Apple and Google are similar to China and America. Apple has more restrictive policies within a walled garden. Google gives more freedoms but its platform is wild and open. It's easy for Apple to take advantage of Google's ecosystem and open policies, but very difficult for Google to do the same to Apple. It's similar to how US companies don't get a fair shake in China. And in both, the citizens get taken advantage of and the little people have no power. Did any of what I just said make any sense?
While one can draw parallels to all sorts of things the question is whether that makes the original situation clearer or offers any insights. In this case it doesn't, it's just a cutesy yet pointless way of expressing something.
It's not the work of a high intellect, but I don't think it's fair to proclaim it as pointless. Most creative output, such as modern art and especially stand-up comedy is all about making parallels - it's up to the viewer to decide if it provides any insights for themselves or provokes discussion. You might as well disregard all creative activity and thought using your argument.
Given the fundamental differences between corporations and governments (and the span of control they have over people’s lives) I do not believe this analogy can be used for any useful inference.
It’s almost as if this example with app stores is an incredibly specific, narrow example, and government control in this way is incredibly broad in impact (I.e. life or death, end of the actual world etc).
> Given the fundamental differences between corporations and governments
I disagree with that line. I feel like people are desperate for there to be a difference based on some 9th grade civics class, or because an animated anthropomorphic piece of paper sang to them about bills in elementary school.
The British East India company had the power to jail and kill, for centuries.
The Head of the Executive Branch is the CEO of government agencies.
The statement was written with the lens of very different goals (corporations maximize profit within the context of selling goods and services where governments - usually, serve the people sufficiently to maintain control & power over its people by being “great leaders”).
Corporations usually sell goods and services, but do not have control over individuals most fundamental rights including those of freedom, health or even life - like governments often do. Corporations also rarely have militaries nor are the final backstop for when disagreements occur.
Your example is interesting because it compares probably the most government like corporation to ever exist (the Dutch East India Company) and the most “nurfed” head of state by most metrics to ever exist (I.e. the least powerful relative to power of the nation - the American President, while being the head of the largest economically and most powerful country, role by role is quite restricted and limited in scope and control by design of the founding fathers).
> Corporations usually sell goods and services, but do not have control over individuals most fundamental rights including those of freedom, health or even life - like governments often do.
And yet in the U.S., your health care and pension is often tied to your employment at a corporation. For some people, for example those on work visa, having employment in a particular corporation is tied to living in the same country.
Vice versa, a democratic government has less control over your life than you might think.
And if we look at things like free speech - I can freely criticize the government but criticizing the corporation is often difficult.
I come from a former communist country. Non-existence of free speech didn't always mean that somebody will disappear you. It might also have meant that you lose your cushy job and get a less cushy job. Which is not really all that different from what can happen if you openly criticize the CEO of your corporation, even internally.
The British East India company was a government actor. It’s silly to consider them otherwise simply because it was technically a “joint-stock company.” It was part of the government. Wikipedia even notes:
> Originally chartered as the "Governor and Company of Merchants of London Trading into the East-Indies"
It was not. It did not answer to Parliament, only to its shareholders. It has the best of both worlds though, because many powerful MPs were shareholders. So they got govt protection without govt oversight.
1) Head of Executive branch is limited by law (constitution, etc). CEO is not limited
2) The Raison d'être of government, at least de iure, is to do good for its citizens, while the raison d'être of corporation is to make money.
That makes them very different - not a lot of people would object to removal of nonproductive employees or customers, but many would (I hope!) object removal (through whatever means) of "nonproductive" citizens.
I would normally agree with you and in fact I do still agree, but the lines are becoming uncomfortably blurred.
The enormous power that these two global corporations - Apple and Google - have over the livelihoods of so many developers and content producers is unprecedented. Each of them can wipe out the value of your professional skills over night.
For many people these corporations are without alternative. It's no longer a voluntary business relationship.
