7 ms·

This is basically iPhone/iOS and AppStore/Safari. There's been a lot of talk globally but I'm still waiting to see who will be the first to move on Apple's ren

This is basically iPhone/iOS and AppStore/Safari. There's been a lot of talk globally but I'm still waiting to see who will be the first to move on Apple's rent seeking tactics.

scarface_74 4y ago
- mftb 4y ago
  Parent comment doesn't seem to only be talking about prices. He's talking about Safari being the only browser on iOS. Other vendors are only allowed to reskin it.
  - scarface_74 4y ago
    And it is still not “rent seeking” to only allow one browser. “Words Mean Things”.
    - moonchrome 4y ago
      WebKit lock in is a way to prevent web apps from disrupting appstore cash cow. Appstore is rentseeking on popularity/market position of the iPhone/iOS - and clearly worded above - appstore distribution monopoly is anticompetitive.
      - scarface_74 4y ago
        This is another meme. It was revealed in the Epic trial that 80% of App Store revenue comes from games - that would not be in the browser anyway. If the lack of alternate browsers are the only thing stopping app developers from making better PWAs, then why are all the same developers making iOS apps, Android apps and web apps instead of just making iOS apps and web apps? And where are all of the successful profitable Android apps that are bypassing the Play Store?
        calsy 4y ago
        Just because Android devices can allow for alternative stores, doesn't mean in anyway that it's easy to setup, nor is it simple to write software in the limited sandbox provided that needs to work independently of Google services. This is all by design. So, how successful do you think a store would be if its made difficult to install and difficult to create software for? Is it any surprise there are no successful profitable apps?
        scarface_74 4y ago
        Then let’s limit the discussion to alternate web browsers. If the only reason that Apple is keeping alternate browsers out is because of losing App Store revenue, then we should have plenty of successful “apps” that are iOS/web only instead of iOS/Android/web.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        calsy 4y ago
        Are browsers the same as app stores? Are browsers designed to search for vetted web apps and provide an environment for them to run without the browser bulk? Are browsers designed for ease of purchase? Are alternative browsers supposed to be competition for app stores?
        scarface_74 4y ago
        From the person I originally replied to: > WebKit lock in is a way to prevent web apps from disrupting appstore cash cow
        calsy 4y ago
        I’m not aware of any proof this is the case. Regardless of platform, what business is going to invest the time and money required to make a competing platform for app delivery on mobile that rivals the current stores? Both Google and Apple can shutdown you down in an instant if they were to consider you a competitive threat. Why bother?
      - astrange 4y ago
        If other browsers were allowed, a lot more sites would become Chrome-only, and you might end up with only one browser again.
    - mftb 4y ago
      It's definitely exclusionary. You could argue that it's exclusionary for legitimate reasons, but it's exclusionary.
      - scarface_74 4y ago
        Browsers are inherently insecure. Even Apple now has an optional “lock down mode” where it turns off performance enhancements in Safari browser that are historically vectors used to hack devices
        mftb 4y ago
