3 ms·

"They would never be in the browser" If companies can install stuff outside of the app store to save a 30% a LARGE number of companies would absolutely do so.

"They would never be in the browser" If companies can install stuff outside of the app store to save a 30% a LARGE number of companies would absolutely do so. To say hamstringing the browser on iOS isn't a calculated choice to say "but you can install webapps* (* with shitty safari)" and then completely cock block web browser choice isn't a 100% calculated choice to limit consumer choice is a disingenuous lie. "80%" You think that Apple isn't going to hold onto the 20% come hook or crook? in any means necessary - including locking you to the App Store and the 30% cut - despite the fact that alternative payment methods are completely reasonable? and how much of that 80% is through games on the app store that REQUIRES a cut through their ham fisted and unreasonable restrictions? That's even more reason to give consumers and companies options outside of the app store and the mafia requirement for a cut.

scarface_74 3y ago
> If companies can install stuff outside of the app store to save a 30% a LARGE number of companies would absolutely do so. Again your banking app and even apps like Facebook and Reddit and most of the other apps that are not games, don’t monetize through the App Store. Even the large subscription streaming services like Netflix and Spotify don’t allow in-app purchases of subscriptions and haven’t for years. > payment methods are completely reasonable? and how much of that 80% is through games on the app store that REQUIRES a cut through their ham fisted and unreasonable restrictions? Your rant has absolutely nothing to do with whether if Safari was “better” would most of the revenue from the App Store - ie games - would move to the web. That same 30% is what Google charges and around the same as what console maker charges. Epic tried to move out of the Google Play store. It was an abject failure. Why do you think that Android app makers try to monetize outside of the Play Store?
- wernercd 3y ago
  > Your rant has absolutely nothing to do with whether if Safari was “better” it absolutely has to do with Safari as the alternative - webapps. aka installing apps on the iOS outside of the app store - is absolutely hamstrung by requiring a bloated and dated "webkit". 100% on point to Apple holding back alternatives to lock people into their store. "why" 30% cut of millions that isn't needed for large developers. You know? that 80% that you say because games are locked into the app store and the 30% cut.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    Would games use a browser instead? Where are all of the great profitable web based games for Android? If the Android browser experience is so much better, then why are there hardly any apps that are iOS and web only so they can avoid the “Google tax”? The entire idea that makes games so popular is that it’s easy to capture whales because of the easy payments. Are you really complaining that poor little Candy Crush and their ilk have to pay 30% to sell loot boxes and gems? Yes and web apps and Electron apps are so great on other platforms. Especially seeing the piss poor hardware that most Android phones are running. BTW, iOS/Safari wins every single web browsing benchmark out there.
    - wernercd 3y ago
      "would games use a browser" they shouldn't need to consider it but they are forced by the mafia into giving the don their cut. "are you complaining" are you defending mafia tactics to take a house cut that's way beyond reasonable? doesn't matter if it's "poor little candy crush" or not... I'm arguing against unreasonable market force - just like I'll argue against MS's IE/Edge bundling and Google forcing their platform. Your deflections just show that you know I'm making a point - androids "piss poor hardware" has nothing to do with Apple using mafia tactics to gouge their customers. Web Apps and Electron shouldn't be needed - companies should be able to use alternative payment methods. They also shouldn't be tied to shitty webkit with it's outdated, insecure and lackluster implementation. and "safari wins benchmarks" is a lie - unless you're talking about the furthest behind and most insecure. https://www.wired.com/story/safari-flaws-webcam-online-accounts-mic/ https://www.wired.com/story/safari-flaws-webcam-online-accou... https://www.computerworld.com/article/2531350/apple-s-safari-will-fall-first-at-hacker-contest--past-winner-predicts.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2531350/apple-s-safari... But don't let facts get in the way of the stock in Apple you own...
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        What does two articles about security flaws have to do with which browser is the fastest - ie “wins benchmarks”? And what does your ranting about the App Store have to do with an article about a web browser? Apple patched the flaw over a year ago are you claiming that Android has no security flaws? Do you really want to die on the hill of how far back Apple supports devices with security updates compared to Google? (Hint: Apple released a patch for the iPhone 5s that was released in 2013 earlier this year) The “mafia tactics” is the same percentage that Google takes and the same percentage the same game makers pay on Google. Again, the article is about “web browsers”. Even if the Firefox engine or a third party engine were allowed on iOS - it would have no effect on the vast majority of App Store revenue since it comes from games.

