
Quit whining about Apple and just stop using them - Rudism
https://rudism.com/quit-whining-about-apple-and-just-stop-using-them/
======
CydeWeys
"Whining" is an overly prejudicial word choice for this title. These are
legitimate issues people have with what Apple is doing, not mere whining.

This echoes the "if you don't like it so much then just leave instead of
speaking up" dismissal that is so commonly used as a lampshade for suppressing
dissent. Not sure if that's the intent here but that's what it comes off as.

And this point from the article needs to be strongly rebutted:

> I don’t know, it seems silly to me to cry about monopolies. The solution is
> obvious. Stop making apps for iOS. Sure, you’re going to take a huge hit
> without access to those consumers [...]

This guy doesn't understand what monopolies are and how they work. The whole
point is that there are no other alternatives, so you literally cannot "just
stop using them". "Just stop patronizing the monopoly" is not a strategy that
has ever been successful. The monopoly needs to be _broken up_.

~~~
codemac
Apple is not a monopoly! They have a majority (not monopoly) on a very
specific US-based market. They aren't the only US market, and they are a small
international market.

Apple isn't even the #1 handset manufacturer (they are #3 or #4 depending on
who you ask), and far and away isn't the #1 laptop manufacturer.

The attitude that it is a monopoly is exactly the disconnect between this
article and your comment. The article thinks your market will just move
without different revenue models. That is difficult, it's probably better to
find a different market and revenue model.

Your comment is saying that it's worth trying to get Apple to change. That is
difficult, near impossible, where they have no incentive to change unless you
threaten change yourself with a different market/revenue model.

It seems like your hand is forced - you must do both. You must have a
compelling market outside of Apple somehow, and you must petition Apple to
change so you can keep access to their market.

I have strong feelings about Apple & Google making "markets" that are not
fair/regulated the way I would like - but this idea that it's a monopoly to be
"broken up" is not representative of reality.

~~~
YayamiOmate
Their app store is on their devices. They forbid any other similar service.

So they creted a platforn and enforce service. Thats creating playground,
rules and playing the game.

Remember microsoft was subjected to antitrust regulations for providing web
browser with the os. This was considered unfair practice. Forcing people to
give up 30 of revenue goes much much further.

By giving customers no choice, it's limiting hardware capabilities of your
device.

~~~
willyt
But 95% of computers sold ran windows then. 10% of computers run MacOS now and
maybe 20% of phones. Just buy a different computer, or don't... Or if you are
a developer, make software for Windows or Android instead.

~~~
LordDragonfang
>maybe 20% of phones

Sure, if you're just counting units sold. But by total app store revenue, _the
metric that actually matters_ , they account for well over two thirds of the
market.

~~~
Terretta
because people care about the ecosystem and that has real monetary value to
all three (consumer, seller, marketplace)

------
hkarthik
If you don’t like how Apple does business, stop using their products.

If you don’t like how Google does business, stop using their products.

If you don’t like how either one does business, stop using technology all
together.

I am being facetious, but mainly to illustrate the point that we now have a
series of entrenched monopolies in the tech world so “stop using X” isn’t a
realistic solution.

~~~
alkonaut
That’s a very cumbersome a way of getting what I want. It’s much better and
easier if e.g the EU simply makes Apple do the right thing by force. The
market doesn’t solve this kind of problem.

~~~
koheripbal
We already have anti-trust regulations that are supposed to stop these sorts
of anti-competitive behaviors.

A company is not allowed to use its position as a "market" to ALSO give an
unfair advantage to its own products - or to shut out competitors without
reasonable cause.

...but these laws aren't being enforced. It's funny to remember Microsoft
being forced to de-couple Internet Explorer from Windows, and yet the idea of
de-coupling the app Store from IOS or the Play store from Android does not
seem to occur to regulators.

I have a conspiracy theory that they _like_ that American companies have this
market strangle-hold and are unwilling to give market share to EU or Chinese
competitors. Imagine all the data collect lost!

~~~
dgb23
In theory there is already an open technology which is decoupled from these
platforms: the browser. Job’s vision was exactly that.

Now we’re still(!) in a place where standards are being fought by the likes if
Apple, because they have an incentive to weaken open standards in favor of
their closed platforms.

This is a grotesque strategy that needs to stop.

------
jcstauffer
Unpopular opinion: the 30% that Apple charges includes customer acquisition
cost.

As a thought experiment, if Hey adds In-App Purchase for subscriptions, but
everyone who downloads the app has first signed up for their service due to
their marketing methods (an increasing likelihood considering this
controversy), then nobody will use the In App Purchase, and Hey will send
$0.00 to Apple.

If someone discovers the App in the App Store due to an organic search for
Email clients, then they are likely to sign up via In App Purchase, and Hey
pays Apple an affiliate fee of 30% of first year revenue, and 15% of lifetime
revenue after that. This is a customer that Hey would not have had if not for
the App Store, so getting 75-80% of lifetime value seems better than not
acquiring the customer in the first place.

I realize it's not entirely as clean as that, but cast in that way, the
amounts seem merely expensive, and not egregious.

(not to defend any of Apple's behavior - particularly the most recent letter
sent).

~~~
ryanar
Hey is arguing that they want the choice to unlist from the app store entirely
so their client would never surface in organic search results, and have no IAP
link. That way the only audience they gain are from people they themselves
marketed to and purchased a subscription on the web.

But it's unfair to Apple! They get 0.00 for this!

Bullshit.

Every Apple customer who wants to use HEY gets a great mobile experience to
encourage them to keep buying Apple products. If enough services like Dropbox,
Netflix, Spotify, were not available on iPhone, the consumer might purchase
the Android phone on their next upgrade, or the company might switch their
fleet to Android devices that actually support their business software.

Basecamp / Hey is providing value to Apple's products by enriching their
ecosystem. They should have the choice if they want to pay a 30% cut for
organic search traffic in Apple's App Store.

~~~
usaphp
> Basecamp / Hey is providing value to Apple's products by enriching their
> ecosystem

Apple is providing value to Basecamp/Hey by providing a smartphone and an
operating system that can run Hey app. "Hey" can simply remove the app from
App store and provide a web based version if they don't want to pay for
convenience of iOS and iPhone.

~~~
parthdesai
They would, but it's a shame that that everyone is forced to use webkit on iOS
and for some reason is refusing to implement push notification API need to
make PWA's. I wonder what that reason could be.

------
cmsj
> The solution is obvious. Stop making apps for iOS. Sure, you’re going to
> take a huge hit without access to those consumers

The solution is obvious. Sabotage your own business. Sure, you're going to go
out of business without any customers.