        That's a real stretch in a conversation about anti-competitive practices. These practices were a problem for consumers when MS employed them on Windows and they're a problem now on iOS. Specific to your point, browser vendors competing fairly would almost certainly find advantage in offering the most secure browser, thereby improving the platform for all, including Apple.
        scarface_74 4y ago
        How is it a stretch? Even Apple is admitting that sone of its performance optimizations in the browser may lead to insecurities. Who is going to make a more secure browser? Google? Firefox? Every other popular browser is just a Chromium reskin outside of Safari and Firefox.
        mftb 4y ago
        I'm purposefully leaving aside the security question and will just respond with a new question of my own. Why would anyone even think of getting into the browser game when they're locked out of competing on arguably the single most important platform in the world?
        scarface_74 4y ago
        Wouldn’t that be Android with 70% market share in mobile followed by PCs?
  - AJ007 4y ago
    Imagine if Microsoft had not only bundled Internet Explorer with Windows but also blocked all other competing browsers!
    - scarface_74 4y ago
      Yes we would have the market dominated by one browser engine by a BigTech company where most of the other browsers are just reskins…oh wait. At least there is Firefox - which also gets most of its funding by the same BigTech company.
- calsy 4y ago
  Every retail store sales at price higher than retail? Do they now... I just bought GoW Ragnorok at retail $30 cheaper than its listing on the PSN Store. This is the same for most new release titles, retail is cheaper. Besides, you can't compare the real world with digital. The real world isn't a near infinite space with millions of items are available in a single place for everyone in the country with a connected device to view and purchase.
  - scarface_74 4y ago
    And it’s still selling more than its wholesale cost. Do you think the retail store is selling it and not making a profit? Oh and guess what? Even when you buy a third party game from a retail store, the console maker still got their cut. Console makers have forced third party developers to pay a license fee for every game sold for over 30 years.
    - calsy 4y ago
      So you complete changed the argument from retail to wholesale. That licensing fee applies to digital and physical copies so why is it relevant? Retail is a physical space, rent applies to properties in the real world. Rent does not apply to near infinite digital spaces run by a single company. It was cheaper to purchase in store than on the digital store, why is that? Is it because platforms only allow a single store to be available on their devices, their own. Imagine if there were competing stores? Im sure that 'rent' price would disappear really quick.
      - scarface_74 4y ago
        I didn’t (mis)use the term “rent seeking” the parent poster did. Just like Apple gets a cut of every app sold on iOS, the console makers do to. Even when you buy a physical disc The original poster was calling it “rent seeking” when Apple got 30% of sales. This is what every distributor does - they mark up the price. The “wholesale” price is the price the original manufacturer sells it to distributors for.
- wardedVibe 4y ago
  This is what I was talking about with streaming. Disney is leveraging their position as a massive studio to force the use of their sub-par steaming service. It used to be illegal for film studios to own box offices. The modern equivalent is streaming. Give them a couple of years and they'll be suing Disney.
Wowfunhappy 4y ago
It seems like it's pretty clearly going to be the EU? The Digital Markets Act takes effect in 2023.

