5 ms·

What is "should"? Who determines should, aside from what the law currently says? Maybe I'm uninformed, but it doesn't appear to me that access to an app store

What is "should"? Who determines should, aside from what the law currently says? Maybe I'm uninformed, but it doesn't appear to me that access to an app store and the terms of such access (which by the way didn't even exist almost 10 years ago) is a public utility or good with an expectation of equal access or certain fair pricing. Then, under what right does anyone claim that Apple (or any ecosystem platform) has to do anything beyond what is regulated in the payment and terms of operation? What makes your 30% price the right call? If you're an app developer, are you equally ok with someone else determining what you get to charge for your app when you're done with it? Isn't that the same (lack of) logic?

berbec 8y ago
I was about to argue with this and rage against Apple, but then I remembered a very similar situation everyone deals with and no one complains about: Supermarket Generics. "How is it fair for Price Chopper to undercut Rice Crispies with a similar, cheaper product?" no on says this...
- sinnoh 8y ago
  because people have had a longer amount of time to understand food. hang in there, my friend :)
- mertd 8y ago
  Because your choice of phone brand does not tie you to a specific grocery where you can buy rice crispies. You can simply cross the street and shop at a competing grocery.
  - asdffdsa 8y ago
    Yeah, theres different smart phones just like theres different grocery stores
    - Dylan16807 8y ago
      If I go to a different grocery store, I can get products that are compatible with everything else I own. If we go with the store=phone analogy, then somehow my brand A flour and my brand B milk are magnetically repulsed and I can't make pancakes. It's not good for consumers.
- spiderfarmer 8y ago
  There are some extra levels to this. Imagine a country where there is only one supermarket chain allowed. In that case there is no competition and no choice for consumers. Before you should people should simply switch phones: you can switch phones, but you can't take the apps you bought with you. And even if you switch: there's only one real alternative: Android. If Apple is allowed their 30% cut on literally everythig, why wouldn't Google do the same? This way you end up with only 2 App stores, 2 Music and 2 Movie streaming services.
  - berbec 8y ago
    I believe Google does take a cut on literally everything! We do have only two app stores. Apple and Google just haven't managed to kill all the competing Music & Movie services. They'd love to!
    - efreak 8y ago
      Google doesn't require all app installs to run through the play store. In fact, the OS allows for other app stores to automatically install and update apps. The Play Store may be the only option preinstalled on devices, but anyone can download and install third party apps, and if you're rooted or writing a custom rom you can create/use your own app store. See the fdroid privileged extension for an example of an alternate app store that allows background installs similar to the play store. Alternate app stores in general include the Amazon app store for Android.
sinnoh 8y ago
the fact that I, a software developer by trade, can't install or run any code on an ios device without running something by apple first. that's like tesla releasing a car saying if you are a lawyer who wants to drive it you have to pay them 100k a year plus 30% of what you earn, or are "free" to drive another car (even if theirs is the fastest/safest/best-for-price in the market.) or, now, can obtain a "provisional" license to drive it that expires weekly, with the same option to pay yearly for an annual license - these are all artificial barriers. installing software has up till now always been as simple as owning the device you're running it on and running the appropriate commands, these artificual barriers introduced by apple ensure anyone wanting to do so has to check in to see if it's okay with them.
- oneplane 8y ago
  The car analogy doesn't help that much here; plenty of cars work in that fashion. Not the average consumer car of course, but again, even then a company is free to do so. Might hurt their business, where at Apple it's not a problem because they make plenty of money. I think that is where part of the problem lies: you can choose to do something with the platform or you can leave it alone. Seeing it as an 'I must do something with the platform' is rather strange considering it is a private, non-public platform in the sense that it has an owner and the owner is free to make whatever rules they want to as long as it is within the boundaries of the law (i.e. you can't require use of a platform to be paid with organs :p ).
- supernova87a 8y ago
  No, your analogy oversimplifies the situation, just like that old joke about airlines selling paint for different prices. Apple or Google's app store isn't a blank / open space where you entered an agreement that you have right to do anything you want. Just because you want to not run your code by Apple every time doesn't mean you have the right to do it. There is no expectation that you have access to their hardware or software kit to do anything that you define. It's not like owning a car. If the terms of your agreement are that you get time-limited / renewable access to a certain company's playground, what right do you have to insist that they change their terms, with recourse to what law? There could be laws that decide that there should be open access. But there aren't. Why should this kind of lawsuit succeed in misinterpreting the law? The law can be rewritten, but until then I believe this effort should fail.

