade designing and testing these chips to exact specifications and use cases.
Without this you have... well, literally everyone else who haven't done this (because they couldn't or wouldn't). This is what makes it different from "specialty SOC offerings".
Without this you have... well, literally everyone else who haven't done this (because they couldn't or wouldn't). This is what makes it different from "specialty SOC offerings".
Apple is more than willing to milk cash cows with little to no innovation - See iphone/ipad/macos/ios, etc. Its the same with chip foundaries/companies - Intel et al. will just milk their own cash cow with mild incremental releases. Companies with nothing to loose often innovate. (e.g. Apple with M1).
Keeping companies "stay hungry, stay foolish" is probably in our best interest ! :)
Keeping companies "stay hungry, stay foolish" is probably in our best interest ! :)
Apple could've also milked their cash cow.
And yet they implemented and executed a multilayered intertwined decade-long (or actually longer) plan.
Their first custom chip was launched in 2010. It means they were designing it since at least 2008, but definitely since before then.
The original iPhone was launched in 2007.
So, they were designing and releasing a new product category, and already designing custom chips for it.
Even fat lazy companies can stay hungry and foolish. There are not that many of them, though.
And yet they implemented and executed a multilayered intertwined decade-long (or actually longer) plan.
Their first custom chip was launched in 2010. It means they were designing it since at least 2008, but definitely since before then.
The original iPhone was launched in 2007.
So, they were designing and releasing a new product category, and already designing custom chips for it.
Even fat lazy companies can stay hungry and foolish. There are not that many of them, though.
Nobody spends billions in R&D when there is no threat and they can just earn the same money doing nothing, or very little. Sorry, I don't agree.
What exactly was the threat for Apple in ~2008 or earlier when they started developing their own CPUs?
Or 5-6 years earlier when they started developing iPhone?
Or in late 2010s when they decided to transition their laptops and desktops to an entirely new CPU architecture?
Or 5-6 years earlier when they started developing iPhone?
Or in late 2010s when they decided to transition their laptops and desktops to an entirely new CPU architecture?
>What exactly was the threat for Apple in ~2008 or earlier when they started developing their own CPUs?
They had no differentiator, Apple products were seen as beautifully machined luxury trinkets. IBM, and then Intel had them by the balls because Apple couldn't improve the performance of their products unless Intel innovated on their chips - which they had no reason to.
This is a direct response to a perceived threat:
"We believe that we need to own and control the primary technologies behind the products that we make, and participate only in markets where we can make a significant contribution" - Tim Cook
https://explorersfoundation.org/glyphery/458.html
>Or 5-6 years earlier when they started developing iPhone?
https://www.history.com/news/iphone-original-size-invention-...
"Apple executives worried that the iPod would lose market share once cellphone manufacturers figured out how to put MP3 players on their phones. But not if Apple beat them to it."
They had no differentiator, Apple products were seen as beautifully machined luxury trinkets. IBM, and then Intel had them by the balls because Apple couldn't improve the performance of their products unless Intel innovated on their chips - which they had no reason to.
This is a direct response to a perceived threat:
"We believe that we need to own and control the primary technologies behind the products that we make, and participate only in markets where we can make a significant contribution" - Tim Cook
https://explorersfoundation.org/glyphery/458.html
>Or 5-6 years earlier when they started developing iPhone?
https://www.history.com/news/iphone-original-size-invention-...
"Apple executives worried that the iPod would lose market share once cellphone manufacturers figured out how to put MP3 players on their phones. But not if Apple beat them to it."
> "We believe that we need to own and control the primary technologies behind the products that we make, and participate only in markets where we can make a significant contribution" - Tim Cook
This applies to literally every single company that "just earns the same money doing nothing, or very little".
> Apple executives worried that the iPod would lose market share once cellphone manufacturers figured out how to put MP3 players on their phones.
Again, this applies to every single company in the same space
And yet somehow Apple spent those billions of dollars on R&D and others didn't. And on hardware side they keep doing it while the rest of the industry sort of just watches, doing nothing.
As an example: Samsung is entirely dependent on Google for software and on Qualcomm for chips. Unlike Apple, their entire product lines are literally under continuous existensial threat from multiple sides. Tell me, what exactly have they done to fix that?
Whereas Apple, the richest company in the world, either takes risks introducing completely new categories of products (new for them as a company) and wiping the floor with competition (see Apple Watch, 40% market share with Samsung a distant 10%), or managing seamless CPU transition for a two-decade old OS while again wiping the floor with the competition (see the entire M1 saga of the past few years).
This applies to literally every single company that "just earns the same money doing nothing, or very little".
> Apple executives worried that the iPod would lose market share once cellphone manufacturers figured out how to put MP3 players on their phones.
Again, this applies to every single company in the same space
And yet somehow Apple spent those billions of dollars on R&D and others didn't. And on hardware side they keep doing it while the rest of the industry sort of just watches, doing nothing.
As an example: Samsung is entirely dependent on Google for software and on Qualcomm for chips. Unlike Apple, their entire product lines are literally under continuous existensial threat from multiple sides. Tell me, what exactly have they done to fix that?
Whereas Apple, the richest company in the world, either takes risks introducing completely new categories of products (new for them as a company) and wiping the floor with competition (see Apple Watch, 40% market share with Samsung a distant 10%), or managing seamless CPU transition for a two-decade old OS while again wiping the floor with the competition (see the entire M1 saga of the past few years).
Qualcomm and Samsung have made SOCs for 5-10 years longer than Apple though... It's not like there was no integrated cores before the M1.
And where exactly are those SoCs? I mean where are the M1-level chips? Forget M1. Where are A-level chips? They didn't even anticipate the switch to 64-bit on mobile devices, much less M1.
Yes, custom SoCs are nothing new. To pretend that M1 isn't any different from other "specialty SoCs" is delusional.
Yes, custom SoCs are nothing new. To pretend that M1 isn't any different from other "specialty SoCs" is delusional.
Even if another company did build it, it would have ended up in a Windows RT situation where no one would want to support it. In this case Apple can use its weight for good and actually get everyone else to support it resulting in a better situation for end users.
Where do you want to draw the circle ?
Sony is allowed to sell the Playstation but not the controllers. Tesla would be forced to have their car support other operating systems. Leica could sell cameras but not lenses.
Your idea is completely unworkable.
Sony is allowed to sell the Playstation but not the controllers. Tesla would be forced to have their car support other operating systems. Leica could sell cameras but not lenses.
Your idea is completely unworkable.
You have to be able to pivot your company. You can't just pick a niche and stick with it if you don't know how profitable it is.
Splitting Apple into Tv, music, App Store probably makes sense
For whom? Certainly not for consumers, which are the only people that antitrust regulations are meant to protect. The integrated ecosystem is the point. That's why Apple commands such enormous premium over their competitors.
It helps consumers until it doesn’t. If we follow your logic back to the day, every company would be owned by rail or our economy would look like SK where half the gdp is Samsung.
I mean that’s not true. Antitrust was applied to rail companies due to the negative effects for consumers.
Isn't antitrust law supposed to protect something you can't see or touch: fair competition. Fair competition should be protected. Lack of competition is bad.
No, that’s not the purpose of antitrust rules. The only purpose of antitrust is to protect consumers.
Standard Oil:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Standard-Oil
> Although consolidation did advance the large-scale production and distribution of oil products, many critics believed that the resulting concentration of economic power was becoming excessive. In 1906 the U.S. government brought suit against Standard Oil Company (New Jersey) under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890; in 1911 the New Jersey company was ordered to divest itself of its major holdings—33 companies in all.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Standard-Oil
> Although consolidation did advance the large-scale production and distribution of oil products, many critics believed that the resulting concentration of economic power was becoming excessive. In 1906 the U.S. government brought suit against Standard Oil Company (New Jersey) under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890; in 1911 the New Jersey company was ordered to divest itself of its major holdings—33 companies in all.
Yes it became bad for consumers and they were broken up. My point is that if you want a shot at calling in antitrust regulations on Apple (you know, potentially destroying billions of other-peoples’-dollars), you have to prove not that they’re crushing their competition but that 1) they’re doing so unfairly and 2) with negative outcomes for consumers.
Standard Oil wasn't bad for consumers though.
https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-standard-oil-was-a-pr...
> By 1874, his share of the petroleum market jumped to 25 percent, and by 1880 it skyrocketed to about 85 percent. Meanwhile, the price of oil plummeted from 30 cents per gallon in 1869 to eight cents in 1885. Put simply, Rockefeller increased production and lowered prices while creating thousands of well-paid jobs along the way (he usually paid his workers significantly more than his competition did). His business was a model of free-market efficiency.
> But neither his competitors nor the US Supreme Court seemed to take note. In 1911, the court declared Standard Oil a monopoly and ordered its breakup. Revealingly, as scholars have noted, the court made no mention of either predatory pricing or withholding production, as monopoly theory maintains. In fact, economist John S. McGee reviewed over 11,000 pages of trial testimony, including the charges brought by Standard Oil’s competitors. Publishing his findings in the Journal of Law and Economics, he concluded that there was “little to no evidence” of wrongdoing, adding that “Standard Oil did not use predatory price cutting to acquire or keep monopoly power."
https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-standard-oil-was-a-pr...
> By 1874, his share of the petroleum market jumped to 25 percent, and by 1880 it skyrocketed to about 85 percent. Meanwhile, the price of oil plummeted from 30 cents per gallon in 1869 to eight cents in 1885. Put simply, Rockefeller increased production and lowered prices while creating thousands of well-paid jobs along the way (he usually paid his workers significantly more than his competition did). His business was a model of free-market efficiency.
> But neither his competitors nor the US Supreme Court seemed to take note. In 1911, the court declared Standard Oil a monopoly and ordered its breakup. Revealingly, as scholars have noted, the court made no mention of either predatory pricing or withholding production, as monopoly theory maintains. In fact, economist John S. McGee reviewed over 11,000 pages of trial testimony, including the charges brought by Standard Oil’s competitors. Publishing his findings in the Journal of Law and Economics, he concluded that there was “little to no evidence” of wrongdoing, adding that “Standard Oil did not use predatory price cutting to acquire or keep monopoly power."
Interesting! So why should this be something we do again?
To increase competition.
https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-laws-and-you
https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-laws-and-you
Right there in the first paragraph: "these laws prohibit business practices that unreasonably deprive consumers of the benefits of competition"
What are the benefits of competition?
I don't understand why the disgruntled companies don't simply band together and remove their apps from Apple until Apple complies? Apple is as reliant on their third party apps for their ecosystems as much as the inverse.
> Apple is as reliant on their third party apps for their ecosystems as much as the inverse.
I would take the other side of this bet. Barrier to entry for software to make a new chat app, social network, streaming app, crypto app, etc is much lower than barrier to entry to make hardware.
Another company willing to play by Apple’s rules will swoop in in relatively little time, while an alternative to iPhone/Apple Watch/AirPods/iPads/M processor computers will not.
I would take the other side of this bet. Barrier to entry for software to make a new chat app, social network, streaming app, crypto app, etc is much lower than barrier to entry to make hardware.
Another company willing to play by Apple’s rules will swoop in in relatively little time, while an alternative to iPhone/Apple Watch/AirPods/iPads/M processor computers will not.
