4 ms·

and for every dev that left you'd have a shady one step in the fill the void.

meowface 6y ago
"Apple: Think Moloch"
scarface74 6y ago
You mean like all of the shady developers who are already in the App Store selling in app purchases for loot boxes, useless virtual currency and play to win games? I’m surprised (not really) that people are defending Epic but would never defend King (Candy Crush) or the makers of FarmVille. I would much rather see BaseCamp (Hey) or the company that was selling virtual workouts with real trainers take them to court. If Apple was really about protecting users and cared about the quality of the App Store they would prohibit in app purchases for games with consumables.
- latexr 6y ago
  > I would much rather see BaseCamp (Hey) or the company that was selling virtual workouts with real trainers take them to court. I wouldn’t, because they’d be crushed. I’d rather that if someone takes Apple to court, it’s someone with the resources to make a dent. > I’m surprised (not really) that people are defending Epic but would never defend King (Candy Crush) or the makers of FarmVille. Even if you think they’re equivalent, the difference is the former is taking an action that—even if for selfish reasons—can have a positive impact on independent developers.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    Who has a better story to tell Epic “we want to sell useless virtual goods with 0 marginal cost” or BaseCamp - “we run a small business, pay our employees well, always sought to be profitable instead of VC funding, etc.” Everybody eats up the small business angle. Besides DHH is a lot less slimy than anyone who Epic parades out. If they started a GoFundMe, I would donate to their legal defense. What Epic wants will probably never happen. What BaseCamp wants - just basically to be treated like Netflix and the other “reader apps” is much more realistic and it’s fair to the actual indy developers of cross platform useful apps who could do their own marketing.
    - latexr 6y ago
      > Who has a better story to tell Basecamp’s story is irrelevant if they’re forced into bankruptcy before they get the chance to tell it where it makes a difference. We’re not watching a feel good movie where the righteous little guy prevails. They’d get squashed and tossed aside, and they know it.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        So it’s better to have yet another avenue for shady developers to take advantage of “whales” via loot boxes and in game consumables - the very thing that the government is going after? What jury is going to care that Epic can’t sell useless virtual currency and make a larger profit?
        nitrogen 6y ago
        If Epic can make phones more open first, and then later the government regulates loot and pay-to-win like gambling is already regulated, then isn't that a win for the public?
        scarface74 6y ago
        Not if the same public has to deal with the same insecurity and vulnerabilities that iOS was designed to prevent. Only geeks care about “openness”, ordinary people don’t have a problem with any app that Apple is blocking besides probably MS’s streaming game system. Epic itself released a buggy installer that caused a security vulnerability. Do you really want them to be the poster child? https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/08/fortnites-android-vulnerability-leads-to-googleepic-games-spat/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/08/fortnites-android-vu... Out of all the problems that the App Store has. There are other options that would be better for the average consumer and better for the developer. 1. 30% is way too high for any service or app that has marginal cost. If Apple is going to force in app payments as option for those types of apps, it should allow Apple Pay (standard credit card processing fees $0.30 per transaction + 2-3%) 2. Any productivity app should be allowed to have the same “reader app” exemption. 3. I would be okay if any app that has out of store payments not showing up in the store unless the user specifically searches for it by name or navigates via an external link. That means Apple had nothing to do with app discovery. 4. Non game apps that are subscription based start off at 15% 5. Allow upgrade pricing. 6. Allow a scaling percentage. The more you bring Apple, the less of a percentage you take. 7. Any game that only has a one time in app purchase to unlock the game from demo to full version should be able to pay a lower percentage. This is what Apple should be encouraging. Mix and match any of these suggestions. They are more fair to developers.
- croes 6y ago
  To take Apple to court you need lots of money. None of the good guys gets that much. So best you can get it is two bad guys fight each other.

"Apple: Think Moloch"

You mean like all of the shady developers who are already in the App Store selling in app purchases for loot boxes, useless virtual currency and play to win games? I’m surprised (not really) that people are defending Epic but would never defend King (Candy Crush) or the makers of FarmVille. I would much rather see BaseCamp (Hey) or the company that was selling virtual workouts with real trainers take them to court. If Apple was really about protecting users and cared about the quality of the App Store they would prohibit in app purchases for games with consumables.

latexr 6y ago
> I would much rather see BaseCamp (Hey) or the company that was selling virtual workouts with real trainers take them to court. I wouldn’t, because they’d be crushed. I’d rather that if someone takes Apple to court, it’s someone with the resources to make a dent. > I’m surprised (not really) that people are defending Epic but would never defend King (Candy Crush) or the makers of FarmVille. Even if you think they’re equivalent, the difference is the former is taking an action that—even if for selfish reasons—can have a positive impact on independent developers.
- scarface74 6y ago
  Who has a better story to tell Epic “we want to sell useless virtual goods with 0 marginal cost” or BaseCamp - “we run a small business, pay our employees well, always sought to be profitable instead of VC funding, etc.” Everybody eats up the small business angle. Besides DHH is a lot less slimy than anyone who Epic parades out. If they started a GoFundMe, I would donate to their legal defense. What Epic wants will probably never happen. What BaseCamp wants - just basically to be treated like Netflix and the other “reader apps” is much more realistic and it’s fair to the actual indy developers of cross platform useful apps who could do their own marketing.
  - latexr 6y ago
    > Who has a better story to tell Basecamp’s story is irrelevant if they’re forced into bankruptcy before they get the chance to tell it where it makes a difference. We’re not watching a feel good movie where the righteous little guy prevails. They’d get squashed and tossed aside, and they know it.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      So it’s better to have yet another avenue for shady developers to take advantage of “whales” via loot boxes and in game consumables - the very thing that the government is going after? What jury is going to care that Epic can’t sell useless virtual currency and make a larger profit?
      - nitrogen 6y ago
        If Epic can make phones more open first, and then later the government regulates loot and pay-to-win like gambling is already regulated, then isn't that a win for the public?
        scarface74 6y ago
        Not if the same public has to deal with the same insecurity and vulnerabilities that iOS was designed to prevent. Only geeks care about “openness”, ordinary people don’t have a problem with any app that Apple is blocking besides probably MS’s streaming game system. Epic itself released a buggy installer that caused a security vulnerability. Do you really want them to be the poster child? https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/08/fortnites-android-vulnerability-leads-to-googleepic-games-spat/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/08/fortnites-android-vu... Out of all the problems that the App Store has. There are other options that would be better for the average consumer and better for the developer. 1. 30% is way too high for any service or app that has marginal cost. If Apple is going to force in app payments as option for those types of apps, it should allow Apple Pay (standard credit card processing fees $0.30 per transaction + 2-3%) 2. Any productivity app should be allowed to have the same “reader app” exemption. 3. I would be okay if any app that has out of store payments not showing up in the store unless the user specifically searches for it by name or navigates via an external link. That means Apple had nothing to do with app discovery. 4. Non game apps that are subscription based start off at 15% 5. Allow upgrade pricing. 6. Allow a scaling percentage. The more you bring Apple, the less of a percentage you take. 7. Any game that only has a one time in app purchase to unlock the game from demo to full version should be able to pay a lower percentage. This is what Apple should be encouraging. Mix and match any of these suggestions. They are more fair to developers.
croes 6y ago
To take Apple to court you need lots of money. None of the good guys gets that much. So best you can get it is two bad guys fight each other.