4 ms·

Apple will really bend over backwards to screw their customers, even if they are legally bound to. What is the point in making it this complicated? Hope we find

Apple will really bend over backwards to screw their customers, even if they are legally bound to. What is the point in making it this complicated? Hope we find a way around this technical limitation, although knowing Apple it isn’t going to be easy.

jsheard 3y ago
The good news is that once the EU does the heavy lifting of beating Apple into submission, it's relatively easy for other regions to say "enable EU mode for us as well, thanks".
- cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
  For better or worse, lawmakers are allergic to copying another jurisdiction’s regulations. What we are inevitably going to end up with, if anything, is a mishmash of superficially differing rules between jurisdictions. Apple will either use their infinite resources to maliciously comply with all of them to the minimum degree required, creating an increasingly shittified, fragmented experience. Or, cooler heads will prevail, Apple will admit to themselves that the party is over, and they’ll start complying with the spirit of the law.
OsrsNeedsf2P 3y ago
> is the point in making it this complicated? What do they lose by fighting it tooth and nail? They don't want consumers using 3rd party app stores. Apple users have been plenty happy without them for years, too.
- CharlieDigital 3y ago
  Seems like a non-issue then and Apple should open up their platform if they are so sure of their superior app store.
- kweingar 3y ago
  > Apple users have been plenty happy without them for years, too. As an iPhone owner I have been annoyed at the walled garden for years.
  - warkdarrior 3y ago
    But clearly not annoyed enough to move off their platform. Apple is counting on your continued support.
jncfhnb 3y ago
The point is that it’s half their bottom line
- walterbell 3y ago
  Mostly from a handful of apps, why limit everyone else?
  - jncfhnb 3y ago
    Because there’s dozens of billions of dollars on the line and they don’t give a fuck about anything else
    - walterbell 3y ago
      Why not make rules for the apps which generate "billions of dollars"? Constrain those apps via special APIs subject to Apple policy. Why stop at 30% extortion, go for more. Leave the rest of apps alone, until a new billion dollar category appears, then it can get the same mafia treatment. This is Platform Sherlocking 101. Let new crops grow before demanding a cut. Don't scare everyone from farming.
      - jncfhnb 3y ago
        I’m unclear if you’re genuinely asking why, or playing out rhetoric for show.
        walterbell 3y ago
        I'm asking why not have application-specific fees and policy, instead of both Apple and regulators dancing around the revenue issue, while using the rhetoric of generic business actors and app-neutral policy. There's a reason that only gaming companies have taken Apple to court. Why should the economics of low-volume and low-profit medical or security applications be subject to the business mechanics of addictive games, which generate billions of revenue for Apple and gaming app developers?

jsheard 3y ago

The good news is that once the EU does the heavy lifting of beating Apple into submission, it's relatively easy for other regions to say "enable EU mode for us as well, thanks".

cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
For better or worse, lawmakers are allergic to copying another jurisdiction’s regulations. What we are inevitably going to end up with, if anything, is a mishmash of superficially differing rules between jurisdictions. Apple will either use their infinite resources to maliciously comply with all of them to the minimum degree required, creating an increasingly shittified, fragmented experience. Or, cooler heads will prevail, Apple will admit to themselves that the party is over, and they’ll start complying with the spirit of the law.

OsrsNeedsf2P 3y ago

> is the point in making it this complicated? What do they lose by fighting it tooth and nail? They don't want consumers using 3rd party app stores. Apple users have been plenty happy without them for years, too.

CharlieDigital 3y ago
Seems like a non-issue then and Apple should open up their platform if they are so sure of their superior app store.
kweingar 3y ago
> Apple users have been plenty happy without them for years, too. As an iPhone owner I have been annoyed at the walled garden for years.
- warkdarrior 3y ago
  But clearly not annoyed enough to move off their platform. Apple is counting on your continued support.

jncfhnb 3y ago

The point is that it’s half their bottom line

walterbell 3y ago
Mostly from a handful of apps, why limit everyone else?
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  Because there’s dozens of billions of dollars on the line and they don’t give a fuck about anything else
  - walterbell 3y ago
    Why not make rules for the apps which generate "billions of dollars"? Constrain those apps via special APIs subject to Apple policy. Why stop at 30% extortion, go for more. Leave the rest of apps alone, until a new billion dollar category appears, then it can get the same mafia treatment. This is Platform Sherlocking 101. Let new crops grow before demanding a cut. Don't scare everyone from farming.
    - jncfhnb 3y ago
      I’m unclear if you’re genuinely asking why, or playing out rhetoric for show.
      - walterbell 3y ago
        I'm asking why not have application-specific fees and policy, instead of both Apple and regulators dancing around the revenue issue, while using the rhetoric of generic business actors and app-neutral policy. There's a reason that only gaming companies have taken Apple to court. Why should the economics of low-volume and low-profit medical or security applications be subject to the business mechanics of addictive games, which generate billions of revenue for Apple and gaming app developers?