4 ms·

>I don't see why anyone should use the AppStore as a distribution channel to a huge market and completely circumvent Apple's cut Alright then allow easy instal

by syshum 6y ago

>I don't see why anyone should use the AppStore as a distribution channel to a huge market and completely circumvent Apple's cut Alright then allow easy installation of other App-stores and distribution channels If the Apple Store brings that much value, outside of their mandated use, then the other app stores will fail anyway so... >my VPN I can either buy a license by going to their website and go through a 5 minute checkout process or I can do a 5 second checkout via the iOS app. The first one goes 100% to the VPN developers, the second also means that a cut goes to Apple. Sounds fair to me, Alright then allow developers to add a Convenience Fee / Apple Tax line item to the billing, specifically calling out the fee for purchasing in-app. If the value is there you should have no problems paying a 30% higher price for the items to save that 4 min 95 secs correct? That sounds fair to me >Without Apple Pay I would have not bought that license and they would have not lost 30% of the sale, but effectively 100%. No, that is not he proper way to look at it. I dont know about a VPN service but for many business a 30% chop at the revenue likely means they are losing money. So losing the sale completely would be better than selling an item at cost However what is likely happening is they are increasing the price for all consumers so they can still make a profit on Apple Customers. This likely loses them customers in other market segments.

dustinmoris 6y ago
> Alright then allow easy installation of other App-stores and distibution channels > If the Apple Store brings that much value, outside of their mandated use, then the other app stores will fail anyway so... No, this only benefits dodgy bullshit developers doing bullshit things. The fact that there is only one, very well guarded and fenced AppStore IS a great feature for consumers. As a father I'd buy my kids an iPhone and not an Android, because I know that only way they will be able to get an app on their phone is through a store which has consumers, consumer ethics and protection at the forefront of their mind, not the desire to please developers trying to constantly push the border and slowly do more dodgy shit and trick a minor into some bullshit which they can't tell the difference from the good stuff. EDIT: There is a huge market of consumers who value their own protection and the protection of their families A LOT more than IAP margins for developers. If you want to sell your stuff to that consumer group then you have to play by their rules, can't demand them to lower their standards so you can get it your way.
- syshum 6y ago
  >>very well guarded and fenced AppStore IS a great feature for consumers. it is always amusing when people attempt to paint anti-consumer features as pro consumer... >>As a father I'd Really, you are going for "think of the children" defense of anti-consumer policy. Classic For decades electronics have had all manner of Child protection features, it is trivial to prevent the installation of apps, or even other apps stores from unapproved users, and a child should not have the authority to install any apps, form the Apple store or not In enterprise system administration we have been doing this on computers for decades preventing unauthorized applications or users from installing things That is a solved problem and in no way is a locked down controlled by apple ecosystem required to archive parental controls on the device Edit: >There is a huge market of consumers who value their own protection and the protection of their families A LOT more than IAP margins for developers I am sure they do, I am sure they do not care about the devs at all, that is clear from your position. If the consumer cares about this soo much then it should not be a problem for them to bear the cost of this not the devs, if the value of the Apple store is the Security and Privacy of the store then the consumer not the dev should pay for that. A 30% fee added to the price of the app charged to the CUSTOMER then should be the fair payment method, not extorting 30% of revenue from the dev I have a feeling that both you and apple know that most consumers would not put the value of that service at 30% though this is why they extort the devs not the customer
- camhart 6y ago
  Apple has a bad track record with parental control and other "be safe online" apps, crippling them in the name of privacy. I'd never recommend an iPhone for a child.
  - threeseed 6y ago
    Yes shame on Apple for being concerned about parental apps that were capturing children's browser and usage data and sending it to remote servers. Because companies can always be trusted to never monetize data.
    - camhart 6y ago

by syshum 6y ago

dustinmoris 6y ago

> Alright then allow easy installation of other App-stores and distibution channels > If the Apple Store brings that much value, outside of their mandated use, then the other app stores will fail anyway so... No, this only benefits dodgy bullshit developers doing bullshit things. The fact that there is only one, very well guarded and fenced AppStore IS a great feature for consumers. As a father I'd buy my kids an iPhone and not an Android, because I know that only way they will be able to get an app on their phone is through a store which has consumers, consumer ethics and protection at the forefront of their mind, not the desire to please developers trying to constantly push the border and slowly do more dodgy shit and trick a minor into some bullshit which they can't tell the difference from the good stuff. EDIT: There is a huge market of consumers who value their own protection and the protection of their families A LOT more than IAP margins for developers. If you want to sell your stuff to that consumer group then you have to play by their rules, can't demand them to lower their standards so you can get it your way.

syshum 6y ago
>>very well guarded and fenced AppStore IS a great feature for consumers. it is always amusing when people attempt to paint anti-consumer features as pro consumer... >>As a father I'd Really, you are going for "think of the children" defense of anti-consumer policy. Classic For decades electronics have had all manner of Child protection features, it is trivial to prevent the installation of apps, or even other apps stores from unapproved users, and a child should not have the authority to install any apps, form the Apple store or not In enterprise system administration we have been doing this on computers for decades preventing unauthorized applications or users from installing things That is a solved problem and in no way is a locked down controlled by apple ecosystem required to archive parental controls on the device Edit: >There is a huge market of consumers who value their own protection and the protection of their families A LOT more than IAP margins for developers I am sure they do, I am sure they do not care about the devs at all, that is clear from your position. If the consumer cares about this soo much then it should not be a problem for them to bear the cost of this not the devs, if the value of the Apple store is the Security and Privacy of the store then the consumer not the dev should pay for that. A 30% fee added to the price of the app charged to the CUSTOMER then should be the fair payment method, not extorting 30% of revenue from the dev I have a feeling that both you and apple know that most consumers would not put the value of that service at 30% though this is why they extort the devs not the customer
camhart 6y ago
Apple has a bad track record with parental control and other "be safe online" apps, crippling them in the name of privacy. I'd never recommend an iPhone for a child.
- threeseed 6y ago
  Yes shame on Apple for being concerned about parental apps that were capturing children's browser and usage data and sending it to remote servers. Because companies can always be trusted to never monetize data.
  - camhart 6y ago