~~~
zepto
But that’s the whole point of having principles. It costs something to uphold
them, which you deem worthwhile to pay.

There are plenty of other ways to make money in software without needing to do
business with companies you deem unethical.

~~~
starbugs
What serious business, be it B2C or B2B, in today's software world, doesn't
require a mobile app on either iOS and Android or a desktop app on
Chrome/Windows/macOS?

~~~
zepto
Are you saying all three of Microsoft, Google, and Apple are unethical?

~~~
viklove
Unequivocally yes, MS, Google, and Apple are all deeply unethical. This is
proven in their business practices as well as their manufacturing practices.
The problem is we live in a society that values money over all else, including
human suffering and fair access to markets.

~~~
jpttsn
It must be even easier to stop working with these unethical companies if you
don’t value money that much.

------
BMorearty
Disclaimer: I only read the subject line and the first paragraph.

Years ago, when Internet Explorer had market dominance, I was working on a
website and I wanted to use a feature that IE didn’t support yet. I asked a
question on a forum about how to do it in IE. One of the replies was "just
stop using IE."

Dude. It's not for me. It's for my customers.

~~~
ntsplnkv2
Are we really comparing these two?

Apple has nowhere near market dominance, in fact, they are currently in second
place. IE had a much larger control of the market.

~~~
learc83
If your market segment is customers who are willing to pay for a high end
email service, Apple's share of that customer segment is probably much greater
than 50%. Large enough that not offering an iOS app will cripple your
business.

~~~
ntsplnkv2
Sounds like a bad business model to me.

That market segment exists because of the walled garden - remove it, and it no
longer exists.

~~~
learc83
That makes no sense. Apple didn't create the market segment, but because those
people choose to use iPhone, you can't sell them an email service that doesn't
work on iPhone.

If 80% of people making more than $100k a year use iPhones and Apple
disappeared, the market segment of people making more than $100k a year
wouldn't disappear.

~~~
ntsplnkv2
> That makes no sense. Apple didn't create the market segment, but because
> those people choose to use iPhone, you can't sell them an email service that
> doesn't work on iPhone.

Make the email service work on iPhone. There are more than 2,000,000 apps in
the App Store. There's no reason to think they're being unfair with that many
in there. If you can't make an app and follow the rules there, tough luck.
It's not fair to the developers that don't make shovelware otherwise.

> If 80% of people making more than $100k a year use iPhones and Apple
> disappeared, the market segment of people making more than $100k a year
> wouldn't disappear.

Someone would step in and provide another walled garden with the same effect -
because the consumer will want a better experience. Apple offers that
experience. And if that means Shovelware 2.0 doesn't make it, well, let's be
honest. It wasn't all that revolutionary.

In any case, crap apps would flood the market - consumers would get worse
experiences, and be less likely to buy apps. Free apps will decimate quality
applications. And you'll get the playstore or android, a malware infested UI
nightmare.

Apple is the "big bad" now, make a crappy app that doesn't follow easy rules,
it's Apple's fault. Yea, not buying it. 2,000,000 made it. It's not that
restrictive.

~~~
learc83
>It's not fair to the developers that don't make shovelware otherwise

>In any case, crap apps would flood the market - consumers would get worse
experiences, and be less likely to buy apps. Free apps will decimate quality
applications. And you'll get the playstore or android, a malware infested UI
nightmare.

How would apple lowering their feeds, allowing a competing app store, allowing
sideloaded apps, or allowing apps to have subscriptions outside of apple pay
make it easier for crappy apps to make it to the app store?

If there's a competing app store and it's so permissive that it turns into low
quality nightmare, then customers will keep using the apple app store. I don't
understand how you're getting from A to B.

~~~
ntsplnkv2
> How would apple lowering their feeds, allowing a competing app store,
> allowing sideloaded apps, or allowing apps to have subscriptions outside of
> apple pay make it easier for crappy apps to make it to the app store?

Apple is a company that is fully dedicated to product.

Lower fees = lower barrier to entry = crapware, this impacts the product.
Sideloaded apps are a dangerous vector for malware
([https://cybersecuritymag.com/sideloading-
malware/](https://cybersecuritymag.com/sideloading-malware/)), this impacts
the product. It's not right to offer an app that doesn't allow subscriptions
through the app store, this impacts the product.

The fact is we have a case study in what a non-walled garden looks like, the
dumpster fire that is Android, with wildly differing levels of quality,
confusing applications from different vendors, a terrible play store
experience, etc. It's quite clear how we get to B.

Allowing a competing app store is implicitly supporting that app store -
meaning if it bricks your phone, or installs malware, it hurts the user
experience of Apple, and the product.

> If there's a competing app store and it's so permissive that it turns into
> low quality nightmare, then customers will keep using the apple app store. I
> don't understand how you're getting from A to B.

So back at square one, you see the problem? People WANT curated app stores.
They want ONE app store to buy their apps. They don't want to download 10 app
stores for 10 different apps. This ruins the product. A, meet B.

The App Store is as much a product as the iPhone. It's a product for
developers to quickly, easily, and safely reach consumers to make more money.
If you don't like the product as a developer, it's too expensive, or you don't
like the agreement, create a web app. Safari can open it just fine. Or release
only on Android, it has a huge market.

The fact is, we should not be punishing business unless there is a malpractice
by the business that can't be remedied by the market - this is clearly not the
case here. It is developer sour grapes because his overpriced mail app tried
to cheat the system.

~~~
learc83
>Lower fees = lower barrier to entry = crapware

Up front fees sure. But how exactly does charging 10% instead of 30% of sales,
encourage lower quality software? Where is the cutoff for this? Why 30%? Would
50% encourage even higher quality software?

>It's not right to offer an app that doesn't allow subscriptions through the
app store, this impacts the product.

It's not right? As in it is morally wrong?

>So back at square one, you see the problem? People WANT curated app stores.
They want ONE app store to buy their apps. They don't want to download 10 app
stores for 10 different apps.

They can keep buying their apps on 1 curated app store. If the other app
stores were so inferior and full of crap, no one would use them, so people
such as your self could keep selling apps on the "good" app store. It's a self
limiting problem.

------
jhloa2
"I know that the devices are pretty and feel nice and maybe your friends all
have one and you want to signal that you’re one of the crowd, but it’s not
worth it."

That's quite an over simplification of the appeal of an iPhone and comes off
as him whining about whiners. I'd like to switch back to a flip phone from a
privacy perspective, but there's a few conveniences that would be hard to go
without. I refuse to buy any more Android phones as I've only had issue after
issue with software and hardware, and Apple seems like the lesser of two
evils.