In Apple's case, the side-loading ban interacts with authoritarian government in a way that clearly threatens human rights. But at least on that particular issue consumers still have a choice.
It’s harder to draw a government corporate distinction while replying to a comment specifically mentioning China and the US?
Are the big Chinese tech companies independent of their government? And are the US companies exploring bidding for tiktok etc doing so because the US government is coercing them?
Here's something many HNers might be unaware of. China has several App Stores for Android, but only Chinese companies are allowed to list apps. Yup, completely closed to outside competition.
The only appropriate response really is to close markets to Chinese companies until they open up theirs (without unreasonable restrictions on free speech).
Do you have any proof for that? I have a Huawei App Gallery account for mainland china and I can find apps from American companies that have access to the Chinese market (Microsoft, Apple). The Microsoft Teams app is not region locked since I can use it with my UK university account.
I do think the underlying problems existed before him. For instance, the west allowed all manufacturing eggs to be put in China's basket for over 30 years without diversifying sourcing. Another example is that China insists you venture with a local company to do business there yet I htink it's very rare (or non-existent) in other countries.
It seems to me that failure and a real reversal of the course China was on started from 2012 when Xi got power, so yes. Could have happened anyways of course but the change was drastic and clear from that point on.
Do you not think that the second half of that period, when Trump has been president, that he may have contributed to the problem by providing an opportuniy for Xi Jinping?
I don't think Trump (or anyone, really) would have had much impact on China's internal politics during that period, and opening up is very much an internal matter. It's generally hard at this point to see external pressures (small as they are) having much impact at all.
I don't deny that Trump has potentially enabled Xi to make some moves faster and bolder. But those moves would likely have happened anyway and on the bright side it's maybe easier for the world to see what's going with the lies being so obvious nowadays.
Yes. China didn't change its behaviour toward more openness before Trump. Trump forced the conflict about this into the open in his usual charming way. But there was no opening process that Trump interrupted.
Trump has only been in power for a few years, so it’s really nothing to do with him. There are enough things we can legitimately lay at his door without making stretches like that.
So strange to be downvoted for asking a question, where a generous reading would be that I was genuinely asking it.
I think the aggressive stance of China coincides with the election of Xi Jinping in 2013, seven years ago. Trump has been in power for 3.5 years, so that's half of this time period. So it certainly _could_ be something to do with Trump.
My question was whether if would have been _such_ a failure.
It seems to me that both Trump and Xi Jinping have benefitted from the trade wars and diplomatic arguments between the countries. There seems little doubt that the Trump administration has given Xi Jinping a window of opportunity where he has been able to consolidate power and conduct aggressive foreign policy... so I genuinely wonder: how important has Trump's disastrous leadership been in the failure of this policy?
Yes, I dislike and disagree with him but it's ridiculous how everything is automatically his fault and a wrong position just because Trump supported it.
> The only appropriate response really is to close markets to Chinese companies until they open up theirs (without unreasonable restrictions on free speech).
The idea that a person’s country of origin, where all laws and political dynamics are compulsory at birth, is somehow equivalent to the luxury item that is an iPhone is... bananas. Me thinks you stretch too far.
Edit: ‘equivalent‘ should be ‘comparable’... obviously the OP is not saying they are equivalent.
A little more expensive isn't an accurate description.
I have a 200€ xiaomi phone (redmi note 4) that works very well and I have little to no complaints.
An iPhone costed 4-5 times that amount when I bought my phone, and does essentially the same things. But it's shinier.
Yes, the iPhone is a luxury good.
Edit, just to clarify: I have used an iPhone for an extended period of time (company issued): yes, the iPhone pretty much does the same thing as an android phone, maybe a little less.
Products or services that are consumed in quantities by broad classes of individuals, generally are not a luxury goods.
A more specific definition [1]
FYI there are tons of mobiles in the iPhone price range.
Ferraris, yachts, bespoke suits, exclusive trips to Antartica, private engagements with former Presidents, a closet full of Gucci - luxury goods.
