4 ms·

They might want the App Store, we don't if they're willing to pay for it because they have no choice. And it's absolutely a shakedown. It's not a service, it'

They might want the App Store, we don't if they're willing to pay for it because they have no choice. And it's absolutely a shakedown. It's not a service, it's a requirement. A service implies app developers have options. They do not. Apple could raise the price to 70% of the revenue and app developers would have no choice but to pay. It's not much different than the mob saying "it'd be a shame if this business went away for a while, wouldn't it" and demanded protection money.

ntsplnkv2 6y ago
The App Store is as much the product as the iPhone. Without the app store the iPhone is literally just a piece of hardware. The idea that the App Store isn't a product in and of itself is a falsehood. > A service implies app developers have options. They do not. They do - it's called Android.
- bluedevil2k 6y ago
  I've heard this argument before... Internet Explorer is as much the product as Windows. Without Internet Explorer Windows is literally just a piece of software. They have options - it's called a Mac
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    Ah hah! I'm glad you brought this up. What did Internet Explorer have? DOMINANT MARKETSHARE. That was the problem - not that a program came bundled with software. Such a basic fact conveniently ignored because Apple Bad. > Without Internet Explorer Windows is literally just a piece of software. A piece of software that can do many things - an iPhone without apps just doesn't work. Apps run everything - from making phone calls to keeping notes. Windows without internet can still be used. Bad analogy.
    - chipotle_coyote 6y ago
      Internet Explorer didn't have dominant market share; Windows did. You say the problem wasn't that a program came bundled with software, but that was literally the heart of the antitrust action: the government contended that Microsoft was using their defacto operating system monopoly of Windows to give IE a leg up on non-bundled competitors. > An iPhone without apps just doesn't work. Sure, but an iPhone without an App Store works fine -- that was literally the way the first iPhone shipped, remember? -- so I'm not quite sure your analogy is a slam dunk here. :)
      - zepto 6y ago
        The iPhone without an App Store doesn’t work fine to install software. Remember - they originally said - just use web apps, but developers demanded a way to install software, and Apple developed the App Store in response to that demand.
zepto 6y ago
We know some of them want it because a lot of them say so elsewhere in this threads. Nobody is forcing developers to develop for iOS. If Apple raised their rate to 70%, I’d build for the web or Android in a heartbeat. It can be both a service and a requirement for iOS developers without being a shakedown.

ntsplnkv2 6y ago

The App Store is as much the product as the iPhone. Without the app store the iPhone is literally just a piece of hardware. The idea that the App Store isn't a product in and of itself is a falsehood. > A service implies app developers have options. They do not. They do - it's called Android.

bluedevil2k 6y ago
I've heard this argument before... Internet Explorer is as much the product as Windows. Without Internet Explorer Windows is literally just a piece of software. They have options - it's called a Mac
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  Ah hah! I'm glad you brought this up. What did Internet Explorer have? DOMINANT MARKETSHARE. That was the problem - not that a program came bundled with software. Such a basic fact conveniently ignored because Apple Bad. > Without Internet Explorer Windows is literally just a piece of software. A piece of software that can do many things - an iPhone without apps just doesn't work. Apps run everything - from making phone calls to keeping notes. Windows without internet can still be used. Bad analogy.
  - chipotle_coyote 6y ago
    Internet Explorer didn't have dominant market share; Windows did. You say the problem wasn't that a program came bundled with software, but that was literally the heart of the antitrust action: the government contended that Microsoft was using their defacto operating system monopoly of Windows to give IE a leg up on non-bundled competitors. > An iPhone without apps just doesn't work. Sure, but an iPhone without an App Store works fine -- that was literally the way the first iPhone shipped, remember? -- so I'm not quite sure your analogy is a slam dunk here. :)
    - zepto 6y ago
      The iPhone without an App Store doesn’t work fine to install software. Remember - they originally said - just use web apps, but developers demanded a way to install software, and Apple developed the App Store in response to that demand.

zepto 6y ago

We know some of them want it because a lot of them say so elsewhere in this threads. Nobody is forcing developers to develop for iOS. If Apple raised their rate to 70%, I’d build for the web or Android in a heartbeat. It can be both a service and a requirement for iOS developers without being a shakedown.