5 ms·

I’m a U.S. resident who’s eyeballs deep in the ecosystem… (well, I will be, come Friday…) and I feel much more valued by Apple than cattle. If there’s a future

by jachee 3y ago

I’m a U.S. resident who’s eyeballs deep in the ecosystem… (well, I will be, come Friday…) and I feel much more valued by Apple than cattle. If there’s a future where there’s an app that requires me to install their store on my device to have the privilege of buying their app, I’m simply not buying that app. I’m pretty sure I’m not alone in that.

JoshTriplett 3y ago
And if that turns out to be the case, then it doesn't need to be enforced, as people will select accordingly. And then, the people who do want to run things that Apple won't permit in the app store (browsers/emulators/JITs/scripting/etc), or that aren't economically viable with a 30% cut, will have the option of doing so. The existence of an option does not force you to choose that option.
- floydnoel 3y ago
  until there's another pandemic, and your local government decides everyone has to install their tracking app. or any number of situations where users will be pressured by institutions they don’t have any control over.
  - Tijdreiziger 3y ago
    Android proves the contrary here. How many government apps are even available outside the Play Store?
  - xigoi 3y ago
    So instead you want your government to pay money to a (possibly foreign) company just to be able to publish an app?
    - caslon 3y ago
      Historically, Apple has demonstrated more trustworthiness and greater morality than the United States Government, when direct comparison has been available. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_d... Even recently, the EU has been pushing for less safety for users. https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/09/eu_casm_expert_identities/ https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/09/eu_casm_expert_identi... More generally, your argument doesn't really hold up. Apple's never owned slaves. Apple's never killed coal miners. Apple's never put humans into concentration camps. The United States Government has done all of these things. Why should anyone trust it?
      - AlphaCerium 3y ago
        I trust a company that stands to only gain a profit from me using their products just as little as the state I reside in, if not less.
      - realusername 3y ago
        Except we know about PRISM and how Apple is collaborating to the surveillance system.
  - dns_snek 3y ago
    You're not supposed to say the quiet part out loud. Suggesting that we should rely on a for-profit corporation to "save us" from democratically-elected officials is such an extreme idea I'm surprised it's being voiced so openly. I say this as someone who strongly opposed any kind of mandatory apps.
  - Eisenstein 3y ago
    Your local government is staffed by people accountable to you, and it is easy enough to call them, and to get everyone you know to call them, and tell them if they do this they will be out of a job next election.
tomxor 3y ago
> a future where there’s an app that requires me to install their store [...] I’m simply not buying that app. Why is it so hard to understand that market pressure will affect you indirectly. Monopolies are harmful to even those who will never step outside Apple's walled garden... The mere threat from the EU, and anti-trust hearings in the US has already benefitted you by reducing the commission from 30% to 17% for apps with revenue under $1M.
- pbh101 3y ago
  This applies in the other direction too: in this DMA world, at some point perhaps an app I will want will only be available in Meta’s Store and I’ll have to either accept their (maybe ickier) terms or forgo the app, whereas without the DMA I’d have the option to download from Apple’s Store.
  - tomxor 3y ago
    You're assuming a developer would have bothered submitting such an app to Apple's store in the first place or hasn't tried to already. The reality right now is that many people just give up because of either Apple arbitrarily banning things for opaque reasons, Apple banning things because they compete with Apple, or because it's not economical enough to be worth the effort (the other effect of high commission rates, not only do users end up paying more for apps that are available, but it causes some apps to never exist). This also assumes that Apple won't make their store more friendly to developers once they have competition... i.e that app that would have never existed could now exist in Apple's store because they are forced to actually compete. As I said - indirect benefits.
- dwaite 3y ago
  > The mere threat from the EU, and anti-trust hearings in the US has already benefitted you by reducing the commission from 30% to 17% for apps with revenue under $1M. The old terms had it at 15% (small business program).
HumblyTossed 3y ago
That’s great. And that’s the way it should be.

by jachee 3y ago

JoshTriplett 3y ago

And if that turns out to be the case, then it doesn't need to be enforced, as people will select accordingly. And then, the people who do want to run things that Apple won't permit in the app store (browsers/emulators/JITs/scripting/etc), or that aren't economically viable with a 30% cut, will have the option of doing so. The existence of an option does not force you to choose that option.

floydnoel 3y ago
until there's another pandemic, and your local government decides everyone has to install their tracking app. or any number of situations where users will be pressured by institutions they don’t have any control over.
- Tijdreiziger 3y ago
  Android proves the contrary here. How many government apps are even available outside the Play Store?
- xigoi 3y ago
  So instead you want your government to pay money to a (possibly foreign) company just to be able to publish an app?
  - caslon 3y ago
    Historically, Apple has demonstrated more trustworthiness and greater morality than the United States Government, when direct comparison has been available. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_d... Even recently, the EU has been pushing for less safety for users. https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/09/eu_casm_expert_identities/ https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/09/eu_casm_expert_identi... More generally, your argument doesn't really hold up. Apple's never owned slaves. Apple's never killed coal miners. Apple's never put humans into concentration camps. The United States Government has done all of these things. Why should anyone trust it?
    - AlphaCerium 3y ago
      I trust a company that stands to only gain a profit from me using their products just as little as the state I reside in, if not less.
    - realusername 3y ago
      Except we know about PRISM and how Apple is collaborating to the surveillance system.
- dns_snek 3y ago
  You're not supposed to say the quiet part out loud. Suggesting that we should rely on a for-profit corporation to "save us" from democratically-elected officials is such an extreme idea I'm surprised it's being voiced so openly. I say this as someone who strongly opposed any kind of mandatory apps.
- Eisenstein 3y ago
  Your local government is staffed by people accountable to you, and it is easy enough to call them, and to get everyone you know to call them, and tell them if they do this they will be out of a job next election.

tomxor 3y ago

> a future where there’s an app that requires me to install their store [...] I’m simply not buying that app. Why is it so hard to understand that market pressure will affect you indirectly. Monopolies are harmful to even those who will never step outside Apple's walled garden... The mere threat from the EU, and anti-trust hearings in the US has already benefitted you by reducing the commission from 30% to 17% for apps with revenue under $1M.

pbh101 3y ago
This applies in the other direction too: in this DMA world, at some point perhaps an app I will want will only be available in Meta’s Store and I’ll have to either accept their (maybe ickier) terms or forgo the app, whereas without the DMA I’d have the option to download from Apple’s Store.
- tomxor 3y ago
  You're assuming a developer would have bothered submitting such an app to Apple's store in the first place or hasn't tried to already. The reality right now is that many people just give up because of either Apple arbitrarily banning things for opaque reasons, Apple banning things because they compete with Apple, or because it's not economical enough to be worth the effort (the other effect of high commission rates, not only do users end up paying more for apps that are available, but it causes some apps to never exist). This also assumes that Apple won't make their store more friendly to developers once they have competition... i.e that app that would have never existed could now exist in Apple's store because they are forced to actually compete. As I said - indirect benefits.
dwaite 3y ago
> The mere threat from the EU, and anti-trust hearings in the US has already benefitted you by reducing the commission from 30% to 17% for apps with revenue under $1M. The old terms had it at 15% (small business program).

HumblyTossed 3y ago

That’s great. And that’s the way it should be.