4 ms·

>the economics of mobile apps might shift so that there could be third party app stores that cater to users willing to pay for apps up front. >supported either

>the economics of mobile apps might shift so that there could be third party app stores that cater to users willing to pay for apps up front. >supported either by that intrusive adtech or by in-app purchases that range from subscriptions to outright scams or loot boxes. This is like some cruel joke. Developers constantly making the claim that the 30% is too onerous and some future system will have some pass savings onto consumers. Please point to any proof that the future would be this way. 3rd party stores exist on Android _today_, and I don't see any thing you talk about. In fact what I do see are developers, like Epic, pushing their stores so they can charge you whenever you want for vbucks. Like where is this software utopia on Android if it's so important? Instead, android shows that these changes are potentially more user hostile. Developers pretend its about making things better for users when its about making more money for them. >I doubt they will sit still while third party app stores collect user data. My friend, they are sitting still _now_, when supposedly GDPR was to fix all this. They are rushing to "open up" the one platform that pretends to care about user privacy

Apocryphon 4y ago
> Please point to any proof that the future would be this way. Please provide your own proofs that the future would not be in this way. Prior to this change, the 30% cut was mandatory. Tomorrow, it won't be only the game in town. That alone shows that the future is at least one step towards a different app economy from the status quo. That alone changes things. > 3rd party stores exist on Android _today_, and I don't see any thing you talk about. But it opens up the opportunity for such a thing to arise. Someone can choose to create an app discovery platform like AppGratis or Chomp, to create new app catalog perhaps more targeted and organized than the current sprawl that is the existing App Store. The point is this change allows the possibility to arise, as well as the economics to shift. At the very least, this will lead to disruption of the status quo. That will breed opportunity and innovation. > Instead, android shows that these changes are potentially more user hostile. How have third party app stores made things any more hostile on Android? There is literally no competing Meta user data collection ap store there. > Developers pretend its about making things better for users when its about making more money for them. Users need developers, as much as developers need users. Anti-developer sentiment is puzzling. If you want Apple to build everything themselves, then close the platform entirely, allow only web apps (as Jobs intended), and let Apple Sherlock the entire App Store. > My friend, they are sitting still _now_, when supposedly GDPR was to fix all this. They are rushing to "open up" the one platform that pretends to care about user privacy GDPR was just the start, and further regulation on both sides of the Atlantic is in progress. Do you really think of all of this was meant to attack Apple specifically? Big Tech is under the crossfires by multiple regions, multiple nations, multiple political parties.
bloppe 4y ago
> Developers constantly making the claim that the 30% is too onerous This one is honestly difficult to respond to. I encourage you to donate 30% of your next paycheck to charity. It would be a good deed and would illustrate for you how much 30% is in a better way than I ever could. > Please point to any proof that the future would be this way Another stumper. I don't usually claim to have proof about the future. I suppose you'll just have to use common sense here. > Instead, android shows that these changes are potentially more user hostile This I just find confusing. Where is the hostility in offering users choice? If your whole point is that nobody would use a 3rd-party app store, then why does this regulation even concern you in the first place? You don't have to use one! Just stick to the App Store and let other people do what they want, then thank them for providing the competition that ends up forcing Apple to lower their fees. > Developers pretend its about making things better for users when its about making more money for them. Actually, it's about competition, which is indeed something long considered essential to a healthy economy. > My friend, they are sitting still _now_, when supposedly GDPR was to fix all this. Ok, I'll come clean. I work for a big tech company. We had to overhaul a ton of services to comply with GDPR and I honestly believe our customers are better off because of it. GDPR did not magically fix all the problems in tech, but it's a big improvement. > the one platform that pretends to care about user privacy This level of cynicism is just so difficult to navigate. Are you saying Apple can or cannot be trusted? I much prefer to enable fair competition so that the best platform can actually emerge. Whether that's Apple or not, if users value privacy and the market is fair, they will be able to find it.
unity1001 4y ago
> Instead, android shows that these changes are potentially more user hostile. More than a decade using Android, and another decade using the then-free Internet before that, I have never thought that having more choice was ever, ever user-hostile. The proposition is so delirious for anyone who lived the early phases of the Internet that it defies interpretation.
- Spivak 4y ago
  The early years of the internet might as well have been a totally separate system. How anyone can think that the modern internet is anything like the small implicitly trusting internet of yore compared to the globalized commercialized ad-tech megamall where every single avenue for abuse is taken and just called a business model instead of malware.
  - unity1001 4y ago
    It wasnt a totally separate system. Getting scammed was easier than today because people had a lot of trust in everything.

