5 ms·

Apple needs to allow you to change the default apps (similar to how you can change the keyboard) for this argument to hold up.

by adgasf 7y ago

mcphage 7y ago
Also allow apps to allow purchases inside without going through Apple's in-app purchases. Maybe they need to decide on a case-by-case basis, or maybe only for apps for companies with a large external presence, but not being able to buy eBooks through the Kindle app, because Apple wants it to go through their own in-app purchases instead of Amazon's own payment gateway, is frustrating.
- zepto 7y ago
  If they allow enough In app purchases not to go through the store then they have no way to collect money from anyone, Since all apps could then just collect their money that way. If you limit it only to an anointed group of large companies then you have formed a cartel, which itself is likely illegal.
  - balabaster 7y ago
    They could do something like Microsoft has with Azure where you have an Enterprise Agreement whereby you pay some licensing fee and then they allow companies to route through their own payment gateways to make for a better user experience. People say Apple care about the user, but they don't, they care only insofar as ensuring lock in. They don't care if you hate Apple, just so long as you keep giving them your money. As long as you don't hate them enough to leave, they've done enough. The only way to fix it is if enough companies make their user experience so much better on Android that having an Android device is a more attractive offering than an Apple one and enough users flee Apple for alternatives... but companies don't give a shit if you want Android or Apple, what they care about is how much they have to pay developers to win your money and your eyeballs on their products. I've worked on a number of high value development teams for these types of apps across mobile platforms and this attitude has been common across all of them: If they can still win your money through a crippled user experience that it costs them a minimal amount to maintain across both platforms, that's what they do. They want Apple's market. They want Android's market. They don't want to maintain two applications and two development teams because that increases costs and they want similar user experiences on each device because brand fragmentation hurts their image. So in this sense Apple is also hurting Android and it's evidence they don't really give much of a fuck about the user as long as they're getting your money. I say this as someone who has experience on the inside of development teams that provide the apps you love on the devices you love, and I say this as someone who loves my Apple devices but am by no means an iFanboy.
    - zepto 7y ago
      Your arguments rest on the idea that the independent software providers don’t care about the user experience and are simply going to try to minimize costs. You said as much. Therefore, If Apple allowed alternative in app purchase experiences, there would simply be a race to the bottom to provide the cheapest user experience they could get away with on both Apple and Android devices.
    - xvector 7y ago
      > People say Apple care about the user, but they don't, they care only insofar as ensuring lock in. They don't care if you hate Apple, just so long as you keep giving them your money. As long as you don't hate them enough to leave, they've done enough Welcome to every service platform ever. If you build the platform, there is no reason you should not have control over it and profit from it. You are not providing a public service. You are providing a private storefront on a private platform. This is like if I had a lemonade stand in my backyard, and people walked in and started complaining that the lemonade I sell is marked-up and too expensive, and that they should be allowed to build their own lemonade stands in my backyard. And that I should provide them with the tools to do so.
  - mcphage 7y ago
    They could start with a specific list of allowed uses: * purchasing a physical item * purchasing an electronic item accessible outside of the app * subscribing to a service accessible outside of the app * purchasing things through the app owner's own payment gateway And then expand from there as necessary. Probably the restrictions would need to be tighter than that, but something along those lines.
    - zepto 7y ago
      Some of those already allowed.
- balabaster 7y ago
  Also... - Kindle - Kobo - Audible - Audiobooks.com They're all equally frustrating as one another on iPhone. It pisses me off that I can't just do a one click purchase and listen on my iPhone or a "Read next book in series" button. I have to log into the website and purchase and go through a whole fucking song and dance just to get a book to listen to on my journey. The user experience for this use case quite frankly sucks balls. I love my iPhone, I tried to become an Android lover a while back but went back to my iPhone because I want a device that just works without making me jump through a million hoops and my iPhone does - except for this use case which is about a thousand times worse than Android.
elliekelly 7y ago
Exactly. I would even go a step further, considering Microsoft’s antitrust issues from tying Netscape to the Windows OS: most of the iPhone’s preloaded default applications shouldn’t be there at all. Ideally users would be prompted at setup whether they’d like to install the Apple version.
- gowld 7y ago
  IE, not Netscape. And didn't history show that shipping a default browser in the OS (which can be used to install additional alternate browsers) wasn't so bad after all?
Tiktaalik 7y ago
Also I'd need to believe that these competing apps are genuinely on the same playing field as Apple's. For example, why is there still no Spotify app for the Watch that matches Apple's Music app? I can't believe Spotify isn't interested in making one...
- judge2020 7y ago
  Spotify says Apple didn't allow them [0]: > When Apple launches their new Apple Watch, they dismiss our proposals and won’t work with us to develop an app for it. Apple denies this[1]: > When Spotify submitted their Apple Watch app in September 2018, we reviewed and approved it with the same process and speed with which we would any other app. In fact, the Spotify Watch app is currently the No. 1 app in the Watch Music category. 0: https://timetoplayfair.com/timeline/ https://timetoplayfair.com/timeline/ 1: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/03/addressing-spotifys-claims/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/03/addressing-spotifys-c...