It feels like we're stuck in an American political party system where our only
reasonable options are to choose between two companies that only have their
own best interests in mind.

~~~
denni9th
The issue is app stores. Most app developers/companies won't deploy to any
stores other than Google's and Apple's, so when it comes to choosing a device
that can run most apps its IPhone or Android.

A solution here is to introduce a standard mobile app format, with standard
APIs to interact with the OS. Then app developers write one app that can run
on any supported device. But good luck getting the duopoly to agree to that.

~~~
thephyber
> A solution here is to introduce a standard mobile app format, with standard
> APIs to interact with the OS.

I would argue that's exactly what Android is. It's a mobile OS with a mobile
app ecosystem of APIs.

But the fact that no government forced all smartphones to use it means it
didn't and likely won't happen. Also, governments don't seem to move at the
speed of iOS/Android features, so taking that hypothetical path would have
likely meant all mobile phone features slowed a lot.

> The issue is app stores.

Another solution is for governments to enforce reasonable access to all mobile
app companies and to make sure the purchases and data are portable to all
similar devices (say all smartphones or all game consoles). It's not that hard
to make the coupling of the app binary to the device tight but the license to
use the software portable.

------
Despegar
I mean lets be honest. Developers actually like the iPhone as a development
platform. They like how much money they make from it. They like the products
themselves. They just don't want to pay the Apple commission or be restricted
in any way by their rules.

Unfortunately those things are tied at the hip. The very rules and product
decisions about the platform is what made it the popular and lucrative market
it is in the first place.

------
Androider
If you make something like say, oh an email client, excluding the 1.5 BILLION
people on the iOS platform is not just a handicap, it makes your entire
business non-viable. So now Apple is the gatekeeper of new businesses and
services. Fortune 500's and small one man shops alike have been terrified to
speak up against Apple, because Apple has the ability to deliver a death-
sentence by kicking you out of their store on a whim or simply because an app
reviewer takes a personal interest in you.

I think what the Basecamp folks want is entirely reasonable, and Apple's
behavior is entirely anti-competitive: Basecamp doesn't care to be in the app
store, nor do they want to benefit from the app store discovery and other
services for free. What they want is the OPTION to have a link on their web
page, that when clicked, prompts the user to install the
notarized/signed/whatever application. Basically you'd just have the "double
click the power button twice to install" card pop-up immediately, bypassing
the entire store. Do that, and Apple can charge whatever they want in the
store. Suggestions that this somehow subverts the quality of the platform or
the experience is entirely bullshit, Basecamp pays their developer fees and
notarizes their apps on Mac, there's zero reason this wouldn't work on iOS
except Apple's greed and anti-competitive behavior, and let's not forget that
sweet, sweet 30% cut of every single business and service under the sun.

~~~
ntsplnkv2
This is simply not true. There are more on the android platform, and therefore
enough for viability.

The reality is people want all the benefits of the iOS world without paying
anything for it.

~~~
learc83
>There are more on the android platform, and therefore enough for viability.

Is that true for customers who are interested in a high end email service that
costs $100 a year? I'd wager that the vast majority of people in that segment
are on iPhones.

~~~
ntsplnkv2
Honestly, I don't think that segment really exists. The ones that would search
that out will just as likely be on android as iPhone.

If 33% of such an app is enough to cause this much angst, it makes me think it
just isn't that popular.

~~~
learc83
>Honestly, I don't think that segment really exists. The ones that would
search that out will just as likely be on android as iPhone.

Why. The type of people who want a curated mail experience might just happen
to be the type of people who like the curated iPhone experience.

>If 33% of such an app is enough to cause this much angst, it makes me think
it just isn't that popular.

Why 33%? If you're right and they're just as likely to seek out android it's
going to be 50%. If I'm right it's going to be much higher than that. Where
are you getting 33% from?

~~~
ntsplnkv2
> Why. The type of people who want a curated mail experience might just happen
> to be the type of people who like the curated iPhone experience.

Even if this were true (doubtful), that doesn't mean there is a segment. A
handful may like this application. I can't imagine the market for a
ridiculously expensive email client that isn't functional is large. In fact,
it's so small, that it can't take the shock of paying 15-30% fee for the
advertisement, easy transfer to customer, easy place for reviews, and updates,
in other words, a platform with access to a large array of consumers willing
to spend for good software.

What's more likely is this - the app is struggling to make money, they cheated
the rules and they know it, so why not turn it into a marketing campaign.
Apple the big bad (meanwhile the company cheated the system, while developers
who followed the rules get screwed).

> Why 33%? If you're right and they're just as likely to seek out android it's
> going to be 50%. If I'm right it's going to be much higher than that. Where
> are you getting 33% from?

I'm not sure what you're talking about, could you be more clear? 33% really
means the 15-30% of revenue that apple takes. I just rounded up to about a
third.

The fact is the App Store wall entry fee is fair. It's not exorbitant. If you
don't like it make a web app. There are too many remedies for this, and there
are far bigger fish to fry in anti-trust than this.

~~~
learc83
>The type of people who want a curated mail experience might just happen to be
the type of people who like the curated iPhone experience.

>Even if this were true (doubtful), that doesn't mean there is a segment.

If you're assuming my scenario is true, then yes it does mean there is a
segment. That's what assuming my scenario is true means in this case.

> Apple the big bad (meanwhile the company cheated the system, while
> developers who followed the rules get screwed).

If, for example, Apple decides to reduce their fees to 10% going forward are
all the developers who've paid 30% in the past screwed? If so you have an odd
definition of screwed.

>I'm not sure what you're talking about, could you be more clear? 33% really
means the 15-30% of revenue that apple takes. I just rounded up to about a
third.

I thought you were responding to this > I'd wager that the vast majority of
people in that segment are on iPhones.

And that 33% was the percentage of customers on iPhones.

>The fact is the App Store wall entry fee is fair. It's not exorbitant.

I and many other people think that 30% is exorbitant.

>There are too many remedies for this, and there are far bigger fish to fry in
anti-trust than this.

Sure, there are always bigger fish to fry. But it's not an either or
situation.

