6 ms·

It's not like someone will force you paying without your consent. If you don't want to give random apps your credit card, don't give it to them. Why do you opp

It's not like someone will force you paying without your consent. If you don't want to give random apps your credit card, don't give it to them. Why do you oppose other people's right to do that, if they need it?

xenadu02 6y ago
Many apps, if not a large majority, would start doing this. That destroys the convenience and user experience. If every app does this there isn't any consumer choice about it.
- sanxiyn 6y ago
  No, Android is an existence proof that this will not happen. Users in fact hate it, so apps mostly stick to in app purchases.
- winter_blue 6y ago
  Only because of the 30% cut. Very few apps would start doing it if the App Store took a cut similar to what Stripe takes.
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
  Perhaps, but Apple would still have an edge on tight integration with the OS resulting in a quick and frictionless user experience. If that wouldn't cut it for some developers, so they would bother themselves building a separate processing, well, then Apple would probably have to lower their fees. Personally for me, as a developer of applications, I could care less about 30% fee. I find it reasonable. What I DO care about is restrictions on owning the device and users' inability to run any app they need - even if it is not vetted by Apple. In part it is because I happen to live in an authoritarian country which government loves to block apps in the AppStore.
  - spullara 6y ago
    Anyone can get a developer license and run whatever stupid apps they want. That seems like sufficient opt-in that you are likely competent to assess the risk of the apps you're installing.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
      So you are suggesting users in China apply for a developer license and build their own build of Signal and Protonmail apps? Really? And how would said users receive push notifications for their apps from Signal? UPD: oh boy, and I forgot to mention that such users would also have to buy Macs - you can't build a 'stupid app' for iOS without XCode, which runs only on Macs that support the latest version of macOS.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        So now are you suggesting that the government force Apple to release XCode for Windows? Linux?
        Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
        What makes you think I'm suggesting that? I was simply ridiculing the idea of forcing users to acquire developers license. The right way, of course, is to allow third party appstores and app sideloading. Just like we have it on macOS - and it doesn't look like someone was made unhappy because he can run Steam and buy Sketch directly from the developer. Someone besides Apple, of course.
        judge2020 6y ago
        Not forcing people to be a developer to sideload apps isn't addressing the elephant in the room that you need to have a Mac ($800+) to build them. Your solution would best be 'allow downloading and installing .app packages from websites'.
        Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
- etrabroline 6y ago
  Exactly. Apple's market power derives from the consumers that trust it to represent them in negotiations with publishers. The decision to "not give every app your credit card" is made by consumers when they purchase an iPhone. Purchasing an iPhone is an act of collective bargaining by consumers against publishers that otherwise would hoover up their private data. "If you don't like it, you can always live like it's 2004, before smart phones" is not an answer iPhone customers accept.
- rubber_duck 6y ago
  That's not how it works, apps follow what customers want - Android exists and apps go trough play store and Google payment.
wlesieutre 6y ago
Beyond the security of not giving our credit cards, and the convenience of not having 8 different game updater/launcher clients, Apple’s App Store policies also limit 3rd party software’s ability to fuck up my devices in a myriad of ways. If they’re forced to open up to 3rd party stores, I hope they can do it in a way that prevents Adobe from running 8 background processes to make sure my license is current and there aren’t any font updates to download and to make Reader launch faster by keeping it in memory all the time, or whatever it is they do with their Creative Cloud client stuff.
- admax88q 6y ago
  An operating system that actually empowered you would give you the tools and options to prevent that, while also letting you run whatever software you desired. I will never understand people's desire to be handcuffed by Apple. Give me control over my own device god damn it.
  - aeurielesn 6y ago
    Rest assured that despite the somehow surprisingly recent blind support for Apple here, there are people too that want to own our devices. I can just hope that the EU is successful in stopping all of Apple's trickeries ranging from 2.5mm headset jacks, ports, OS slow downs, mysterious battery underperformance, app store, the list just goes on.
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      > I can just hope that the EU is successful in stopping all of Apple's trickeries ranging from 2.5mm headset jacks, ports, OS slow downs, mysterious battery underperformance Entirely unrelated, and it's 3.5 mm by the way.
      - wlesieutre 6y ago
        2.5mm jacks exist but iOS devices have never used them. I think some feature phones did that back in the day. Personally I've only encountered them on a pair of headphones where they're a step up from a soldered on cable, but more annoying than a standard jack would be. It's also recessed really far in with a very narrow twist-lock connector, so isn't compatible with any cables except the special one it comes with.