Due to the sophisticated nature of mobile tech, there are really no such thing as 'luxury goods' in that category, because he market size would be far too small to support the massive R&D effort. Which is why Bang & Olufsun don't make phones.
Of course Apple definitely takes cues from luxury good makers in their marketing.
The usual discussion on this topic goes like this:
Apple defenders - It is their right to do it, since Android store allows them.
Others - Apple is being a hypocrite. While they maintain that app store must be compensated for all the services they do to developers, When given a chance they do not agree with their above statement.
I feel w.r.t app stores, Google is User-centric, but Apple is Apple-Centric at the expense of their customers. They use users as pawns, to bully the best for Apple, rather than their customers (you and I).
edit: To explain "user centric" better
Because of Apple's rules, you cannot just sign-up from Netflix app in iOS. You have to sign up in their Browser and then sign in. And Netflix is not allowed to even specify that in the app. Absolutely confusing, for normal users. Very bad user experience.
That is what I say when they are holding you as pawns. Apple is okay for you and I to go through that confusing experience, instead of allowing Netflix to tell them that users have to sign up in the browser.
> but Apple is Apple-Centric at the expense of their customers
Apple has done a lot to curtail scummy developer practices and protect users.
You could go over each of their App Store policies and see how few of them are "at the expense of their customers."
Not the least are their privacy and anti-tracking protections. iOS 14 already caught many apps (including Discord and Instagram) stealing our clipboard data and secretly accessing camera, mic and location.
Claiming Google is "user-centric" and Apple isn't, usually means taking the side of the corporations that are hurt by limited access to user data.
> Apple has done a lot to curtail scummy developer practices and protect users.
This is so true, and the magnitude of this is not immediately apparent unless you’ve worked in an agency / freelanced building iOS applications. You have no idea how many user-hostile and abusive things I’ve seen blown completely out of the water with the golden phrase "Apple won’t allow that". It wins arguments in favour of the user instantly and permanently.
I’ve run up against Apple’s capricious review process more times than I can count, so I’ve got more reason than most to complain about it. But it’s impossible for me to argue that these rules don’t help the user when I’ve personally seen it happen so many times. It’s a double-edged sword to be sure, and I believe the best way of balancing things in favour of the end-user is to be more open than Apple is, but there are undeniable benefits to the user with the current system.
> iOS 14 already caught many apps (including Discord and Instagram) stealing our clipboard data and secretly accessing camera, mic and location.
Not really, this has just been a PR exercise that I'm watching with fascination - the real news is that they've shifted focus away from their own shortcomings. The real news here is that iOs14 allows unrestricted clipboard access. Think about that for a moment. Instead of actually fixing the issue, they choose to highlight it and call out apps for using the platform in a way they have allowed.
I would argue Apple is very protectful of their platform, at the expense of the users. Of course in some cases, such as with privacy, what is good for the user is also good for Apple, because they get an additional selling point compared to the competition.
In my opinion, an example of Apple practices which are bad for customers is their line on progressive web apps. Apple limits support as they cannot keep control of their platform and revenue stream. I would argue however, that installable web apps are great for user experience, especially since it helps less resourceful businesses provide a good product for mobile devices. I'll admit there are privacy concerns regarding access to phone features from a web app, so Apple's arguments in blocking some (but not all) of these have some merit.
If you look beyond just the App Store policies, this general practice appears to me to limit innovation on the web platform, as Apple is invested in keeping apps the only first class citizen on their platform.
Under Apple's clarified guidelines, if a University put out a remote learning app to help students deal with the pandemic better than a browser solution, Apple would be entitled to 30% of each user's tuition.
Once they have a few slow quarters and pull the lever on taking a cut of app mediated real-world services, we may see 10-30% of each Taxi ride going to Apple.
> Under Apple's clarified guidelines, if a University put out a remote learning app to help students deal with the pandemic better than a browser solution, Apple would be entitled to 30% of each user's tuition.
I think they have mechanisms for distributing apps within an organization.