------
hirundo
I can't stop. I've been buying computers and peripherals and gizmos since
1974. I have a house full of them. I code for food. But I've yet to buy my
first Apple product or service. Yes, it's mostly because I'm cheap. But it's
also because I avoid walled gardens. I feel pretty good about that now. Climb
on out, y'all, the weather's fine out here in the jungle.

~~~
fermienrico
Am I the only one who loves Apple products?

I love MacOS. I love iOS. I love all things Apple. Customer service is totally
top notch. Physical quality is excellent, of course I have my wishes and pet
peeves (don’t like cold aluminum, stupid touchbar, keyboard!).

I’m willing to pay even double the cost of other cheaply made products from
Asus, Acer, Samsung, etc.

Not to mention the whole ecosystem thing and I trust Apple with my data - more
than Google and I can’t even think about Microsoft (windows is a billboard of
ads). If China had a competitor to Apple for OS/hardware (not talking about
Foxconn, that’s a ODM), they would need to literally convert to democracy
before they can even get in the playing field. They’re not even in the same
league, not even the same sport right now.

Initially, I was apathetic. Then I liked Apple products. Then I started loving
them. They’re arrogant, they care about you, they made mistakes, they charge a
lot of premium - I love them. They must have done something right to win me?

~~~
RandomBacon
I used to love Apple products when I was a kid.

This is Apple's 1984 commercial:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtvjbmoDx-I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtvjbmoDx-I)

They aren't the same company anymore. They started making fun of people that
used other products. They started to say you can only use use Apple products
this way. They started to say, "you're holding it wrong". They started to just
pretend to be user-friendly and stopped actually being user-friendly.

~~~
fermienrico
> They aren't the same company anymore. They started making fun of people that
> used other products. They started to say you can only use use Apple products
> this way. They started to say, "you're holding it wrong". They started to
> just pretend to be user-friendly and stopped actually being user-friendly.

Any examples? I think they're pretty user friendly in many ways. As I said,
they are arrogant but I am fine with that. May be you're not, to each their
own. I don't like their repairability stance and some of the shit they do to
screw the consumer over. But, I can put up with that because they just replace
my whole laptop or whatever device. I took the magic keyboard (standalone one)
after 3 years and clearly out of warranty, and they just gave me a new one
because 1 key was stuck. IMO more positive experiences than negative.

~~~
RandomBacon
I'm a PC ads

Can't customize iOS without jailbreaking it

Antennagate

~~~
fermienrico
This is a weak set of arguments, no offense. I am a PC ads was almost 13 years
ago. Antennagate? Samsung Galaxy Note 7? Apple also messed up their whole
keyboard fiasco, but they did replace my macbook pro chassis free of cost
outside of warranty. So did Samsung with their battery fiasco. Jailbreaking is
done by literally impossible to see slice of the consumer base. Apple is not
going to give up their T2 security and enclave and all the privacy aspects to
open up their software to public hacking. This would go against the FBI case
with Apple, remember?

~~~
RandomBacon
> Any examples?

I answered your question, I'm sorry they don't meet your standards.

Speaking of anecdotes: Apple didn't fix or replace my iPhone that was under
warranty.

And why are you changing the subject to hacking?

------
pphysch
This debacle is peak popcorn. "HN Darling Reinvents Email Except Really
Expensive Without SMTP Support And Asserts That Apple Is Being A Meanie For
Enforcing Their Revenue Model"

Yet no one is going to divest from Apple because profit/weird consumer
ideology.

Also not precluding the possibility that it's all (or mostly) a big marketing
act from what is clearly a marketing-first product (Hey).

~~~
bzb3
Wow, Hey doesn't have SMTP support? That's ridiculous.

~~~
freehunter
Well, Hey isn't trying to be yet another email service. The idea is that SMTP
does not support the kind of messaging that Hey is built around.

------
unreal37
"It seems silly to me to cry about monopolies."

Oh, wait. So let's go back in time. When Microsoft was sued and forced to
allow other browsers onto Windows. IE was the default and was free.

Microsoft forced OEMs to pay for Windows for every computer they made, whether
or not they installed Windows on it. Effectively killing out other operating
systems.

If you don't believe in monopolies... if the solution was "stop buying
computers that come pre-installed with Windows"...

Or is it that you don't believe Apple is a monopoly but you're still happy
Microsoft was forced to allow other browsers to be the default in Windows?

------
kilo_bravo_3
Nooooo!!!!

I am sustained by Apple hatred. It is an essential part of my balanced diet.

Every time someone complains about how expensive Apple is I grow a centimeter
and every time someone bitches about their App Store policies I gain a month
of lifespan.

I am now 40km tall and will live for 50,000 years but ultimately a lack of
whining about Apple would see me wither away and die.

~~~
ta23576025
This is such a funny comment in a thread with so much divisiveness.

Apple's position sucks for those who rely on their customers (and yes, it is
THEIR customers) for a living. No matter how much we complain, they developed
their ecosystem.

------
mstolpm
In my opinion, developers do have the right to articulate critics - be it
towards Apple or any other gatekeeper. Just stopping to use/develop for a
platform isn't enough.

However, I feel the discussion often misses a central point when it is focused
on "developers" against "Apple" (or be it Google): the interest of the
customer.

Of course, a developer wants to maximize return, as wants Apple. But what
about the users? As a user, I love discounts on iTunes gift cards. I love
Apple handling subscriptions instead of a developer I don't know. I choose iOS
because of the perceived better support and lifetime value (and perhaps even
the feel of some security and privacy, but of course, one can argue about
that). And I even like the editorial content of the AppStore, which is some
form of marketing but also a form of recommendation.

As a customer, the AppStore is much more than a simple storefront, some
sometimes wonky review processing and some servers and payment processing: it
is a 360-degree-experience. Sometimes, as a customer I'm frustrated by the
AppStore as well, but I would not buy my apps at a developers site. I even buy
Mac Apps in the AppStore if I can, for similar reasons.

As a developer, I sometimes hate myself for not giving other developers more
than 60 or 70 percent of the share. But on the other hand, I remember the old
days when software was sold on CDROMs and was only available at Frys and other
large electronics/computer shops. Getting your software listed there cost much
much more than 30 percent ... and you had to prepay all these expenses as the
developer/publisher.

~~~
jonny_eh
Should Apple ban non App Store apps from Macs too? Doesn't your argument
extend to computers? Why would phones or tablets be different.

~~~
jpttsn
I hope they don’t, but if they did I would either accept it, circumvent it
(jailbreak) or stop using Macs. It’s their choice and I’m entirely informed.

~~~
jonny_eh
> or stop using Macs

I would too, but I'd be upset because I like Macs. I also like iPhones.

------
jonny_eh
> The Solution for Consumers

> Stop buying iPhones

There's the problem with this argument. Consumers are suffering, but don't
realize it. The lack of competition, and the increased cost to developers, are
depriving consumers of innovative products like Hey, but they don't know it.
You can't expect consumer to know when they buy a phone, that it will cause a
future company to fail to launch an innovative new product. It's this very
reason why we have anti-trust laws.

~~~
nemothekid
Please. You can argue it's bad for developers, but saying it's bad for
consumers is unsubstantiated and just an appeal to emotion. Whether or nor
other not the cut is fair, Apple has done an amazing job running the app store
- as well as the broader platform in delivering a platform used by millions
that is both free from malware and spyware.

