Epic demands Apple do a thing = bad for Apple, bad for customers (good for Epic)
> Apple demand Facebook do thing = Good for Apple (bad for FB) yes way
Apple demands Facebook do a thing = Good for Apple, good for customers (bad for Facebook)
As a customer in these equations, I'm siding with Apple.
> That's the very definition of "competition" something Apple has avoided for over a decade at this point
Why do I have to use Epic's game store for Fortnite? