3 ms·
Wow that site was disappointing. It focused mostly on the 30% apple charges, which is both common and reasonable. It mentions the anti competitive behavior but
by swiley 6y ago
Wow that site was disappointing.
It focused mostly on the 30% apple charges, which is both common and reasonable. It mentions the anti competitive behavior but mostly how it inflates prices, which is exactly how apple is trying to frame the debate.
Also they have cookies on an entirely static site and disable scrolling until you press accept in the cookie dick bar (something you should probably never do, certainly not on a static site.) The thing is only readable in w3m/elinks.
In my (unpopular) opinion almost all of these "apps" should really be sites anyway. App store curation doesn't provide any reall security (especially since the apps are never instrumented) so someone so incapable of measuring the safety of software that they need that level of infantilesation should really only trust software to the same degree a browser does (that is, not at all.)
- DeusExMachina 6y agoCommon and reasonable according to which standards? One of the arguments of Epic in court is that Apple set the standard and other stores are simply following it.
- nodamage 6y agoThat's a pretty silly argument considering Steam launched with a 30% fee a full 5 years before the App Store was even a thing.
- TYPE_FASTER 6y agoYes. Also see https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut-is-actually-the-industry-standard https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut...
- redwall_hp 6y agoI can also buy games from other places than Steam. I cannot install iPhone apps I download online. That little detail changes the situation entirely. I don't care what Apple charges if I can install a binary without dealing with their store.
- swiley 6y agoApple's counter argument is that it's possible to sideload apps. You just have to use a mac to do it and need to reinstall them every 7 days.