Off to the right you see the text
> "...you agree to charge a $36 a year subscription to this payment method."
There's no mention of a $36 / annual anywhere else. It's on the margin to clearly trick the user when simply adding a payment info.
This seem indefensible at first blush. The app has been available as-is for years, so if the explanation given him is correct, it's a really bad look for Apple.
It's a computer, and the most popular computer in the US. It's also the only computer a lot of people own.
It's not a dedicated gaming device - people use iPhone to call, edit media, find jobs, pay for things, calculate, date, do email. It's a computer. Arguments like "but you can't install on a Nintendo" aren't equivalent. Nintendo makes one of a dozen different game platforms, all of which have wide penetration and lots of alternatives. And it's just for games. This is closer to "you can't repair your tractor", which is also an issue for farmers.
Computers, especially those with massive market share, should be open to 3rd party installs.
It's an expensive device and it got to where it is because of a trillion dollar company backing it. You can't compete with that.
You own an iPhone and you're happy installing just from Apple? That's fine. But there are a lot more people in this world that will benefit from open computing. Apple can still have their App Store, charge for distribution, and will still be making bank.
Computing on computers should be free and open.
If we let this slide, we'll one day own nothing. Stallman was right about everything.
But I am of the firm opinion that iOS devices and Android devices are not interchangeable even if you can do many of the same things on both and many apps are available on both platforms.
Just because a hatchback, a big rig and a personal airplane all get you from A to B while seated and all have air conditioning and entertainment systems does not make them fungible.
First can be sidestepped by not mentioning the trademarks of the platform holder anywhere.
The second can be side stepped through reverse engineering.
Third can eventually be hacked out of the device (like the recent encryption key reveal on Intel CPU's) and was not applicable to older generations.
Proof of 1 and 2 is the existence of new games developed for ancient consoles.
“Most console games have to be signed with a secret key designed by the console maker or the game will not load on the console. There are several methods to get unsigned code to execute which include software exploits, the use of a modchip, a technique known as the swap trick or running a softmod.”
I don’t see how iOS is different here.
I did not know about that one but I did know of AppValey and others that work based on enterprise certificates. I am not sure what prevents Epic from using this method to create an alternative store or why Apple does not claim that if you want you can have alternative stores on iOS therefore there is no antithrust issue.
Of course AppValey and the like require installing a root certificate.
Also, none of this allows you to unlock the bootloader.
Why can’t users make that decision for themselves? Granted, many people choose to buy Apple devices because they do not desire general computing devices and instead desire appliances.
But giving up that control erodes ownership itself. A device not fully controlled by you is not fully owned by you. You may own a license to use it for a limited time. But people do not buy hardware devices with the expectation of actually only buying a license to use them.
Your reference to "general computing device" here is a concept that a particular market identifies with (you being in that market). Attached to it is some kind of concept of free/open. Apple will tell you their devices are general computing devices. I am currently playing around with lidar sensors in an iPhone 12 pro by writing code and pushing it onto my device. The functionality I can build is pretty arbitrary and I would call it general computing. I would agree with Apple.
All of this is not applicable to other platforms (maybe to consoles but I already commented about them on this thread).
Apple has no obligation to make this process easy or even possible, and if the users still buy their products, they clearly don't care enough about these restrictions.
The only way to prevent them is by abolishing their property and putting them in the public domain.
I own a PC I buy preinstalled with Windows because I can replace Windows with something else.
As long as I can find spare parts I can make it work. Windows is just a part.
I do not fully own a device with a locked bootloader that can not be unlocked because once the vendor no longer provides updates I can not replace the broken part (software). The vendor maintains a degree of ownership over a device I purchased (applicable to phones, cars, tractors, etc.).
A capitalist monopoly is not communism. It is not what I said. I said the relationship between users and corporations (Apple, Google, Facebook, Netflix, MS, Tesla, John Deere, etc.) has a degree of resemblance to the relationship between citizens and the state in comunist regimes.
Why? If you don't like it, don't buy their product. I think iPhone is shit because of this, and other tactics to lock the user in, so I don't use it and wouldn't recommend it to anybody.