Apocryphon 4y ago

> Please point to any proof that the future would be this way. Please provide your own proofs that the future would not be in this way. Prior to this change, the 30% cut was mandatory. Tomorrow, it won't be only the game in town. That alone shows that the future is at least one step towards a different app economy from the status quo. That alone changes things. > 3rd party stores exist on Android _today_, and I don't see any thing you talk about. But it opens up the opportunity for such a thing to arise. Someone can choose to create an app discovery platform like AppGratis or Chomp, to create new app catalog perhaps more targeted and organized than the current sprawl that is the existing App Store. The point is this change allows the possibility to arise, as well as the economics to shift. At the very least, this will lead to disruption of the status quo. That will breed opportunity and innovation. > Instead, android shows that these changes are potentially more user hostile. How have third party app stores made things any more hostile on Android? There is literally no competing Meta user data collection ap store there. > Developers pretend its about making things better for users when its about making more money for them. Users need developers, as much as developers need users. Anti-developer sentiment is puzzling. If you want Apple to build everything themselves, then close the platform entirely, allow only web apps (as Jobs intended), and let Apple Sherlock the entire App Store. > My friend, they are sitting still _now_, when supposedly GDPR was to fix all this. They are rushing to "open up" the one platform that pretends to care about user privacy GDPR was just the start, and further regulation on both sides of the Atlantic is in progress. Do you really think of all of this was meant to attack Apple specifically? Big Tech is under the crossfires by multiple regions, multiple nations, multiple political parties.

bloppe 4y ago

> Developers constantly making the claim that the 30% is too onerous This one is honestly difficult to respond to. I encourage you to donate 30% of your next paycheck to charity. It would be a good deed and would illustrate for you how much 30% is in a better way than I ever could. > Please point to any proof that the future would be this way Another stumper. I don't usually claim to have proof about the future. I suppose you'll just have to use common sense here. > Instead, android shows that these changes are potentially more user hostile This I just find confusing. Where is the hostility in offering users choice? If your whole point is that nobody would use a 3rd-party app store, then why does this regulation even concern you in the first place? You don't have to use one! Just stick to the App Store and let other people do what they want, then thank them for providing the competition that ends up forcing Apple to lower their fees. > Developers pretend its about making things better for users when its about making more money for them. Actually, it's about competition, which is indeed something long considered essential to a healthy economy. > My friend, they are sitting still _now_, when supposedly GDPR was to fix all this. Ok, I'll come clean. I work for a big tech company. We had to overhaul a ton of services to comply with GDPR and I honestly believe our customers are better off because of it. GDPR did not magically fix all the problems in tech, but it's a big improvement. > the one platform that pretends to care about user privacy This level of cynicism is just so difficult to navigate. Are you saying Apple can or cannot be trusted? I much prefer to enable fair competition so that the best platform can actually emerge. Whether that's Apple or not, if users value privacy and the market is fair, they will be able to find it.

unity1001 4y ago

> Instead, android shows that these changes are potentially more user hostile. More than a decade using Android, and another decade using the then-free Internet before that, I have never thought that having more choice was ever, ever user-hostile. The proposition is so delirious for anyone who lived the early phases of the Internet that it defies interpretation.

Spivak 4y ago
The early years of the internet might as well have been a totally separate system. How anyone can think that the modern internet is anything like the small implicitly trusting internet of yore compared to the globalized commercialized ad-tech megamall where every single avenue for abuse is taken and just called a business model instead of malware.
- unity1001 4y ago
  It wasnt a totally separate system. Getting scammed was easier than today because people had a lot of trust in everything.