6 ms·

unsurprising. But the main problem, IMHO, is that there is a company that has complete control of what apps can be installed on their phones. And those phones a

unsurprising. But the main problem, IMHO, is that there is a company that has complete control of what apps can be installed on their phones. And those phones are not used just by a few fanatics in very special contexts, they are used by millions of (mostly unaware) people. This is the root issue, and it's completely unacceptable.

dan-robertson 6y ago
I’m not convinced this is the problem. The problem is that there is a conflict of interest between trying to ensure that only “high quality” apps are available and trying to tax the value people get from the apps. If I imagine a world where eg Apple get none of the in app purchase but some government get 30% as VAT then it still seems fine for Apple to curate their store but they wouldn’t be incentivised to try to force apps to offer in-app purchases
- dariosalvi78 6y ago
  I think that the high fees are shameful by themselves, but it's a different matter. The problem I am discussing is about control, freedom and anti-competitive behaviours. I'll give an example I have lived myself: I developed a free app that was requested by some doctors to help them cope with the pandemic. The app was first rejected because "too simple". I appealed and they accepted it. Happy ending. Now, the episode in itself doesn't tell anything, but it made me think: what if they kept rejecting it? What power did I have? Why should patients be denied that piece of software on THEIR phones, because a company decides that it's not cool enough? The problem lies with Google as well but, at least, it is possible to distribute apps through other channels on their phones. I really think that there is no excuse for Apple: their devices are locked, their users are stuck with what the company decides to do with them and treated like idiots. They are a threat to business and innovation (unless it's theirs of course). Reminds me of Microsoft in the 90s...

dan-robertson 6y ago

I’m not convinced this is the problem. The problem is that there is a conflict of interest between trying to ensure that only “high quality” apps are available and trying to tax the value people get from the apps. If I imagine a world where eg Apple get none of the in app purchase but some government get 30% as VAT then it still seems fine for Apple to curate their store but they wouldn’t be incentivised to try to force apps to offer in-app purchases

dariosalvi78 6y ago
I think that the high fees are shameful by themselves, but it's a different matter. The problem I am discussing is about control, freedom and anti-competitive behaviours. I'll give an example I have lived myself: I developed a free app that was requested by some doctors to help them cope with the pandemic. The app was first rejected because "too simple". I appealed and they accepted it. Happy ending. Now, the episode in itself doesn't tell anything, but it made me think: what if they kept rejecting it? What power did I have? Why should patients be denied that piece of software on THEIR phones, because a company decides that it's not cool enough? The problem lies with Google as well but, at least, it is possible to distribute apps through other channels on their phones. I really think that there is no excuse for Apple: their devices are locked, their users are stuck with what the company decides to do with them and treated like idiots. They are a threat to business and innovation (unless it's theirs of course). Reminds me of Microsoft in the 90s...