It's easy to (say) find the phone with the best camera, but you never know you need freedom until it's too late.
But in reality, most people know. It's just that they tell themselves they won't ever want to do a thing until they kinda do and at that point they just bought the wrong product for that purpose.
Warning: Apple solely controls what apps you can run on this device
We're right in the middle of shift of perspective where smart-phones stop being just cellphones with some extra features but actually peoples main access to general computing.
But to many they still are just "phones", and tech companies are taking advantage of this situation to shape the mentality around them in a different way than with desktop computing. This is their right, although it's obviously evil.
It's the media (tech magazines, youtube channels, etc.) that should be clearing up these misconceptions, but the sad reality is, people don't care. If I try explaining to a non-IT friend why installing any random software is essential, they look at me like I'm wearing a tin foil hat. People don't understand how quickly computation is turning into an important aspect of freedom.
The original purpose of the App Store guidelines were to protect the users / customers. And it did!. It worked great. And Apple charge you 30% for Digital Goods. And nothing for physical goods. It was Fair. 30% for the likes of Gaming, Productivity Apps such as Office, Camera, Calendar, Photo Editing etc etc. That was fine. And true to its words, Steve's Apple had all the rationale in nearly all rejection cases.
These days App Store policy is much more about rent seeking, their sole purpose is no longer serving its users and customer's best interest. But used in every opportunity to extract more revenues from these Apps and Services. Not to mention how many of these letters from Apple suggest Developers of Free ( as in beer ) Apps contributed nothing to the App Store and act as a "Free Rider" on Apple's platform. Compounded by Tim Cook's comment on App Store and being user first.
Normally I give some benefits of doubt to CEO as they may not be on top of all the things happening in a company. But judging from the Apple vs IMG and Apple vs Qualcomm cases I think he knows exactly what he is doing.
This whole things stinks and reeks of hypocrisy to me.
A human reviewer applied the app store policies as best she understood them but in the end was mistaken and the decision was reversed.
Review systems like this are better when they optimize for false positives rather than false negatives because of the fence leaning problem. If you give publishers the the benefit of the doubt then the result is people cozying right up to the fence of allowable behavior or leaning juuuust over it but not enough to trigger a ban. However, if you throw down the banhammer on everyone near the fence regardless of what side they're on people will actually say clear of it.
The real issue is that Apple has control over its devices after sale. That it decides what they can and cannot run based on its own arbitrary rules that no one can challenge. That it can literally put other companies out of business by denying them the privilege of having an iOS app.
That was really easy, and I'm not even a lawyer.
My personal favorites were the 2010-2012 mac pro. keyboard on first generation macbook pro with keys that were concave not flat. unibody on later macbook pro - the one with ports and sd card. I will say the iphone peaked for me at the iphone 8, which is relatively recent.
As a shareholder or a product user?
Shareholders want to make money. Users do not always have the power to change things, when things are going off the rails and a tilted playing field is forming.
But it was immediately approved on appeal, to our great surprise. I wonder if Apple is aware that they're treading on thin(ner) ice with regard to the App Store.
It only took 2-3 hours for one of the largest, most powerful corporations, to reverse their decision.
It only took 2-3 hours for Apple to assess the PR cost of banning the app and decide it's not worth the income increase.
we have the law and court for a reason, and i think the public should have more access to it to demand justice and fair treatment. So that all entities of all sizes have equal access to it.
Prior to the current Anti-Trust issues on App Store policy, Apple doesn't even bother responding to people out rage on twitter. Even if they did it takes days and sometimes weeks to get something resolved.
The only reason they are having such turn around time now is only because they are under scrutiny.
That way, when you do get kicked out from an app store, at least you can direct users to your web site (which is probably a violation of app store guidelines, but if it's your only/main revenue generating app, and already kicked out, having this option can be a lifesaver).
It's the same reason SMS is still around, because it's the only communications tool that can send a message to any cell phone.
Decision reversed. Link and title should be updated to reflect.
"9 minute review time after being held up for weeks..."
All i need to know. Why even have an app in the EvilStores?