Someone will just make a Roblox or Fortnite competitor and everyone will switch to it overnight? I doubt it
> relatively little time
Meaning alternative Roblox or Fortnite is coming much sooner than alternative devices equivalent to Apple’s hardware products.
Meaning alternative Roblox or Fortnite is coming much sooner than alternative devices equivalent to Apple’s hardware products.
Sure, why not? If the top ten games from my Steam library disappeared off the face of the earth I'd still have plenty of other games to play. Games rise and fall all the time; 10 years ago you could have written that about Minecraft and 15 years ago about Runescape. There are certainly still audiences for those games but they are smaller than before.
Say you have a game that you and all your friends play which you've purchased things for and logged thousands of hours on. You wouldn't be upset if it dumped from the App Store simply because Tim Cook woke up and chose violence?
I would certainly be sad. And then I'd start playing something else. It happens all the time in video games. People paid money for Club Penguin memberships and logged untold amounts of time there, too!
If the reason you couldn't play Club Penguin is Dell wanted 30% of the action, you probably aren't buying a Dell next time around.
Dell does not have ecosystem lock-in the way that Apple does. The question is not whether you will care or be sad that Apple blocked your game, but whether you will care enough or be sad enough to ditch Apple going forward.
Apple killed the 3.5mm headphone jack, it was and remains a really frustrating inconvenience, and yet here I am, still using a bunch of Apple products.
Apple killed the 3.5mm headphone jack, it was and remains a really frustrating inconvenience, and yet here I am, still using a bunch of Apple products.
It's not a bad idea but there's no "simply" about it: organizing is hard. And if you're one of the disgruntled companies, you have to balance the chances a campaign like this succeeds against the odds that Apple retaliates against the first companies to sign on.
Doing this would piss off the entire Apple user base of those companies, with no certain gain. Those companies would lose lots of customers as collateral damage in a war that they could potentially lose. Sounds like a bad strategy to me.
Meh, Apple would be the one pulling the plug.
You could look at the Epic trial for hints.
- Epic ended up mostly in the same situation against Apple and Google. So you’re basically advocating for leaving the whole mobile market in protest. Few game producers can survive that.
- Apple’s core revenue source is games, and there will always be scummier games pouring money into the platform (think gambling. They’ll never join your union, they can thrive under any condition). That makes boycotts way less effective.
- Epic ended up mostly in the same situation against Apple and Google. So you’re basically advocating for leaving the whole mobile market in protest. Few game producers can survive that.
- Apple’s core revenue source is games, and there will always be scummier games pouring money into the platform (think gambling. They’ll never join your union, they can thrive under any condition). That makes boycotts way less effective.
Epic is appealing right now and there was a hearing last month. DoJ even showed up to say they think the case was mishandled.
Because the most important apps to users right now are advertising-driven.
And the App Store has been around for nearly a decade now and we already know that users care far more about Apple than they do any one particular app.
And the App Store has been around for nearly a decade now and we already know that users care far more about Apple than they do any one particular app.
People have already invested $1000 into their phones. It will take a long time to get them to switch (probably years tbh) and apple thinks they can wait longer than app developers.
Many of the apps in the Apple App Store—including Coinbase—also offer a web interface which would work fine in Safari. People would not even have to switch phones.
There is a reason these companies make apps, they increase engagement and make it easier to track users. I don't big tech is ready to give up apps on iPhones.
Me either, which is the point: companies complain about the App Store cut, but they are obviously getting value for it because they don’t pull their apps.
This is an interesting question. It reminds me of the contract disputes that content producers sometimes have with cable companies that might result in one or more channels suddenly becoming unavailable for cable customers. Content producers need distribution (or at least did, back in the day) but the cable companies needed them as well and I would imagine must have taken the brunt of customer outrage when a channel became unavailable.
Usually it has something to do with "not going bankrupt". Apple's sheeps spend more than on other platforms too.
Where are they going to go? Google has the exact same fees (but gets none of the outcry for some reason)
Apple probably has a loaded PR statement ready for a situation like this. Coinbase? The public perception of crypto is already a joke at this point on its own. Facebook? Something about “privacy”. And so on.
And do what? When in an oligopoly, there aren't many places to go to.
Investors would fire the board for doing that.
Apple us so flush with cash I doubt they care.
I think higher ups at Apple know things we don't know WRT how politicians and agencies will act. It seems they are pretty confident they won't be regulated any time soon, at least in the US.
Guess it's time to write to our politicians and threaten to vote them out. Maybe collect signatures from a bunch of people and attach it to the letter to give it more weight.
If you've got a way to distinguish between accurate foreknowledge and hubris, please share. Everybody thinks the party will never stop until it does.
It's because Apple is legally allowed to charge a fee for what happens on their platform.
They can do it as a channel cost which is a standard concept in business or they can do it as a fee for using their platform services again another standard concept.
If any government were to prevent this it would unravel the entire economy because supermarkets, retailers and services businesses would no longer be legal. Hence why after nearly a decade the App Store is still fundamentally the same as day one.
They can do it as a channel cost which is a standard concept in business or they can do it as a fee for using their platform services again another standard concept.
If any government were to prevent this it would unravel the entire economy because supermarkets, retailers and services businesses would no longer be legal. Hence why after nearly a decade the App Store is still fundamentally the same as day one.
The next logical step is for Apple to demand a 30% cut of the revenue when you order physical goods on Amazon from your iPhone, or 30% of money you send to people with Venmo. If you don't think those behaviors would be okay, how can you think this is okay?
Exactly, where does it stop? Will apple also take a cut when i buy public transport tickets or flight tickets? What about hotels or airbnb?
This shit has to be stop now!
Free up the app stores and see if the customers and app devs will be still willing to fork over these extortionate fees.
And this security argument is just complete BS, a typical “Totschlagargument” that gets thrown around as needed.
This shit has to be stop now!
Free up the app stores and see if the customers and app devs will be still willing to fork over these extortionate fees.
And this security argument is just complete BS, a typical “Totschlagargument” that gets thrown around as needed.
> Totschlagargument
For others just learning this gorgeous word (literally "killing-blow argument") Wikipedia says:
> A thought-terminating cliché (also known as a semantic stop-sign, a thought-stopper, bumper sticker logic, or cliché thinking) is a form of loaded language, often passing as folk wisdom, intended to end an argument and quell cognitive dissonance.
For others just learning this gorgeous word (literally "killing-blow argument") Wikipedia says:
> A thought-terminating cliché (also known as a semantic stop-sign, a thought-stopper, bumper sticker logic, or cliché thinking) is a form of loaded language, often passing as folk wisdom, intended to end an argument and quell cognitive dissonance.
I prefer "thought-stopper" better. I would say Totschlagargument sounds like it could just be a really compelling argument that leaves the other side speechless and "kills" the discussion with a victory; but the point is not that the argument is compelling but rather it tries to block substantive thought and discussion.
I think it’s bizarre to say that’s “the next logical step” when in fact that things have all been explicitly addressed and exempted for the entire history of the App Store. It’s not as if Apple is slowly discovering new things they can take a cut from and they just haven’t discovered Amazon purchases yet.
It's bizarre to call any of it logical when 15 years ago this wasn't a problem. The App Store is at the center of this, and if Apple refuses to cede power it will be a long winter for them.
What do you mean? 15 years ago other phone app stores charged insane fees if you could even get on the store. At the time, 30% was seen as a huge win for developers.
Imagine if a desktop environment had the same restrictions. Would you accept them?
I'd buy from a different company if the restrictions bothered me.
Switching phones or OS or computer is not cheap or free for consumers. It's anticompetitive and should be flagged by the FTC. But they're toothless in the current era.
These policies aren't particularly new, so I'm not sure why there would be a sudden need to switch platforms. On the contrary, these policies are part of one of the biggest differentiators between Apple smartphones and their major competitors.
And even if someone did suddenly find Apple's policies unacceptable, there are several prominent alternatives to switch to, and switching is really not difficult for the vast majority of people. To be clear, there are some cases where Apple (and competitors) do make switching more difficult, and I do think it's reasonable for regulators to look into that stuff.
And even if someone did suddenly find Apple's policies unacceptable, there are several prominent alternatives to switch to, and switching is really not difficult for the vast majority of people. To be clear, there are some cases where Apple (and competitors) do make switching more difficult, and I do think it's reasonable for regulators to look into that stuff.
Of course they're new policies. In this case, Apple is asking for 30% match on Ethereum gas fees paid for transferring an NFT. It's an impossible request to follow for a number of reasons. The gas fee is variable with network demand, and the fee may change depending on when it gets executed, the gas fee is paid in ETH (which Apple doesn't support), etc. Nevermind that Apple has somehow arbitrarily determined that after 5 years of Ethereum wallet apps existing on its platform that it now wants a 30% cut of blockchain network fees. Apple does absolutely nothing to maintain the network security or facilitate the transaction. This might merely be for moving an NFT from one address to another. They are completely making this policy up. Like if I use my banking app to pay my electric bill or wire money to my family member, it would be totally unacceptable for Apple to demand 30% of either the bill or the transaction fees associated with such a transfer!
Apple is half of an entrenched duopoly in the mobile market. It is reasonable to restrict trillion dollar monopolies (or oligopolies!) from imposing a 30% tax on all web transactions. Not merely to restrict them from making it difficult to switch. It's unacceptable. It's exploitative. It's antitrust behavior. It's got to stop.
Apple is half of an entrenched duopoly in the mobile market. It is reasonable to restrict trillion dollar monopolies (or oligopolies!) from imposing a 30% tax on all web transactions. Not merely to restrict them from making it difficult to switch. It's unacceptable. It's exploitative. It's antitrust behavior. It's got to stop.
Those were feature phones, basically the handheld equivalent of a games console. In the age of smartphones, there is not a single reason that software distribution should be centralized.
What's different about game consoles and smartphones?
My bank and local government aren't making game consoles one of my primary methods of accessing their services. Smartphones are heavily integrated into the daily lives of most people now. They need to be regulated that way and the makers of these devices need to have less control over their users. We wouldn't allow a car maker to charge a fee to parking garages because the driver is "their customer". I need a car, I need a phone; being a hub of value shouldn't allow for such a high degree of rent seeking.
Do banks and local governments require using smartphones from Apple (or any one manufacturer) to the exclusion of other prominent smartphone options? That would be surprising to me, and definitely bad. But as far as I know, core services like that are going to be accessible on at least iPhones and Android smartphones, which is going to cover the vast majority of smartphone market share, so I'm not really sure why the ubiquity of smartphones is particularly relevant to what Apple's rules for third-party developers should be.
Apple wants a 30% on fees, not the good itself. This is consistent with the rest of their policies. Arguably that still isn't ok, but this is not an encroachment.
So 30% of the eBay fees and 30% off the Amazon marketplace fees should be fair game
That doesn't seem to hold up. If I buy something on eBay it's not any different from, e.g., buying stock on Robin Hood. There is an agreement between two parties, neither of whom are the people distributing the app, to make an exchange of money to [the eBay item] or stocks.
Apple does not claim a cut of the exchange of stocks, but they do claim a cut of the transaction fees for the exchange of stocks. If eBay or Amazon charged a transaction fee to facilitate their transactions, that would be an in-app purchase of which Apple would claim 30%.