scarface_74 3y ago

> If companies can install stuff outside of the app store to save a 30% a LARGE number of companies would absolutely do so. Again your banking app and even apps like Facebook and Reddit and most of the other apps that are not games, don’t monetize through the App Store. Even the large subscription streaming services like Netflix and Spotify don’t allow in-app purchases of subscriptions and haven’t for years. > payment methods are completely reasonable? and how much of that 80% is through games on the app store that REQUIRES a cut through their ham fisted and unreasonable restrictions? Your rant has absolutely nothing to do with whether if Safari was “better” would most of the revenue from the App Store - ie games - would move to the web. That same 30% is what Google charges and around the same as what console maker charges. Epic tried to move out of the Google Play store. It was an abject failure. Why do you think that Android app makers try to monetize outside of the Play Store?

wernercd 3y ago
> Your rant has absolutely nothing to do with whether if Safari was “better” it absolutely has to do with Safari as the alternative - webapps. aka installing apps on the iOS outside of the app store - is absolutely hamstrung by requiring a bloated and dated "webkit". 100% on point to Apple holding back alternatives to lock people into their store. "why" 30% cut of millions that isn't needed for large developers. You know? that 80% that you say because games are locked into the app store and the 30% cut.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  Would games use a browser instead? Where are all of the great profitable web based games for Android? If the Android browser experience is so much better, then why are there hardly any apps that are iOS and web only so they can avoid the “Google tax”? The entire idea that makes games so popular is that it’s easy to capture whales because of the easy payments. Are you really complaining that poor little Candy Crush and their ilk have to pay 30% to sell loot boxes and gems? Yes and web apps and Electron apps are so great on other platforms. Especially seeing the piss poor hardware that most Android phones are running. BTW, iOS/Safari wins every single web browsing benchmark out there.
  - wernercd 3y ago
    "would games use a browser" they shouldn't need to consider it but they are forced by the mafia into giving the don their cut. "are you complaining" are you defending mafia tactics to take a house cut that's way beyond reasonable? doesn't matter if it's "poor little candy crush" or not... I'm arguing against unreasonable market force - just like I'll argue against MS's IE/Edge bundling and Google forcing their platform. Your deflections just show that you know I'm making a point - androids "piss poor hardware" has nothing to do with Apple using mafia tactics to gouge their customers. Web Apps and Electron shouldn't be needed - companies should be able to use alternative payment methods. They also shouldn't be tied to shitty webkit with it's outdated, insecure and lackluster implementation. and "safari wins benchmarks" is a lie - unless you're talking about the furthest behind and most insecure. https://www.wired.com/story/safari-flaws-webcam-online-accounts-mic/ https://www.wired.com/story/safari-flaws-webcam-online-accou... https://www.computerworld.com/article/2531350/apple-s-safari-will-fall-first-at-hacker-contest--past-winner-predicts.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2531350/apple-s-safari... But don't let facts get in the way of the stock in Apple you own...
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      What does two articles about security flaws have to do with which browser is the fastest - ie “wins benchmarks”? And what does your ranting about the App Store have to do with an article about a web browser? Apple patched the flaw over a year ago are you claiming that Android has no security flaws? Do you really want to die on the hill of how far back Apple supports devices with security updates compared to Google? (Hint: Apple released a patch for the iPhone 5s that was released in 2013 earlier this year) The “mafia tactics” is the same percentage that Google takes and the same percentage the same game makers pay on Google. Again, the article is about “web browsers”. Even if the Firefox engine or a third party engine were allowed on iOS - it would have no effect on the vast majority of App Store revenue since it comes from games.