6 ms·

>How about the reason that it is Apple's? And why would they not want to have their rules on their channel? The only viable channel at this point is Apple's. I

by gaustin 16y ago

>How about the reason that it is Apple's? And why would they not want to have their rules on their channel? The only viable channel at this point is Apple's. If there were a way to access non-Apple blessed applications without rooting your device, then people might not complain so much. Savvy consumers don't appreciate monopolies.

jammur 16y ago
I'm not sure it's reasonable to use the monopoly argument at arbitrary level of granularity. For instance, while Apple has a monopoly on iOS app by definition, Ford also has a monopoly on Ford cars. Monopolies are only a problem when there is no viable competition. In this case, the competition is Android et al. By saying you only want an iPhone, you are restricting your own choice. That said, it's perfectly fine to complain about the policies Apple implements. Complaints are part of the free market process, and in many cases bring about change for the better.
montagg 16y ago
iOS is like a magazine, Apple are the editors, and the developers are the writers. Apple has every right to do whatever they want with their channel, even if it's a stupid move. You wouldn't tell "Time" they have no right to publish who they want and keep others out, would you? Likewise, I don't buy a magazine and then demand that I be able to print my own stories in it. I buy the magazine because it has stories in it already that I want to read. That said, Readability's claim that this "smacks of greed" is totally right. Apple is not acting in its users' best interest, because more than other moves, this actually affects their developers' business models, and it's going to drive high quality, innovative apps away from the App Store. There are two viable moves Apple can make: 1) Allow subscriptions outside the app without requiring one in the app OR 2) Lowering the 30% fee for in-app subscriptions Both of these options keep value in the App Store while providing Apple with some benefit. If they don't adopt one of these, the long term viability of the App Store is in jeopardy.
- lwhi 16y ago
  No .. iOS is a global marketplace and Apple are the gatekeepers for that marketplace. Comparing the iOS with a magazine is slightly disingenuous because the scale is much so larger. I think all markets should involve a certain amount of freedom - and Apple's decision making process actively inhibits market freedom. EDIT: iOS/App Store
  - neutronicus 16y ago
    No .. iOS is a global marketplace and Apple are the gatekeepers for that marketplace. The "global marketplace" is the one in which you can purchase a piece of hardware, install software of your choice on that hardware (albeit sometimes with a great deal of effort), possibly licensed from a third party (again, albeit sometimes with a great deal of effort). Apple sells a service - they make it easier to install certain software on the hardware you purchased (from them, although that's irrelevant), to the extent of pre-installing iOS and various applications, and they facilitate discovery of individuals willing to license software to the owner of the hardware and transactions between said individuals and the owner of the hardware. They are free to provide or not provide this service as they see fit. If you really believe that Apple should provide this services gratis to developers as some kind of latter-day addition to the Bill of Rights, perhaps you should lobby the government to purchase the App Store infrastructure and oversee it instead? Comparing the iOS with a magazine is slightly disingenuous because the scale is much so larger. All of his points map exactly onto TV stations. Is that large enough scale for you?
    - lwhi 16y ago
      Once you have purchased your hardware, and have purchased a catalogue of software titles, you are effectively 'locked in'. It's a bit naive to state that people have choice - because if you have a iOS based device, you (effectively) only have one place to make purchases. Jail-breaking and third-party software sources are beyond the reach of most consumers. For all intents, if you have an iOS based device, the AppStore is your marketplace - and it is a marketplace which trades globally. -- "All of his points map exactly onto TV stations. Is that large enough scale for you?" A TV station purchases or licenses content on behalf of their customers. Apple doesn't operate in this way. I honestly believe the most useful analogy is a 'marketplace' - however, if this is accepted, perhaps Apple's policies seem more disagreeable than they do if 'tv station' or 'magazine' is used as a comparison. Maybe this is why Apple's supporters seem unkeen to make the comparison? -- "If you really believe that Apple should provide this services gratis to developers as some kind of latter-day addition to the Bill of Rights, perhaps you should lobby the government to purchase the App Store infrastructure and oversee it instead?" I think Apple should be forced to allow third party App Stores.