Apple does not claim a cut of the exchange of stocks, but they do claim a cut of the transaction fees for the exchange of stocks. If eBay or Amazon charged a transaction fee to facilitate their transactions, that would be an in-app purchase of which Apple would claim 30%.
“Apple does not claim a cut of the exchange of stocks, but they do claim a cut of the transaction fees for the exchange of stocks.”
Are you sure / how? I’m not going to sign up for robinhood to confirm but my brokerage transacts with my bank, not in-app purchasing, pretty sure robinhood is the same. I’m pretty sure the differentiation is that stocks aren’t considered digital goods. And neither is coinbase’s mainline business which is allowed to facilitate buying & selling crypto without paying fees, even on their transaction fees, which users pay.
Are you sure / how? I’m not going to sign up for robinhood to confirm but my brokerage transacts with my bank, not in-app purchasing, pretty sure robinhood is the same. I’m pretty sure the differentiation is that stocks aren’t considered digital goods. And neither is coinbase’s mainline business which is allowed to facilitate buying & selling crypto without paying fees, even on their transaction fees, which users pay.
But they do, all eBay transactions have a 5-15% fee and Amazon 3rd part is the same
[deleted]
I see. In that case, I'd agree these fees should be fair game by the same logic. That does make me curious what's different here, if anything.
Next is profit fees and transaction fees form your banking app. Hey not salary, after all Apple is providing the platform for banks. Peasants can always ask their salary in cash ir build their own platform.
should they get 30% of my Amazon Prime fee?
If not.. Could Coinbase Wallet offer Coinbase Wallet Prime for. $100 that provides free transactions on qualifying orders?
All these rules feel arbitrary to carve out as much money as they can from "lesser people" without upsetting the larger players that have a budget to afford a lawsuit.
If not.. Could Coinbase Wallet offer Coinbase Wallet Prime for. $100 that provides free transactions on qualifying orders?
All these rules feel arbitrary to carve out as much money as they can from "lesser people" without upsetting the larger players that have a budget to afford a lawsuit.
If your Amazon Prime fee were paid via in-app purchase, why not?
The Coinbase thing is happening because it’s an all-digital purchase. There’s no physical benefit being transferred to the customer, as NFTs are wholly digital. Apple has been consistent about the fee being applied to all digital-only purchases, including for virtual yoga classes.
One can argue whether 30% is still an appropriate amount (compared to 15 years ago, it’s still a steal where pre-iPhone App Store models would take 50–75% of the revenue), but people should stop arguing in bad faith on this.
The Coinbase thing is happening because it’s an all-digital purchase. There’s no physical benefit being transferred to the customer, as NFTs are wholly digital. Apple has been consistent about the fee being applied to all digital-only purchases, including for virtual yoga classes.
One can argue whether 30% is still an appropriate amount (compared to 15 years ago, it’s still a steal where pre-iPhone App Store models would take 50–75% of the revenue), but people should stop arguing in bad faith on this.
Robinhood gets paid for order flow should apple get 30% of that each time a trade is executed on the platform? Apple should also take a fee from all trading apps that charge a fee on options trades in this case.
The 30% cut is only for digital goods sold in app
That’s why Kindle doesn’t sell directly in the ios app
Coinbase could do the same thing - sell it on the website
That’s why Kindle doesn’t sell directly in the ios app
Coinbase could do the same thing - sell it on the website
Pretty sure there's a carve ot specifically for those.
Ref: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#in-...
Ref: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#in-...
There's also a carveout there specifically for NFTs
> Apps may use in-app purchase to sell and sell services related to non-fungible tokens (NFTs), such as minting, listing, and transferring. Apps may allow users to view their own NFTs, provided that NFT ownership does not unlock features or functionality within the app. Apps may allow users to browse NFT collections owned by others, provided that the apps may not include buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms other than in-app purchase.
(emphasis mine)
> Apps may use in-app purchase to sell and sell services related to non-fungible tokens (NFTs), such as minting, listing, and transferring. Apps may allow users to view their own NFTs, provided that NFT ownership does not unlock features or functionality within the app. Apps may allow users to browse NFT collections owned by others, provided that the apps may not include buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms other than in-app purchase.
(emphasis mine)
There is for now. I'm saying I can see their next step being to remove that.
You actually can't order Kindle books on any Amazon iOS App.
Because Amazon doesn’t want to give up the 30% IAP fee. Fair enough.
Isn't that circumventing apples payment system and against their rules?
It isn't a circumvention - you can't buy the products in the app. If you try to go to the product page of a digital product it redirects you to a browser - but importantly you can't actually even see the product in the app so it isn't redirecting a _purchase_.
No. They also cannot direct people to the Amazon website to buy the books, which would be against the rules. That’s likely to change with the recent changes and upcoming legislative requirements.
That is the next “logical” step for people to claim without regard for whether it’s true or not. People will believe anything that confirms their biases.
30% of your bank with an app on interests on loans xD
App Store rules have never required a cut of physical transactions, only digital.
That was tolerable a decade ago when it was only about iTunes songs and power-ups in kids' games.
But now more and more of the economy is moving online, and the Apple/Google duopoly gets to tax everything.
But now more and more of the economy is moving online, and the Apple/Google duopoly gets to tax everything.
So, kindle books then?
Yes, which is why you can’t buy ebooks in either the Amazon app or the Kindle app.
It’s not great.
It’s not great.
That’s Amazon’s choice because THEY also take a cut of the transaction on that book sale
https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ and scroll to 3.1.3(a)
It's not their choice, Amazon isn't allowed to by Apple's rules. A very careful reading of the rules for reader apps reveals you're not allowed to sell content on your reader app at all.
It's not their choice, Amazon isn't allowed to by Apple's rules. A very careful reading of the rules for reader apps reveals you're not allowed to sell content on your reader app at all.
That seems more like a carve out for reader apps to offer links to a website bypassing IAP for content
> 3.1.3 Other Purchase Methods: The following apps may use purchase methods other than in-app purchase. Apps in this section cannot, within the app, encourage users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase, except as set forth in 3.1.3(a).
> 3.1.1 In-App Purchase: If you want to unlock features or functionality within your app, (by way of example: subscriptions, in-game currencies, game levels, access to premium content, or unlocking a full version), you must use in-app purchase. Apps may not use their own mechanisms to unlock content or functionality, … except as set forth in 3.1.3(a).
> 3.1.3 Other Purchase Methods: The following apps may use purchase methods other than in-app purchase. Apps in this section cannot, within the app, encourage users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase, except as set forth in 3.1.3(a).
> 3.1.1 In-App Purchase: If you want to unlock features or functionality within your app, (by way of example: subscriptions, in-game currencies, game levels, access to premium content, or unlocking a full version), you must use in-app purchase. Apps may not use their own mechanisms to unlock content or functionality, … except as set forth in 3.1.3(a).
Apple... what the heck is wrong with you?
This is not the time to be strengthening the rules. You've got the Digital Markets Act already entering force in Europe which is going to most likely break App Store dominance over there in just a year or two. The US has senators eyeing the Open App Markets Act again after Elon's threat (and if it doesn't pass now, when senators see an open Europe and a closed US, what about then?). You've got antitrust investigations opened in the UK. This is time to be giving concessions hoping to keep power - not doubling down!
Edit: If Apple's claims about it being "privacy and security" are true, here's how to keep power. Drop the 30% cut, make a $25-$50 fee every time a new version comes out for a quality app review from a 3rd party independent board, drop some of the more onerous restrictions, and maybe then regulators would be willing to allow the App Store to remain. Instead...
This is not the time to be strengthening the rules. You've got the Digital Markets Act already entering force in Europe which is going to most likely break App Store dominance over there in just a year or two. The US has senators eyeing the Open App Markets Act again after Elon's threat (and if it doesn't pass now, when senators see an open Europe and a closed US, what about then?). You've got antitrust investigations opened in the UK. This is time to be giving concessions hoping to keep power - not doubling down!
Edit: If Apple's claims about it being "privacy and security" are true, here's how to keep power. Drop the 30% cut, make a $25-$50 fee every time a new version comes out for a quality app review from a 3rd party independent board, drop some of the more onerous restrictions, and maybe then regulators would be willing to allow the App Store to remain. Instead...
I completely agree, but the real problem here is they are dependent on, nay, addicted to the revenue they get from that 30% cut. Only way to fix this is regulation and I believe that Apple's quarter-based short-sightedness will essentially ensure that they keep pushing until they get regulated.
If someone's OKR is based on quarterly revenue from App store, they aren't going to care until regulation is literally at their doorstep. That's next quarter, not this quarter. Next quarter that person could retire or quit.
If someone's OKR is based on quarterly revenue from App store, they aren't going to care until regulation is literally at their doorstep. That's next quarter, not this quarter. Next quarter that person could retire or quit.
I was about to write a comment that Apple's App Store earnings are basically pocket change for them, but I looked up the most recent numbers and they've exploded.
They claim they gave devs ~$64Bn in 2021. That means they collected about $27Bn in revenue in 2021, and most of that is basically money for free and almost entirely profit.
It's probably about 10-12% of their profit and grows without them having to do much at all.
They claim they gave devs ~$64Bn in 2021. That means they collected about $27Bn in revenue in 2021, and most of that is basically money for free and almost entirely profit.
It's probably about 10-12% of their profit and grows without them having to do much at all.
How much time to iUsers spend within native apps compared to third party apps? I'd imagine it's mostly third party, can't imagine tons of people spend a hour a day in the call log. If it was made illegal to take any cut on the app store, they would still have to run it otherwise that new iPhone is just a telephone and a browser, who's paying $1k+ for that?
Safari, photos, messages, mail, maps, notes…
So less functionality than a first or second generation iPhone, but you want to charge a months rent for it? Who cares what sensors and tech you have if there isn't any applications to take advantage of them? It's like releasing a state of the art game console but not having any games to play on it.
Their net income in recent quarters has been around $20B. So it's more like 30% of their total yearly profit (using your figure)
And don't forget, it's a line of profit that is literally them printing money at virtually no cost to themselves vs other markets where they have to actually produce physical goods. Yes they have to run the CDN behind the app store and do their crappy little moderation of things, but that's a few cents on every dollar.
Apple always pushes until they are regulated they put a spin on it trying to present what they are forced to do as hurting consumers. That’s their usual playbook.
Not that I'd ever expect it to happen, but the DOJ coming down hard on Apple like they did with Microsoft could go a long way to getting corporations to voluntarily rein in their aggressive business practices.
For anyone interested in the antitrust space, this is a pretty good (though excessively optimistic imho) newsletter:
https://mattstoller.substack.com/
For anyone interested in the antitrust space, this is a pretty good (though excessively optimistic imho) newsletter:
https://mattstoller.substack.com/
I think they know regulation is imminent and are just wanting to milk it dry while they can
Regulation will make it worse long term; what we need is competition, which seems to be coming in the way of alternate android OS's. ~75% of China uses android, and they all use google alternatives. Huawei uses HarmonyOS, and there's no reason to believe this won't slowly make its way around the globe.
Competition doesn't work in these kinds of markets. The larger you are, the easier it is to retain your position. Social networks, app stores, things like this are desirable because of their size. They are classic monopolies and have to be regulated because the "free market of ideas" is physically incapable of doing so, because capitalism can't do this stuff properly without heavy restrictions.