There is the Apple Developer Enterprise Program[0] but it suggests it's only for employees.
>Use the program only to create proprietary, in-house apps for internal use, and to distribute these apps privately and securely to employees within the organization.
Not sure if there is another programme that would work for universities
Apple only extracts that revenue from apps if you want to directly take payment through the app. Both Netflix and Spotify work on iOS. They just are not collecting payments or doing new signups there. So in your analogy the student is presumably registered already with the school and Apple doesn’t take a cut at all, even today.
> Apple only extracts that revenue from apps if you want to directly take payment through the app.
Even if you take payment through your app that you built with your own payment processor.
Why is Apple standing between me and my school again? They made a profit off of the hardware that I purchased from them and now they’re just standing there stopping me from paying for what I want on the device that I bought.
That specific carve out is limited to consume-only media apps and wouldn't apply to an interactive remote learning app with more than just a library of prerecorded lectures.
HEY acquired customers outside of the app but still wasn't allowed.
Anti-clipboard-abuse doesn’t feel like a good example. It’s a generic (albeit new) OS function that scales immediately to all apps, once implemented.
The argument for ongoing App Store funding is that it has to scale with the number of apps available, each requiring hours of human work to review and police.
I would distinguish user vs developer. Android had always been partial to developers (more APIs at the cost of inconsistent and poor experience, sweeping location privacy on install that they refused to change until 10 version later, etc.) to entice developers to build on Android at some cost to the end user. Arguably, this 30% thing is not a freedom fight, just a payment negotiation for the publisher, and the end user could not care less (except for trusting their credit card number is not spread around and when they cancel subscription they won't have to mail a letter with certified mail).
I suppose if you care about the users, you should argue for freedom of running the software you like on the device you buy (ability to control secure boot keys/root access in some sort of developer mode), akin to values that Free Software Foundation has, not some petty marketplace rules. Neither those platforms, nor Epic, seem to give rat's ass about that freedom though.
Some publishers are giving the dollars back to the users. Like Fortnite.
Also, because of Apple's rules, you cannot just sign-up from Netflix app in iOS. You have to sign up in their Browser and then sign in. And Netflix is not allowed to even specify that in the app. Absolutely confusing, for normal users. Very horrible experience.
That is what I say when they are holding you as pawns. They are okay for you and I to go through that confusing experience, instead of allowing Netflix to tell them that they have to sign up in the browser.
> I suppose if you care about the users, you should argue for freedom of running the software you like on the device you buy
Android does allow it. They allow you to install any software. Even software that allows you to bypass Youtube Ads. In fact that is one reason why many stick to android
> Some publishers are giving the dollars back to the users. Like Fortnite.
If my assumption Fortnite is making a profit is right they are not giving anything back. You can buy more 'fake money' for your real money which seems like a good deal to players, but the only thing they get from it are a few extra skins and items which cost Epic about nothing to produce.
> Android does allow it. They allow you to install any software. Even software that allows you to bypass Youtube Ads. In fact that is one reason why many stick to android
You can install software on your own iOS with a free developer certificate as well. You cannot scale distribution though, which is by design, and ensures security of the other billions of users.
I did not mean just the software running in a container though, which is at the mercy of Android system. I want to control the software running on the computer I pay for, which most Android phones don't.
On Android you can install apps from third party sources.
It's a hassle to instruct users on how to allow third party sources, which is why Epic eventually caved to Google Play's demands, after distributing Fortnite outside of Play for a year or smth.
Still, it's not the same thing. In a situation in which Fortnite gets banned from Play, their marketshare on Android doesn't go to zero, and given kids are driven to have their game installed, one can argue that Fortnite would be able to survive just fine on Android outside of Play.
And your main point, that the platforms don't give a rat's ass on freedom, is childish. Yes, they don't, we already knew that. Still doesn't change the fact that one is unlike the other for developers, users and their freedom to do what they want with their devices.
