I'm sure I'm in a minority here, but I think this is good. As a consumer, I want to be warned if there's something that's going to deviate from my system's norms, especially if it could take money from me.
On Android, you can side load, but you're warned if you destroy your life via some strange binary you found on the internet, that's on you.
On iOS, it's more than a reasonable to say you're using an third-party payment service which is not subject to Apple security.
If your tech savvy, you know that this is just fear-mongering on Apple's part.
And if you're not tech savvy, then stick to using Apple payments for everything
Apple has a policy where every subscription model that is paid for via the app store needs to be one-click cancelable, and from a single system menu that shows all of your subscriptions. That's an actual protection that the app store gives me, the customer, and which I might not receive from other payment processors... so it's not really as much "fear mongering" as you're making it out to be.
You can really only do that with third party payment processors if there’s some standard API/protocol/standard for the management of subscriptions… which would be great, but probably isn’t all that feasible in the medium term. It would be great if Apple did that though.
Plus other payment providers, such as PayPal and stripe have their own dispute resolution processes.
I always take care to replace "users freedom" with "OWNERS freedom" in my conversations since so many people seem to have forgotten the distinction. Relatedly, I talk about "computer operators" not "computer users" to try remind people of this important distinction.
It wasn't just Apple though, the value of their platforms is greatly reduced without the work of third-party developers (probably many of whom are on HN) that build software for them.
Developers didn't build the software for Apple, they built it to sell to consumers and Apple provides them with a pitch on the market for a fee. It's how the world works. Don't like it, go make apps for Pine Phone.
Unless you're a huge corporation like Apple which can sidestep a lot of it.
Either way tho it seems that analogy boils down to Apple having a monopoly-like position.
>for a fee
A high one propped up by a lack of competition.
>Don't like it, go make apps for Pine Phone.
Yeah I support some more push behind projects like that. In the meantime tho I don't think me or many others are going to suddenly love anticompetitive practices.
Either the Netherlands government ignores the fact that the spirit of their law was completely ignored and allows Apple to set the precedent of subverting the demands of lawmakers and regulators for Google to follow.
Or the Netherlands pass a new laws in retaliation to target this.
Telling users to just use phones by the other member of the mobile duolopoly doesn't address anything here. If Apple can get away with this, Google will follow.