Social networks are one of the most competitive spaces there are. I don't know you but I would bet my life savings that you're on multiple social networks, and you change networks depending on which add the most value to your life frequently.
What will be a massive problem is if the government says "App Stores can only have at max a 20% fee", and then to enforce this law they only allow two app stores, or it increases the barrier of entry for small players even more.
What will be a massive problem is if the government says "App Stores can only have at max a 20% fee", and then to enforce this law they only allow two app stores, or it increases the barrier of entry for small players even more.
Dependent? From over here it just seems like they're Walter White with such a huge pile of cash that life itself becomes meaningless.
For-profit companies (especially large ones) are machines whose primary function is to make profits. Anything else they do along the way (employ people, make products, provide services, trash the environment, etc) is a side effect.
He's still got a point. there is no scenario where apple needs the money they get from app store, so there has to be another explanation. I mean, no one will convince me that a company with 366 billion in revenue is dependent on 12 billion in revenue from app store.
There is something we're not being told here. Because the reasons all these commenters are throwing out make zero sense.
There is something we're not being told here. Because the reasons all these commenters are throwing out make zero sense.
> there is no scenario where apple needs
You're assuming the existence of a 'need'. Part of my point is that there doesn't have to be any 'need' for additional revenue beyond the revenue itself.
It also seems like you may be assuming that the person or people responsible for this and other similar decisions are incentivized to consider all of Apple's revenue as opposed to a specific subset of it, which I suspect is unlikely.
You're assuming the existence of a 'need'. Part of my point is that there doesn't have to be any 'need' for additional revenue beyond the revenue itself.
It also seems like you may be assuming that the person or people responsible for this and other similar decisions are incentivized to consider all of Apple's revenue as opposed to a specific subset of it, which I suspect is unlikely.
[deleted]
Companies exist to enrich shareholders and they all agree on one point: they want more.
Somebody should tell shareholders about the goose.
You and I both probably own some AAPL through an ETF. We should tell ourselves about the goose.
Especially newer shareholders who just started their wealth building journey - they want more innovation and more products so the share price and dividends can increase as the company scales more.
[deleted]
I think App Store revenue is pretty close to hardware revenue at this point, which is absolutely mind-boggling once you consider the volume/margins of the iPhone. 80-odd billion dollars of Developer Program subscriptions and 30% cuts, what a racket.
> App Store revenue is pretty close to hardware revenue at this point,
Fiscal 2022 Services revenue is 77 million and iPhone revenue is 220 million, so it's not there yet, but it's beating iPad (29 million) and Mac (40 million) combined which is nothing to sneeze at.
I don't think that Apple discloses App Store revenue separate from Services revenue
https://sixcolors.com/post/2022/11/apples-fiscal-2022-in-cha...
Fiscal 2022 Services revenue is 77 million and iPhone revenue is 220 million, so it's not there yet, but it's beating iPad (29 million) and Mac (40 million) combined which is nothing to sneeze at.
I don't think that Apple discloses App Store revenue separate from Services revenue
https://sixcolors.com/post/2022/11/apples-fiscal-2022-in-cha...
Hmm, I thought it's traditional media feature to confuse millions with billions, didn't expect that on HN.
Apple says they paid out 60B in App Store revenue to developers in 2021, if you used the 30% figure (which is unfair because they charge 15% on +1yr subscriptions and <1M revenue) that would be like 26B in commissions. Take that for what you will.
[deleted]
Would you like a [visual representation](https://www.statista.com/statistics/382260/segments-share-re...) of how incorrect you are? App Store revenue is part of "Services", which accounts for just shy of 1/5 of the company's revenue. The rest is by definition hardware. Certainly services as a growth division has been a big part of Apple's story to investors, but to say that App Store revenues is close to hardware revenue is clearly daft.
This seems like a consistent application of existing in-app purchase rules: purchasing a digital good to enjoy within the app requires IAP support for everyone else, so why not Coinbase? It's not clear (to me) that Apple is doubling down or strengthening the rules here.
If anything, I suspect that Coinbase intentionally violated the rules with this update so that it can sign on with Epic and Twitter in the fight against Apple.
If anything, I suspect that Coinbase intentionally violated the rules with this update so that it can sign on with Epic and Twitter in the fight against Apple.
So online banking apps should be charged 30% of forex transactions as well, right? Either way the whole comission thing is plain stupid. Maybe paying for app review & download but why for transactions?
But Stocks and Currencies aren't technically a digital good, they are partial ownership of a company or a hard currency. A NFT is exactly the definition of a digital only good, seeing as how a large number of NFT use-cases are to replace / make portable in-app goods sold in online games / mobile apps, which all currently require IAP fees to purchase on mobile. So this is just Apple applying the same rules to NFTs that apply to purchasing items in mobile games.
Apple was never going to allow the blockchain to remove their 30% cut on these purely digital items, as much as crypto folks preached that the blockchain would remove us from the shackles of App Store IAP payments.
Apple was never going to allow the blockchain to remove their 30% cut on these purely digital items, as much as crypto folks preached that the blockchain would remove us from the shackles of App Store IAP payments.
To be nuanced, cryptocurrency in a custodial wallet is no more of a digital good than a stock/forex/cash custodial brokerage/bank account.
Honest question, but is that really what's going on here? Is the analogy 30% of forex transactions, or 30% of the fees charged for forex transactions?
Don't forget, your stock broker should give Apple 30% of every stock purchased.
edit: for those paying a broker fee, does Apple even take 30% of that?
edit: for those paying a broker fee, does Apple even take 30% of that?
forex transaction fees, which is different from forex transaction value.
yeah arguably if apple wanted to say "you're doing a forex trade in app, TD Ameritrade makes $10 in fees on that $20k transaction, we deserve $3 of that, and it needs to be paid via our IAP scheme" that's a consistent application of their rules at least.
again though, coinbase's PR department is doing what PR departments do, they've got you talking like coinbase would be charged 30% of the whole transaction and that's not actually what Apple is saying here... just like it turns out Qualcomm may not have been entirely honest about ARM's licensing changes and many of the specifics of EVGA's complaints are highly misleading or specific to their (atypical) business model, despite a generally-correct thrust.
Like, kinda funny that grown-ass adults don't understand that a literal PR department might not always be presenting the situation entirely fairly... and this is a business community we're discussing that in, no less. You need to apply critical thinking about why someone might be saying things now, and why they're saying them in that particular way... they're happy to lead you into a wrongful conclusion even if they themselves haven't said anything technically wrong: that is the conclusion they intended for you to draw and you consumed the information uncritically and you did draw that conclusion. They walked you right down the garden path there, give that PR guy a raise.
Just like Sony can argue for app-store openness on Apple's platforms but argue they shouldn't have to open their own platform to competitors too... they want to keep their 30% cut but force their competitors to give up theirs. And no, consoles are not sold at a loss anymore, PS5 hit hardware profitability around 6 months after launch...
yeah arguably if apple wanted to say "you're doing a forex trade in app, TD Ameritrade makes $10 in fees on that $20k transaction, we deserve $3 of that, and it needs to be paid via our IAP scheme" that's a consistent application of their rules at least.
again though, coinbase's PR department is doing what PR departments do, they've got you talking like coinbase would be charged 30% of the whole transaction and that's not actually what Apple is saying here... just like it turns out Qualcomm may not have been entirely honest about ARM's licensing changes and many of the specifics of EVGA's complaints are highly misleading or specific to their (atypical) business model, despite a generally-correct thrust.
Like, kinda funny that grown-ass adults don't understand that a literal PR department might not always be presenting the situation entirely fairly... and this is a business community we're discussing that in, no less. You need to apply critical thinking about why someone might be saying things now, and why they're saying them in that particular way... they're happy to lead you into a wrongful conclusion even if they themselves haven't said anything technically wrong: that is the conclusion they intended for you to draw and you consumed the information uncritically and you did draw that conclusion. They walked you right down the garden path there, give that PR guy a raise.
Just like Sony can argue for app-store openness on Apple's platforms but argue they shouldn't have to open their own platform to competitors too... they want to keep their 30% cut but force their competitors to give up theirs. And no, consoles are not sold at a loss anymore, PS5 hit hardware profitability around 6 months after launch...
From Coinbase's post:
For anyone who understands how NFTs and blockchains work, this is clearly not possible. Apple’s proprietary In-App Purchase system does not support crypto so we couldn’t comply even if we tried.
This is akin to Apple trying to take a cut of fees for every email that gets sent over open Internet protocols.
For anyone who understands how NFTs and blockchains work, this is clearly not possible. Apple’s proprietary In-App Purchase system does not support crypto so we couldn’t comply even if we tried.
This is akin to Apple trying to take a cut of fees for every email that gets sent over open Internet protocols.
> This is akin to Apple trying to take a cut of fees for every email that gets sent over open Internet protocols
No, only the ones sent using their hardware. And I think there’s no law or regulation that would forbid them from doing that.
Similarly, if, currently, the App Store model doesn’t support what Coinbase wants to do, they shouldn’t have made an app.
(this isn’t a statement about the desirability of the current situation)
No, only the ones sent using their hardware. And I think there’s no law or regulation that would forbid them from doing that.
Similarly, if, currently, the App Store model doesn’t support what Coinbase wants to do, they shouldn’t have made an app.
(this isn’t a statement about the desirability of the current situation)
> No, only the ones sent using their hardware.
Apologies if I'm misunderstanding, but are you saying my iPhone belongs to Apple?
(I may be confused by how you mean "their hardware".)
Apologies if I'm misunderstanding, but are you saying my iPhone belongs to Apple?
(I may be confused by how you mean "their hardware".)
I believe that could be changed to:
> No, only the ones sent using [an app distributed via Apple's App Store].
I don't want to speak for anyone, but that's (probably) more accurate to the intended meaning.
> No, only the ones sent using [an app distributed via Apple's App Store].
I don't want to speak for anyone, but that's (probably) more accurate to the intended meaning.
Since Apple's App Store is the only practical way to distribute apps on Apple devices, there isn't really a difference. The fact is that the owner of an apple devices has no control over their device.
I don't think that's a reasonable interpretation of the current rules, though. Apple doesn't (yet...) demand a 30% cut when you buy stocks via an app on your iphone.
They're demanding a 30% cut of the transaction fees, not of what is being purchased.
This doesn't make sense because we can buy and sell crypto from Coinbase, Uphold, even Cash app right from our phones. We buy crypto and send crypto, and that has its own fees associated with it. Why does apple allow any app that support buying and selling crypto?
> And I think there’s no law or regulation that would forbid them from doing that.
They're lucky that the US has the particular form of "democracy" that they do, because I suspect the current regulations aren't exactly "the will of the people".
They're lucky that the US has the particular form of "democracy" that they do, because I suspect the current regulations aren't exactly "the will of the people".
I read their thread before my comment because the title on this submission was pretty inflammatory. Their tendentious argument is exactly what made me think this was a trial balloon.
I guess that means there's no way for the IRS to collect taxes on anything crypto related - or indeed on any non-cash transactions...
Oh, wait, they can just pay in dollars. I don't think that Coinbase has their problem solving hat on :)
Oh, wait, they can just pay in dollars. I don't think that Coinbase has their problem solving hat on :)
> If anything, I suspect that Coinbase intentionally violated the rules with this update
Trading volume has been falling 30-44% every quarter:
https://s27.q4cdn.com/397450999/files/doc_financials/2022/q3...
https://s27.q4cdn.com/397450999/files/doc_financials/2022/q2...
https://s27.q4cdn.com/397450999/files/doc_financials/2022/q1...
so I'm thinking they don't have a product and they know it. This NFT product was supposed to be so hot their servers couldn't take it!
https://www.gfinityesports.com/cryptocurrency/coinbase-nft-w...
so what gives? I think someone is lying here. Maybe even bad enough someone could get fired if this doesn't get turned around. And if that's the case, it seems plausible to me that someone looked at 30% of "their" revenue going to Apple and just said fuck it.
Trading volume has been falling 30-44% every quarter:
https://s27.q4cdn.com/397450999/files/doc_financials/2022/q3...
https://s27.q4cdn.com/397450999/files/doc_financials/2022/q2...
https://s27.q4cdn.com/397450999/files/doc_financials/2022/q1...
so I'm thinking they don't have a product and they know it. This NFT product was supposed to be so hot their servers couldn't take it!
https://www.gfinityesports.com/cryptocurrency/coinbase-nft-w...
so what gives? I think someone is lying here. Maybe even bad enough someone could get fired if this doesn't get turned around. And if that's the case, it seems plausible to me that someone looked at 30% of "their" revenue going to Apple and just said fuck it.
This fits with what I've heard from ex-Coinbase folks.
Yep. Then they saw Spotify and the like attacking app store and decided it's a hot moment to pile on.
Coinbase is facilitating purchasing between third parties. Do you have to pay 30% Apple tax when purchasing things in the e-bay app on an iPhone? (I honestly don't know, but these seem equivalent to me)
“Digital” goods is the differentiator. ebay, amazon and the like can sell physical goods without giving a cut. It is why you can’t buy kindle books in the amazon app, they would have to give apple a cut.
When you buy an NFT using the Coinbase wallet, you aren't buying it from Coinbase, you're buying it from some other random person. The Coinbase wallet is only being used to facilitate a person-to-person transaction, and view personal NFT collections.
It has been claimed elsewhere that coinbase charges transaction fees for these, i don’t know if that is true or not but if it is it does not seem to be an inconsistent application of the rules. It would be the same as buying a kindle edition from an independent publisher through amazon’s iOS app, amazon takes a cut so they have to pay up. I am not defending the policy just not clear to me this is an inconsistent application.
They would still take a cut. If the transaction is still happening in the Coinbase app then it is an in-app payment. It is still the transaction of a digital good.
[deleted]
they don't care who you're buying it from.
It would be 30% of the ebay fee, I suppose. That would be wild though. Would banks be paying 30% of their account fees that are related to actions taken on the iphone?
Should apple also take 30% of every Venmo transaction I make? If I use my iphone to do a check deposit to my bank account, should apple take 30% of that?
This is not an in app purchase, IMO.
This is not an in app purchase, IMO.
Coinbase charges transaction fees and those are the in-app purchases for which Apple are claiming their cut.
> This seems like a consistent application of existing in-app purchase rules…
Exactly, the dumb/risky thing to do would be to make a special exception for Coinbase. This is no different from a consumer buying Robux to spend on a 3rd-party game.
Exactly, the dumb/risky thing to do would be to make a special exception for Coinbase. This is no different from a consumer buying Robux to spend on a 3rd-party game.
If crypt ever gets treated as securities, you’ll see Apple backing off the same minute.
This would only be comparable if Coinbase sold BaseBux through the app or something, which gave access to features within the app.
This is more like your stock broker app letting you buy a stock, although "cryptocurrencies aren't securities, they're speculative assets". So maybe more like buying art via an app.
This is more like your stock broker app letting you buy a stock, although "cryptocurrencies aren't securities, they're speculative assets". So maybe more like buying art via an app.
What if I buy AAPL in my trading app or USD with my forex broker? I bet they're not taking 30% on that.
If the app you were using included a transaction fee to purchase the AAPL stock, Apple would claim a 30% cut of that fee.
(I haven't gone trawling through captures) but its been there for at least a month.
https://web.archive.org/web/20221030193939/https://developer... (search for NFT in the page).
https://web.archive.org/web/20221030193939/https://developer... (search for NFT in the page).
It would be the silliest legal move to make any concessions until forced to by a court. If they indicate that they don't need that full 30% in enough different contexts, it will lend credence to a larger argument against 30% at all.
Disagree with it or not, were I Apple Legal, I would never in a million years allow a concession without a fight.
Disagree with it or not, were I Apple Legal, I would never in a million years allow a concession without a fight.
Microsoft is preemptively cooperating, and will likely not be forced to create a separate OS for the eu. Apple will be forced to create a EU specific one, one which not just lets people install other Appstore's, but which will ask the user if they want the google Appstore or a free one, or the apple one, the first time you start it.
Knowing when to lose is quite valuable. Microsoft learned that the hard way last time.
Knowing when to lose is quite valuable. Microsoft learned that the hard way last time.
I mean, just make it 30%, or whatever, of stuff that uses their in-built app store payment. If you don't want to use their payment infra, you don't pay and you make whatever arrangements with the user both parties agree to. It forces them to justify their cut other as more than just rent-seeking. Netflix doesn't need any help getting a CC number. Or delivering apps, frankly. Apple inserts themselves as a middleman in that capacity for their benefit and theirs alone.
Neither the Open Markets Act or the Digital Markets Act will do anything about Apple's commission. You can have alternative app stores, sideloading, whatever. It doesn't change anything about using Apple's intellectual property and having to pay for it. All it will do is make the products worse for users. But developers aren't going to get the outcome they want, which is to ride the rails for free.
How is me making an app that makes API calls to iOS an "use of Apple's intellectual property"? I'm not distributing any IP besides my own, all I'm doing is telling the API to execute in a certain way inside the hardware the user already posseses.
A good analogy would be me making a new control panel for a mechanical machine, where the panel has metal arms and rods that connect to the machine's original mechanisms to bring about a certain result that the machine itself would be incapable of bringing on its own.
You wouldn't say I can't distribute that new panel I made because the original machine is patented, right?
A good analogy would be me making a new control panel for a mechanical machine, where the panel has metal arms and rods that connect to the machine's original mechanisms to bring about a certain result that the machine itself would be incapable of bringing on its own.
You wouldn't say I can't distribute that new panel I made because the original machine is patented, right?
Right - but those pushing for external app stores assume it will work that way. Instead... Apple's probably going to make some forms and demand manual reporting and commission payments.
However, it would be so contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of the law that I expect any such attempts would quickly gain antitrust scrutiny and new legislation declaring that APIs and software included in a device may only be monetized at point-of-sale (with the exception of subscription plans marketed toward consumers). It is possible that a court would even see it as such a violation of the law's intended effect that they would step in.
However, it would be so contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of the law that I expect any such attempts would quickly gain antitrust scrutiny and new legislation declaring that APIs and software included in a device may only be monetized at point-of-sale (with the exception of subscription plans marketed toward consumers). It is possible that a court would even see it as such a violation of the law's intended effect that they would step in.
No government is going to expropriate Apple's intellectual property just to move some money from Apple to developers. It also wouldn't get passed courts.
The whole point of the DMA EU regulations is that one should be able to make and distribute an iOS app without entering into a contractual relationship with Apple at all
As much as I believe companies can decide for themselves whatever they want to do within the law, this seems incredibly stupid. They're pushing the limits of their customer base, even the Apple fanatics..
I can't fathom why this decision was made.
I can't fathom why this decision was made.
At this point apple is just in denial. The eu alone will force them to make every user pick the default appstore on first install from alternatives including both something free and google, and probably samsung, and force them to provide easy to use api for everyone else.
Its hilarious to see the difference between apple, google and microsofts reactions. Two of them went we will fight tooth and nail, microsoft who tried that last time instantly went we are dropping the fees instantly, unless you want more? and will work with regulators to make open access ...
Its hilarious to see the difference between apple, google and microsofts reactions. Two of them went we will fight tooth and nail, microsoft who tried that last time instantly went we are dropping the fees instantly, unless you want more? and will work with regulators to make open access ...
I wonder if they think the hammer is going to fall either way? If so, it makes sense they’ll take while the takings good.
But they can't even take here. Obviously coin base can't give them 30% revenue even if they were willing to. That would be like asking for a 30% cut for deposits from the bank apps. This just seems like spite for the new rules.
Coinbase PR got you.
Apple is asking for 30% of fees charged, not amounts exchanged. It’s like if a bank app charged you $1 to deposit $100; Apple would want $0.30, not $30.
Still debatable and I’ve got no sympathy for Apple, but this kind of OMG they want to take 30% of all cash flows response is exactly the misleading PR people are trying to gin up.
EDIT: here is what Coinbase themselves say:
Apple’s claim is that the gas fees required to send NFTs need to be paid through their In-App Purchase system
Apple is asking for 30% of fees charged, not amounts exchanged. It’s like if a bank app charged you $1 to deposit $100; Apple would want $0.30, not $30.
Still debatable and I’ve got no sympathy for Apple, but this kind of OMG they want to take 30% of all cash flows response is exactly the misleading PR people are trying to gin up.
EDIT: here is what Coinbase themselves say:
Apple’s claim is that the gas fees required to send NFTs need to be paid through their In-App Purchase system
Coinbase isn't actually taking any cut of the transaction. The gas fee goes directly to the blockchain network itself. That fee varies depending on the total number of transactions, so as far as I understand it's actually not possible to have it go through Apple's in-app purchase system.
I'm not supporting Coinbase here, though, and I wouldn't be mad if this policy were actually just a tacit way to ban cryptocurrency transactions in the App Store. But your analogy doesn't fit.
I'm not supporting Coinbase here, though, and I wouldn't be mad if this policy were actually just a tacit way to ban cryptocurrency transactions in the App Store. But your analogy doesn't fit.
Coinbase absolutely take fees that are unrelated to network fees. When you buy $COIN from Coinbase you don't touch the network at all they just note in their database that you bought 0.5 of $COIN for $10 total, $2 which was their fee. It doesn't hit the network till you withdraw it. This is the fee Apple is talking about.
No, it's not — Coinbase Wallet is their non-custodial wallet, meaning you actually get a real address on the blockchain rather than just a row in their database. https://www.coinbase.com/wallet
Should they also take 30% of exchange fees in your Fidelity app?
there is no digital good in this scenario.
I don't think in banking apps you're purchasing anything while using the app (in-app purchases). If you buy an NFT in an app, you are purchasing it in the app, no?
No, you're purchasing it but it's not in the app. And you can absolutely pay bills in a lot of banking apps, or even use zelle to buy things in a store. The whole point of the nft is that you can trade it outside of the app. If I buy a physical limited edition poster on etsy does Apple get 30% of that sale?
> 3.1.3(e) Goods and Services Outside of the App: If your app enables people to purchase physical goods or services that will be consumed outside of the app, you must use purchase methods other than in-app purchase to collect those payments, such as Apple Pay or traditional credit card entry.
https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#goo...
It isn't an in app purchase. It doesn't pay a cut to Apple.
https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#goo...
It isn't an in app purchase. It doesn't pay a cut to Apple.
Yeah. Does this apply to forex fees I incur via my banks?
There is nothing wrong with them. They're maximizing profits. They will get away with it, they are so big. (The biggest?)
