6 ms·

You're also leaving out that the VPN is just one part of the larger "Librem One" subscription package. It's something customers discover through Librem's market

by bogwog 6y ago

You're also leaving out that the VPN is just one part of the larger "Librem One" subscription package. It's something customers discover through Librem's marketing, buy from Librem on Librem's website not using Apple's payment/account systems, and not exclusive to Apple platforms in any way. Yet Apple is forcing them to give up 30% of their revenue, because they can.

vbezhenar 6y ago
What about customers who have found an app in AppStore, wanted to try it out only to find that they need to go through external websites and stuff. Not kind of UX you expect from iPhone.
- protomyth 6y ago
  Apple got paid for the phone and wouldn't have the app in its app store except for the requirement it be there to be installed in the first place. Rewarding a company for forced discovery is not a healthy thing.
  - Terretta 6y ago
    Unless user didn’t buy the hardware but the experience in which case the reward is theirs by right.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  Sounds like rent-seeking from a company that has literally banned all mobile app distribution competition on their platform.
- jasonjayr 6y ago
  I expect any device with general purpose computing capabilities to allow me to use those capabilities anyway I want. Especially I'm spending $1000 USD on the thing.
  - comex 6y ago
    What if the way you want is using the App Store's payment infrastructure?
    - ineedasername 6y ago
      Then that person can use the app store, and another person using their own iPhone could use some other method. Apple allowing users a choice wouldn't prevent them from choosing the App Store.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - anfilt 6y ago
      Then dont do business with that developer/company. You cant force a seller/company to accept every form of payment or payment processor. Especially one that takes 30% cut, and says they cant sell their goods themself to people (aka sideload). Not only does such system seem insane for a normal payment processor. It also effects you the purchaser in multiple ways. Since to use this payment system you cant make the choice to buy anything but through them. It also prevents in you from fully owning your own hardware. So the end results they force both developers and users through them. I find the effect of not allowing side-loading even more egregious because once apple sells the phone they no longer own it.
      - Google234 6y ago
        Yes you can. Try and sell a product at any store and demand they take a 0% cut
        anfilt 6y ago
        Sigh I don't think you understand. The comment I was responding to said they dont want to use other payment processors. Walk into a store and demand that they use a payment processor you like especially ones with such onerous requirements. As for your comment normal producers of goods can sell directly or choose what stores to stock their product. However, here a developer has no choice but apple and the same goes for a payment processor. Its all because the hardware is locked down infringing on the property rights of device owners. Apple does not even own the hardware after they sell it. Apple can run their store like they want however the only reason is its a problem is because they infringe on the device owners rights, and they cant run software unless apple allows that software to run on the device.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  Maybe, but no matter how contrived there always seems to be an argument that Apple are the good guys. If they really want this because of UX they shouldn't charge so much money
ziml77 6y ago
They want the experience to be that if you download an app that needs payment to function, it's possible to pay using the same payment flow as everything else. You don't have to hand over your payment information to a third party. Maybe Apple needs to make changes to allow apps that are only a part of a service instead of the main selling point of the service to bypass those rules? Seems like it would be tough to figure out what is and isn't covered though.
- nvrspyx 6y ago
  Crazy how that doesn't apply to Amazon (and Audible) or Netflix /s
  - ksec 6y ago
    Apple made exemption to what they called reader apps. Read but not write, or consume and not create. But you would have thought other Video Streaming Services would be reader Apps. But no, only selected Apps could be classify as reader Apps. Which is precisely the problem what some people have with the App Store. Actually may be that is not even the case either. There are many accepting the fact there are economy of scale and Amazon, Netflix are big enough to get special treatment. Which is fine. That is until Tim Cook stood up and said everyone gets the same treatment in App Store. Which is a lie.
ogre_codes 6y ago
> Yet Apple is forcing them to give up 30% of their revenue, because they can. This is a bit disingenuous. Apple isn’t forcing them to give up 30% of their revenue, they are requiring they give users the option to sign up through the App Store. If most of their customers come from outside the App Store, this won’t make much difference to them. If they make less the $1m through the App Store, it will only be 15%. The second is a bit of a niggle, but if most of their promotion and value comes from outside the App Store, this wouldn’t be a big problem.
- bogwog 6y ago
  Arguing these fine points is a waste of time because I feel like people defending this are missing the complete insanity of this situation. Try a different perspective: Let's say Apple wants to sell their devices at "Billy's Electronics", which is a tiny kiosk at a mall with minimal foot traffic. Billy tells Apple that he'll only sell Apple devices at his kiosk if Apple agrees to give him 30% of all revenues Apple makes from all of their services from customers that buy a device at his kiosk. This includes things like iCloud subscriptions, app store sales, etc. That's batshit right? Like literal insanity if Apple would accept that deal. So obviously, Apple would tell Billy to fuck off and will find somewhere else to sell their devices. Except they can't, because Billy is the only person with a license to sell electronics in the entire country. He got this by convincing everyone that he wants to "protect" electronics customers from scammers and other bad people who want to exploit them. The fact that this makes Billy a trillionaire is just a nice little coincidence. "Sure, I'm the richest entity in the entire history of the universe, but that's not why I'm doing this. I'm doing this so innocent people don't download an app only to discover that they need to go to another website to create an account first." ~ Billy > If they make less the $1m through the App Store, it will only be 15% That's a deflection tactic, and doesn't justify anything. 15% is still too much as long as there are no alternatives.
  - mrzimmerman 6y ago
    But the opposite is true. Android represents a much, much larger part of the smart phone market and there are a wide variety of devices, manufacturers, and sellers. So the more accurate version of your story is that Apple goes to one of 100 different retailers instead of Billy, which is also what the electronics marketplace is like already.