~~~
jonny_eh
> Apple has done an amazing job running the app store

It can be true that they've run a great app store, but also true that some
aspects of it are bad for developers and consumers.

------
buo
As an alternative solution that doesn't depend on defining what a monopoly is,
or how to boycott a large brand, how about forcing companies to apply the same
terms to everybody?

I think at least part of the core of the problem is that Apple applies their
subscription requirements differently depending on who owns the app. That is
what I think needs to stop. If Yo has to do it one way, then Google,
Microsoft, Netflix and Spotify should have to do it the same way too.

------
mperham
This strikes me as one step removed from that meme: "I see you complain about
modern farming practices and yet still eat. Interesting..."

------
lazyjones
> _Stop buying iPhones. Seriously. They’re overpriced and locked-down and
> controlled by Apple in infuriating ways that hurt you, even if Apple has
> succeeded in keeping you ignorant of that fact._

I'll take your word for it... not! iPhones are fine, everyone who has used
both current Android and iOS devices can see that. It's not hurting me that
"Hey" has to pay 30% for their subscriptions. Hotels, restaurants and other
companies have to pay similar rates to their respective dominating
"gatekeepers" as well. For the consumer it doesn't matter. For someone like
"Hey" the way to go is to pay up now and if they are successful, they might be
able to negotiate better terms later.

------
flaxton
I love it when someone tries to tell me what _I_ should like or do. I don’t
care if you like Apple or not. I happen to like them, not everything of
course, but overall yes. And you’re advocating limiting their success? They,
like all of us, can succeed or fail in America. They are successful because
people like their products and software. Duh. Jealousy does not suit you very
well. Don’t get me wrong, I like Android and Linux too, I’m an expert on Linux
myself. But there’s a reason I use an iPhone, iPad Pro and MacBook Pro. It’s
called convenience and productivity. And I like it!

Who basically invented the App Store? And now you don’t like that they make
money on it?

Your whole article just strikes me as sour grapes.

------
noisy_boy
I have seen mainly three groups of people who continue to use Apple products.
Those who want their phones, computers etc to just work together and don't
want to spend time on this. Then there are those who want to get out of the
walled garden but there is too much lock-in to bother spending time on it
because they have other things to do. And finally those who think Apple
products are aspirational/status symbol.

So when it comes to switching from Apple, the first group doesn't need to, the
second can't afford to and the third doesn't want to. Nothing much we can do
about it.

------
nisten
30% is extemely steep and I think if it was 15% hardly anyone would complain.

This is just my opinion, but a 30% tax is there because they provide something
that the competition doesn't. And that is automated security updates by
default for at least 5 years and user friendly app permission management where
I really can trust my settings to provide me privacy by default.

You will not get that from Google, they barely support their own devices for
more than 3 years, I still have no idea if advertisers are allowed to read my
gmail or not.

I remember recently a friend getting an old ipad mini with a nice screen but
poor cpu specs, 1gb ram. And guess what, it ran fine, it's getting security
and feature updates the same day as every other apple device. TouchID worked,
everything actually just worked I can trust that thing my bank account.

And recently I found my old Nexus 7 with amazing specs, quad core , 4gb ram,
1920:1200 screen and now I have to do bootloader & operating system surgery
just to get the thing to work.

Everytime I've heard of someone get their bank account hacked it usually has
started with a text sent to an out of date android phone. For that reason
alone I can't recommend a non-technical person to use android unless they
understand security or it's on a brand new Pixel device.

If I'm building and deploying software and I want to have the piece of mind
that all my users are running it on a secure platform that at least tries to
respect their privacy my best choice is an iOS device and for that Apple wants
a 3rd of my revenue.

------
nvr219
My job is to fix other people's technology / computer problems. When I'm not
working I want to use a smartphone that does what I need, behaves as expected
every time, and respects my privacy concerns. I want to spend as little time
as possible configuring, fixing, or troubleshooting my phone.

The iPhone is the closest thing to what I want. It's not 100% but it's better
than any other smartphone I've come across at that price point ($400 for
iPhone SE).

------
hinkley
I am a long-time Apple customer, but my first reaction to this title was,
"well I've never used cigarettes, does that mean I can't 'whine' about them?"

There is, to an extent, 'second hand smoke' in any industry with a dominant
player who doesn't agree with your sense of ethics. The App Store and its
imitators have changed the landscape of software that is available to you and
I.

I didn't run to OS X so much as I ran away from the chaos and aggravation of
custom drivers and kernel compiles for Linux laptops (compiling on a
subnotebook is quite painful), and doing tech support for friends & family, so
the pickiness of the App Store solves a huge pain point that I am willing to
_compromise_ on other things to get. That it's a compromise means that the
dissenters have a point, it's just not enough for me.

When you are trying to keep conceptual coherence in a thing, you have to
reject a lot of ideas that would be really cool to do. It doesn't mean people
aren't entitled to grieve, and it doesn't mean that you will always pick the
correct winners ("why did my idea get rejected but your stupid ideas 1, 2, and
3 were included?"), and in some cases the bigger person would encourage
someone to 'spin off' that idea. If the market of ideas gets too constrained
then it's bad for everyone.

I suppose you could say that I want them to win, but only as long as that
doesn't mean that everybody else has to lose. Like Chrome beating Microsoft
without taking out Firefox (whups). We are not very good as consumers at
ensuring that.

------
specialist
What's the monopolistic case against Apple? Is Apple anticompetitive?

Here's my grievances, but I don't know if any aspects are actually
monopolistic.

Are they competing against their own partners? Their stock apps have remained
vanilla enough that there seems to be enough oxygen for alternatives for
premium and power users.

They've definitely done monopsony. Business strategy wise, they've been wicked
clever. It's always made me uncomfortable. And I'm pretty grumpy their control
of the supply chain doesn't permit third party repairs. I get that they're
pulling out all the stops combatting counterfeiters and fraud, which is easily
pro-consumer, but there's got to be a balance.

I've always felt their 30% cut from App Store is excessive, unfair. But I
don't know what a reasonable cut would be. Cost of doing business plus
reasonable margin?

Pay to play schemes, like search ads and paid placement, are complete
bullshit. Aka payola. But is that monopolistic?