People will still support them, as long they can have the fastest phones/laptops. I started on a mac clone in the mid 90s (they almost went under), but I finally moved away last year, though I still have an iphone. The Linux desktop works great for developing.
Its a societal and network effect problem. This isn't new. We've been warned. We've chosen to ignore.
People will still support them, as long they can have the fastest phones/laptops. I started on a mac clone in the mid 90s (they almost went under), but I finally moved away last year, though I still have an iphone. The Linux desktop works great for developing.
Its a societal and network effect problem. This isn't new. We've been warned. We've chosen to ignore.
Apple is about 6.5% of holdings in SPY. It's economic suicide to hit them hard and they know it. Especially with impending recession and a heavy bear year.
I remember when in school in history class we all were upset when we learnt that the land lord demanded a "tenth" from the agricultural gains.
Those were the times...
Apple encourages serfing the Internet.
Ahahaha, they will soon be asking Charles Schwab for a 30% cut for anyone that sells equities in the iPhone.
One day a bunch of companies are going to get together and have an Apple Blackout. Turn off their backend to all iOS devices. Imagine Coinbase, Twitter, Spotify, Facebook, WhatsApp, Epic, etc. Turn it off for a day, few days or a week. That will drive the point home. Apple thinks it has leverage, but united other companies can force their hand.
I'm in the "too bad" camp.
This is what happens when customers and companies gleefully buy into the idea of a walled garden.
Because I can bet anything that there are iPhones and Macs on every desk at Coinbase.
This is what happens when customers and companies gleefully buy into the idea of a walled garden.
Because I can bet anything that there are iPhones and Macs on every desk at Coinbase.
Can't wait for Apple and Tim Cook to be brought back into reality by the EU.
I'm popping champagne on that day.
I'm popping champagne on that day.
> The biggest impact from this policy change is on iPhone users that own NFTs - if you hold an NFT in a wallet on an iPhone, Apple just made it a lot harder to transfer that NFT to other wallets, or gift it to friends or family.
Wow, so decentralized. /s
Wow, so decentralized. /s
Why don't companies just get ahead of apple here, decamp from the app store, and heavily advertise a web app instead? Most of these apps need online connectivity anyway, so having a native app isn't all that useful.
Progressive Web Apps can run offline thanks to Service Workers. I’m not sure how reliable or feature-complete the iOS/Safari service worker API is (likely half-baked and bug-ridden like the rest of their browser APIs), but in theory it can be installed once and run offline just fine.
No one can figure out how to write a good web app. Give your average web developer the task of showing Green Eggs And Ham to the user and they'll always figure out how to make the page really slow and clunky.
The web has played out, and I'm pretty sure most people use it for news, recipes, and Wikipedia. Everything else is done through apps. You don't see a lot of young people talking about websites. Websites are seen as something for old people, and the App Store is the easiest way to access services and social media, which is how Apple has these companies in a bind. If going to The Google or typing in a URL was as easy or easier for the average person, Apple would have lowered the cut they take a long time ago.
The web has played out, and I'm pretty sure most people use it for news, recipes, and Wikipedia. Everything else is done through apps. You don't see a lot of young people talking about websites. Websites are seen as something for old people, and the App Store is the easiest way to access services and social media, which is how Apple has these companies in a bind. If going to The Google or typing in a URL was as easy or easier for the average person, Apple would have lowered the cut they take a long time ago.
If you can make an app, you can make a web app. I use a few made by companies with very little means and they work great.
Apple also controls the web browser on iOS, and has specifically avoided implementing features that would allow making useful offline webapps. They also do not let other browser vendors (Chrome / Firefox / etc) publish full browser engines with any of those features on the app store.
You can't run any sort of background code (webworkers etc). You can't have a split-view for a progressive web-app on iPad. You can't have notifications.
The lack of notifications is a big one, and one of the things that makes such apps mostly non-starters.
You can't run any sort of background code (webworkers etc). You can't have a split-view for a progressive web-app on iPad. You can't have notifications.
The lack of notifications is a big one, and one of the things that makes such apps mostly non-starters.
The primary purpose of the Coinbase Wallet app is to securely store and mediate access to a private key that allows the user to spend/transfer money (by making transactions on Ethereum or other similar decentralized networks, which involve a payment of gas fees to the network). It isn't clear that there is a reasonable way to build that product as a web app.
Why not? Coinbase lets you do this stuff from their website too.
Coinbase the exchange--the thing which involves a website--is a centralized pseudo-banking product where they actually own your money and you pray they still have it when you want access to it later. You use a username and a password to log in to this service which transacts on your behalf, and you talk to their customer support if you are locked out somehow.
Coinbase's wallet app is entirely different and largely unrelated: it is a program that manages a private key on your phone so you can directly access your funds and make transactions on the underlying decentralized infrastructure. If Coinbase goes out of business their wallet app would still function and no one has access to your money except you, using this key.
Coinbase's wallet app is entirely different and largely unrelated: it is a program that manages a private key on your phone so you can directly access your funds and make transactions on the underlying decentralized infrastructure. If Coinbase goes out of business their wallet app would still function and no one has access to your money except you, using this key.
Why is Apple not requesting 30% of the commission to transfer money from one bank account to another in a banking App?
As an iPhone-user, Apple is really doing everything they can to make sure I don’t like them or their products anymore.
The China riot iOS censor-update, this, the Twitter app threats. And all in a about a weeks worth of time.
Wtf guys. Seriously.
The China riot iOS censor-update, this, the Twitter app threats. And all in a about a weeks worth of time.
Wtf guys. Seriously.
Conversely, do you want Coinbase to have less responsibility to actually fulfill the $$ transaction? Free services to Coinbase + THEIR customers, fulfilled by Apple?
Because that's what paying Apple 30% should get you, as an Apple customer .. some protection in case Coinbase doesn't actually fulfill the gas computation service, with what this supposed issue is talking about.
Because that's what paying Apple 30% should get you, as an Apple customer .. some protection in case Coinbase doesn't actually fulfill the gas computation service, with what this supposed issue is talking about.
Really? Every blow they deal to crypto I start liking them again.
I don't give a rats about crypto stuff generally or coinbase specifically. At this point I equal blockchain to snake oil and scamming.
For me this is all about their flagrant abuse of platform and gate-keeper power.
For me this is all about their flagrant abuse of platform and gate-keeper power.
The best thing about Apple's outrageous 30% cut is it's some of the biggest companies in the world and Apple smashing each other to bits.
In this society, big companies usually get all the breaks and the little guys get nothing, so it's nice to see the big guys forced to brawl.
Governments, for example, folded many years ago and stopped taxing big companies 30% and instead give them money. Apple isn't as easily bribed as politicians.
In this society, big companies usually get all the breaks and the little guys get nothing, so it's nice to see the big guys forced to brawl.
Governments, for example, folded many years ago and stopped taxing big companies 30% and instead give them money. Apple isn't as easily bribed as politicians.
But at the end of the day the 30% overhead goes to Apple. If there is some sub-market of apps where there is actual competition--where the companies making these apps are competing with each other and are driving their price lower--Apple's existence tacks on a 30% overhead to all of the competitors equally, meaning it is the user who loses out, not the companies.
When a government taxes you 30%, the money is supposed to go for services or capital improvement products that eventually indirectly help people. That isn't how Apple hoarding this cash works.
When a government taxes you 30%, the money is supposed to go for services or capital improvement products that eventually indirectly help people. That isn't how Apple hoarding this cash works.
Devil's advocte: Apple pays for a lot of things that benefit the apps, like developing the chips the app runs on. This is similar to how a government can build roads that the businesses begin taxed can drive their trucks on et.c.
It is like Godzilla smashing up other monsters; yeah technically I know I shouldn’t be rooting for any of the monsters but it is kinda cool and also funny. Apple unleashing a giant anti-ad beam at Facebook is just great.
Coinbase, I dunno, they are some tiny nobodies right? Seems like punching down too much.
Coinbase, I dunno, they are some tiny nobodies right? Seems like punching down too much.
The title is currently wrong. This is not about exchange fees paid to Coinbase, but transaction fees paid to the Ethereum network when using smart contracts through the Coinbase app.
"The American crayfish was introduced in the '20s. A guest, if you like. And like most guests having a good time, they didn't wanna leave. Next 50 years, they consumed all the local crayfish, wiped them out. And then, they started eating each other. That's the thing about greed, Arch. It's blind. And it doesn't know when to stop." - Lenny Cole, from Rocknrolla
Whew, I was worried by the headline! But it means they blocked an update to the app (for blah blah App Store compliance), not blocked the app outright.
(I only care because I pay my kids' allowance in crypto, and they manage it with Coinbase Wallet on their iPads. This is what I have been doing with all that promotional XLM I got for free from Keybase before they got resorbed into Zoom.)
(I only care because I pay my kids' allowance in crypto, and they manage it with Coinbase Wallet on their iPads. This is what I have been doing with all that promotional XLM I got for free from Keybase before they got resorbed into Zoom.)
Are they able to buy comics (or beyblades/roblox/candy/whatever) with their crypto?
Well, I mean in theory they could just use whatever crypto exchange would let a 7-year-old transact business (which is probably not none?), but to avoid encouraging them to seek out such things, I consent to act as their bank.
So they can send me XLM,and then buy things in USD or JPY at whatever the prevailing rate is (I use Exodus, so whatever that app shows is the rate).
So far, everything they have purchased relates to video games (games, DLC, and I was particularly impressed my 8-year-old bought himself a used Wii U older than he is, and an optical disc version of Paper Mario: Color Splash).
This also lets me charge a 500% "Moron Tax" for most in-game purchases — cosmetics, pay-to-win mechanics, etc. (But they are sometimes willing to pay it, for their own inscrutable reasons...)
So they can send me XLM,and then buy things in USD or JPY at whatever the prevailing rate is (I use Exodus, so whatever that app shows is the rate).
So far, everything they have purchased relates to video games (games, DLC, and I was particularly impressed my 8-year-old bought himself a used Wii U older than he is, and an optical disc version of Paper Mario: Color Splash).
This also lets me charge a 500% "Moron Tax" for most in-game purchases — cosmetics, pay-to-win mechanics, etc. (But they are sometimes willing to pay it, for their own inscrutable reasons...)
We have to ask the question: is Apple actually this stupid? I don't particularly like or trust Coinbase, so I'm not going to take their word as gospel. I have to wonder if (a) it's an oversight, a possibility they raised in the thread (trying to give Apple an out?) or (b) there's something weirder going on that we can't figure out from outside.
No. They have already thought of this scenario, years ago.
Paying for GAS is paying for the computation .. which is a digital service .. which is https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#bus... what Coinbase agreed to share a portion of the money taken from customers with Apple when they published an app on the App Store.
In my view, Apple is providing customers another layer of trustworthiness, since a purchase of a digital good or service is intangible .. "did anything just happen?" .. the customer has recourse via Apple for an app that theoretically abuses that "seller of digital items" relationship.
Paying for GAS is paying for the computation .. which is a digital service .. which is https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#bus... what Coinbase agreed to share a portion of the money taken from customers with Apple when they published an app on the App Store.
In my view, Apple is providing customers another layer of trustworthiness, since a purchase of a digital good or service is intangible .. "did anything just happen?" .. the customer has recourse via Apple for an app that theoretically abuses that "seller of digital items" relationship.
