4 ms·

> The choice that people want is the ability to have other App Stores, or direct installation. Who do you want to pay for building and supporting this function

> The choice that people want is the ability to have other App Stores, or direct installation. Who do you want to pay for building and supporting this functionality? Apple presumably?

flutas 5y ago
Hmm, well Apple already has seemingly got their profit from the device when it was...purchased the first time? Or should phones just become a subscription service overall so that you can never actually own your own hardware?
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  The answer to both questions is... it's up to Apple. When you design and build a product it'd be up to you how you design for your revenue. If Apple allowed side-loading apps or custom app stores that'd cost them more to build and support that functionality, and it would damage their existing functionality through extra complexity and security surface, harming their existing happy customers. They don't want to do it. Why should they? Use Android if you have a problem with it.
  - VMtest 5y ago
    Epic sues Apple though
stale2002 5y ago
> Who do you want to pay for building and supporting this functionality? No, I can assure you that other companies are perfectly willing to build and support other app stores. Instead, Apple is the one spending extra money and extra effort in order to prevent this stuff. Other companies would be more than happy to build these other app stores, if Apple would just get out of the way.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  Apple would have to develop new APIs and poke new holes in their security to enable this. Then they’d have to test and maintain these APIs. That’s work they don’t want to do and a cost they don’t want to pay for.
  - stale2002 5y ago
    > That’s work they don’t want to do Well when you are engaging in illegally anti-competitive behavior, you have to take some actions to correct that. But also, I am sure that other companies would even be willing to put in the effort to jailbreak the phone, in some combined effort, if they knew that Apple wouldn't try to engage in illegal anti-competitive practices to stop it. Apple can't just break the law like this. I am not sure why anything you are bringing up counters the fact that they are breaking the law, with seriously illegal and anti-competitive practices. But the jailbreaking solution, where major companies work together, to provide an easy to install solution, that enables other app stores, without help from Apple, would work pretty well, if Apple was not allowed to stop this effort. If a company like facebook got on board, I am sure that they might be able to convince at least half of all users, to install their solution.
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      Have they been found to be breaking the law? Also if they are, are these good laws anyway?
      - stale2002 5y ago
        Congratulations on having now made a falsifiable prediction! I will absolutely make sure to save this comment, and come back to you in a couple months. I think that at least some, of Apple's decisions are illegally anti-competitive, and that the judge in the epic vs apple case, will at least partially rule against Apple, on some fronts. And your position, is that you think that nothing at all that Apple is doing is illegal, and that no judge will rule against them, on anything at all. We'll see who was right, in a couple months, and I can show you this comment then! But in my opinion, that is a very strong statement that you seem to be making, where you think that absolutely nothing about Apple's practices are illegally anti-competitive. We'll see if you are right! I think that the judge will rule, at least partially against Apple, on at least some counts, (although probably not on every single count). > if they are, are these good laws anyway? Anti-trust law? Yes, it has been around for decades, and is pretty uncontroversial. I don't think that most people support the Standard Oil railroad monopoly, for example.
manigandham 5y ago
Yes. And? Microsoft does that for Windows, and you know Apple already does it for MacOS right? Anyone who wants to list on the App Store can could still continue doing so and pay directly. The fees right now don't make sense anyway as many apps are free while others have to pay a cut for services that Apple has nothing to do with.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > and you know Apple already does it for MacOS right? Possibly that experience led them to not do it when they had the clean slate of iOS.
  - manigandham 5y ago
    Yet MacOS is doing fine, even after introducing its own App Store. And the iPhone originally started with no apps and added them as user interest grew. Apple knows people would like this, and they have the resources to easily make it happen. The primary reason, as clearly shown by the way fees are currently levied, is purely for profit.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
VMtest 5y ago
at least tell us how much it cost to build and support this functionality before asking that question

> The choice that people want is the ability to have other App Stores, or direct installation. Who do you want to pay for building and supporting this functionality? Apple presumably?

flutas 5y ago

Hmm, well Apple already has seemingly got their profit from the device when it was...purchased the first time? Or should phones just become a subscription service overall so that you can never actually own your own hardware?

chrisseaton 5y ago
The answer to both questions is... it's up to Apple. When you design and build a product it'd be up to you how you design for your revenue. If Apple allowed side-loading apps or custom app stores that'd cost them more to build and support that functionality, and it would damage their existing functionality through extra complexity and security surface, harming their existing happy customers. They don't want to do it. Why should they? Use Android if you have a problem with it.
- VMtest 5y ago
  Epic sues Apple though

stale2002 5y ago

> Who do you want to pay for building and supporting this functionality? No, I can assure you that other companies are perfectly willing to build and support other app stores. Instead, Apple is the one spending extra money and extra effort in order to prevent this stuff. Other companies would be more than happy to build these other app stores, if Apple would just get out of the way.

chrisseaton 5y ago
Apple would have to develop new APIs and poke new holes in their security to enable this. Then they’d have to test and maintain these APIs. That’s work they don’t want to do and a cost they don’t want to pay for.
- stale2002 5y ago
  > That’s work they don’t want to do Well when you are engaging in illegally anti-competitive behavior, you have to take some actions to correct that. But also, I am sure that other companies would even be willing to put in the effort to jailbreak the phone, in some combined effort, if they knew that Apple wouldn't try to engage in illegal anti-competitive practices to stop it. Apple can't just break the law like this. I am not sure why anything you are bringing up counters the fact that they are breaking the law, with seriously illegal and anti-competitive practices. But the jailbreaking solution, where major companies work together, to provide an easy to install solution, that enables other app stores, without help from Apple, would work pretty well, if Apple was not allowed to stop this effort. If a company like facebook got on board, I am sure that they might be able to convince at least half of all users, to install their solution.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    Have they been found to be breaking the law? Also if they are, are these good laws anyway?
    - stale2002 5y ago
      Congratulations on having now made a falsifiable prediction! I will absolutely make sure to save this comment, and come back to you in a couple months. I think that at least some, of Apple's decisions are illegally anti-competitive, and that the judge in the epic vs apple case, will at least partially rule against Apple, on some fronts. And your position, is that you think that nothing at all that Apple is doing is illegal, and that no judge will rule against them, on anything at all. We'll see who was right, in a couple months, and I can show you this comment then! But in my opinion, that is a very strong statement that you seem to be making, where you think that absolutely nothing about Apple's practices are illegally anti-competitive. We'll see if you are right! I think that the judge will rule, at least partially against Apple, on at least some counts, (although probably not on every single count). > if they are, are these good laws anyway? Anti-trust law? Yes, it has been around for decades, and is pretty uncontroversial. I don't think that most people support the Standard Oil railroad monopoly, for example.

manigandham 5y ago

Yes. And? Microsoft does that for Windows, and you know Apple already does it for MacOS right? Anyone who wants to list on the App Store can could still continue doing so and pay directly. The fees right now don't make sense anyway as many apps are free while others have to pay a cut for services that Apple has nothing to do with.

chrisseaton 5y ago
> and you know Apple already does it for MacOS right? Possibly that experience led them to not do it when they had the clean slate of iOS.
- manigandham 5y ago
  Yet MacOS is doing fine, even after introducing its own App Store. And the iPhone originally started with no apps and added them as user interest grew. Apple knows people would like this, and they have the resources to easily make it happen. The primary reason, as clearly shown by the way fees are currently levied, is purely for profit.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

VMtest 5y ago

at least tell us how much it cost to build and support this functionality before asking that question