3 ms·

So you basically agree all phones since the original iPhone are not sold as one-and-done purchases? I just don't understand where developers are coming from. L

So you basically agree all phones since the original iPhone are not sold as one-and-done purchases? I just don't understand where developers are coming from. Let's say I build a wildly successful theme park. It's the best theme park in the world and only a couple other theme parks exist that is as fun as my theme park. Because I'm so good at building theme parks, do you have some kind of entitlement to put your ride in my theme park and charge people money to ride it?

aspenmayer 5y ago
I don’t agree, because, as I said, the original iPhone didn’t even allow installing apps unless you jailbroke and sideloaded. Android has always let you sideload. Sideloading by the community is the natural state of affairs, imo. Insisting that users and developers only use an App Store that the vendors themselves run is untenable, and ahistorical. I don’t get your theme park example. Here’s my spin on your analogy: Apple built the theme park, and now they want to dictate that the independently-operated hotdog vendor may only purchase buns from Apple, and they further dictate that if they use the buns (totally optional), then Apple is entitled to 27% of the total hotdog purchase price.
- abletonlive 5y ago
  > Apple built the theme park, and now they want to dictate that the independently-operated hotdog vendor may only purchase buns from Apple, and they further dictate that if they use the buns (totally optional), then Apple is entitled to 27% of the total hotdog purchase price. You basically just described McDonald's business model. And yes, that's fair. Because if you as a hotdog vendor want to sell in Apple's theme park, then you play by Apple theme park rules. You can sell your hotdogs on the street if you don't like Apple's terms. What's so hard to understand about that?
  - aspenmayer 5y ago
    > What's so hard to understand about that? It’s anticompetitive, and so folks are legislating against it. What’s so hard to understand about that?
    - abletonlive 5y ago
      It's hard for me to understand how it's anticompetitive to charge a fee for a platform that you built, when there are many other platforms which a developer could use to sell their wares. It seems to me like the only folk legislating against it are European nations, who have historically very uncompetitive tech companies so this is their only way of getting a piece of the pie. Seems like everybody is motivated by money to me. Epic and co. can act like they are for the people, but in the end, they just want more money.
      - aspenmayer 5y ago
        I don’t see why the determinations of government officials and the public that they represent aren’t reason enough to justify the regulatory actions that they are taking. It may not seem fair to you or to Apple if those regulations were to pass, but the status quo already is, and has been for some time now, similarly unfair to everyone in the world living under the Apple/Google smartphone duopoly.
      - vorpalhex 5y ago
        35 states and the Department of Justice are asking for reform in the US. Netherlands, Korea and others have passed rules. You can have a private theme park. You can't call 50% of consumers theme park attendees. You can't operate globally and lock down a device and charge punitive rates - and if you do, we will use the legislative to fix that.

aspenmayer 5y ago

I don’t agree, because, as I said, the original iPhone didn’t even allow installing apps unless you jailbroke and sideloaded. Android has always let you sideload. Sideloading by the community is the natural state of affairs, imo. Insisting that users and developers only use an App Store that the vendors themselves run is untenable, and ahistorical. I don’t get your theme park example. Here’s my spin on your analogy: Apple built the theme park, and now they want to dictate that the independently-operated hotdog vendor may only purchase buns from Apple, and they further dictate that if they use the buns (totally optional), then Apple is entitled to 27% of the total hotdog purchase price.

abletonlive 5y ago
> Apple built the theme park, and now they want to dictate that the independently-operated hotdog vendor may only purchase buns from Apple, and they further dictate that if they use the buns (totally optional), then Apple is entitled to 27% of the total hotdog purchase price. You basically just described McDonald's business model. And yes, that's fair. Because if you as a hotdog vendor want to sell in Apple's theme park, then you play by Apple theme park rules. You can sell your hotdogs on the street if you don't like Apple's terms. What's so hard to understand about that?
- aspenmayer 5y ago
  > What's so hard to understand about that? It’s anticompetitive, and so folks are legislating against it. What’s so hard to understand about that?
  - abletonlive 5y ago
    It's hard for me to understand how it's anticompetitive to charge a fee for a platform that you built, when there are many other platforms which a developer could use to sell their wares. It seems to me like the only folk legislating against it are European nations, who have historically very uncompetitive tech companies so this is their only way of getting a piece of the pie. Seems like everybody is motivated by money to me. Epic and co. can act like they are for the people, but in the end, they just want more money.
    - aspenmayer 5y ago
      I don’t see why the determinations of government officials and the public that they represent aren’t reason enough to justify the regulatory actions that they are taking. It may not seem fair to you or to Apple if those regulations were to pass, but the status quo already is, and has been for some time now, similarly unfair to everyone in the world living under the Apple/Google smartphone duopoly.
    - vorpalhex 5y ago
      35 states and the Department of Justice are asking for reform in the US. Netherlands, Korea and others have passed rules. You can have a private theme park. You can't call 50% of consumers theme park attendees. You can't operate globally and lock down a device and charge punitive rates - and if you do, we will use the legislative to fix that.