
Apple cuts off Wordpress app to get a cut of domain sales - vaidhy
https://www.reviewgeek.com/51511/apple-cut-off-wordpress-app-updates-because-it-wants-a-cut-of-domain-sales/
======
dariosalvi78
I come from Italy. We call this mafia.

------
Yetanfou
By now it should be clear that Apple intends to milk its ecosystem for what is
is worth. It is also clear that there are plenty of people who seem to be fine
with it - viz. remarks like "I'd pay $2000 for an iPhone to feel safe" as
someone wrote here yesterday and even some of the comments in this short
thread like "As a consumer I’m on apple’s side which is not all about top
slicing cash". While I do not like Apple and its practices I think they should
be free to sell to the faithful at the price the faithful are willing to pay.
Those who do not like these practices should withdraw their products from the
walled garden and concentrate the (much larger) market outside of Apple. Once
enough products and with that users start disappearing from the walled garden
Apple might change its stance.

~~~
Just1689
Another possible way for businesses to deal with this is to allow purchasing
on the store but with the apple tax added onto the actual price and notify
users that it's cheaper online or show the apple tax as a line item.

~~~
Yetanfou
This suggestion has come up several times recently but it seems to be
explicitly disallowed by Apple to charge higher rates while alluding to an
Apple tax.

------
Tepix
Quote from the other thread: " _If I tap on “Plans”, the app opens Safari and
shows the plans._ "

This isn't allowed according to Apple policy.

I think it's ridiculous, but it's consistent.

~~~
polotics
Wow so just linking from the app to the internet where something is for sale
is not allowed without a cut? If I use the app know as Chrome on iOS and I
click on a link to a page on amazon.com where I purchase a chair, by that
logic does Apple also want a 30% cut on the price of the chair?

------
durmonski
Apperently, Apple wants a cut from everything in their store.

~~~
polotics
Well in the present case, it's more they want a cut from everything
everywhere.

------
kasperni
Tim "The Taxman" Cook.

------
dang
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24238229](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24238229)

------
tlarkworthy
This seems too extreme to be real.

------
Simulacra
This is getting out of hand.

------
m0xte
This is all about perspective and how you write your headlines.

As a consumer I’m on apple’s side which is not all about top slicing cash. I
want one place to manage my subscriptions rather than having to sign into 50
different accounts with different cancellation and billing policies. Some of
them even make it difficult to understand on purpose.

The main objectors to all of this are businesses who want to set their own
policies and rates. I suspect that the rate is less of an issue considering
Apple’s infrastructure taking a lot of cost away but it is being used to
leverage policies which might not be good for the consumer.

~~~
dariosalvi78
This is called extortion and those fanboys who blindly and uncrtically support
everything this company is doing are just making things worse.

~~~
m0xte
I’m not a fanboy. But I know the other side of the coin and it’s even more of
a shit show. If there isn’t standardisation it turns to a race to the bottom
where predatory tactics such as perpetual micro transactions and auto renewing
difficult to cancel subscriptions reign.

~~~
AsyncAwait
What's preventing Apple from having a locked-down default and you having to
tick a checkbox with a clear warning to side-step the App Store? That doesn't
really compromise security, especially considering malware was being hosted by
Apple on the AppStore itself in the past.

~~~
m0xte
The first thing everyone does is check the box and the next thing you’ve got
is android which is a complete privacy and security shit show to the point I
know and work for organisations that have banned it.

~~~
AsyncAwait
> The first thing everyone does is check the box

If that is the first thing everyone does, it is clearly a desirable feature.
Yet I don't know anyone who is not "in tech" with an Android device that has
the box checked.

Android is a privacy and security nightmare because neither Google, nor the
OEMs really care. They do not provide timely updates for the majority of
devices, do only a lax automated check on the Play Store, the hardware
components are not vertically integrated etc.

This has nothing to do with the ability to sideload apps with an obscure
checkbox. The problems are architectural and cultural. In fact, I'd wager that
F-Droid, (a 3rd party store), is safer than the Play Store.