Yes, and that's great. Ideally you would want to be able to enroll your own security keys like Secure Boot, but I take all I can get. Android is not equivalent to Pixel though. Not even all Pixels do it by the way (notable exception was the ones sold by Verizon). So do macOS T2, and chromeOS developer mode (potentially with physical hardware screws to deter unintended misleading of a layperson).
However, all of that is pretty much orthogonal to what Epic wants, which is my point. Epic does not care about user freedom in that sense, just haggling to get a cut from 30/15% to ~5-10% and they'll be on their way. It's just spun as a user freedom thing (which is actually a valid request, but accomplished with very different means).
Linux is not equivalent to a specific device either. That distinction is meaningless to developers, who will just get the device that lets them do what they need to do.
I have a HomePod and not an alexa or Google device because Apple has shown it cares about privacy. That's user-centric. Sure, we could be incredibly cynical in saying that "well because you buy it then it is actually Apple-centric", but they clearly care about privacy.
Google to me is entirely Google-centric, which means harvesting as much data about me as possible to sell to advertisers.
I'm fine with Apple's walled garden. It works really, really well. People love iPhones for more than just marketing and status. They're excellent phones. And a not-insignificant piece of that experience is an ecosystem fits together nicely, with central control. Infinite choice isn't better for most people.
Are you fine with paying Apple 30% of the cost of any application that you buy? It's not the developers that are paying this cost -- this is what you are paying to Apple for each app. That $25 app is costing you $7.50 that goes straight to Apple. All that money adds up fast.
Even if you are good with that, I think you imagine that a lot of users -- even those who might be happy with other aspects of the Apple ecosystem -- might not be happy with a 30% tax on all purchases made on their thousand dollar device. Apple even mandates that you're not allowed to know inside of an app about cheaper ways to pay.
They can then leave the walled garden and buy cheaper apps on android and if they are satisfied with that, good for them.
I absolutely relish Apple’s walled garden, not just for me, but for my aged parents and aunts whom I help with their devices. Barely any UI differences, security for inept or careless users. And I know that the UI will move at a glacial pace, which is a feature for that demographics.
> It's not the developers that are paying this cost -- this is what you are paying to Apple for each app.
Is that right though? Is the economics as simplistic as that? Could it be that Apple can now bring down iPhone device prices while hitting the revenue targets they have in mind offset from services, effective benefiting iPhone SE 2020 consumers? Could it be that the cost of running the store, marketing and distribution and properly reviewing all the free apps that I actually use is subsidized by the minority of apps that are paid or have in app purchases? To say that the user is burdened by the entire 30% directly is quite an overreach. How do we know the developers won’t pocket the additional margin and keep prices at the current rate? (my bet is this, actually).
For me personally who almost never used a paid app, I can assure you that the 30% is not paid by me. I may have even benefited through iPhones cheaper than hypothetical price that Apple has to sell them without AppStore revenue potential. I certainly benefited by AppStore vetting shitty apps.
This is a business model choice and banning it is like saying Google Drive is not supposed to charge paid users more to subsidize free quotas.
Don't forget that Apple is a multinational megacorp, and is user centric only when it suits them. Consider Tim Cook speaking at the conference used by the Chinese government to promote internet regulation, saying that the vision of the conference is one that Apple shares, and also the handing over of user data to Chinese servers (encrypted, but still out of their control).
Isn't Apple just like Google and Amazon also using people to listen to some recordings they get via Siri to improve it? If so, that's not really privacy.
It continues to surprise me that tech-literate people fall for Apple's privacy marketing when it doesn't hold up to the most basic scrutiny. You can't even install an app on your device without telling Apple. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23796808
> I feel w.r.t app stores, Google is User-centric, but Apple is Apple-Centric at the expense of their customers.
There are enough shady apps, especially games, on both stores already without them asking you to enter your credit card details. At least with the current system you can set up parental controls.
I think allowing apps to process their own payments is a recipe for disaster and will open up the floodgates for apps, especially games, trying to trick kids into purchasing expensive in-app crap.
