4 ms·

Not the person you're replying to, and I haven't forgotten what Apple contributed. I remember being a young person, trying to figure out how to load my own prog

Not the person you're replying to, and I haven't forgotten what Apple contributed. I remember being a young person, trying to figure out how to load my own program onto my clearly capable Motorola Razr (pre-iPhone), and getting so incredibly frustrated that there wasn't a way for me to boot up whatever software I wanted to boot up. Part of how we got apps on phones was by Apple bullying corps in the names of users. I remember how Apple leveraged their desirability to get AT&T to do all kinds of things they previously blocked outright. They were bullies, and they're still bullies. It's just that we really needed a bully back then to change the telecoms. I'm not convinced they're using their power to make things better for the user anymore. What Epic is doing to Apple feels very similar to what Apple did to AT&T.

LanceH 5y ago
If their store is so awesome, why do they need to block any other method of loading?
- HatchedLake721 5y ago
  So that Apple customers keep having awesome experience?
  - LanceH 5y ago
    Why would they choose the less awesome experience?
    - HatchedLake721 5y ago
      Customer’s might not have a choice at all if app’s available only in the less awesome experience. Also bad experience often comes after, not at the point of service. From not being able to get a refund to bad actor abusing the system/personal data/credit card information. Yes there are financial incentives for Apple to control the App Store, but we also know Apple was always notoriously picky and laser focused on customer experience even before the App Store. That’s what they do for decades. Vertical integration. Hardware + software fitting like a glove. That’s how they’ve beaten the music player industry, the phone industry and the tablet industry. And built huge ecosystems around these devices. By making sure customers have the best experience possible. Not only they want to keep the marketplace revenue they’ve tirelessly built, but they want to stay the leader in customer satisfaction and I honestly believe they want to keep customers safe and happy. I don’t really see much customer or Apple benefit for them to give away control over software distribution on their platform. Pretty much all discussions and Epic’s court case is not about customers, it’s about giving less to Apple and keeping more to themselves. That’s it. Customers don’t know and don’t care if developers take 70% home or 85% home. That’s how any physical or digital distribution channels work, from Walmart to PlayStation store.
      - LanceH 5y ago
        > I don’t really see much customer or Apple benefit for them to give away control over software distribution on their platform. You don't see it because it's not allowed to be seen. All those things which can't produce with a 30% margin to give away to Apple don't get to exist. All those things that want to use something Apple doesn't allow are not allowed to exist. All those apps which are denied in review for obscure reasons don't get to exist. > Pretty much all discussions and Epic’s court case is not about customers, it’s about giving less to Apple and keeping more to themselves. That’s it. For the users supporting Epic and wanting to pay Epic for what they've done, it's about using your own phone as you please. Apple wants to get paid 30% to not veto apps.
      - smoldesu 5y ago
        > That’s how they’ve beaten the music player industry, the phone industry and the tablet industry. And built huge ecosystems around these devices. To be clear, 'beating' industries in modern capitalism means that you've fully monopolized them without arousing the suspicion of the public. So that much I will concede to you. However, the rest of this genuinely reads like a handful of strawmen. Apple's vertical integration is what they're selling, and people are (rightfully) calling them out for charging so much for what is obviously a zero-margin utility. On top of that, they are already the largest, most powerful private corporate in modern history, by a country mile. What good does society stand to gain by giving away our 30% to a company that has it all? Apple has an internal problem, a cultural one that started when Woz was shunned. Wozniak was everything great about Apple, he showed that they could deliver both a premium product and every hacker's dream in the same product. He did this before the iPod took off and started printing money, so there's no excuse for MacOS to have outdated coreutils today. That disparity between old Apple's meticulous care and new Apple's complete disregard for anything but profit and customer retention is what brought them into this mess, and it's what's going to kill them in the end.
HatchedLake721 5y ago
Steve Jobs personally met with every carrier in the US. So by your logic being an excellent negotiator and to make a historic business deal to take industry out of the stone age and make both companies financially successful is bullying? What’s up with with comments here today? Am I missing /s?
- IggleSniggle 5y ago
  From the cut of your comment, I think you're only missing my tone, which is of course is notoriously difficult to convey in text form. I probably should have used these: ""

LanceH 5y ago

If their store is so awesome, why do they need to block any other method of loading?

HatchedLake721 5y ago
So that Apple customers keep having awesome experience?
- LanceH 5y ago
  Why would they choose the less awesome experience?
  - HatchedLake721 5y ago
    Customer’s might not have a choice at all if app’s available only in the less awesome experience. Also bad experience often comes after, not at the point of service. From not being able to get a refund to bad actor abusing the system/personal data/credit card information. Yes there are financial incentives for Apple to control the App Store, but we also know Apple was always notoriously picky and laser focused on customer experience even before the App Store. That’s what they do for decades. Vertical integration. Hardware + software fitting like a glove. That’s how they’ve beaten the music player industry, the phone industry and the tablet industry. And built huge ecosystems around these devices. By making sure customers have the best experience possible. Not only they want to keep the marketplace revenue they’ve tirelessly built, but they want to stay the leader in customer satisfaction and I honestly believe they want to keep customers safe and happy. I don’t really see much customer or Apple benefit for them to give away control over software distribution on their platform. Pretty much all discussions and Epic’s court case is not about customers, it’s about giving less to Apple and keeping more to themselves. That’s it. Customers don’t know and don’t care if developers take 70% home or 85% home. That’s how any physical or digital distribution channels work, from Walmart to PlayStation store.
    - LanceH 5y ago
      > I don’t really see much customer or Apple benefit for them to give away control over software distribution on their platform. You don't see it because it's not allowed to be seen. All those things which can't produce with a 30% margin to give away to Apple don't get to exist. All those things that want to use something Apple doesn't allow are not allowed to exist. All those apps which are denied in review for obscure reasons don't get to exist. > Pretty much all discussions and Epic’s court case is not about customers, it’s about giving less to Apple and keeping more to themselves. That’s it. For the users supporting Epic and wanting to pay Epic for what they've done, it's about using your own phone as you please. Apple wants to get paid 30% to not veto apps.
    - smoldesu 5y ago
      > That’s how they’ve beaten the music player industry, the phone industry and the tablet industry. And built huge ecosystems around these devices. To be clear, 'beating' industries in modern capitalism means that you've fully monopolized them without arousing the suspicion of the public. So that much I will concede to you. However, the rest of this genuinely reads like a handful of strawmen. Apple's vertical integration is what they're selling, and people are (rightfully) calling them out for charging so much for what is obviously a zero-margin utility. On top of that, they are already the largest, most powerful private corporate in modern history, by a country mile. What good does society stand to gain by giving away our 30% to a company that has it all? Apple has an internal problem, a cultural one that started when Woz was shunned. Wozniak was everything great about Apple, he showed that they could deliver both a premium product and every hacker's dream in the same product. He did this before the iPod took off and started printing money, so there's no excuse for MacOS to have outdated coreutils today. That disparity between old Apple's meticulous care and new Apple's complete disregard for anything but profit and customer retention is what brought them into this mess, and it's what's going to kill them in the end.

HatchedLake721 5y ago

Steve Jobs personally met with every carrier in the US. So by your logic being an excellent negotiator and to make a historic business deal to take industry out of the stone age and make both companies financially successful is bullying? What’s up with with comments here today? Am I missing /s?

IggleSniggle 5y ago
From the cut of your comment, I think you're only missing my tone, which is of course is notoriously difficult to convey in text form. I probably should have used these: ""