Coinbase does not decide, charge, receive, or in any way control gas fees. There's no "sharing". As I understand gas fees, they're charged directly by the decentralized network, to itself (I do know they're not "GAS"). There's literally no entity who receives gas fees and can pay Apple a cut.
Dorsey's call for an open mobile web os could not be more important for this subject. Mobile payments, device to device with crypto is so dangerous for the existing payment/financial system, don't expect anything but resistance from establishment players.
Your choice of establishment needs a capital E. You may not realize it, but a significant part of the political sphere is absolutely, cripplingly dependent on a tightly controlled financial medium of exchange with tight, inescapable integration with tax authorities/law enforcement.
If everyone were to suddenly remove all their money from banks and the financial system, and only started transacting point to point, and (lets handwave the how and just say that everyone immaculately keeps their own set of books/accounts with everyone else, not on a public ledger), the entire political/regulatory power structure of the United States falls apart that day.
Money transmission regulation cannot be coordinated/scaled to effectively service period at a population of the U.S. scale.
A) Private books means if you really want your tax authority to see them, congratulations, send a warrant. Oh wait, due process (not enough hours in the day).
B) If we assume the magical bookkeeping extends only to facilitating a transaction, but not records retention/OFAC, that goes out the window. LE integration too.
AML, gone, KYC, gone.
On the upside, everyone can send anyone money. On the downside, there's a hell of a lot that no one talks about that goes into that than anyone probably has the patience, comfort, or intellectual fortitude to sit through.
Also Wall Street dead.
I mean, for me it's a hard choice. Possible national collapse, dead Wall Street, and chance to reaffirm and rebuild a nation...
Dead Wall Street...
Let it be known: I very much dislike what out financial system has done to the U.S.
If everyone were to suddenly remove all their money from banks and the financial system, and only started transacting point to point, and (lets handwave the how and just say that everyone immaculately keeps their own set of books/accounts with everyone else, not on a public ledger), the entire political/regulatory power structure of the United States falls apart that day.
Money transmission regulation cannot be coordinated/scaled to effectively service period at a population of the U.S. scale.
A) Private books means if you really want your tax authority to see them, congratulations, send a warrant. Oh wait, due process (not enough hours in the day).
B) If we assume the magical bookkeeping extends only to facilitating a transaction, but not records retention/OFAC, that goes out the window. LE integration too.
AML, gone, KYC, gone.
On the upside, everyone can send anyone money. On the downside, there's a hell of a lot that no one talks about that goes into that than anyone probably has the patience, comfort, or intellectual fortitude to sit through.
Also Wall Street dead.
I mean, for me it's a hard choice. Possible national collapse, dead Wall Street, and chance to reaffirm and rebuild a nation...
Dead Wall Street...
Let it be known: I very much dislike what out financial system has done to the U.S.
Can anyone here provide some ideas of sensible regulation on this issue (or point to someone else talking about it)?
IANAL or even novice on antitrust issues but seems Apple would just find another way to make up the slack if App Store (iOS/Android/other) fees were regulated.
As a good friend of mine likes to say about DNC vs GOP, it's "steak or fish" with Android and iOS (you can choose which is which). They take up too much space for anyone else to fundamentally reimagine and reintroduce an app ecosystem (no disrespect to PWAs and the like). I feel regulation would ultimately hurt developers and consumers more, at least in the medium to long-term, but I'm open to forming a new opinion.
IANAL or even novice on antitrust issues but seems Apple would just find another way to make up the slack if App Store (iOS/Android/other) fees were regulated.
As a good friend of mine likes to say about DNC vs GOP, it's "steak or fish" with Android and iOS (you can choose which is which). They take up too much space for anyone else to fundamentally reimagine and reintroduce an app ecosystem (no disrespect to PWAs and the like). I feel regulation would ultimately hurt developers and consumers more, at least in the medium to long-term, but I'm open to forming a new opinion.
Government setting prices like that is a terrible idea. The solution to this problem is competition. The only regulation needed are laws that stop Apple from preventing competition. If there were alternative app stores, free market forces will naturally prevent Apple from doing stuff like this. They'll be free to charge whatever they want, but customers and developers will also be free to go with a competitor instead of them.
Sure, Apple and their fanboys are going to say stuff like "it will be bad for privacy" and "Apple needs to control everything to protect us from malware", etc. Pretty much the exact same type of arguments AT&T was making before they got broken up in the ~80s. If that didn't happen, we probably wouldn't have gotten the internet as quickly as we did (or at all). That's a pretty clear example of how monopolies stifle competition, and how breaking them up can be lead to incredible innovation.
Hell, I don't think we even need new laws. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure what Apple is doing is already illegal, since it's so obviously anti-competitive and detrimental to society/the economy. Even investors will probably be better off in the long run if all these tech giants have their monopolies broken up, since the new opportunities in the market will undoubtedly result in new innovations and better investment opportunities.
Also, I need to say this otherwise the conversation will get predictably derailed:
* Apple is bad
* Google is bad too
* Microsoft is bad too
* Amazon is bad too
* Meta is bad too
* <insert tech company here> is bad too
Sure, Apple and their fanboys are going to say stuff like "it will be bad for privacy" and "Apple needs to control everything to protect us from malware", etc. Pretty much the exact same type of arguments AT&T was making before they got broken up in the ~80s. If that didn't happen, we probably wouldn't have gotten the internet as quickly as we did (or at all). That's a pretty clear example of how monopolies stifle competition, and how breaking them up can be lead to incredible innovation.
Hell, I don't think we even need new laws. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure what Apple is doing is already illegal, since it's so obviously anti-competitive and detrimental to society/the economy. Even investors will probably be better off in the long run if all these tech giants have their monopolies broken up, since the new opportunities in the market will undoubtedly result in new innovations and better investment opportunities.
Also, I need to say this otherwise the conversation will get predictably derailed:
* Apple is bad
* Google is bad too
* Microsoft is bad too
* Amazon is bad too
* Meta is bad too
* <insert tech company here> is bad too
Even forcing competing app stores has problems. It's Apple that will be forced to provide support for those app stores. If someone installs malicious software from one and it bricks their phone they're going to bring it to an Apple store. Even if they have a policy of "competing app stores mean no support" there's still going to be the time wasted determining if another app store was used and the good will lost when customers find they no longer receive support for their broken phone.
Microsoft was taken to court for less than this in the 90s over the browser wars. 1) Apple should be forced to allow side-loaded apps. 2) they should be forced to allow competing marketplaces. 3) they should be forced to allow PWAs to be installed alongside regular apps. 4) they should be forced to allow alternative web engines (inc. Chrome, Edge, Brave, Firefox, Opera, etc)
There is a substantial difference between the market share Windows had in the late 90s and what iOS has now
Antitrust is not just about market share. It's about anticompetitive practices.
Sure, one answer. Whenever a company owning a "platform" also competes on the platform and sets the rules to favor themselves, this hurts competition. Regulation should ensure a fair playing field on the platform, preventing companies from putting up barriers to competition.
This is why Microsoft lost a lawsuit about bundling Internet Explorer onto the computing platform of Windows, this is why the platform of Google search has results rigged in favor of Google products, etc.
This is also why Net Neutrality is a good idea, the company that controls the "platform" of the Internet being delivered to your device shouldn't get to stifle competition by making some websites cheaper or more expensive to visit.
In this case, phones are a physical platform that should be opened to allow any software to run, and iOS is a software platform that should be opened to allow users to easily install alternative App Stores and easily install alternative applications not offered on the App Store.
This is why Microsoft lost a lawsuit about bundling Internet Explorer onto the computing platform of Windows, this is why the platform of Google search has results rigged in favor of Google products, etc.
This is also why Net Neutrality is a good idea, the company that controls the "platform" of the Internet being delivered to your device shouldn't get to stifle competition by making some websites cheaper or more expensive to visit.
In this case, phones are a physical platform that should be opened to allow any software to run, and iOS is a software platform that should be opened to allow users to easily install alternative App Stores and easily install alternative applications not offered on the App Store.
"Apple finding another way to make [money]" will happen even if it doesn't get regulated. Look at how they're doing ads now. It's not like the only reason they didn't "find more ways" is because they thought they were making enough money.
> If you were a product person at IBM or Xerox, so you make a better copier or computer. So what? When you have monopoly market share, the company's not any more successful.
Yet when Xerox and IBM were monopolies they were at their most innovative. Xerox had PARC. AT&T had Bell Labs. IBM had --- well I'm not sure but their mainframe architecture and OS was very innovative in its day.
Now that those companies are just one of dozens that do what they do, you can't name anything groundbreaking that they are producing.
Yet when Xerox and IBM were monopolies they were at their most innovative. Xerox had PARC. AT&T had Bell Labs. IBM had --- well I'm not sure but their mainframe architecture and OS was very innovative in its day.
Now that those companies are just one of dozens that do what they do, you can't name anything groundbreaking that they are producing.
> IBM had --- well I'm not sure
IBM Research, Thomas J. Watson Research Center.
Lots of legitimately innovative fundamental and applied sciences research.
IBM Research, Thomas J. Watson Research Center.
Lots of legitimately innovative fundamental and applied sciences research.
Apple collects 30% if the product is purely digital and has no monetary value outside of the app.
Could one not prove that NFTs have value outside of Coinbase? Oh wait I see the problem.
Could one not prove that NFTs have value outside of Coinbase? Oh wait I see the problem.
Ah they are paying for in-app Gas. I see.
A customer is to pay one network for gas, but that network won’t pay another network for their value add.
A customer is to pay one network for gas, but that network won’t pay another network for their value add.
Maybe I’m off here, but this doesn’t really seem like it’s about the 30% commission. Maybe Apple is taking a position against allowing crypto trades on their platform?
No.
AFAIK paying for 'gas' is paying for a digital service of computation. This is covered by Apple's App Store Guidelines https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#bus... for years and years.
Being a consumer who buys digital services through an app hosted by App Store should have some recourse. And that's, again AFAIK, what Apple does with its Guidelines...help empower the consumer should, theoretically, Coinbase not uphold their part of the digital purchase fulfillment relationship when $$ was exchanged on an iPhone app.
AFAIK paying for 'gas' is paying for a digital service of computation. This is covered by Apple's App Store Guidelines https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#bus... for years and years.
Being a consumer who buys digital services through an app hosted by App Store should have some recourse. And that's, again AFAIK, what Apple does with its Guidelines...help empower the consumer should, theoretically, Coinbase not uphold their part of the digital purchase fulfillment relationship when $$ was exchanged on an iPhone app.
Then maybe they should state that.
Apple didn't block fungible tokens (crypto), they only blocked non-fungible tokens (NFTs). Right now is the time for them to clarify their position.
Apple didn't block fungible tokens (crypto), they only blocked non-fungible tokens (NFTs). Right now is the time for them to clarify their position.
I did say that the roles have been switched, and Apple in 2022 is like Microsoft in 1998 and is getting away with by doing even more worse things. [0]
It is going to take more than just Epic, to get rid of the 30% cut in fees.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23564759
It is going to take more than just Epic, to get rid of the 30% cut in fees.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23564759
At this point it'd probably be better to invest in building good browser web UIs over dedicated apps. No appstore verification, no fees, it basically seems like a no-brainer at this point. I guess it sacrifices viral growth through appstore installs, but maybe just don't support transactions on the app and kick them to the browser.