by gaustin 16y ago

jammur 16y ago

I'm not sure it's reasonable to use the monopoly argument at arbitrary level of granularity. For instance, while Apple has a monopoly on iOS app by definition, Ford also has a monopoly on Ford cars. Monopolies are only a problem when there is no viable competition. In this case, the competition is Android et al. By saying you only want an iPhone, you are restricting your own choice. That said, it's perfectly fine to complain about the policies Apple implements. Complaints are part of the free market process, and in many cases bring about change for the better.

montagg 16y ago

iOS is like a magazine, Apple are the editors, and the developers are the writers. Apple has every right to do whatever they want with their channel, even if it's a stupid move. You wouldn't tell "Time" they have no right to publish who they want and keep others out, would you? Likewise, I don't buy a magazine and then demand that I be able to print my own stories in it. I buy the magazine because it has stories in it already that I want to read. That said, Readability's claim that this "smacks of greed" is totally right. Apple is not acting in its users' best interest, because more than other moves, this actually affects their developers' business models, and it's going to drive high quality, innovative apps away from the App Store. There are two viable moves Apple can make: 1) Allow subscriptions outside the app without requiring one in the app OR 2) Lowering the 30% fee for in-app subscriptions Both of these options keep value in the App Store while providing Apple with some benefit. If they don't adopt one of these, the long term viability of the App Store is in jeopardy.

lwhi 16y ago
No .. iOS is a global marketplace and Apple are the gatekeepers for that marketplace. Comparing the iOS with a magazine is slightly disingenuous because the scale is much so larger. I think all markets should involve a certain amount of freedom - and Apple's decision making process actively inhibits market freedom. EDIT: iOS/App Store
- neutronicus 16y ago
  No .. iOS is a global marketplace and Apple are the gatekeepers for that marketplace. The "global marketplace" is the one in which you can purchase a piece of hardware, install software of your choice on that hardware (albeit sometimes with a great deal of effort), possibly licensed from a third party (again, albeit sometimes with a great deal of effort). Apple sells a service - they make it easier to install certain software on the hardware you purchased (from them, although that's irrelevant), to the extent of pre-installing iOS and various applications, and they facilitate discovery of individuals willing to license software to the owner of the hardware and transactions between said individuals and the owner of the hardware. They are free to provide or not provide this service as they see fit. If you really believe that Apple should provide this services gratis to developers as some kind of latter-day addition to the Bill of Rights, perhaps you should lobby the government to purchase the App Store infrastructure and oversee it instead? Comparing the iOS with a magazine is slightly disingenuous because the scale is much so larger. All of his points map exactly onto TV stations. Is that large enough scale for you?
  - lwhi 16y ago
    Once you have purchased your hardware, and have purchased a catalogue of software titles, you are effectively 'locked in'. It's a bit naive to state that people have choice - because if you have a iOS based device, you (effectively) only have one place to make purchases. Jail-breaking and third-party software sources are beyond the reach of most consumers. For all intents, if you have an iOS based device, the AppStore is your marketplace - and it is a marketplace which trades globally. -- "All of his points map exactly onto TV stations. Is that large enough scale for you?" A TV station purchases or licenses content on behalf of their customers. Apple doesn't operate in this way. I honestly believe the most useful analogy is a 'marketplace' - however, if this is accepted, perhaps Apple's policies seem more disagreeable than they do if 'tv station' or 'magazine' is used as a comparison. Maybe this is why Apple's supporters seem unkeen to make the comparison? -- "If you really believe that Apple should provide this services gratis to developers as some kind of latter-day addition to the Bill of Rights, perhaps you should lobby the government to purchase the App Store infrastructure and oversee it instead?" I think Apple should be forced to allow third party App Stores.