Wouldn't that make it harder for kids to buy crap instead of easier? Parental controls or not if they have access to the card then they know exactly what they're doing and can go about it in any number of ways. The main issue here is single button purchases, not full CC entry.
You give far too much credit to the world's largest advertising company and probably the world's biggest corporate/private holder of personal and tracking data on the human population.
Any suggestion of an altruistic motive behind any Google policy/practice/implementation is disingenuous at best.
This is correct but the definition of the "user" here is different from the definition of "user" for Apple.
In the case of Google, the advertisers and the developers are the "users", and the people who are using the software are the products.
On the Apple side of things, the people who buy the phone or the laptop are the "users" and this is the folks that Apple cares about deeply(And ironically, they also suffer in the last saga by not being able to access their favourite game). That is why its always the developers complaining about Apple.
Yes, as a developer I think %30 is high and I wish it was lower but it is on par with Google. As a user, I despise the idea of giving credit card info on every app and service I would like to use. Looking at the behaviour of the companies who think they can force users what they want, I am sure that they are not going to be as nice as Apple on the payments. They will implement dark patterns.
As a user, I don't want to see another payment method, I want this to go away. As a developer I want this to go away by Apple lowering it's fees.
What is the difference between an app asking for your cc number and a web page? Do you wish Mozilla was a payment processor and you couldn't pay for netflix without giving Mozilla a cut? What about google?
What if in order to sell you an iphone as a non mac user your browser vendor required Apple to give them 30% of the purchase price? What if they refused to render pages that tried to work around this?
What id your ISP required transactions being conducted via their networks to cut them in on the deal? Hell why not your computers OEM?
Okay, here it is: I want to have single place to manage my payments. As a user, I wouldn't care about the implementation. I wouldn't care about Apple's, Mozilla's or Google's cut. Not good business for you? Tough luck(unless I really want your product, then maybe adjust the price accordingly). What is the difference between App and Website asking for CC? No difference, I hate them both.
As a developer I agree that we shouldn't be forced and restricted to payment methods. My developer opinion is that these payment systems should be considered public utility and should be unified and should work the same for everyone - including Apple. Apple should not be able to have competing products by where they don't pay someone the cut that we pay.
I also think that payments methods shouldn't be able to restrict who we pay. Be it Wikilieaks or whoever we please. That's actually why I am not amused by framing this pity fight over the commission rates as "fight for freedom". It's not fight for freedom, it is cocky businessmen looking to increase their margins.
You know how 99% of the startups fail? Well, maybe they fail because they forget about the user.
But how does allowing third party in-app payments remove your ability to use Apple Pay? Apple could even force developers to include Apple Pay but at a 30% markup.
It creates multiple places to look for payments. Also, if the price is 0.99 vs 1.29 I would feel bad if I opt out for 1.29 with Apple despite the fact that 0.3p isn't changing anything for me but I would feel obligated to enter CC details to get the discount(Yes I know it's not logical but Humans, Aye? If people were logical half of the economy wouldn't be around). It's a friction I don't want to have in my life.
The ideal solution for me is, Apple Pay being an open protocol and I can add payment methods to Apple Pay, can track all payments from a single UI. Then I would be O.K. with being offered %30 discount if I pay with "Epic Card" payment method(form the same payment UI).
Not at all, I wouldn't care who gets the money. Often company structure and relationships are complex and many times people who boycott a brand end up buying from the brand owned by the same company.
More importantly, It's a well know that people in the game industry are overworked and underpaid and it's not because of the Apple's cut. I don't know about the situation in Epic, but if it happens that Apple lowers the rates most certainly the difference will go to C level executives(that are not underpaid already).
If Apple gets the money, they at least will pay a decent salary to their people. The game makers can consider cutting bonuses if the money is tight.
Isn't it actually about market power? Apple controls a dominant share of the market for paid apps on phones, so it can use that power to extract more money from sellers of such apps. Google's market share is very small, so it can't impose this fee on sellers.