All the "marketplaces" need the rule of law. Transparency, accountability,
fair and impartial courts, appeals processes. This applies to apps, content,
personas. No one entity can be allowed be legislator, police, judge, jury, and
executioner. This is the biggest apparent conflict of interest, anti-
competitive, anti-consumer, anti-democratic behavior of all these
"marketplace" hosts, Apple included.

I'm still pissed off about the wage fixing. Sharing the bounty more fairly,
broadly would diffuse a lot of the festering resentment.

------
yingw787
I really like the iPhone. Maybe not the full Apple ecosystem so much
(everything else I own is Linux), but that's only because I think Linux is the
best fit for me. iPhone is the same way, and Apple's business practices don't
change my fit with my phone, no matter how disappointing they may be. I think
that's why many of us use Apple.

My happy place would be something like "Heroku for mobile", where you can
jswrap a React.js app into an HTMLView or something like that, and do 'git
push ios master'. Notifications API, localStorage API, and maybe
authentication / session persistence API are all I really care about natively
(like Firebase); React Native is too heavy. Add in a TestFlight "permanent
beta" invite, or the ability to build the app from a remote mac
([https://www.macincloud.com/](https://www.macincloud.com/)) with a lambda and
transfer it to my phone (...somehow), and I'll just use the app store for
things I don't make myself (which hopefully should be less and less).

~~~
u6eexrtxjjxjexr
Isn't that what a PWA is?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_web_application](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_web_application)

~~~
yingw787
PWAs are going in that direction, but they don't have access to native
storage, notifications, and other stuff. They're still mostly webapps, which
is great for portability but not great for mobile UI/UX. I want the "native-
ness" of React Native (or really, true native) combined with the flexibility
of a webapp. Reduce mobile down to another build target, but still not give up
access to native APIs.

------
ogre_codes
Everything is a trade-off.

I use iOS because I want a smartphone and I'd prefer Apple's restrictions to
Google's data-gathering. I'd like to see iOS be better and I'd like to see
Apple's App Store policies improved.

If I choose to use Apple products because I find the trade-offs inherent in
using iOS/ MacOS, I don't lose the right to expect better of them and want
those products to improve.

~~~
lcnmrn
By not using Android you're missing a lot of good free apps that don't display
ads.

~~~
ogre_codes
> By not using Android you're missing a lot of good free apps that don't
> display ads.

My post wasn't meant to push one perspective or another, merely to point out
that wanting your platform to be _better_ doesn't mean you want to switch. If
I was on Android, I would complain a lot about Google's advertising policies,
then someone would say "Quit whining about Google and just stop using them".

------
tayistay
If you look at the selection of apps on the Mac App Store, where developers
aren't forced to use the store, it's pretty easy to see that their 30%
generally outweighs the usefulness of the service. So, semantic discussions of
monopoly aside, Apple is charging a rent. In general, we should be against
rent-seeking in technology.

------
chappi42
Google has _not_ a similar model as Apple, alternative stores are possible.

These rotten apple gangsters need to be stopped (by legislation). A huge fine
(50 billions) is in order!

It's not only about the 30 % extortion fee but also e.g. Phone Story. A member
of a platform duopoly should be disallowed to uniquely control the single
access point.

~~~
jonny_eh
> Google has not a similar model as Apple, alternative stores are possible.

They also allow custom payment methods within apps distributed via Google
Play. See Apple Music on Android.

------
paultopia
Easy to say, were Android not a complete dumpster fire of an OS. Stop using
the iPhone and... buy into an ecosystem where every phone manufacturer
installs random crapware on your device, google gets to spy on you, and
whether or not you get security updates is a game of Russian roulette? Nah.

------
munro
Perhaps I’m wrong, but I imagine if I wanted to stop using Google, and created
my own web based spreadsheet software, or video conferencing software, that I
would face a legal battle with these big tech companies if it did end up
becoming successful.

Searching for spreadsheet patents returns a lot of really banal concepts [1].
Maybe they wouldn’t hold up in court, but having been served before, it’s a
very terrifying experience.

Or, if you create a successful competing product, you’ll probably just get
bought out (whatsapp, keybase, instagram).

[1]
[https://patents.google.com/patent/US8332878B2/en?q=Spreadshe...](https://patents.google.com/patent/US8332878B2/en?q=Spreadsheet+google&oq=Spreadsheet+google)

------
recursivedoubts
I recently bought a system76 lemur pro after being a long time macbook user:

[https://system76.com/laptops/lemur](https://system76.com/laptops/lemur)

I will not claim that there are no trade offs, but I find it a very productive
machine, and very light weight. I use an external monitor and keyboard,
plugged in to a usb-c hub, and it works well.

I am hoping that the mudita pure can replace my iphone:

[https://mudita.com/products/pure/](https://mudita.com/products/pure/)

I do wish someone would do a not-dumb-but-not-too-smart e-ink phone with basic
maps and a physical keyboard, but I recognize that I am likely a market of one
for that product.

~~~
u6eexrtxjjxjexr
Not e-ink, but Nokia 800 does have Google Maps.

~~~
RandomBacon
How about OpenStreetMap?

If I'm ditching Android to get away from Google, I'd rather not use Google
Maps.

However I do concede that only having an run some of the time is better than
an bad OS running all the time.

------
komali2
> Let’s say we tear down Apple through legal means–we send them the message
> that because they’re so successful they no longer have a right to dictate
> their own terms around what apps they allow on their devices and how much
> money they can charge developers to have access to their platform. Just
> think of all the ways that precedent could be abused against other
> companies.

Ok, how about we instead tear down this idea that it's legally OK for a
company to sell you a computer, and then prevent you from installing whatever
software you want on it? Doesn't sound like we have any bad precedents then!
And, apple can keep their app store if they want, and pitch it as a curated,
safe walled garden.

------
wisemanwillhear
> The idea that they have a “monopoly” seems patently ridiculous to me. A
> monopoly over what? Their own brand of computing devices that they are the
> sole manufacturers of? Operating systems for which they are the sole
> developers and maintainers?

I'm not sure where I fall on this, but I feel this is less direct than some
people make it sound. I can also see the argument that the iOS phone has
become it's own market segment. It might be a bit of stretch to make this
comparison, but we don't just a have a market segment for electronic
communication devices, we break that down further. Why can't the smart phone
market be broken down further as well?

------
crazygringo
Wow, this is a long-winded semi-rant that goes through a lot of contradictory
points. Summing up, it seems to take two opposite sides, the first aligned
with the title:

1) Don't take legal action against Apple because "think of all the ways that
precedent could be abused against other companies" and "it seems silly to me
to cry about monopolies", so "The solution is obvious. Stop making apps for
iOS" because if you "can’t survive without the ability to suckle at Apple’s
teat then you’ve made bad decisions" and "Stop buying iPhones" and "Don’t buy
Macs while you’re at it"

...but the second totally opposed to it:

2) "In reality, I know none of these solutions are actually going to come to
fruition", "Maybe the ultimate solution is an anti-trust legal one", and "My
hopes for such legal action ever succeeding are not particularly high."

But as in most cases, reality isn't that black and white. The author is
ultimately correct in saying "boycott Apple" is simply not viable, as it
should be -- it would be like taking a sledgehammer to level a nail.
Unfortunately, the author is being incredibly condescending and unrealistic
that a business shouldn't depend on the iOS market, which is something like
2/3 of all mobile app store revenue.

But government intervention here doesn't mean a slippery slope -- that's a
common but totally unfounded fallacy. Economists are well acquainted with all
the different ways markets can fail, and how targeted governmental remedies
are required for healthy market competition to function.

Identifying that Apple is abusing its market position in one area to stifle
competition in another is easy to show, if we write appropriate legislation to
define it (applying to Amazon etc. as well). The only question is what remedy
best serves consumers: whether to treat this like a monopoly situation that
gets broken up (force Apple to allow apps and app stores that bypass Apple's
walled garden) or regulated like public utilities (the security and
trustworthiness of the App Store is valuable, so set a yearly profit limit of
e.g. 12% to that segment of the company).

------
heavyset_go
No, I'll do both.