Yes.
This route avoids Apple having ANY obligation to protect its consumers .. when they choose to use a random website to transact.
This Coinbase issue is about Coinbase using an Apple App Store App to perform a service around digital purchases which ALL Apple consumers can EXPECT a certain set of values upheld BY APPLE INC on their behalf .. sort of protection by Apple when buying anything digital via an App.
This route avoids Apple having ANY obligation to protect its consumers .. when they choose to use a random website to transact.
This Coinbase issue is about Coinbase using an Apple App Store App to perform a service around digital purchases which ALL Apple consumers can EXPECT a certain set of values upheld BY APPLE INC on their behalf .. sort of protection by Apple when buying anything digital via an App.
How do you expect them to do that? Store the private key in the browser's local storage and pray it doesn't get evicted?
Imagine Apple starts taking 30% of all transactions done via PayPal or your banking app. This is getting ridiculous.
I feel like I am the only one who has never made a single transaction on a mobile device. I refuse to contribute.
I just feel like they're digging the antitrust hole deeper and deeper. How do they see this ending?
At what point does Apple get classified as a Bank?
What is the point of a Coinbase wallet at this point in any case? Free tracking by coinbase, apple, the NSA etc etc?
If you consider the reason why Bitcoin, ETH etc were invented in the first place, this is beyond ridiculous, absurd and a travesty
What is the point of a Coinbase wallet at this point in any case? Free tracking by coinbase, apple, the NSA etc etc?
If you consider the reason why Bitcoin, ETH etc were invented in the first place, this is beyond ridiculous, absurd and a travesty
Apple already has lending licenses for the apple pay later feature. they're not a bank though, in the same sense that paypal is not a bank.
Gas fees are peer-to-peer transactions. This is like Apple deciding that all Venmo transactions should be subject to their 30% fee. Not only would it be impossible to implement given the existing infrastructure; it would be dumb.
It emphatically does not matter to Apple if the transactions are peer to peer or subject to fees or paid for with doge coin. Coinbase offers an app that allows users to purchase digital goods ("NFTs"). In order to purchase those digital goods, iOS apps must use app store payments.
Solutions:
1. don't offer users the ability to buy those digital goods 2. add a layer of payment indirection where users pay coinbase and coinbase pays for the digital goods - using app store payments! 3??? execute a PR campaign that "apple doesn't understand crypto" amidst a historic crypto crash
Solutions:
1. don't offer users the ability to buy those digital goods 2. add a layer of payment indirection where users pay coinbase and coinbase pays for the digital goods - using app store payments! 3??? execute a PR campaign that "apple doesn't understand crypto" amidst a historic crypto crash
Disagree. I barely know what Venmo is and I don't own any crypto, but iirc IRS treats all cryptocurrencies as capital assets so you shouldn't compare that to a fiat transfer.
Surely these apps should be treated more like banking applications than buy/sell applications?
This is akin to apple demanding 30% of the funds of every wire transfer initiated within its App Store app for your bank.
This is akin to apple demanding 30% of the funds of every wire transfer initiated within its App Store app for your bank.
While I like Apple products and despise coinbase and the NFT fad it is about time users should be able to choose alternative stores on iOS, preferably with options to self host your own catalog.
[deleted]
Why is it seen as acceptable for a government to tax people for the privilege of transacting in their (the government’s) markets, but it’s seen as bad form for a corporation to do the same?
Why is it seen as acceptable for a government to jail people, but it’s seen as bad form for a corporation to do the same?
Essentially they are using crypto to bypass fees. It’s inherent that selling NFT(digital good) on a blockchain will by pass them, but that’s what is viewed as from Apples angle
Next Apple will demand 30% of every Venmo transaction on iOS
No.
They are not purchases of digital goods.
Read more at the Apple App Store guidelines page https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#bus...
They are not purchases of digital goods.
Read more at the Apple App Store guidelines page https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#bus...
I thought protection rackets were illegal? 30% is insane.
Every Apple thread rehashes the same complaints over and over and over. One should just have GPT do the discussion, save everyone the effort.
Double taxation refers to the imposition of taxes on the same income, assets or financial transaction at two different points of time.
[deleted]
Why can‘t companies like that just make a good web app? It‘s time to kill native apps unless you really need them.
[deleted]
This doesn't even make business sense. What money is there to be made in NFT transitions in December 2022?
The average Eth tx fee is around 50 cents, so the money to be made is about 15 cents per tx sent from the Coinbase app.
Why not use the open web?
What are these app stores giving us?
Or are they going to start blocking web sites next, and have a permissioned web
What are these app stores giving us?
Or are they going to start blocking web sites next, and have a permissioned web
Agreed - Coinbase should just launch a browser to start and finish the whole transaction.
Apple covers a lot of scenarios https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#bus... so launching a browser MIGHT or MIGHT NOT be covered by their policies. But worth exploring.
Apple covers a lot of scenarios https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#bus... so launching a browser MIGHT or MIGHT NOT be covered by their policies. But worth exploring.
I'm so confused as to why anybody still supports apple. They have utter contempt for their customers.
Just imagine if Microsoft or Linux distributions could do this on desktop. They would make so much money.
You mean like the Microsoft gaming store does already?
It's been a while since I've used Windows, but I don't think using the Microsoft Gaming Store stops you from installing software from the internet. I could be wrong.
The Microsoft Store now allows you to use your own payment processing to avoid giving them a cut at all (https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2021/06/24/build...). They also allow the installation of other app stores.
Microsoft has been overly keen to open up their own store on Windows to use as a cudgel against Apple in future courtroom cases such as the Epic one.
Microsoft has been overly keen to open up their own store on Windows to use as a cudgel against Apple in future courtroom cases such as the Epic one.
>The Microsoft Store now allows you to use your own payment processing to avoid giving them a cut at all
Not for games. https://www.engadget.com/microsoft-zero-percent-cut-doesnt-e...
Not for games. https://www.engadget.com/microsoft-zero-percent-cut-doesnt-e...
you mean like how I'm free to install any games I wish to download on my PC without Microsoft taking a cut?
They do it on console.
You can technicaly run the xbox in 'developer' mode and sideload, it does block you from playing retail games though
Why wouldn’t companies like Coinbase just release an iOS App on their web site? Why would they even need to go through the App Store? What are the benefits of the App Store for established companies with large existing customer base? If Coinbase or Amazon, for that matter, publish an iOS app on their website, I would not hesitate to just install and use it, without an App Store.
Most people want to update their iOS versions past iOS 14 (jailbreakable depending on device) or iOS 15-15.1.1 where one can install TrollStore. Which is still a whole thing people won’t want to do.
Otherwise the user would have to take the ipa, get an app like altstore on a compatible computer. Sync it. Then be stuck with the limitations of sideloading like needing to refresh the authorization every 7 days.
Either way. Most people won’t do this. We saw what happened when Fortnite was off the Play Store. It wasn’t that effective.
Otherwise the user would have to take the ipa, get an app like altstore on a compatible computer. Sync it. Then be stuck with the limitations of sideloading like needing to refresh the authorization every 7 days.
Either way. Most people won’t do this. We saw what happened when Fortnite was off the Play Store. It wasn’t that effective.
Wow, I don’t deal with iOS and did not realize this. How is this even legal? I thought the whole purpose of MSFT antitrust lawsuit was to avoid situations like this with future operating systems. How about just HTML5 mobile website?
HTML5 based apps are effectively a non-starter because many features, such as background notifications, apple pay, and others, aren't available.
Apple doesn't let you install Chromium/Blink, or any other browser engine, which implements things like WebUSB and background notifications, so you're stuck with the Safari browser engine.
Coinbase might have thought about it, but anyone who looks at building a PWA for iOS for any amount of time very quickly realizes that Apple has crippled it to the point of being a bad idea.
Apple doesn't let you install Chromium/Blink, or any other browser engine, which implements things like WebUSB and background notifications, so you're stuck with the Safari browser engine.
Coinbase might have thought about it, but anyone who looks at building a PWA for iOS for any amount of time very quickly realizes that Apple has crippled it to the point of being a bad idea.
Release it how? They can't load it on an iPhone without Apple's cert.
The only path would be to require jail breaking and most consumers trust that even less.
The only path would be to require jail breaking and most consumers trust that even less.
Users of iOS don't have that kind of control over their phone. Software is installed (or deleted) at Apple's behest not the user's.
IMO This is value that Apple customers choose pay the $999 for when they buy an iphone 14 pro...convenience, peace of mind, service.
You can’t install a native iOS app from a website.
[deleted]
How else are they going to advertise for shitcoin (shib) in their App name in Apple store? App in their website can't do that.
So if I use my bank's app to pay a bill will Apple want 30% of that too? This is really too much.
apple doesnt want 30% of the NFT price, they want 30% of the _fee_ on the sell of the digital good (the nft).
They have found a way to tax websites.
NFTs are brilliant and essential. Shame on Apple for blocking Coinbase wallet from transferring NFTs
Does apple require Apple Pay for all in app purchases? Why isn’t Apple Pay an option on Amazon?
No.
Apple Pay vs Store Kit - first is for things like T-Shirts, second is for digital purchases like virtual currency in videogames.
Apple Pay vs Store Kit - first is for things like T-Shirts, second is for digital purchases like virtual currency in videogames.
Apple should be given a medal for making it harder to trade NFT's. Those are bad for you.
NFTs will come back later on just offered by banks under different abbreviations...
Protecting their customers. Crypto well established as total scam at this point.
The entire world should be required to read: The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair.
Oh Nice. Now people need to buy a physical wallet.
... with batteries... and most likely a samsung logo.
;)
... with batteries... and most likely a samsung logo.
;)
Have a nice walk with Tim around Apple Park, Mr Armstrong!
Sarcastic, but LOL .. like Elon Musk did, and now is talking like he had some epiphany of unity after enjoying the Apple campus tour.
Ack, a real conundrum here. On one hand, Apple's ridiculous behavior. On the other hand, hard for me to imagine a more useless and counterproductive invention than NFTs...
It really is like trying to choose between Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich.
Add it to the antitrust pile. Is their strategy to attack unpopular things in the current zeitgeist so nobody complains about antitrust?
Facebook, Twitter, now crypto?
[deleted]
Apple at this point is a Mafia org
I'm literally waiting for the day Apple attempts to take a cut on people's income via their banking app.
FWIW, Coinbase Wallet hasn’t been very useful simply because it’s owned by Coinbase, and thus cannot be trusted.
And nothing of value was lost
so apple also expect 30% from everything transacted on every banking app?
The new vampire squid.
Next they will want 30% off every stock purchase you do using the E*trade app
HN title is incorrect. Apple is demanding 30% of gas fees, not exchange fees.
Personal opinion: That’s even more ridiculous. Coinbase has no access to or control over gas fees.
Personal opinion: That’s even more ridiculous. Coinbase has no access to or control over gas fees.
mkrishnan(3)
Maursault(2)
mkrishnan(1)
So the people that can make the company more successful are sales and marketing people, and they end up running the companies. And the product people get driven out of the decision making forums, and the companies forget what it means to make great products. The product sensibility and the product genius that brought them to that monopolistic position gets rotted out by people running these companies that have no conception of a good product versus a bad product."
-Steve Jobs