When you say, Apple treats their users as pawns, well, Google's ad business which generates most of their money, also treats their users as pawns. Both companies are amazingly effective at extracting extremely high profit margins from the business that they control.
In other words, primary goal of both companies is to extract as much money as possible from consumers and they're both extremely good at that, in their own way. Neither treats users as pawns, because, that would undermine their market position. Both are user-centric in the sense that they offer products that consumers (whether end-users or ad buyers) believe to be useful enough that they pay very high prices for them. And both companies are zealous in maintaining that relationship.
Apple seems to be slightly better at this, sitting on about $200 billion, but that's only after using hundreds of billions of dollars to buy back their own stock over the years. This treasury stock is hard to value, because it's unlikely Apple would actually sell it, except to buy some other big company. But it looks to me like Apple has enough treasury stock that it could be converted into something like a trillion dollars if they wanted to do that and were legally permitted to. (As an accounting matter, however, treasury stock isn't even counted as an asset, even though the company paid very real cash for at least part of it.) Google's also sitting on well over $100 billion and a bunch of treasury stock.
It raises some interesting social issues, but there's nothing very different about the way these two companies relate to their users, or indeed to society generally.
At the very least Google lets you do whatever you want and install apps from elsewhere - a third party store or even a random apk from a shady website if you're brave.
I didn't post to show Apple is breaking rules. I wanted to show they were 'freeloading', the same thing they are accusing Spotify and Epic of . They aren't worried about 'user experience, security and convenience' here.
Google has a problem with games like Fortnite and PUBG, because then they would lose too much. Kids spend millions on Fortnite.
Google Play Store and the Apple App Store can’t be compared in this way, because they provide completely different services. The Apple App Store review process is far more thorough, and expensive to operate. Apple also invest more into ensuring the privacy and security objectives they have for the App Store are met by way of OS development. It’s not surprising that Google prices some services differently, and Apple is 100% playing by the rules.
Regarding your comments about security and UX, I know which one of those companies I trust more on both of those fronts. What phone number do I call for a billing issue with Google?
Why do you think I'm supporting Google? Google is worse. I'm saying apple doesn't go through the play store on Android. Is no convenience or security needed there?
> because they provide completely different services
They provide the exact same thing. Review process is not related to the service they provide. It is related to devs putting their app on the store.
> Google prices some services differently, and Apple is 100% playing by the rules.
Apple does the same thing with Amazon. They also demand a fee on iOS, while taking a freeride on Android.
> What phone number do I call for a billing issue with Google
You didn't say what billing issue. A quick search gave me this number 1-877-355-5787 . I'm not tech support.
Well Apple does distribute Apple Music via the Play Store, and it follows all of Google’s rules around payment processing.
> They provide the exact same thing. Review process is not related to the service they provide.
The review process is a part of the service they provide to their paying customers, and it is a key market differentiator for Apple.
> Apple does the same thing with Amazon.
Apple doesn’t take a cut of any sale of physical goods via apps.
> A quick search gave me this number 1-877-355-5787
There actually is no number, because Google doesn’t offer that level of support (unlike Apple). That is the phone number for premium G Suite and Cloud Identity customers.
I can’t see what argument you’re putting forward for why Apple is being hypocritical here. Because they distribute their own apps on the Play Store they should required to implement all of the same policies that the Play Store does on their own App Store?...
If Apple is so keen on a great user experience, and that’s why they force everyone through the their own IAP funnel, then they should do the same on Android - after all, it’s not about the profit margin, but ease of use.
Threads about Apple have been getting torpedoed to the second page all day. I suspect it's because the moderators don't want the entire front page to be posts on the same general topic, but it is frustrating when there are multiple developments in a short time.
Afaik it’s a human review. But they could as well add a label like (dupe) so we didn’t have to be hugely surprised when a post disappears when reloading the homepage.
