viktorcode

That point is a good example of casual logical fallacy. Make a statement which is true or universally acceptable ("Surely you still agree that Apple should apply their rules consistently?") and then add incorrect conclusions:

> In this case that would mean either allowing Wörd on the store, or purging all apps that resemble other apps from App Store. Starting with their own Apple Music and Translate apps

Here's the equivalence of copycat status of Wörd and of Music / Translate is implied, which is very questionable indeed.

Also, "you think that Apple should be allowed to be the only gatekeeper to 60% of people’s mobile devices" hides other logical fallacies. First, it is implied by the wording that Apple somehow became the gatekeeper of 60% of devices, whereas customers chose to buy the devices where Apple is gatekeeper, and at least some of them did it because of the fact. Second, the number 60% does not correspond to market reality. Apple is the gatekeeper of all their devices, in all countries, and worldwide share is obviously lower.

You are assuming that the original copyright owner is always against the clones. Sometimes they just don't care about it.

Personally I prefer Apple because there are human reviewers I can appeal to. The option which does not exist if you are rejected by Google's algorithm.

That's not how logic works. The burden of proof that there's a secret cult is on you.

You are implying that the walled garden keeps developers in, whereas in reality those walls are for keeping developers out. One does not escape walled garden; one infiltrates it.

I find it interesting that another issue developers usually have with App Store is that Apple is not enforcing copyright strictly enough.

I didn't like few implications author makes.

> One of the biggest parts of the Free and Open Source Software definitions is the freedom to study a program and modify it; in other words, access to editable source code.

You don't have to have FLOSS-compatible open source license to run security audits on the code. For instance: Microsoft allowed government entities to check Windows security-related source code for many years. Just having access to the code is enough for audits, regardless of the license.

> One such reason is that source code is necessary to have any degree of transparency into how a piece of software operates, and is therefore necessary to determine if it is at all secure or trustworthy. Although security through obscurity is certainly not a robust measure...

If code is not open sourced it doesn't mean security through obscurity is employed. It simply means there's no public access to the code. This is a very common misconception.

They do. German public is overwhelmingly anti-nazi.

Telegram blocked calls to violence before, so technically it's nothing new.

I highly recommend video by Sabine Hossenfelder [1] on this topic. She's explaining the topic in layman terms, starting from what does it mean to exist (or be real) in physical sense.

Complex numbers, as useful as they are, just an abstraction, a tool which can be replaced with different forms of calculations. That makes the question of "reality" rather complex (pardon the pun).

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALc8CBYOfkw

I envision a third option: Apple successfully appeals the regulator decision in Netherlands. It's not far fetched: Apple successfully appealed EC fine on Irish tax break (pending new appeal from the regulator), Intel successfully appealed older fine for anticompetitive behaviour. It seems to me that many laws in the EU are built on shaky legal grounds.

I'm tech savvy and that's exactly why I'll be avoiding third-party payment systems on iOS. But yeah, I don't need an explicit reminder to do that.

To be fair, iOS jailbreak scene was the birthplace of many UX innovations. However, since them the capabilities of iOS were expanded and jailbreak lost its popularity.

Sorry it is not. On my computer it looks like a poorly made artefact from the 90-s. And it's slow.

Is it legal in the EU?

You are thinking from the point of recouping the costs, while in reality it works on a simpler premise: profitability.

Suppose you have your Android app. You are thinking about porting that to iOS. So, for you the calculation will go like this: will selling that on App Store be worth it after paying Apple's fee and cost of porting? If the answer is yes, then you proceed to expand your app's market share. You may as well price your app differently, if you think that will sell more.

Thank you. That lists services and one game, which costs less on Android, where Google still takes 30% fee.

Netflix removed in-app purchases on iOS years ago. They have to honour existing subscriptions though.

Good example, but for different issue: Apple Store don't have local pricing scheme, unlike Steam.

No, I'm not insinuating. I think I was clear enough: if you want others to bear financial responsibility for you cause, lead by example. Otherwise you do what any other hypocrite does: shaming people for something you yourself is guilty of.

Do a Neil Young thing, Steve. Pull your catalogue.

On the contrary. In case of a monopoly price is guaranteed to cover the costs. In a competitive market the price can be well below the costs. Case in point: Epic games store. They are burning money to carve out a market share. That's an example of price decoupled from the cost.

Last quarter results say they didn't.

Regulators can't force banks to provide service in an unsafe environment, which a rooted phone essentially is.

You expect there should be no profit, and the whole commission therefore must cover some costs? That was the line of argument of Epic in court; it didn't go well.

Good thing iPhone holds resale value for longer than an Android phone, so you can just ditch it.

Technically you don't need it. There's no mechanism preventing another toolchain from producing an iOS build. It's just nobody is interested in creating an alternative toolchain.

Has nothing to do with the costs. 30% is the de-facto default revenue sharing scheme, and developers are well accustomed to it.

Bigger developers who pay 30% can do that on their own. Hence the legal lobbying to make platform gatekeepers to cede some ground.

Pretty strong word, betrayal.

Someone on 9to5 Mac suggested Steve to put his money where his mouth is, i.e. pull his own software from App Store, before demanding from Apple employees that they leave the company. I think that's a good advice.

> making things artificially more expensive for iOS users

Do you have examples of software that costs more on iOS than elsewhere?