Apple also forces developers to use their payment system which charges 30%. Yet Android is the problem.
(this is, incidentally, a major reason why I have not bought an Apple device in twenty years)
So that they can fully control, secure and curate the experience, which is what I am buying Apple phones for.
Well, not really (I'm mostly buying them for the hardware and software combo, which I prefer to Android offerings), but I can appreciate that having a single, sandboxed, signed, etc source of software on a phone, makes it more secure and hassle free thing for users (of which an extremely tiny minority are in any way computer geeks). It also creates a ecosystem that moves in lockstep with the hardware and OS changes -- even if just because it is forced to.
For others, there's always a custom Android install.
Yes, but it's not about individual interests. It's about the aggregate interests of users of a platform, the majority of which are average Joes which would otherwise get every malware possible in their phone.
It's kind of like democracy: you may know your best interests yourself, but you only get one vote. So what laws get passed etc, is what the majority decides. Only in this case Apple makes their political platform (iOS) and people vote with their wallets whether they like it or not.
For lone-wolfs that tend to their own personal interests, there's always Android, or even OpenMoko.
On my devices it sure as heck is about my individual interests. I do not like authoritarianism in politics or software.
I hate that a generation is being raised without the freedom to tinker, to own their hardware and to own their data.
And you're always free to individually buy something else.
>I hate that a generation is being raised without the freedom to tinker, to own their hardware and to own their data.
You mean the same generation that has all kinds of compilers and developers tools for free (unlike back in the 80s and 90s), can reach the whole globe with a simple $5/month server app, and has hardware platforms like Arduino and Pi for less than $100 backs?
I lived in the 80s. We didn't tinker on our smartphones because we didn't have any. Now we have something like 10,000 PDP-11s on our pockets, and an environment so accessible that there are 1,500,000 apps for it. And if we don't like forking $100 to the gatekeeper to get to publish apps for it, there are also web-apps, and Android, where we can just publish anything.
Then don't buy their device.
> Then don't buy their device.
From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12647379:
> I have not bought an Apple device in twenty years
I think this is conflating two different meanings of trust. Apple hopes that you will trust them to choose to respect your best interests; but what I think most people are inclined to trust is that they are able to respect your best interests. The vast majority of non-techie users are not able to act in their best interests, even though they (presumably) want to do so.
The major reason is that I got into Linux before the Mac I bought in 1996 got too old to use. I've not looked back.
No, Apple's control of the iPhone was perhaps the major reason I never bought one, way back before I had a smart phone (or even a cell phone).
I have several major problems with Apple: I prefer Linux; their software is not free (this is related to the previous item); they control your devices (this is related to the previous item); since they got rid of the old iBooks and iMacs their design language has been boring and, frankly, ugly; I dislike the cult aspects of Apple (having once been a True Believer); I am tired of Apple's high opinion of itself (this is related to the previous item); I think their hardware is over-priced. I could probably think of more.
Now, some of that is just a matter of taste (some people like Jony Ives's rectangles and circles — that's OK), but some of that is indicative of things which are, from my perspective at least, 'wrong on Apple's part,' to use your phrase.
A valid reason is that you trust them to curate available programs according to values that you agree with. This reduces your risk considerably. (Consider the state of Windows executables in the bad old days.)
Problems arise when a) you don't agree with their values, b) they don't actually act on their values. A lot of people are content to make the uninformed choice to trust Apple, and will continue to do so until their is an obviously better alternative.
So any music streaming service that wants to try to compete with Apple music has to pay a tithe to Apple of 30% or miss out on half of America (or make customers jump through hoops).
The 'you dont have to use it' comment is moot -- iOS accounts for millions upon millions of people; you generally need to use it.
No, you don't need to use it. You want to use it, and you want to make money using it -- which is a different thing, and this is what Apple charges for: having built a platform/market with millions upon millions of people in it.
It's the price Apple charges to profit from their distribution channel.
I don't like giving Apple a cut but I recognise that it is their property and I cannot dictate that Apple has to change their rules to accommodate me.
An iPhone-owner's phone is not Apple's platform: it's its owner's platform. It is not Apple's property once money has been exchanged for the phone.
> From what I understand, Apple doesn't force anyone. It's up to them to use it or not. They can always NOT deliver apps for iOS if they think 30% is too much.
Is it not clear that he is talking about the 30% cut that Apple takes for distributing apps on their app store? Do you own the app store if you buy an iPhone? Is it this what you are saying?
No, I'm saying that if I bought an iPhone, then it would be my right to install software written by anyone I pleased on it. I'm also saying that any software developer who wishes to has a right to write software for that putative iPhone. Apple simply isn't a party to such transactions.
You have the right to do with your property as you please, but what you really want is that Apple changes their product so it's easier for you to install what you like. You simply do not have this right. This limitation is well known and advertised so you should have known before you bought an iPhone, and even if you didn't - you can return the iPhone and get your money back.
The phone, the physical device, is yours. You can put it in the oven if you like, or crash it with a steamroller.
The platform remains Apple's.
In the same way that when you buy a subscription from Netflix you don't suddenly own their network and dictate terms.
Hmm. Apple prevents me from that. Seems more of a rental agreement, than outright purchase.
Atttibuting 1-word quotations is a guessing game, I might as well be...wrong
1) Upvote
2) Downvote
3) User made a politically charged comment in a thread that has nothing to do with politics as a way to insert opinions.
As for what the third button does. I don't know. It doesn't really even have to do anything, it'd make me feel better just being able to count the appearances of such comments in every thread this election year.
A joke, of course, but only kind of.
It's unfortunate that a presidential candidate epitomizes that sentiment, but that's what comes to mind when I hear something like "It's just business".
Edit: now I need to go and rewatch "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room"
For an indie developer it doesn't sound like a big issue, but for big corporations uncertainty in the business model is a big deal. Often large budgets and many jobs depend on it.
And the play store ToS rules around in-app purchases also don't apply to physical goods, or products or services that can be used outside the app. This means that a companies like netflix or spotify are free to collect payments for their services without giving google a 30% cut, like they have to give apple. This is not an unenforced clause, a grey area, or a cause for uncertainty; the play store terms are very clear.
I think you know very well that I was talking about the Play Store.
> And the play store ToS rules around in-app purchases also don't apply to physical goods, or products or services that can be used outside the app
Apple in app purchase ToS:
3.1.5 Physical Goods and Services Outside of the App: If your app enables people to purchase goods or services that will be consumed outside of the app, you must use purchase methods other than IAP to collect those payments, such as Apple Pay or traditional credit card entry. Apps may facilitate transmission of approved virtual currencies (e.g. Bitcoin, DogeCoin) provided that they do so in compliance with all state and federal laws for the territories in which the app functions.
It is not identical (I wrote it is _similar_) as Netflix does have to give Apple a cut, but there are many exceptions both on Apple's side just as there are other exceptions on Google's side.
What really annoys me about your comment though is that my comment wasn't about saying Apple is better or Google is better (clearly some people here can't even mentally handle anyone criticising their beloved company), I'm not even interested in such a conversation.
My comment was about the issues companies have with the fact that Google doesn't enforce their own ToS. (or even worse, maybe they do in some cases and most developers don't know)
Small developers are incentivised to ignore the rules while larger businesses can't risk allocating large budgets towards a business model that contains such uncertainty.
Maybe you can next go through my comments and correct me on grammar errors. English is not my native language after all so I'm certain there's lots of material to find there. Have a nice day!