These days, and trust me I hear myself saying and typing this, it seems Microsoft is the "good guys" bar the repeated GitHub failures. Seems HackerNews is full of stories how Apple and Google is doing XYZ to developers or services. What a world we live in !
Yeah. I trust Microsoft more these days. I know they'll screw everyone over when Edge becomes popular again (it's good now), but they seem relatively better for now.
I'm in my thirties and it's amazing to watch Microsoft evolve since the 90s. As a teenager I would never have imagined the words 'Open Source' would ever be in a <h1> tag on a Microsoft-branded website.
Shame ! Late thirties - I feel privileged to have grown up in the 90's when everybody(companies) were still not sure what to make of "the internet" and Microsoft were the ones using dirty tactics and OpenSource+Linux was enemy #1 !
Oh well - I need to go update my "ipchains" arg I mean "iptables" :D
That's my first reaction when thinking about this, but given their current approach to stuff like tracking and telemetry, and that they try to compete in the same space as Google and Apple I feel like Microsoft behaves like it wants to be in the Google & Apple position but they don't know how.
Kind of scummy for Apple not to hold themselves to their standards, but then again I expect no less from them. The exemptions in the Play Store rules say they can, so there's not much anyone can do to stop this.
However, Apple may very well shoot themselves in the foot here. They just showed that they do not believe their own marketing speak about it being fair to pay an additional fee to keep app stores running and other such arguments.
People have lot of opinions about apple but looking at ground reality of the situation, Within Apple, there must be a small team which is taking all the decisions for this product and they realized that they need to do CC integration for improving profits.
Should we hold the whole company for this? Yes, of course. Real question should be how can a company which is as big as Apple can make sure their standards are propagated across all teams.
I'm not trying to defend apple here but it is a real problem I see in lot of big companies.
Totally agree. There are company policies which are enforced across teams like trust, safety privacy either via process or reviews. I haven't seen any large tech companies having policies/safeguards on how the revenue is made. In the end it's all about making money.
It’s pretty ironic that apple just removed fortnite for for doing this same thing.
Shouldn’t this mean that google pulls Apple Music from the play store now?
Google actually allows this deal. Netflix, Amazon, I think even Tinder do it.
I didn't post to show Apple is breaking rules. I wanted to show they were 'freeloading', the same thing they are accusing Spotify and Epic of . They aren't worried about 'user experience, security and convenience' here.
Google has a problem with games like Fortnite and PUBG, because then they would lose too much. Kids spend millions on Fortnite.
A) the same information has been already posted in many comments on this thread. No need to shill like this.
B) that's not even the point. It's not about the rules but about Apple's hypocrisy, since in this case they don't care about all the values they used as excuse to prevent other devs from doing on the app store what Apple is doing on the play store.
Apple is obligated to maximize shareholders value. Google is a competitor as well. If apple did anything otherwise, it would cause shareholders losses. Its a publicly traded company. This is capitalism, not Apple.
That a company is obligated to do absolutely anything that will increase revenue is a position often advanced on the internet and never supported.
You cannot have a bonfire and literally burn the companies wealth in your backyard. One may in fact weigh the tangible and non tangible benefits of different courses of actions and make an intelligent decision.
>Third, corporate directors are not required to maximize shareholder value. As the U.S. Supreme Court recently stated, "modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so." ( BURWELL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC. ) In nearly all legal jurisdictions, disinterested and informed directors have the discretion to act in what they believe to be the interest of the business corporate entity, even if this differs from maximizing profits for present shareholders. Usually maximizing shareholder value is not a legal obligation, but the product of the pressure that activist shareholders, stock-based compensation schemes and financial markets impose on corporate directors.
> If apple did anything otherwise, it would cause shareholders losses.
Actually, by doing this, they could be gaining some revenue, while at the same time destroying their case for solidifying their own 30% cut. By losing that 30% cut, lose 100x the revenue and causing shareholders losses. So while "capitalism" may be eventually maximizing shareholder value, it doesn't happen by chasing local optima.