beached_whale 6y ago
Most people are naive about how applications will coerce them into doing things against their best interest when given the ability, such as a request while installing, requesting access to parts of the system that reveal PII. Most people do not have the knowledge to evaluate how these things play out. Apple via the app store at least does some work to mitigate this and when they do fail, are able to fix it.
- simion314 6y ago
  But why Mac OS still allows competent users to buypass the security restrictions? Is it because they can't screw over MacOS users ? Or for some reasons the people that use Mac OS can be trusted but when you give the same user an iPhone his IQ drops and we can't trust him. Come on, let's be honest this is in the first place in Apple interest, if Apple needs to sell in China then they made sure they handed over Chinese users data to the government, now if they want to sell in EU they would need to also put a bit of effort into it(I have no idea if EU market is smaller but money is money)
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  You are making the case for the app store to exist, not for it to have no competitors. Let's suppose that Apple's store is infallible. Well then the availability of other stores won't matter, will it? Apple will approve everything good and reject everything bad and you'll know that anything not in their store is bad and have no reason to ever look at another store even if they exist. But suppose they're not infallible. They reject something good when they ought not to. Well now you gain something from the other store, because now you have the option to install it anyway. You don't have to -- you only would if the other store has a sufficient reputation for not distributing bad things -- but you could. Or you could still continue to refuse anything not in Apple's store. It only gives you a choice. And the existence of the choice creates competitive pressure. It makes it in Apple's interest to do a better job for you, because they don't want customers turning to other stores because they've rejected something they shouldn't have, or because they're charging monopoly rents to developers etc. So they spend more resources to reject only what's bad and not what's good. They charge lower fees, so that more money goes to developers and you get better apps. And then even if you still don't want to use the other stores, their existence makes Apple's store better for you.
sharkjacobs 6y ago
They're saying > given that I want to use and pay for a piece of software, I would rather pay through Apple and you're saying > if you want to pay through Apple, then don't use and pay for the piece of software
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  But that's how you get from one to the other. By refusing to use something else, the developer would have to sell through Apple in order to get your business. If they want your business, that's what they'll do. Meanwhile other people may choose to do something else, e.g. because they would rather that more of what they pay go to the developer (where it's plausible that it be used to improve the software) than to Apple (which can't productively use any more money than it already has). And who are you or Apple to get in the way of this transaction between two independent and consenting third parties?
cyrksoft 6y ago
The same could be said the other way around. Why force a private company to open its system? Apple built the entire ecosystem and you want to force them to open it up to your desire. Why is that ok?
- corylulu 6y ago
  For the same reason antitrust laws exist. Monopolies need to be prevented to maintain a healthy economy.
  - cyrksoft 6y ago
    How is Apple a monopoly? They own a system and manage the rules around it, that is not a monopoly. Will you force car manufacturers to let you install any system in the car? Why can't I install any app on my car?
    - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
      The same way Hollywood studios that controlled the movie theaters. Studio monopolies were teared down and Apple's monopoly should be teared down too. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_P....
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
  Because it is acting against the interests of the users. Would you still support Apple's position if, say, Apple would roll out update to iOS with new EULA, which would require you to give up your firstborn son for a Satan sacrifice? Of course, you can refuse, but the device that you supposedly "own" would effectively stop functioning (obsoleted iOS devices lose their usefulness very fast: try doing anything with iPhone 5).
  - cyrksoft 6y ago
    I would sell it and buy a new phone. Do you think Apple competitors would not pay you or accept the phone as part of payment if Apple did that? The problem is people think they are smarter than everybody and can tell you how to manage things. The market is smarter than anybody or any group of people. You cannot force a private company to cater to your beliefs of how a system should work. People buy iPhones knowing there is only one app store. And, as an iPhone user, is an advantage. I know that my grandparents and parents using an iPhone will not screw it up, or at least the possibility is smaller compared to the alternatives.
bobbylarrybobby 6y ago
What happens when an app you use leaves the App Store? Now you’re stuck between purchasing it with a third party payment processor or not using the app. When every app must be on the App Store, this isn’t an issue.

