4 ms·

> Apple acts on my behalf as a security officer - they have no interest in selling me ads - they already got their revenue hunger satiated from the high price o

> Apple acts on my behalf as a security officer - they have no interest in selling me ads - they already got their revenue hunger satiated from the high price of my device and all the internal Apple services I pay for (Apple music, TV, icloud, etc). They remove apps that compete with their own apps even if those apps existed before hand. They disallow cloud gaming because it they can't collect fees from it or control it. They've already done a long list of "abuses" that have nothing to do with your device security (or battery life, etc). Honestly I do think Apple has done a great job of device security and I think they could do a lot more with their OS. I don't see why I need an app store to prevent apps from sniffing off my personal data, usage patterns, cookies, etc -- the OS could protect those from me if that's what Apple wants to do. > Apple should be charging way more for exclusive access to their App store. It's their turf. I think something is likely anti-competitive when there is absolutely no market pressure on pricing.

Spivak 6y ago
> They disallow cloud gaming because it they can't collect fees from it or control it. They disallow cloud gaming for the same reason they disallow non-generic screen mirroring. Because people would use it to circumvent the App Store policies. I’m sure it nets them some cash to do this but I’m sure they would be happy to take 30% of the cloud gaming subscription revenue and allow it. Can you imagine if Facebook didn’t want to follow App Store rules and just streamed the app? > They remove apps that compete with their own apps even if those apps existed before hand This is just f.lux. I don’t see Apple banning notes apps in droves. And f.lux ran into the issue of Apple adding the feature and then suddenly f.lux running afoul of “you can’t sell OS functionality” which is a good rule in general. Android is rampant with apps that charge for push notifications.
- wvenable 6y ago
  > Can you imagine if Facebook didn’t want to follow App Store rules and just streamed the app? You mean like www.facebook.com? I fail to see why game streaming is any different than Netflix. You can't compromise the security of a device if nothing is running on the device. So this is only about Apple maintaining control. > This is just f.lux. Apple banned every screen-time and parental control app just before they released their own. Google Voice was banned. Apple has removed Podcasting applications for "duplicating functionality of iTunes". > Android is rampant with apps that charge for push notifications. I have all Android devices and my wife has all Apple devices (and I had all Apple devices in the past). There is almost no significant difference between the experiences -- the most popular apps on the store between the platforms is generally the same apps from the same companies.
  - Spivak 6y ago
    Those examples you picked are misleading at best. The Google Voice ban was a weird carrier dispute, parental control apps were banned because they used MDM, and the podcast apps were removed in China because the gov’t made them.
    - wvenable 6y ago
      No, I'm not talking about China w/ regards to podcast apps. And yes parental control apps were banned because they used MDM... Which they used for years and yet all were banned mere months before Apple released their own parental controls. The reason is acceptable the timing is extremely suspicious. For Google voice, Apple themselves said they banned it because it duplicated functionality and was "confusing". Now it's quite likely the carriers pressured them to ban the app which, in my opinion, is even worse!
systemvoltage 6y ago
> They remove apps that compete with their own apps even if those apps existed before hand. They disallow cloud gaming because it they can't collect fees from it or control it. They've already done a long list of "abuses" that have nothing to do with your device security (or battery life, etc). I can concede if there is a clearcut evidence and a source you can provide that proves it with absolute certainty. I don't think its that clear. Also, the motivation doesn't make any sense. Why would Apple want to trade PR/brand damage for what constitutes pennies so to say for a small app? Do you think that internally Apple's executives were like "Let's copy this app, ban the developer, sustain the PR damage because it is worth making that juicy $80K from sales. Surely, our shareholders would like that!" Lot of anger with Apple is unsubstantiated and completely emotional. There are a whole clan of people that love/hate Apple since the dawn of the company. I just don't see why Apple would this. Usually, they buy the whole company (e.g. Shazam).
- wvenable 6y ago
  No. I think Hanlon's razor applies; Apple has a policy against duplicating features, they add more features, existing apps that have these features are now in violation of that policy. It's Kafkaesque, not premeditated. Hackernews has a regular postings (a few a year) from app developers who's long standing apps are suddenly rejected after a minor update with no recourse and they're appealing to us for help. This isn't rare, it's a regular occurrence. And those are just the ones we know about. It's users and the developers who are losing out. You never know if Apple's going to destroy your business or nuke your favorite application and it doesn't hurt Apple at all. I doubt they even notice.

