4 ms·

B/c in that case Apple would be doing what the haters erroneously claim they do now: making 100% arbitrary/capricious decisions when it comes to the App Store w

B/c in that case Apple would be doing what the haters erroneously claim they do now: making 100% arbitrary/capricious decisions when it comes to the App Store walled garden. As those of us who target iOS know, they're not transparent, but it's not arbitrary. Thank god. We'd never hear the end of unsolicited opinions about the Touch Bar and HN's annual subscription to the year of desktop Linux.

arvinsim 6y ago
How would you know that they are not arbitrary if they are transparent?
- vaxman 6y ago
  I think you meant “are NOT transparent”. You can see their calculating ways if you look carefully —can’t have too many fart apps you know, too many fart apps are bad for the user. Nevermind if you have the best fart app ever —you can’t even load it on your friends’ phones or show it to the guy deciding whether or not to give you a scholarship because, you know, a prick in Cupertino who has his own reality that’s pretty far removed from the rest if the world thinks that too many fart apps are an unpleasant experience for all one billion potential fart app users. Yea silly, but the type of app doesn’t matter when considering questions of “arbitrary” consideration.
kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
> but it's not arbitrary Then why does Amazon get a special deal?
- dkonofalski 6y ago
  They don't. All subscriptions drop to 15% after the first year so Apple is just counting the existing time where they were figuring out the process. That still applies to everyone, not just Amazon.
vaxman 6y ago
> it’s not arbitrary No, they justify ruining some developers based on some criteria that they then justify with the logic that (a) the developer wouldn’t have had any money if it weren’t for Apple to begin with and (b) they “care so deeply” for the Apple “users” that they can’t allow the developer’s life work (or livelihood) to exist and make any kind of unpleasantness available for consumers to choose.
saagarjha 6y ago
I target iOS–it's certainly not 100%, but Apple's decisions can be very arbitrary and capricious.

arvinsim 6y ago

How would you know that they are not arbitrary if they are transparent?

vaxman 6y ago
I think you meant “are NOT transparent”. You can see their calculating ways if you look carefully —can’t have too many fart apps you know, too many fart apps are bad for the user. Nevermind if you have the best fart app ever —you can’t even load it on your friends’ phones or show it to the guy deciding whether or not to give you a scholarship because, you know, a prick in Cupertino who has his own reality that’s pretty far removed from the rest if the world thinks that too many fart apps are an unpleasant experience for all one billion potential fart app users. Yea silly, but the type of app doesn’t matter when considering questions of “arbitrary” consideration.

kevin_thibedeau 6y ago

> but it's not arbitrary Then why does Amazon get a special deal?

dkonofalski 6y ago
They don't. All subscriptions drop to 15% after the first year so Apple is just counting the existing time where they were figuring out the process. That still applies to everyone, not just Amazon.

vaxman 6y ago

> it’s not arbitrary No, they justify ruining some developers based on some criteria that they then justify with the logic that (a) the developer wouldn’t have had any money if it weren’t for Apple to begin with and (b) they “care so deeply” for the Apple “users” that they can’t allow the developer’s life work (or livelihood) to exist and make any kind of unpleasantness available for consumers to choose.

saagarjha 6y ago

I target iOS–it's certainly not 100%, but Apple's decisions can be very arbitrary and capricious.