9 ms·
Exactly. Apple takes a lot from you, then gives you some crumbs back, and everyone praises it for how "generous" it is. Imagine if Microsoft decided to take 30
by mtgx 6y ago
Exactly. Apple takes a lot from you, then gives you some crumbs back, and everyone praises it for how "generous" it is.
Imagine if Microsoft decided to take 30% of all online transactions that happen on Windows PCs...Pretty ridiculous thought, right?
That stuff Apple has gotten away with and continues to get away with is beyond absurd.
- 1f60c 6y ago> Pretty ridiculous thought, right? Yeah, because Apple isn't doing that at all. What's more, it seems like the fee Microsoft charges for every sale in their Microsoft Store is also either 15% or 30%. (Source: the App Developer Agreement, https://query.prod.cms.rt.microsoft.com/cms/api/am/binary/RE4o4bH https://query.prod.cms.rt.microsoft.com/cms/api/am/binary/RE...)
- est31 6y agoThey allow third party stores though, and even installation without any store at all. Apple devices OTOH are severely limited regarding sideloading. This leads to Apple capturing a much larger percentage of transactions pertaining software for their devices.
- jfk13 6y ago> Apple devices OTOH are severely limited regarding sideloading Yes, but for many users this is a premium feature, not a flaw.
- cgriswald 6y agoThat's an incredibly weak claim. The statement is certainly true for some value of 'many', but then so is its opposite. Unless many means, "the vast majority", which certainly is not clear and definitely would need some support, it is a meaningless claim. It is also difficult to see how it is a feature. In a world where additional app stores or side-loading was enabled for those that want it, it wouldn't somehow remove the ability to use a single app store for those that don't.
- nodamage 6y agoI mean, presumably the people who really cared about side-loading decided to buy alternative phones instead. So, of iPhone buyers, you're left with two remaining groups: 1. People who care a little bit about side-loading but not enough to choose a difference device. 2. People who don't care about side-loading at all.
- cgriswald 6y agoThe assertion was that there is a group that values the lack of side-loading, which your post doesn't really address, so I'm not sure why you've responded to me. In any case: > the people who really cared about side-loading > 1. People who care a little bit about side-loading but not enough to choose a difference device. This is not a useful model. If I choose feature X over feature Y, all you can really tell from that is that value(X) > value(Y). It doesn't tell you whether value(Y) <<< value(X). It's also important to note that this is vastly simplified, because there are many features and issues that people must combine and weigh against each other. To illustrate, if a product offers side-loading but kills your mother on first use, if you choose a different product it doesn't mean you don't "really" care about side-loading. You might genuinely care a tremendous amount, but sacrificing your mother isn't an option for you. I differentiate between products that I buy because they are a good option for me and products I buy because they are the least bad product for me. Phones are currently in the second group. It's not that I don't care about side-loading. It's that all issues combined, IOS is less bad for my purposes and preferences than Android.
- nodamage 6y agoI'm not sure that group values the lack of side-loading specifically. I think what they do value is the additional security and privacy benefits provided by a platform that strictly controls the distribution of its apps. To the extent that the lack of side-loading helps prevent the spread of malware and shady apps stealing user data, I think they value it indirectly. Android has serious malware problems. Even Epic's attempt to distribute Fortnite off the Play Store has directly led to fake APKs being distributed to unsuspecting users. I don't see how you can open up iOS to side-loading without exposing it to the exact same malware problems Android has.
- d0100 6y agoOk, then put a premium price on that feature and see how many actually pay for it
- netsharc 6y agoHah, are you claiming people are that dumb and think "please protect me from my own stupidity"? The enabling of sideloading on Android phones already comes with warnings written in plain language, and even if you want to install an app from e.g. the browser it asks you to give the browser permission to install apps, so it's pretty idiot-proof...
- scarface74 6y agoAnd so is UAC....
- damnyou 6y agoI would fully support Apple charging, say, $50 extra to lock down its devices to the current standard. That would be a much better world and the users who desire the "premium experience" still get to have it.
- Razengan 6y ago> They allow third party stores though, and even installation without any store at all. Not on the Xbox, which Epic doesn't seem to mind in regards to Fortnite etc.
- jkinudsjknds 6y agohttps://www.amazon.com/Fortnite-PlayStation-4/dp/B071JQTBFL?th=1 https://www.amazon.com/Fortnite-PlayStation-4/dp/B071JQTBFL?... I can buy fortnite for Xbox right here.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- toast0 6y agoUsing the Microsoft Store is totally optional. Selling software for Windows has rarely required any coordination with Microsoft other than maybe code signing with a cert from an approved CA. Exceptions include drivers, and Windows Phone/Windows Mobile 10
- syspec 6y agoUsing Steam is even MORE optional. They're PC games! Yet people still want to be on Steam even if you have to play by their rules, because being on there creates value.
- johnjj257 6y agoCool but there's tons of game outlets on pc, not on iphone
- damnyou 6y agoI'm really bothered by the whole notion of games as less important and "[more] optional". Playing games is a fundamental part of being human, and it is certainly more important than capitalism.
- ryanbrunner 6y agoI don't think that's the point that was being made - Steam is optional not because the content on it is games, but because the content is PC games - i.e. content where there's no obstacles to distributing it yourself, or through other stores. Any game developer could at any point opt out of using Steam and accept payments on their own site, or go through another store. Most developers don't bother because Steam provides enough value to make it worthwhile. It's impossible to determine if this is the case with the App Store since competitors don't (and can't) exist.
- Bud 6y agoIf this is absurd, then Google taking 30% and Sony taking 30% for Playstation and Microsoft taking 30% for Xbox is also absurd, right? So why aren't you complaining about that?
- matsemann 6y agoThat's whataboutism. In this post it's about Apple. That others do it doesn't excuse it. And a big difference with Google is that you can sideload or use other stores on Android. And same on Windows, you don't have to use the store.
- Bud 6y agoThat's not a big difference, with Android, because nobody is making any money doing that. It doesn't work. I didn't mention Windows. I was discussing platforms where everyone takes a 30% cut. You may say this is mere whataboutism, but anyone who reads Hacker News knows that 99% of the anger and attacks on this practice are directed at Apple. Nobody bitches at Google and Sony and Microsoft for doing the exact same thing.
- ksk 6y agoGoogle gets hit on the privacy front pretty regularly. I guess it depends on the issue. But not to worry, I'm sure there will be plenty of time and opportunity to complain against injustices from all corporations in the future. A significant chunk of early adopters for Apple/MS/Google products were nerds who spread the good word. Its no surprise that issues like privacy, developer freedom and hacker-ethics will drive the conversation against these companies.
- matsemann 6y agoBecause it's not the exact same thing. Context matters.
- jedberg 6y agoGoogle provides side loading so I can avoid their fee. Playstation and Xbox are not general computing devices.