4 ms·

Good post (although I disagree with some of it). Can you address the third option and forth option? (C) That Apple lowers its fees to a more reasonable level.

by mthoms 5y ago

Good post (although I disagree with some of it). Can you address the third option and forth option? (C) That Apple lowers its fees to a more reasonable level. Or (D) That they allow third party payment processors (but not third party stores)? I'm a very happy Apple user. I just have a problem with them taking a 30% cut on everything I do, even after I've already paid $1200 for a phone. I just don't think 30% fairly represents the value they are providing for the "service" of vetting the store. I am willing to pay for that service. Just like I pay for Apple Music, iCloud storage and Apple Arcade. The whole "third party store" thing is a distraction IMHO. Solve the Apple 30% tax issue and the case for it is pretty much lost. Even better: also require Apple to properly implement PWA's so users can (sort-of) sideload non App Store Apps (as you touched on).

danShumway 5y ago
> (C) That Apple lowers its fees to a more reasonable level. Or (D) That they allow third party payment processors (but not third party stores)? To me, both of those fall under A. They're adjustments to Apple's existing moderation policy, they are not changes to how much control Apple has (Well, maybe D is a little, but not much). I would sum up both of those ideas as "the smartphone market remains closed, but Apple gets nicer about it." I do think there's a segment of users who are basically happy with companies being forced into Apple's policies, they just want Apple's policies to be a bit better than they are today. Or they think it's fine for Apple to exert control, just not in a couple of specific anti-competitive ways. > properly implement PWA's so users can (sort-of) sideload non App Store Apps Yeah, the web is interesting. This would be Apple giving up control over their platform, but they would be giving up control to another platform that also has very good sandboxing. I would love to be targeting phones with progressive web apps now. It sort of works today, but there are problems. I also really don't like how little control over data people have on the web. The only really safe way to store data in a webapp is to store it serverside, which imo is bad for users and for developers. There are efforts going on to make this better, but I don't know if Apple will be interested in implementing them, and it's a tricky problem in general to solve securely, so I don't think any of the browser manufactures are eager to rush it and introduce security holes into browsers.

by mthoms 5y ago

danShumway 5y ago

> (C) That Apple lowers its fees to a more reasonable level. Or (D) That they allow third party payment processors (but not third party stores)? To me, both of those fall under A. They're adjustments to Apple's existing moderation policy, they are not changes to how much control Apple has (Well, maybe D is a little, but not much). I would sum up both of those ideas as "the smartphone market remains closed, but Apple gets nicer about it." I do think there's a segment of users who are basically happy with companies being forced into Apple's policies, they just want Apple's policies to be a bit better than they are today. Or they think it's fine for Apple to exert control, just not in a couple of specific anti-competitive ways. > properly implement PWA's so users can (sort-of) sideload non App Store Apps Yeah, the web is interesting. This would be Apple giving up control over their platform, but they would be giving up control to another platform that also has very good sandboxing. I would love to be targeting phones with progressive web apps now. It sort of works today, but there are problems. I also really don't like how little control over data people have on the web. The only really safe way to store data in a webapp is to store it serverside, which imo is bad for users and for developers. There are efforts going on to make this better, but I don't know if Apple will be interested in implementing them, and it's a tricky problem in general to solve securely, so I don't think any of the browser manufactures are eager to rush it and introduce security holes into browsers.