5 ms·

Apple can ask 30% all they want IMO, as long as they allow side loading. Don't use their app distribution platform? Don't pay their fee. That is how it should

by Yujf 4y ago

Apple can ask 30% all they want IMO, as long as they allow side loading. Don't use their app distribution platform? Don't pay their fee. That is how it should work, which is how it does work on android (and yes most companies still use the play store, because it is hard to convince consumers to use another store, but at least the option is there. Also you can not auto update apps installed from outside the play store which also sucks). My device so I and I alone should determine which software I want to run

jdmoreira 4y ago
1. Don't buy Apple. 2. What does that have to do with Spotify not wanting to pay IAP fees? 3. Should Spotify also allow you to "sideload" the mp3s you bought from bandcamp into their player?
- FiddlerClamp 4y ago
  You can 'sideload' DRM-free MP3s into Spotify on iOS, Android, and desktop: https://support.spotify.com/us/article/local-files/ https://support.spotify.com/us/article/local-files/
- Daishiman 4y ago
  "Don't buy Apple" is not actionable advice in a duopoly.
  - threeseed 4y ago
    Except that it isn't a duopoly. There are hundreds of phones available and most have different variations of Android with their own features and restrictions.
    - Gigachad 4y ago
      100 copies of the same two choices is not competition.
      - endisneigh 4y ago
        So since all computers are Unix* or Windows, there's no competition? Ridiculous.
        Daishiman 4y ago
        If state governments and agencies offer essential software for only two platforms and the most "open" one is restricted of most useful stuff because Google doesn't like it, no, there isn't enough competition. It's a really basic point and I have no idea what's so hard to understand.
        endisneigh 4y ago
        It's literally the same thing with Unix and PCs. AOSP is completely open source just like Unix, likewise MacOS and Google Android are restricted.
        Daishiman 4y ago
        There is no single human being that can use AOSP as a daily driver given that even government apps use Play Services. An academic exercise of open source isn't an excuse for an actually functional and useful daily driver. We've come as a society to the point where the absence of a cell phone makes you a second-class citizen.
        stale2002 4y ago
        If every single windows computer required you to pay them 30% for every transaction from those computers, yeah that would be an anti trust violation as well. Microsoft got in trouble for the much less bad act of merely bundling a browser with the OS. Imagine how much worse it would be if they took 30% of every transaction on every computer in the world.
        satvikpendem 4y ago
        Imagine all Windows computers required you to use the Microsoft Store to download any piece of software, and you had to pay 30% for that privilege. Oh, and if every browser on the store was just another version of Internet Explorer (which Microsoft already got in trouble for around 20 years ago for just this one issue, much less all the others). And on the Unix side it's slightly better where you can download apps outside of the Unix Store but they don't autoupdate while easily having the ability to, and that any OEM that doesn't install Unix Store Services gets their Android license removed or severely limited. That's basically how it's like.
  - juve1996 4y ago
    Sure it is. You're asking for sideloading apps. Guess what, that exists. The choice is there for what you're complaining about.
542458 4y ago
Apple’s non-hardware expenses aren’t limited to the distribution platform… They make the OS, the libraries, the APIs, the development tools and continue to maintain those even after the hardware is sold… Why should third parties get to free ride on that? I don’t see why we should compel software authors to add hooks and features and provide tools for non-paying third parties.
- HDThoreaun 4y ago
  Because I already gave them $1000 for the device...
- wvenable 4y ago
  > They make the OS, the libraries, the APIs, the development tools… Why should third parties get to free ride on that? I hear this argument all the time. But what do you think was done before iOS? When will they have finally gotten paid for all that and don't need to take any more money from you?
  - 542458 4y ago
    Before iOS (and for the early years of iOS) people paid out of pocket for software updates. Now it’s an ongoing cost instead, imposed as a tax on software transactions. This is not an unusual arrangement - people rent things in perpetuity all the time, like EC2 instances and water heaters.
    - wvenable 4y ago
      The fact that it's a tax on software transactions and not simply something rented/charged monthly is kind of the point. And, no, not all software updates were uncommon or charged for before iOS. Windows Update predates iOS by many years. People did pay for development tools but then so do iOS developers for $100 a year. I've personally only paid for dev tools a few times in my life. Developers add value to an ecosystem.
      - acdha 4y ago
lttlrck 4y ago
And if you don't want to partake in the walled garden distribution then your side-loaded apps will be walled off from latest iOS API and capabilities, and they will be unable to impact the core UX. Sounds fine to me.

by Yujf 4y ago

jdmoreira 4y ago

1. Don't buy Apple. 2. What does that have to do with Spotify not wanting to pay IAP fees? 3. Should Spotify also allow you to "sideload" the mp3s you bought from bandcamp into their player?