xenadu02 6y ago

Many apps, if not a large majority, would start doing this. That destroys the convenience and user experience. If every app does this there isn't any consumer choice about it.

sanxiyn 6y ago
No, Android is an existence proof that this will not happen. Users in fact hate it, so apps mostly stick to in app purchases.
winter_blue 6y ago
Only because of the 30% cut. Very few apps would start doing it if the App Store took a cut similar to what Stripe takes.
Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
Perhaps, but Apple would still have an edge on tight integration with the OS resulting in a quick and frictionless user experience. If that wouldn't cut it for some developers, so they would bother themselves building a separate processing, well, then Apple would probably have to lower their fees. Personally for me, as a developer of applications, I could care less about 30% fee. I find it reasonable. What I DO care about is restrictions on owning the device and users' inability to run any app they need - even if it is not vetted by Apple. In part it is because I happen to live in an authoritarian country which government loves to block apps in the AppStore.
- spullara 6y ago
  Anyone can get a developer license and run whatever stupid apps they want. That seems like sufficient opt-in that you are likely competent to assess the risk of the apps you're installing.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
    So you are suggesting users in China apply for a developer license and build their own build of Signal and Protonmail apps? Really? And how would said users receive push notifications for their apps from Signal? UPD: oh boy, and I forgot to mention that such users would also have to buy Macs - you can't build a 'stupid app' for iOS without XCode, which runs only on Macs that support the latest version of macOS.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      So now are you suggesting that the government force Apple to release XCode for Windows? Linux?
      - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
        What makes you think I'm suggesting that? I was simply ridiculing the idea of forcing users to acquire developers license. The right way, of course, is to allow third party appstores and app sideloading. Just like we have it on macOS - and it doesn't look like someone was made unhappy because he can run Steam and buy Sketch directly from the developer. Someone besides Apple, of course.
        judge2020 6y ago
        Not forcing people to be a developer to sideload apps isn't addressing the elephant in the room that you need to have a Mac ($800+) to build them. Your solution would best be 'allow downloading and installing .app packages from websites'.
        Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
etrabroline 6y ago
Exactly. Apple's market power derives from the consumers that trust it to represent them in negotiations with publishers. The decision to "not give every app your credit card" is made by consumers when they purchase an iPhone. Purchasing an iPhone is an act of collective bargaining by consumers against publishers that otherwise would hoover up their private data. "If you don't like it, you can always live like it's 2004, before smart phones" is not an answer iPhone customers accept.
rubber_duck 6y ago
That's not how it works, apps follow what customers want - Android exists and apps go trough play store and Google payment.

wlesieutre 6y ago

Beyond the security of not giving our credit cards, and the convenience of not having 8 different game updater/launcher clients, Apple’s App Store policies also limit 3rd party software’s ability to fuck up my devices in a myriad of ways. If they’re forced to open up to 3rd party stores, I hope they can do it in a way that prevents Adobe from running 8 background processes to make sure my license is current and there aren’t any font updates to download and to make Reader launch faster by keeping it in memory all the time, or whatever it is they do with their Creative Cloud client stuff.

admax88q 6y ago
An operating system that actually empowered you would give you the tools and options to prevent that, while also letting you run whatever software you desired. I will never understand people's desire to be handcuffed by Apple. Give me control over my own device god damn it.
- aeurielesn 6y ago
  Rest assured that despite the somehow surprisingly recent blind support for Apple here, there are people too that want to own our devices. I can just hope that the EU is successful in stopping all of Apple's trickeries ranging from 2.5mm headset jacks, ports, OS slow downs, mysterious battery underperformance, app store, the list just goes on.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    > I can just hope that the EU is successful in stopping all of Apple's trickeries ranging from 2.5mm headset jacks, ports, OS slow downs, mysterious battery underperformance Entirely unrelated, and it's 3.5 mm by the way.
    - wlesieutre 6y ago
      2.5mm jacks exist but iOS devices have never used them. I think some feature phones did that back in the day. Personally I've only encountered them on a pair of headphones where they're a step up from a soldered on cable, but more annoying than a standard jack would be. It's also recessed really far in with a very narrow twist-lock connector, so isn't compatible with any cables except the special one it comes with.

