5 ms·

Correct me if I am wrong but the advocacy group is essentially arguing that let me use your platform (marketplace) services and get a free ride doing so. Kind o

Correct me if I am wrong but the advocacy group is essentially arguing that let me use your platform (marketplace) services and get a free ride doing so. Kind of like taking an Uber where at the end of the ride the driver just says: "you know what, lets ditch Uber, pull out your credit card and settle between the two of us. And I will charge you much lower!!" Aha.

joenathanone 6y ago
The analogy only works if the only way to get to your destination was to use Uber. iOS doesn't allow app installs outside of the store.
- _mkef 6y ago
  You don't need to use IOS to play games, listen to music or date. You could go down to a record store, hosting a trivia night, that's a game. Then buy some records, and talk to a nice potential partner. Done, you've accomplished all of these things without the use of IOS! Less cheeky , you can do all of those things on a PC, on an Android device, etc.
- izolate 6y ago
  But it's not the only way to get to work. You can use Lyft (Android).
- nickysielicki 6y ago
  The analogy works perfectly -- nobody has to buy an iPhone.
  - pornel 6y ago
    I bought an iPhone, and I'm not getting that 30% cut. Where's my money? Apple wants to get paid twice for the same thing. Apple sells me a device, and then they sell me (a device user) as their product to app developers.
    - nickysielicki 6y ago
      No, you paid for an iPhone and the iPhone ecosystem. You might choose to pay for additional apps, at which point Apple takes 30% for acting as a payment processor and for quality assurance. No double dipping. The iPhone is perfectly usable without any third-party applications. It's your choice to spend more money. The iPhone did not originally have an app store and was still highly sought-after. Apple chose to add an app store, and has every right to choose to do so under their own conditions.
      - pornel 6y ago
        Apple already takes $99/year for quality assurance (free-to-user apps get it too). Apple charges for (in-)app payments literally 10 times more than competing payment processors. Apple bans apps from using competing payment processors. Apple also bans apps from even informing consumers how much this costs, or that other payment options may be available elsewhere. There's no pro-consumer explanation for forcing opaque pricing and uninformed purchases.
jdauriemma 6y ago
I don't think "free ride" has ever described developer relationships with the App Store. The main pushback seems to be against Apple leveraging their App Store to benefit their payment processing and other services that have nothing to do with distributing software. I think it's more like Uber making drivers buy their tires through an "Uber Store" as a condition of being on the platform. It's shady and ultimately hurts the end user.

joenathanone 6y ago

The analogy only works if the only way to get to your destination was to use Uber. iOS doesn't allow app installs outside of the store.

_mkef 6y ago
You don't need to use IOS to play games, listen to music or date. You could go down to a record store, hosting a trivia night, that's a game. Then buy some records, and talk to a nice potential partner. Done, you've accomplished all of these things without the use of IOS! Less cheeky , you can do all of those things on a PC, on an Android device, etc.
izolate 6y ago
But it's not the only way to get to work. You can use Lyft (Android).
nickysielicki 6y ago
The analogy works perfectly -- nobody has to buy an iPhone.
- pornel 6y ago
  I bought an iPhone, and I'm not getting that 30% cut. Where's my money? Apple wants to get paid twice for the same thing. Apple sells me a device, and then they sell me (a device user) as their product to app developers.
  - nickysielicki 6y ago
    No, you paid for an iPhone and the iPhone ecosystem. You might choose to pay for additional apps, at which point Apple takes 30% for acting as a payment processor and for quality assurance. No double dipping. The iPhone is perfectly usable without any third-party applications. It's your choice to spend more money. The iPhone did not originally have an app store and was still highly sought-after. Apple chose to add an app store, and has every right to choose to do so under their own conditions.
    - pornel 6y ago
      Apple already takes $99/year for quality assurance (free-to-user apps get it too). Apple charges for (in-)app payments literally 10 times more than competing payment processors. Apple bans apps from using competing payment processors. Apple also bans apps from even informing consumers how much this costs, or that other payment options may be available elsewhere. There's no pro-consumer explanation for forcing opaque pricing and uninformed purchases.

jdauriemma 6y ago

I don't think "free ride" has ever described developer relationships with the App Store. The main pushback seems to be against Apple leveraging their App Store to benefit their payment processing and other services that have nothing to do with distributing software. I think it's more like Uber making drivers buy their tires through an "Uber Store" as a condition of being on the platform. It's shady and ultimately hurts the end user.