3 ms·
> Forced to use Safari. Forced to offer Apple Single Sign On ... I don't understand why you think Apple couldn't make those requirements? They already do for t
by zmmmmm 5y ago
> Forced to use Safari. Forced to offer Apple Single Sign On ...
I don't understand why you think Apple couldn't make those requirements? They already do for the apps on their own store, why couldn't the require it for apps on other stores? Apple can still control the signature process to allow apps to install on devices, they can just not sign anything they don't like.
(Putting aside whether those are reasonable constraints or not, I don't necessarily agree with them, but it's a separate matter).
- HWR_14 5y agoAvoiding those restrictions (including Apple signing apps) are usually the reason listed to start other stores. Why benefit would those other stores offer to anyone?
- zmmmmm 5y ago30% cheaper prices? Better user experience?
- HWR_14 5y agoWhy would prices be cheaper? How would the user interface be changed in anyway and how would it benefit users? That's exactly my point. There are no real improvements I can see coming from any new store. Please explain how it will be better and why any actor would make it better.
- Keats 5y ago> Why would prices be cheaper? In the emails linked, even Apple acknowledges that the 30% will be passed to the customers.
- HWR_14 5y agoOne Apple employee acknowledged that in their discussions with Uber employees about their need to pay a commission on IAPs, Uber tried to convince Apple to remove their commission because that 30% would have to get passed on to customers. However, I have no reason to believe that Uber would actually follow through. It seemed like a bluff. Certainly, any economic theory I'm aware of would have Uber and customers split that 30%, with Uber paying the vast majority out of profits.