FiddlerClamp 4y ago
You can 'sideload' DRM-free MP3s into Spotify on iOS, Android, and desktop: https://support.spotify.com/us/article/local-files/ https://support.spotify.com/us/article/local-files/
Daishiman 4y ago
"Don't buy Apple" is not actionable advice in a duopoly.
- threeseed 4y ago
  Except that it isn't a duopoly. There are hundreds of phones available and most have different variations of Android with their own features and restrictions.
  - Gigachad 4y ago
    100 copies of the same two choices is not competition.
    - endisneigh 4y ago
      So since all computers are Unix* or Windows, there's no competition? Ridiculous.
      - Daishiman 4y ago
        If state governments and agencies offer essential software for only two platforms and the most "open" one is restricted of most useful stuff because Google doesn't like it, no, there isn't enough competition. It's a really basic point and I have no idea what's so hard to understand.
        endisneigh 4y ago
        It's literally the same thing with Unix and PCs. AOSP is completely open source just like Unix, likewise MacOS and Google Android are restricted.
        Daishiman 4y ago
        There is no single human being that can use AOSP as a daily driver given that even government apps use Play Services. An academic exercise of open source isn't an excuse for an actually functional and useful daily driver. We've come as a society to the point where the absence of a cell phone makes you a second-class citizen.
      - stale2002 4y ago
        If every single windows computer required you to pay them 30% for every transaction from those computers, yeah that would be an anti trust violation as well. Microsoft got in trouble for the much less bad act of merely bundling a browser with the OS. Imagine how much worse it would be if they took 30% of every transaction on every computer in the world.
      - satvikpendem 4y ago
        Imagine all Windows computers required you to use the Microsoft Store to download any piece of software, and you had to pay 30% for that privilege. Oh, and if every browser on the store was just another version of Internet Explorer (which Microsoft already got in trouble for around 20 years ago for just this one issue, much less all the others). And on the Unix side it's slightly better where you can download apps outside of the Unix Store but they don't autoupdate while easily having the ability to, and that any OEM that doesn't install Unix Store Services gets their Android license removed or severely limited. That's basically how it's like.
- juve1996 4y ago
  Sure it is. You're asking for sideloading apps. Guess what, that exists. The choice is there for what you're complaining about.

542458 4y ago

Apple’s non-hardware expenses aren’t limited to the distribution platform… They make the OS, the libraries, the APIs, the development tools and continue to maintain those even after the hardware is sold… Why should third parties get to free ride on that? I don’t see why we should compel software authors to add hooks and features and provide tools for non-paying third parties.

HDThoreaun 4y ago
Because I already gave them $1000 for the device...
wvenable 4y ago
> They make the OS, the libraries, the APIs, the development tools… Why should third parties get to free ride on that? I hear this argument all the time. But what do you think was done before iOS? When will they have finally gotten paid for all that and don't need to take any more money from you?
- 542458 4y ago
  Before iOS (and for the early years of iOS) people paid out of pocket for software updates. Now it’s an ongoing cost instead, imposed as a tax on software transactions. This is not an unusual arrangement - people rent things in perpetuity all the time, like EC2 instances and water heaters.
  - wvenable 4y ago
    The fact that it's a tax on software transactions and not simply something rented/charged monthly is kind of the point. And, no, not all software updates were uncommon or charged for before iOS. Windows Update predates iOS by many years. People did pay for development tools but then so do iOS developers for $100 a year. I've personally only paid for dev tools a few times in my life. Developers add value to an ecosystem.
    - acdha 4y ago

lttlrck 4y ago

And if you don't want to partake in the walled garden distribution then your side-loaded apps will be walled off from latest iOS API and capabilities, and they will be unable to impact the core UX. Sounds fine to me.