4 ms·

It's one thing to be a walled garden, it's another to be a walled garden and forbid all other walled gardens. Will you be okay with it if Apple provides the onl

It's one thing to be a walled garden, it's another to be a walled garden and forbid all other walled gardens. Will you be okay with it if Apple provides the only walled garden for the entire world? In general, I think free-form app distribution should be the way to go for any device under the general-purpose computer category. Multiple walled gardens can be spawned on top of that.

AmericanChopper 6y ago
Apple doesn’t provide the only walled garden in the world. It targets a very specific high end segment, it faces very robust competition, there is no plausible way it could end up gaining a monopoly position in the market, and there is no evidence that they’re trying to do that. So yes, if the reality of the situation was completely different, I might have a different opinion. But it is not, so I don’t. > In general, I think free-form app distribution should be the way to go for any device under the general-purpose computer category. Then launch a company, provide that to the market, and see if that’s something consumers want. There are already plenty of companies that provide that though, so you might struggle to compete. General purpose computing is also not a legal category of product, nor is it really what you’re making it out to be. Playstations, Xboxes and my car stereo are all general purpose computers. The issue isn’t whether the device in question is a general purpose computer, or an embedded system. It’s whether a company is allowed to create an operating system where they can control what software is distributed to it. As iOS does not have a monopoly, I don’t see any reason why it shouldn’t be up to consumers as to whether it exists or not. Personally, as a consumer, Apple make a phone that I want to use, and part of the value I see in it is their control over app distribution.
- CreepGin 6y ago
  > Playstations, Xboxes and my car stereo are all general purpose computers. My argument is that they are not. I know certain individuals have likened them to general-purpose computers due to the underlying processors getting more and more like desktops'. But the majority of users do not use them as general-purpose computers. So I actually used the term to differentiate smartphones from things like video game consoles. Even though I still stand by my support for free-form app distribution, I understand that from a consumer perspective, Apple's current practices may not tip the scale between good and bad. (And as a developer, I also do not want to submit my apps to 10 different stores neither) But at the very least, I hope Apple can (eventually) improvement their one-size-fits-all pricing model and payment methods. They need to provide devs with more flexible ways of rolling out app updates, and give price cuts to apps that barely use any Apple resources.
  - AmericanChopper 6y ago
    > My argument is that they are not. Then I’d suggest you come up with a different term to use, because the phrase ‘general purpose computer’ has been in use since at least the 1940s as far as I know, and it’s definition is quite different from yours. I think the meaning you’re trying to use is that a PlayStation only runs PlayStation games/apps, that only Sony gets to decide what PlayStation games/apps are released, and that the users know this when they buy one? Therefore customers know that they can’t run arbitrary software on it when they purchase one? Because that’s exactly true for the Apple App Store as well. Customers are well aware of the limitations of the system, and it is used by Apple as a differentiating factor in their marketing. > Even though I still stand by my support for free-form app distribution, I understand that from a consumer perspective, Apple's current practices may not tip the scale between good and bad. But such channels are already open to you as both a developer and a customer. Furthermore, those channels have a majority market share. Why is it necessary for all platforms to suit your preferences? > But at the very least, I hope Apple can (eventually) improvement their one-size-fits-all pricing model and payment methods. I would agree. It is something they have already been improving over time though. I’ve had plenty of run ins with App Store rules myself, and I hope they continue to improve. But I also really hope the App Store is something they keep putting effort into, because even with the cut, it’s an absurdly valuable sales channel. I personally quite grateful that Apple have collected such a large amount of high spending customers for me to market to.

AmericanChopper 6y ago

Apple doesn’t provide the only walled garden in the world. It targets a very specific high end segment, it faces very robust competition, there is no plausible way it could end up gaining a monopoly position in the market, and there is no evidence that they’re trying to do that. So yes, if the reality of the situation was completely different, I might have a different opinion. But it is not, so I don’t. > In general, I think free-form app distribution should be the way to go for any device under the general-purpose computer category. Then launch a company, provide that to the market, and see if that’s something consumers want. There are already plenty of companies that provide that though, so you might struggle to compete. General purpose computing is also not a legal category of product, nor is it really what you’re making it out to be. Playstations, Xboxes and my car stereo are all general purpose computers. The issue isn’t whether the device in question is a general purpose computer, or an embedded system. It’s whether a company is allowed to create an operating system where they can control what software is distributed to it. As iOS does not have a monopoly, I don’t see any reason why it shouldn’t be up to consumers as to whether it exists or not. Personally, as a consumer, Apple make a phone that I want to use, and part of the value I see in it is their control over app distribution.

CreepGin 6y ago
> Playstations, Xboxes and my car stereo are all general purpose computers. My argument is that they are not. I know certain individuals have likened them to general-purpose computers due to the underlying processors getting more and more like desktops'. But the majority of users do not use them as general-purpose computers. So I actually used the term to differentiate smartphones from things like video game consoles. Even though I still stand by my support for free-form app distribution, I understand that from a consumer perspective, Apple's current practices may not tip the scale between good and bad. (And as a developer, I also do not want to submit my apps to 10 different stores neither) But at the very least, I hope Apple can (eventually) improvement their one-size-fits-all pricing model and payment methods. They need to provide devs with more flexible ways of rolling out app updates, and give price cuts to apps that barely use any Apple resources.
- AmericanChopper 6y ago
  > My argument is that they are not. Then I’d suggest you come up with a different term to use, because the phrase ‘general purpose computer’ has been in use since at least the 1940s as far as I know, and it’s definition is quite different from yours. I think the meaning you’re trying to use is that a PlayStation only runs PlayStation games/apps, that only Sony gets to decide what PlayStation games/apps are released, and that the users know this when they buy one? Therefore customers know that they can’t run arbitrary software on it when they purchase one? Because that’s exactly true for the Apple App Store as well. Customers are well aware of the limitations of the system, and it is used by Apple as a differentiating factor in their marketing. > Even though I still stand by my support for free-form app distribution, I understand that from a consumer perspective, Apple's current practices may not tip the scale between good and bad. But such channels are already open to you as both a developer and a customer. Furthermore, those channels have a majority market share. Why is it necessary for all platforms to suit your preferences? > But at the very least, I hope Apple can (eventually) improvement their one-size-fits-all pricing model and payment methods. I would agree. It is something they have already been improving over time though. I’ve had plenty of run ins with App Store rules myself, and I hope they continue to improve. But I also really hope the App Store is something they keep putting effort into, because even with the cut, it’s an absurdly valuable sales channel. I personally quite grateful that Apple have collected such a large amount of high spending customers for me to market to.