~~~
mixedCase
And that's great if you just want to vent. Just don't expect change.

~~~
Androider
Both the EU and the US are already looking into Apple.

Here's the CTO of the Hey app and the chairman of the US Antitrust
Subcommittee discussing this very case yesterday:
[https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/18/21295778/apple-app-
store-...](https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/18/21295778/apple-app-store-hey-
email-fees-policies-antitrust-wwdc-2020)

These "nothing's going to change, why even try" attitudes are so lazy.
Absolutely things can change, but surely not if we don't try. Microsoft was
massively impacted by the antitrust action against them, every decision they
made since then has been run through the lens of that verdict (I know lots of
people inside MS) and it fundamentally changed their culture and reduced their
stranglehold on the industry.

------
not2b
No, they haven't earned the right to exploit their monopoly this way. It's a
monopoly because the only way to get an app onto an iPhone (at least, without
rooting the device) is via the app store. The writer thinks that it is
perfectly appropriate for Apple to steal from the poor and not from the rich,
exploiting their power to score every dollar they can get. But antitrust law
exists for a reason, and though the current US administration isn't very
interested in enforcing it, the EU and Japan are less likely to let Apple
continue to get away with their practices.

~~~
pjmlp
Except what counts is what law defines as monopoly, and the fact that Android
owns the European market, makes it even less relevant.

------
viburnum
Anti-trust problems can't be solved by individual consumer choices.

~~~
Bud
Especially when there is no legitimate anti-trust issue to begin with.

~~~
kennywinker
In your opinion.

In my opinion, apple is using its monopoly (or duopoly) power to force
companies like hey into business relationships they would not enter into
otherwise. Which represents an abuse of their position.

------
tracerbulletx
Apple, Google, Amazon, Facebook, MS in the 90s? Which one isn't doing things
people consider to be absolutely awful in some way or another.So given that, I
stop buying iPhones, and do what buy an android phone? I have not really
improved the moral calculus of the world. What we should do is insist on moral
behavior from companies across the board, equally and fairly applied to all
organizations big and small. If someone is doing something wrong, it's wrong
and it's ok to call it out.

------
whatever1
We need the same solution as the one Microsoft implemented in Windows N.

Once you set-up your new phone (android, iOS whatever), you get to select your
default app store. Different stores will have different cost / curation
structures, but it will be the user’s decision to make.

The OS manufacturer can still require that all of the apps need to be
digitally signed to allow them to be installed, regardless of the store, to
guarantee system safety.

Mobile App stores in 2020 are what browsers were to Windows in 90’s.

------
Bud
Seems to me there is a lot of heat and very little light flying around on the
entire App Store issue. A lot of those "whining" the loudest——although let's
call it legitimate debate instead of whining——don't seem to be fully grasping
all the benefits of a walled ecosystem along with the drawbacks.

I don't think debating this issue gets us very far unless we're intellectually
honest with each other about all the benefits as well as the drawbacks.

------
wallstprog
It's not that simple -- as Churchill said about democracy: "It's the worst
form of government ever invented -- except for all the other ones".

I switched to Mac almost 10 years ago, and I'm basically pretty happy with it.
So when it looks like Apple is planning to screw it up, I get upset -- I don't
want to switch again (it was a huge PITA), and there's nothing out there even
remotely close.

------
tilolebo
"Now let’s say they decide to offer a new service that allows content
providers to reach Yo’s subscribers–like a newsletter or something."

I stopped reading after this and came here to say that we all know Hey would
NEVER do that. This is exactly the kind of shit they fight against.

So it's not just hypocrisy from their side, they're fighting for an idea.

Of course the PR also can't hurt, but it's not like they planned it.

------
CameronNemo
Which in this context probably means don't operate your business on the
assumption that you can have an application in the Apple app store.

------
voodooranger
I will continue to use Apple but I pulled both of my apps from their app store
years ago due to maltreatment. I don’t use their app store as a consumer
either. IMO it’s a wasteland.

Unpopular opinion but I also think it should be completely up to them to set
their revenue share. Let their app store wither away as developers create
platform-independent web applications instead.

------
ig1
Fundamentally it's hard to see how the current situation is any different from
the situation in which anti-trust regulators moved against Nintendo and Sega
in the mid-90s.

