4 ms·
i generally agree (and the same goes for amazon). But let's not mix everything, otherwise we'll get no result. I believe there is a real momentum at the moment
by bsaul 6y ago
i generally agree (and the same goes for amazon). But let's not mix everything, otherwise we'll get no result. I believe there is a real momentum at the moment on the "app store" issue, and we should focus 100% on that until we get some result (then we'll move to the next one).
I hope it's not going to be a talk about which commission rate is fair, because it completely misses the point. If apple wants to charge 30% commission for being able to distribute on the store, use their development tools, their apis, and have people pay using apple, fine. But just let my customers free to install my software on the hardware they own the way they want to.
- StanislavPetrov 6y agoIts not about commission rate, its about market share. We should be breaking up every corporation that gets anything close to 50% of market share if we are going to pretend that we live in a "free market" system.
- puszczyk 6y ago> let my customers .. install my software .. the way want to I generally agree with the sentiment as a developer. As I user I never want to side load an app though. I’m afraid this will e.g. allow my bank to develop a shitty app bypassing the permission model and ask / force me to install it. I prefer to know even “strong” entities need to play by the sandbox rules.
- ryukafalz 6y agoJust because you can sideload doesn’t mean apps can just be unconfined; if you sideload an Android app for example, it’s still restricted by the OS sandbox and still has to prompt you for access to contacts, location, etc. And as an aside: you can sideload apps on Android. Have you seen any banks try to convince users to sideload their app? I sure haven’t.