Apple needs to allow you to change the default apps (similar to how you can change the keyboard) for this argument to hold up.

by adgasf 7y ago

Apple needs to allow you to change the default apps (similar to how you can change the keyboard) for this argument to hold up.

mcphage 7y ago

Also allow apps to allow purchases inside without going through Apple's in-app purchases. Maybe they need to decide on a case-by-case basis, or maybe only for apps for companies with a large external presence, but not being able to buy eBooks through the Kindle app, because Apple wants it to go through their own in-app purchases instead of Amazon's own payment gateway, is frustrating.

zepto 7y ago
If they allow enough In app purchases not to go through the store then they have no way to collect money from anyone, Since all apps could then just collect their money that way. If you limit it only to an anointed group of large companies then you have formed a cartel, which itself is likely illegal.
- balabaster 7y ago
  They could do something like Microsoft has with Azure where you have an Enterprise Agreement whereby you pay some licensing fee and then they allow companies to route through their own payment gateways to make for a better user experience. People say Apple care about the user, but they don't, they care only insofar as ensuring lock in. They don't care if you hate Apple, just so long as you keep giving them your money. As long as you don't hate them enough to leave, they've done enough. The only way to fix it is if enough companies make their user experience so much better on Android that having an Android device is a more attractive offering than an Apple one and enough users flee Apple for alternatives... but companies don't give a shit if you want Android or Apple, what they care about is how much they have to pay developers to win your money and your eyeballs on their products. I've worked on a number of high value development teams for these types of apps across mobile platforms and this attitude has been common across all of them: If they can still win your money through a crippled user experience that it costs them a minimal amount to maintain across both platforms, that's what they do. They want Apple's market. They want Android's market. They don't want to maintain two applications and two development teams because that increases costs and they want similar user experiences on each device because brand fragmentation hurts their image. So in this sense Apple is also hurting Android and it's evidence they don't really give much of a fuck about the user as long as they're getting your money. I say this as someone who has experience on the inside of development teams that provide the apps you love on the devices you love, and I say this as someone who loves my Apple devices but am by no means an iFanboy.
  - zepto 7y ago
    Your arguments rest on the idea that the independent software providers don’t care about the user experience and are simply going to try to minimize costs. You said as much. Therefore, If Apple allowed alternative in app purchase experiences, there would simply be a race to the bottom to provide the cheapest user experience they could get away with on both Apple and Android devices.
  - xvector 7y ago
    > People say Apple care about the user, but they don't, they care only insofar as ensuring lock in. They don't care if you hate Apple, just so long as you keep giving them your money. As long as you don't hate them enough to leave, they've done enough Welcome to every service platform ever. If you build the platform, there is no reason you should not have control over it and profit from it. You are not providing a public service. You are providing a private storefront on a private platform. This is like if I had a lemonade stand in my backyard, and people walked in and started complaining that the lemonade I sell is marked-up and too expensive, and that they should be allowed to build their own lemonade stands in my backyard. And that I should provide them with the tools to do so.
- mcphage 7y ago
  They could start with a specific list of allowed uses: * purchasing a physical item * purchasing an electronic item accessible outside of the app * subscribing to a service accessible outside of the app * purchasing things through the app owner's own payment gateway And then expand from there as necessary. Probably the restrictions would need to be tighter than that, but something along those lines.
  - zepto 7y ago
    Some of those already allowed.
balabaster 7y ago
Also... - Kindle - Kobo - Audible - Audiobooks.com They're all equally frustrating as one another on iPhone. It pisses me off that I can't just do a one click purchase and listen on my iPhone or a "Read next book in series" button. I have to log into the website and purchase and go through a whole fucking song and dance just to get a book to listen to on my journey. The user experience for this use case quite frankly sucks balls. I love my iPhone, I tried to become an Android lover a while back but went back to my iPhone because I want a device that just works without making me jump through a million hoops and my iPhone does - except for this use case which is about a thousand times worse than Android.

elliekelly 7y ago

Exactly. I would even go a step further, considering Microsoft’s antitrust issues from tying Netscape to the Windows OS: most of the iPhone’s preloaded default applications shouldn’t be there at all. Ideally users would be prompted at setup whether they’d like to install the Apple version.

gowld 7y ago
IE, not Netscape. And didn't history show that shipping a default browser in the OS (which can be used to install additional alternate browsers) wasn't so bad after all?

Tiktaalik 7y ago

Also I'd need to believe that these competing apps are genuinely on the same playing field as Apple's. For example, why is there still no Spotify app for the Watch that matches Apple's Music app? I can't believe Spotify isn't interested in making one...

judge2020 7y ago
Spotify says Apple didn't allow them [0]: > When Apple launches their new Apple Watch, they dismiss our proposals and won’t work with us to develop an app for it. Apple denies this[1]: > When Spotify submitted their Apple Watch app in September 2018, we reviewed and approved it with the same process and speed with which we would any other app. In fact, the Spotify Watch app is currently the No. 1 app in the Watch Music category. 0: https://timetoplayfair.com/timeline/ https://timetoplayfair.com/timeline/ 1: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/03/addressing-spotifys-claims/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/03/addressing-spotifys-c...