Despegar

8 ms·

61.
by Despegar 3y ago
It could have worked, but only if Apple remained asleep. Paying for big shows like Joe Rogan has given Spotify a large market share in podcasts. Obviously they weren't going to offer upfronts to every single podcast. Their strategy was
62.
by Despegar 3y ago
The podcasting initiative was doomed to fail as soon as Apple started allowing individual podcasts to monetize directly. That prevented them from rolling up the long tail of the podcast universe as a Spotify exclusive by just paying for the
63.
by Despegar 3y ago
Their commission is for their intellectual property (SDK, patents, etc). Payment processing was just another service internalized in their commission to facilitate collecting it. To bypass their commission you'd have to make a web app
64.
by Despegar 3y ago
They'll still get their commission even with sideloading.
65.
by Despegar 4y ago
That's exactly what it is. The US decided (beginning with the Trump administration) that the status quo was unacceptable and has decided to "decouple" and increasingly contain China's development with export controls. No
66.
by Despegar 4y ago
All the countries in the region have overlapping claims to the waters, it's not unique to China.
67.
by Despegar 4y ago
I guess everyone is over the anti-"self-preferencing" policy push over the past few years and is back to normal. Sherlocking is in fact good.
68.
by Despegar 4y ago
Apple will likely make all the money from it in the end anyway.
69.
by Despegar 4y ago
This is part of the new Cold War and you can expect this kind of Red Scare thinking shaping US policy in the decades to come.
70.
by Despegar 4y ago
If the FOSS universe wants to make web apps, that's great. But they didn't need this law to do that. If they want to make native iOS apps, well now they'll be using Apple's intellectual property, which won't be for
71.
by Despegar 4y ago
What the Epic v. Apple antitrust trial showed was that no one actually got better terms than anyone else. If you have evidence of Microsoft, Amazon, or Netflix getting terms that aren't available to anyone else, please link them.
72.
by Despegar 4y ago
And then everyone realized web apps sucked and demanded that Apple release an SDK, which they did, and the rest is history.
73.
by Despegar 4y ago
I definitely agree it's going to be the worst of all worlds. The current model was the most efficient one for Apple and developers. There will be additional costs for everyone involved (great for lawyers and accountants though). The cu
74.
by Despegar 4y ago
The EU is mandating sideloading, it's not mandating Apple do it for free. Until now, developers have been licensing Apple's intellectual property in a bundle through the Developer Program License Agreement. For anyone that goes th
75.
by Despegar 4y ago
I certainly understand why developers would prefer that Apple have that business model, but that's not the one they chose for the iPhone. And these laws don't prohibit it.
76.
by Despegar 4y ago
These laws don't expropriate Apple's intellectual property. Apple will always be able to license it for something.
77.
by Despegar 4y ago
>To help protect against unsafe apps, Apple is discussing the idea of mandating certain security requirements even if software is distributed outside its store. Such apps also may need to be verified by Apple — a process that could carry
78.
by Despegar 4y ago
There's no point in marring good PR from the news they announced today with the CSAM tech. When governments pass legislation targeted at E2E they will likely land on Apple's proposed solution as a good compromise, at which point i
79.
by Despegar 4y ago
It was definitely a win in a narrow and politically naïve sense.
80.
by Despegar 4y ago
This was the point of their plan to introduce CSAM detection on-device. Unfortunately the reaction to that was histrionic and couldn't see the writing on the wall. Governments will eventually pass legislation targeting E2E and CSAM was
81.
by Despegar 4y ago
No government is going to expropriate Apple's intellectual property just to move some money from Apple to developers. It also wouldn't get passed courts.
82.
by Despegar 4y ago
Neither the Open Markets Act or the Digital Markets Act will do anything about Apple's commission. You can have alternative app stores, sideloading, whatever. It doesn't change anything about using Apple's intellectual proper
83.
by Despegar 4y ago
The Communist Party won't take the bait. It took the US decades of neocon foreign policy in the post-Soviet states to manufacture the Ukraine war. It will take much longer in Taiwan because there are no ultranationalists to use like Az
84.
by Despegar 4y ago
Tech might be "embedded" but that doesn't mean their stocks had reasonable valuations. Small/mid cap tech is down 50-75% because they weren't. Every Apple employee is watching their stock portfolios melt down and AA
85.
by Despegar 4y ago
The tech recession is going to be great for Apple's back to the office plans.
86.
by Despegar 4y ago
>And even if the EU might be wrong, Apple must comply. Well no. If they're "wrong" then they'll lose the case when it heads to the General Court and/or the ECJ.
87.
by Despegar 5y ago
It would have been a disaster for competition if Trump had managed to ban TikTok.
88.
by Despegar 5y ago
The App Store policies were always for the benefit of customers (and Apple). These policies will keep happening because the basic incentive of Apple's business model has been unchanged since 2008.
89.
by Despegar 5y ago
If Apple wants a cut, they can just change the terms of the developer agreement so they get a cut from advertising revenue. The more Facebook earns, the more Apple would earn.
90.
by Despegar 5y ago
This was the correct decision legally and from the public interest perspective. The App Store complaints were always a contractual dispute between businesses. Developers hoped to ride the antitrust wave that emerged over the past 5-6 years

More ›