by bogwog 6y ago

vbezhenar 6y ago

What about customers who have found an app in AppStore, wanted to try it out only to find that they need to go through external websites and stuff. Not kind of UX you expect from iPhone.

protomyth 6y ago
Apple got paid for the phone and wouldn't have the app in its app store except for the requirement it be there to be installed in the first place. Rewarding a company for forced discovery is not a healthy thing.
- Terretta 6y ago
  Unless user didn’t buy the hardware but the experience in which case the reward is theirs by right.
heavyset_go 6y ago
Sounds like rent-seeking from a company that has literally banned all mobile app distribution competition on their platform.
jasonjayr 6y ago
I expect any device with general purpose computing capabilities to allow me to use those capabilities anyway I want. Especially I'm spending $1000 USD on the thing.
- comex 6y ago
  What if the way you want is using the App Store's payment infrastructure?
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    Then that person can use the app store, and another person using their own iPhone could use some other method. Apple allowing users a choice wouldn't prevent them from choosing the App Store.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - anfilt 6y ago
    Then dont do business with that developer/company. You cant force a seller/company to accept every form of payment or payment processor. Especially one that takes 30% cut, and says they cant sell their goods themself to people (aka sideload). Not only does such system seem insane for a normal payment processor. It also effects you the purchaser in multiple ways. Since to use this payment system you cant make the choice to buy anything but through them. It also prevents in you from fully owning your own hardware. So the end results they force both developers and users through them. I find the effect of not allowing side-loading even more egregious because once apple sells the phone they no longer own it.
    - Google234 6y ago
      Yes you can. Try and sell a product at any store and demand they take a 0% cut
      - anfilt 6y ago
        Sigh I don't think you understand. The comment I was responding to said they dont want to use other payment processors. Walk into a store and demand that they use a payment processor you like especially ones with such onerous requirements. As for your comment normal producers of goods can sell directly or choose what stores to stock their product. However, here a developer has no choice but apple and the same goes for a payment processor. Its all because the hardware is locked down infringing on the property rights of device owners. Apple does not even own the hardware after they sell it. Apple can run their store like they want however the only reason is its a problem is because they infringe on the device owners rights, and they cant run software unless apple allows that software to run on the device.
mhh__ 6y ago
Maybe, but no matter how contrived there always seems to be an argument that Apple are the good guys. If they really want this because of UX they shouldn't charge so much money

ziml77 6y ago

They want the experience to be that if you download an app that needs payment to function, it's possible to pay using the same payment flow as everything else. You don't have to hand over your payment information to a third party. Maybe Apple needs to make changes to allow apps that are only a part of a service instead of the main selling point of the service to bypass those rules? Seems like it would be tough to figure out what is and isn't covered though.

nvrspyx 6y ago
Crazy how that doesn't apply to Amazon (and Audible) or Netflix /s
- ksec 6y ago
  Apple made exemption to what they called reader apps. Read but not write, or consume and not create. But you would have thought other Video Streaming Services would be reader Apps. But no, only selected Apps could be classify as reader Apps. Which is precisely the problem what some people have with the App Store. Actually may be that is not even the case either. There are many accepting the fact there are economy of scale and Amazon, Netflix are big enough to get special treatment. Which is fine. That is until Tim Cook stood up and said everyone gets the same treatment in App Store. Which is a lie.

ogre_codes 6y ago

> Yet Apple is forcing them to give up 30% of their revenue, because they can. This is a bit disingenuous. Apple isn’t forcing them to give up 30% of their revenue, they are requiring they give users the option to sign up through the App Store. If most of their customers come from outside the App Store, this won’t make much difference to them. If they make less the $1m through the App Store, it will only be 15%. The second is a bit of a niggle, but if most of their promotion and value comes from outside the App Store, this wouldn’t be a big problem.

bogwog 6y ago
Arguing these fine points is a waste of time because I feel like people defending this are missing the complete insanity of this situation. Try a different perspective: Let's say Apple wants to sell their devices at "Billy's Electronics", which is a tiny kiosk at a mall with minimal foot traffic. Billy tells Apple that he'll only sell Apple devices at his kiosk if Apple agrees to give him 30% of all revenues Apple makes from all of their services from customers that buy a device at his kiosk. This includes things like iCloud subscriptions, app store sales, etc. That's batshit right? Like literal insanity if Apple would accept that deal. So obviously, Apple would tell Billy to fuck off and will find somewhere else to sell their devices. Except they can't, because Billy is the only person with a license to sell electronics in the entire country. He got this by convincing everyone that he wants to "protect" electronics customers from scammers and other bad people who want to exploit them. The fact that this makes Billy a trillionaire is just a nice little coincidence. "Sure, I'm the richest entity in the entire history of the universe, but that's not why I'm doing this. I'm doing this so innocent people don't download an app only to discover that they need to go to another website to create an account first." ~ Billy > If they make less the $1m through the App Store, it will only be 15% That's a deflection tactic, and doesn't justify anything. 15% is still too much as long as there are no alternatives.
- mrzimmerman 6y ago
  But the opposite is true. Android represents a much, much larger part of the smart phone market and there are a wide variety of devices, manufacturers, and sellers. So the more accurate version of your story is that Apple goes to one of 100 different retailers instead of Billy, which is also what the electronics marketplace is like already.