berbec 8y ago

I was about to argue with this and rage against Apple, but then I remembered a very similar situation everyone deals with and no one complains about: Supermarket Generics. "How is it fair for Price Chopper to undercut Rice Crispies with a similar, cheaper product?" no on says this...

sinnoh 8y ago
because people have had a longer amount of time to understand food. hang in there, my friend :)
mertd 8y ago
Because your choice of phone brand does not tie you to a specific grocery where you can buy rice crispies. You can simply cross the street and shop at a competing grocery.
- asdffdsa 8y ago
  Yeah, theres different smart phones just like theres different grocery stores
  - Dylan16807 8y ago
    If I go to a different grocery store, I can get products that are compatible with everything else I own. If we go with the store=phone analogy, then somehow my brand A flour and my brand B milk are magnetically repulsed and I can't make pancakes. It's not good for consumers.
spiderfarmer 8y ago
There are some extra levels to this. Imagine a country where there is only one supermarket chain allowed. In that case there is no competition and no choice for consumers. Before you should people should simply switch phones: you can switch phones, but you can't take the apps you bought with you. And even if you switch: there's only one real alternative: Android. If Apple is allowed their 30% cut on literally everythig, why wouldn't Google do the same? This way you end up with only 2 App stores, 2 Music and 2 Movie streaming services.
- berbec 8y ago
  I believe Google does take a cut on literally everything! We do have only two app stores. Apple and Google just haven't managed to kill all the competing Music & Movie services. They'd love to!
  - efreak 8y ago
    Google doesn't require all app installs to run through the play store. In fact, the OS allows for other app stores to automatically install and update apps. The Play Store may be the only option preinstalled on devices, but anyone can download and install third party apps, and if you're rooted or writing a custom rom you can create/use your own app store. See the fdroid privileged extension for an example of an alternate app store that allows background installs similar to the play store. Alternate app stores in general include the Amazon app store for Android.

sinnoh 8y ago

the fact that I, a software developer by trade, can't install or run any code on an ios device without running something by apple first. that's like tesla releasing a car saying if you are a lawyer who wants to drive it you have to pay them 100k a year plus 30% of what you earn, or are "free" to drive another car (even if theirs is the fastest/safest/best-for-price in the market.) or, now, can obtain a "provisional" license to drive it that expires weekly, with the same option to pay yearly for an annual license - these are all artificial barriers. installing software has up till now always been as simple as owning the device you're running it on and running the appropriate commands, these artificual barriers introduced by apple ensure anyone wanting to do so has to check in to see if it's okay with them.

oneplane 8y ago
The car analogy doesn't help that much here; plenty of cars work in that fashion. Not the average consumer car of course, but again, even then a company is free to do so. Might hurt their business, where at Apple it's not a problem because they make plenty of money. I think that is where part of the problem lies: you can choose to do something with the platform or you can leave it alone. Seeing it as an 'I must do something with the platform' is rather strange considering it is a private, non-public platform in the sense that it has an owner and the owner is free to make whatever rules they want to as long as it is within the boundaries of the law (i.e. you can't require use of a platform to be paid with organs :p ).
supernova87a 8y ago
No, your analogy oversimplifies the situation, just like that old joke about airlines selling paint for different prices. Apple or Google's app store isn't a blank / open space where you entered an agreement that you have right to do anything you want. Just because you want to not run your code by Apple every time doesn't mean you have the right to do it. There is no expectation that you have access to their hardware or software kit to do anything that you define. It's not like owning a car. If the terms of your agreement are that you get time-limited / renewable access to a certain company's playground, what right do you have to insist that they change their terms, with recourse to what law? There could be laws that decide that there should be open access. But there aren't. Why should this kind of lawsuit succeed in misinterpreting the law? The law can be rewritten, but until then I believe this effort should fail.