Spivak 6y ago

> They disallow cloud gaming because it they can't collect fees from it or control it. They disallow cloud gaming for the same reason they disallow non-generic screen mirroring. Because people would use it to circumvent the App Store policies. I’m sure it nets them some cash to do this but I’m sure they would be happy to take 30% of the cloud gaming subscription revenue and allow it. Can you imagine if Facebook didn’t want to follow App Store rules and just streamed the app? > They remove apps that compete with their own apps even if those apps existed before hand This is just f.lux. I don’t see Apple banning notes apps in droves. And f.lux ran into the issue of Apple adding the feature and then suddenly f.lux running afoul of “you can’t sell OS functionality” which is a good rule in general. Android is rampant with apps that charge for push notifications.

wvenable 6y ago
> Can you imagine if Facebook didn’t want to follow App Store rules and just streamed the app? You mean like www.facebook.com? I fail to see why game streaming is any different than Netflix. You can't compromise the security of a device if nothing is running on the device. So this is only about Apple maintaining control. > This is just f.lux. Apple banned every screen-time and parental control app just before they released their own. Google Voice was banned. Apple has removed Podcasting applications for "duplicating functionality of iTunes". > Android is rampant with apps that charge for push notifications. I have all Android devices and my wife has all Apple devices (and I had all Apple devices in the past). There is almost no significant difference between the experiences -- the most popular apps on the store between the platforms is generally the same apps from the same companies.
- Spivak 6y ago
  Those examples you picked are misleading at best. The Google Voice ban was a weird carrier dispute, parental control apps were banned because they used MDM, and the podcast apps were removed in China because the gov’t made them.
  - wvenable 6y ago
    No, I'm not talking about China w/ regards to podcast apps. And yes parental control apps were banned because they used MDM... Which they used for years and yet all were banned mere months before Apple released their own parental controls. The reason is acceptable the timing is extremely suspicious. For Google voice, Apple themselves said they banned it because it duplicated functionality and was "confusing". Now it's quite likely the carriers pressured them to ban the app which, in my opinion, is even worse!

systemvoltage 6y ago

> They remove apps that compete with their own apps even if those apps existed before hand. They disallow cloud gaming because it they can't collect fees from it or control it. They've already done a long list of "abuses" that have nothing to do with your device security (or battery life, etc). I can concede if there is a clearcut evidence and a source you can provide that proves it with absolute certainty. I don't think its that clear. Also, the motivation doesn't make any sense. Why would Apple want to trade PR/brand damage for what constitutes pennies so to say for a small app? Do you think that internally Apple's executives were like "Let's copy this app, ban the developer, sustain the PR damage because it is worth making that juicy $80K from sales. Surely, our shareholders would like that!" Lot of anger with Apple is unsubstantiated and completely emotional. There are a whole clan of people that love/hate Apple since the dawn of the company. I just don't see why Apple would this. Usually, they buy the whole company (e.g. Shazam).

wvenable 6y ago
No. I think Hanlon's razor applies; Apple has a policy against duplicating features, they add more features, existing apps that have these features are now in violation of that policy. It's Kafkaesque, not premeditated. Hackernews has a regular postings (a few a year) from app developers who's long standing apps are suddenly rejected after a minor update with no recourse and they're appealing to us for help. This isn't rare, it's a regular occurrence. And those are just the ones we know about. It's users and the developers who are losing out. You never know if Apple's going to destroy your business or nuke your favorite application and it doesn't hurt Apple at all. I doubt they even notice.