This is basically iPhone/iOS and AppStore/Safari. There's been a lot of talk globally but I'm still waiting to see who will be the first to move on Apple's rent seeking tactics.

scarface_74 4y ago

mftb 4y ago
Parent comment doesn't seem to only be talking about prices. He's talking about Safari being the only browser on iOS. Other vendors are only allowed to reskin it.
- scarface_74 4y ago
  And it is still not “rent seeking” to only allow one browser. “Words Mean Things”.
  - moonchrome 4y ago
    WebKit lock in is a way to prevent web apps from disrupting appstore cash cow. Appstore is rentseeking on popularity/market position of the iPhone/iOS - and clearly worded above - appstore distribution monopoly is anticompetitive.
    - scarface_74 4y ago
      This is another meme. It was revealed in the Epic trial that 80% of App Store revenue comes from games - that would not be in the browser anyway. If the lack of alternate browsers are the only thing stopping app developers from making better PWAs, then why are all the same developers making iOS apps, Android apps and web apps instead of just making iOS apps and web apps? And where are all of the successful profitable Android apps that are bypassing the Play Store?
      - calsy 4y ago
        Just because Android devices can allow for alternative stores, doesn't mean in anyway that it's easy to setup, nor is it simple to write software in the limited sandbox provided that needs to work independently of Google services. This is all by design. So, how successful do you think a store would be if its made difficult to install and difficult to create software for? Is it any surprise there are no successful profitable apps?
        scarface_74 4y ago
        Then let’s limit the discussion to alternate web browsers. If the only reason that Apple is keeping alternate browsers out is because of losing App Store revenue, then we should have plenty of successful “apps” that are iOS/web only instead of iOS/Android/web.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        calsy 4y ago
        Are browsers the same as app stores? Are browsers designed to search for vetted web apps and provide an environment for them to run without the browser bulk? Are browsers designed for ease of purchase? Are alternative browsers supposed to be competition for app stores?
        scarface_74 4y ago
        From the person I originally replied to: > WebKit lock in is a way to prevent web apps from disrupting appstore cash cow
        calsy 4y ago
        I’m not aware of any proof this is the case. Regardless of platform, what business is going to invest the time and money required to make a competing platform for app delivery on mobile that rivals the current stores? Both Google and Apple can shutdown you down in an instant if they were to consider you a competitive threat. Why bother?
    - astrange 4y ago
      If other browsers were allowed, a lot more sites would become Chrome-only, and you might end up with only one browser again.
  - mftb 4y ago
    It's definitely exclusionary. You could argue that it's exclusionary for legitimate reasons, but it's exclusionary.
    - scarface_74 4y ago
      Browsers are inherently insecure. Even Apple now has an optional “lock down mode” where it turns off performance enhancements in Safari browser that are historically vectors used to hack devices
      - mftb 4y ago
        That's a real stretch in a conversation about anti-competitive practices. These practices were a problem for consumers when MS employed them on Windows and they're a problem now on iOS. Specific to your point, browser vendors competing fairly would almost certainly find advantage in offering the most secure browser, thereby improving the platform for all, including Apple.
        scarface_74 4y ago
        How is it a stretch? Even Apple is admitting that sone of its performance optimizations in the browser may lead to insecurities. Who is going to make a more secure browser? Google? Firefox? Every other popular browser is just a Chromium reskin outside of Safari and Firefox.
        mftb 4y ago
        I'm purposefully leaving aside the security question and will just respond with a new question of my own. Why would anyone even think of getting into the browser game when they're locked out of competing on arguably the single most important platform in the world?
        scarface_74 4y ago
        Wouldn’t that be Android with 70% market share in mobile followed by PCs?
- AJ007 4y ago
  Imagine if Microsoft had not only bundled Internet Explorer with Windows but also blocked all other competing browsers!
  - scarface_74 4y ago
    Yes we would have the market dominated by one browser engine by a BigTech company where most of the other browsers are just reskins…oh wait. At least there is Firefox - which also gets most of its funding by the same BigTech company.
calsy 4y ago
Every retail store sales at price higher than retail? Do they now... I just bought GoW Ragnorok at retail $30 cheaper than its listing on the PSN Store. This is the same for most new release titles, retail is cheaper. Besides, you can't compare the real world with digital. The real world isn't a near infinite space with millions of items are available in a single place for everyone in the country with a connected device to view and purchase.
- scarface_74 4y ago
  And it’s still selling more than its wholesale cost. Do you think the retail store is selling it and not making a profit? Oh and guess what? Even when you buy a third party game from a retail store, the console maker still got their cut. Console makers have forced third party developers to pay a license fee for every game sold for over 30 years.
  - calsy 4y ago
    So you complete changed the argument from retail to wholesale. That licensing fee applies to digital and physical copies so why is it relevant? Retail is a physical space, rent applies to properties in the real world. Rent does not apply to near infinite digital spaces run by a single company. It was cheaper to purchase in store than on the digital store, why is that? Is it because platforms only allow a single store to be available on their devices, their own. Imagine if there were competing stores? Im sure that 'rent' price would disappear really quick.
    - scarface_74 4y ago
      I didn’t (mis)use the term “rent seeking” the parent poster did. Just like Apple gets a cut of every app sold on iOS, the console makers do to. Even when you buy a physical disc The original poster was calling it “rent seeking” when Apple got 30% of sales. This is what every distributor does - they mark up the price. The “wholesale” price is the price the original manufacturer sells it to distributors for.
wardedVibe 4y ago
This is what I was talking about with streaming. Disney is leveraging their position as a massive studio to force the use of their sub-par steaming service. It used to be illegal for film studios to own box offices. The modern equivalent is streaming. Give them a couple of years and they'll be suing Disney.

Wowfunhappy 4y ago

It seems like it's pretty clearly going to be the EU? The Digital Markets Act takes effect in 2023.