beached_whale 6y ago

Most people are naive about how applications will coerce them into doing things against their best interest when given the ability, such as a request while installing, requesting access to parts of the system that reveal PII. Most people do not have the knowledge to evaluate how these things play out. Apple via the app store at least does some work to mitigate this and when they do fail, are able to fix it.

simion314 6y ago
But why Mac OS still allows competent users to buypass the security restrictions? Is it because they can't screw over MacOS users ? Or for some reasons the people that use Mac OS can be trusted but when you give the same user an iPhone his IQ drops and we can't trust him. Come on, let's be honest this is in the first place in Apple interest, if Apple needs to sell in China then they made sure they handed over Chinese users data to the government, now if they want to sell in EU they would need to also put a bit of effort into it(I have no idea if EU market is smaller but money is money)
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
You are making the case for the app store to exist, not for it to have no competitors. Let's suppose that Apple's store is infallible. Well then the availability of other stores won't matter, will it? Apple will approve everything good and reject everything bad and you'll know that anything not in their store is bad and have no reason to ever look at another store even if they exist. But suppose they're not infallible. They reject something good when they ought not to. Well now you gain something from the other store, because now you have the option to install it anyway. You don't have to -- you only would if the other store has a sufficient reputation for not distributing bad things -- but you could. Or you could still continue to refuse anything not in Apple's store. It only gives you a choice. And the existence of the choice creates competitive pressure. It makes it in Apple's interest to do a better job for you, because they don't want customers turning to other stores because they've rejected something they shouldn't have, or because they're charging monopoly rents to developers etc. So they spend more resources to reject only what's bad and not what's good. They charge lower fees, so that more money goes to developers and you get better apps. And then even if you still don't want to use the other stores, their existence makes Apple's store better for you.

sharkjacobs 6y ago

They're saying > given that I want to use and pay for a piece of software, I would rather pay through Apple and you're saying > if you want to pay through Apple, then don't use and pay for the piece of software

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
But that's how you get from one to the other. By refusing to use something else, the developer would have to sell through Apple in order to get your business. If they want your business, that's what they'll do. Meanwhile other people may choose to do something else, e.g. because they would rather that more of what they pay go to the developer (where it's plausible that it be used to improve the software) than to Apple (which can't productively use any more money than it already has). And who are you or Apple to get in the way of this transaction between two independent and consenting third parties?

cyrksoft 6y ago

The same could be said the other way around. Why force a private company to open its system? Apple built the entire ecosystem and you want to force them to open it up to your desire. Why is that ok?

corylulu 6y ago
For the same reason antitrust laws exist. Monopolies need to be prevented to maintain a healthy economy.
- cyrksoft 6y ago
  How is Apple a monopoly? They own a system and manage the rules around it, that is not a monopoly. Will you force car manufacturers to let you install any system in the car? Why can't I install any app on my car?
  - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
    The same way Hollywood studios that controlled the movie theaters. Studio monopolies were teared down and Apple's monopoly should be teared down too. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_P....
Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
Because it is acting against the interests of the users. Would you still support Apple's position if, say, Apple would roll out update to iOS with new EULA, which would require you to give up your firstborn son for a Satan sacrifice? Of course, you can refuse, but the device that you supposedly "own" would effectively stop functioning (obsoleted iOS devices lose their usefulness very fast: try doing anything with iPhone 5).
- cyrksoft 6y ago
  I would sell it and buy a new phone. Do you think Apple competitors would not pay you or accept the phone as part of payment if Apple did that? The problem is people think they are smarter than everybody and can tell you how to manage things. The market is smarter than anybody or any group of people. You cannot force a private company to cater to your beliefs of how a system should work. People buy iPhones knowing there is only one app store. And, as an iPhone user, is an advantage. I know that my grandparents and parents using an iPhone will not screw it up, or at least the possibility is smaller compared to the alternatives.

bobbylarrybobby 6y ago

What happens when an app you use leaves the App Store? Now you’re stuck between purchasing it with a third party payment processor or not using the app. When every app must be on the App Store, this isn’t an issue.