4 ms·

>It isn't absurd - it's unfair to transmission manufacturers that they have to follow Toyota's rules! The horror! Everything should be allowed for everyone! Oth

>It isn't absurd - it's unfair to transmission manufacturers that they have to follow Toyota's rules! The horror! Everything should be allowed for everyone! Otherwise it's oppression! It's not my crappy business model, no, I can't take responsibility. Kick rocks >Perfect example to prove my point. The radio is already regulated by the FCC - if it wasn't, and anyone could stream garbage however they please, like the play store, it would be a feature in automobiles to block that out. Absolutely. And people would pay big money to get it. You realize that allowing a competing app store, more easily allowing side-loading apps, or not forcing apps to use apple pay for subscriptions wouldn't stop people from using the curated app store. If as you say people would pay good money for curation if both options are available, then Apple's business model (and I'm guessing from your extreme defensiveness, yours) wouldn't suffer because people would keep voluntarily using it. No one is going to make customers side-load apps, or use a competing app store.

ntsplnkv2 6y ago
> You realize that allowing a competing app store, more easily allowing side-loading apps, or not forcing apps to use apple pay for subscriptions wouldn't stop people from using the curated app store. Yes you would - the big part of curation is to prevent malware, or abuse, of the end user. Allowing these others ruins the consumer experience, that directly impacts Apple and I don't blame them. > If as you say people would pay good money for curation if both options are available, then Apple's business model (and I'm guessing from your extreme defensiveness, yours) wouldn't suffer because people would keep voluntarily using it. No one is going to make customers side-load apps, or use a competing app store. People already pay for that experience when they buy the iPhone. If they didn't want that experience, they can get an Android. There are also other OSes out there. This is developer sour grapes, mad because he can't use Apple's service for free to make him more money. For a glorified crappy email application. It's so "entitled silicon valley" I can't even take it.
- learc83 6y ago
  >wouldn't stop people from using the curated app store. >Yes you would How? How does "allowing a competing app store, more easily allowing side-loading apps, or not forcing apps to use apple pay for subscriptions" prevent people from using a curated app store? You just said that it does, but you didn't explain how. >Allowing these others ruins the consumer experience Does it ruin the consumer experience on OSX? >People already pay for that experience when they buy the iPhone. They keep paying for that experience each time they buy an app. And if it's really a superior experience, they'd keep on paying it even if it wasn't required. >There are also other OSes out there. That's laughable. >This is developer sour grapes, mad because he can't use Apple's service for free to make him more money. For a glorified crappy email application. It's so "entitled silicon valley" I can't even take it. Basecamp stands so far apart from silicon valley culture that you almost couldn't make a worse comparison.

ntsplnkv2 6y ago

> You realize that allowing a competing app store, more easily allowing side-loading apps, or not forcing apps to use apple pay for subscriptions wouldn't stop people from using the curated app store. Yes you would - the big part of curation is to prevent malware, or abuse, of the end user. Allowing these others ruins the consumer experience, that directly impacts Apple and I don't blame them. > If as you say people would pay good money for curation if both options are available, then Apple's business model (and I'm guessing from your extreme defensiveness, yours) wouldn't suffer because people would keep voluntarily using it. No one is going to make customers side-load apps, or use a competing app store. People already pay for that experience when they buy the iPhone. If they didn't want that experience, they can get an Android. There are also other OSes out there. This is developer sour grapes, mad because he can't use Apple's service for free to make him more money. For a glorified crappy email application. It's so "entitled silicon valley" I can't even take it.

learc83 6y ago
>wouldn't stop people from using the curated app store. >Yes you would How? How does "allowing a competing app store, more easily allowing side-loading apps, or not forcing apps to use apple pay for subscriptions" prevent people from using a curated app store? You just said that it does, but you didn't explain how. >Allowing these others ruins the consumer experience Does it ruin the consumer experience on OSX? >People already pay for that experience when they buy the iPhone. They keep paying for that experience each time they buy an app. And if it's really a superior experience, they'd keep on paying it even if it wasn't required. >There are also other OSes out there. That's laughable. >This is developer sour grapes, mad because he can't use Apple's service for free to make him more money. For a glorified crappy email application. It's so "entitled silicon valley" I can't even take it. Basecamp stands so far apart from silicon valley culture that you almost couldn't make a worse comparison.