In both cases you have a duopoly which essentially controlled the market and
used access to the platform to force fees and conditions onto developers using
their gatekeeping abilities.

~~~
starbugs
One difference that comes to mind relatively quickly is that you didn't need a
gaming console to live in practice.

Try being part of today's society without a smartphone running either Apple or
Google software.

Apple's goal to shove off 30% of subscription fees, if successful, most likely
would lead to more expensive subscription fees for end users. I wonder whether
that's finally a case that has a chance to stand in court w.r.t. anti-trust
laws. (Driving up end user prices through anti-competitive behavior.)

------
ocdtrekkie
The article completely ignores that the only way most consumers can not buy an
iPhone is to buy an Android, which is as bad or worse, depending on what
particular concerns you have. (Apple's got a slightly stronger walled garden,
Google has far worse privacy and security. At the end of the day, their app
store models are the same.)

------
lalos
What I find interesting is that developers usually complain about the one time
app purchase, saying that this doesn't incentivize big updates and the way
around it is to use in-app purchases. Some even propose an update app fee.
Also, developers complain that Apple is squeezing a fee from every
transaction. Which seems like the same problem, Apple wants that constant
stream of revenue just like developers want that constant stream of revenue to
incentivize updates. Anybody else notices this symmetry?

On a side note, this could be fixed with

1) Unpopular apps don't pay a fee until they reach a certain amount of
downloads. This promotes apps created by devs just starting out. 2) Fees only
apply until an upper limit is met which corresponds to the total cost they
generate. i.e. Every year the count resets, the first 50k downloads have 30%
fee, the next 100k have a 20% fee, the next 200k have a 10% fee, etc.

If you play with this parameters there might be a win-win scenario for
everybody. I wonder if Apple will propose something before EU or USA
governments start looking deeper into the problem. I'm guessing Apple and
Google lobbyist are measuring the temperature of Congress right now to see how
to proceed.

------
DiabloD3
"I'm going to make one of those unpopular opinions, but alas, it must be said:
It is far easier to just drop Apple support entirely."

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23286883](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23286883)

(Its becoming more popular! Yaaaaaay!)

------
aphroz
I have never used them, but I guess I am still allowed to complain about how
their action impacts my life.

------
smt88
Users can stop using Apple with minimal consequences.

Many businesses can't. Apple puts tolls around users, and people think the
pricing model is unfair.

That's what this uproar is about. It has nothing to do with consumers beyond
the fact that consumers see how unfair the pricing model is.

------
Mugwort
Isn't this the tipping point when a company crosses the line, becomes a
monopoly, restricts consumer choices, and suffocates competition by leveraging
the entire playing field? We've been through that before. Sad to see Apple of
all companies turn evil.

------
type0
> Let’s say we tear down Apple through legal means–we send them the message
> that because they’re so successful they no longer have a right to dictate
> their own terms around what apps they allow on their devices ...

Their devices? So you can only rent your iPhone?

------
hellofunk
> I know that the devices are pretty and feel nice and maybe your friends all
> have one and you want to signal that you’re one of the crowd, but it’s not
> worth it.

This is when the author lost me. That’s not why I or many others own Apple
devices.

------
sergioisidoro
I wouldn't say "stop using" but in a lot of businesses iOS seems be always be
launched first with Android as an after-though. I think this backslash is
partially about Apple falling from its pedestal and favouritism.

------
drocer88
Serious question: Is there a non Google app store/Apple app store based smart
phone that gives user control, like on a Linux box?

Duopoly , walled gardens, spying is getting annoying. I would like to stop
using them.

------
duxup
The conclusion sort of "undoes" the title... and I kinda hate articles like
that. I just read a bunch of stuff and we get to.

"Well what you just read doesn't work, maybe something else, bye..."

------
coronadisaster
That's what I have been doing for more than 20 years... Apple didn't really
ever change, not even when Steve Jobs died. Too many anti-user rules...

------
jacknews
Adam Smith would disagree I think. Apple have a quasi monopoly and are
imposing an 'absurd tax' on any other business operating in their fiefdom.

------
truculent
Quit whining about the internet and just stop using it.

------
RandomBacon
This post was just removed from HN's front page.

------
bjarneh
Not all can freely choose platforms. Clearly a fully free one would be ideal,
but unless you do web development, who has that kind of luxury?

------
tambourine_man
Not like there’s much of a choice. Windows… well, offends my sensibilities and
Linux doesn’t run Adobe suite.

------
yusyusyus
How about we regulate them instead? We can force them to change using the
power of the state.

------
dustingetz
Can't use Apple, can't use Google ... can't have a cell phone. Who needs that?

------
Razengan
Brace yourself; it’s the yearly wave of Apple-negging just before every WWDC.

------
deegles
If you don't like Amazon, good luck not using anything that touches AWS.

~~~
xenonite
yes, even Apple uses AWS for some of their services.

------
kennywinker
So author would have us abandon a duopoly, and give google a monopoly? That
should work out well. Anybody remember microsoft in the 90s?

------
annoyingnoob
As if Google/Android or any other phone is different/better...

------
chooseaname
Who is this person and why do they feel they're an authority?

------
pknerd
Pardon, but it is actually the author who is whining here. DHH has raised some
very valid points, especially when many businesses rely on Apple Store. There
is nothing wrong to talk about it, especially when Apple itself provides a
"web option" instead of IAP to avoid X% of cuts.

------
elvecinodeabajo
Apple a monopoly? Letting Google become the monopoly? Once again Linux is
forgotten in the scene and Linux community means nothing. Stop taking profits
as a reference, there's a world beyond your iPhone.

------
gdsdfe
so the solution to Apple's (or google's) behaviour is to stop using their
stores? basically stop having a business altogether?

------
cinquemb
Or root, mod, buy on secondary markets and avoid updates, can't expect them to
not piss the pool if you let em…

------
programmarchy
Don’t like Apple? Just build your own multinational global corporate hegemonic
superpower, bro.

------
jpswade
> an email service I will be calling Yo in this article

Why?

------
tobyhinloopen
Oh right like Android/Google is better

------
rdiddly
_...Apple stepped in and essentially said "Nah, fuck that, you either
implement in-app subscriptions in your app and give us our 30% or you can go
suck an egg"..._

For the record they actually said
[https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1272976901762478080/photo/1](https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1272976901762478080/photo/1)

...but thanks for translating it into mid-oughts hip-hopper mixed with 1940s
farmer/GI/zoot-suiter!

~~~
rdiddly
No, a paraphrase bears a burden of being better than the original in some way,
otherwise just link to the original. Brevity is usually the default
improvement being sought, but ideally there would also be honesty, or maybe
even, dare we hope, eloquence - perhaps the use of some kind of metaphor or
other dimension that makes clear the meaning of the original in a way that's
better than the original itself. Translating into young-person conformist
speech patterns like "nah" and "fuck that" doesn't count, because everybody
already understands Apple's non-hip way of saying it. And then it turns
suddenly from hip and nowish, to talking about sucking eggs, which hasn't been
uttered since everybody's grandparents gave up poultry farming and moved to
the city after the war. That's the clue that it's a disingenuous
characterization of the original, which tends to be the case almost every time
anyone says "So basically you're saying..." on the internet. Maybe this was an
attempt at satire and I just got _whoosh_ ed?

On the plus side the paraphrase did achieve brevity, and clarity (at least
when compared to Apple's sugarcoating and contortion).

------
rydre
Is this satire?

------
cardenasrjl
Apple :D, for long time you've been doing whatever you want.

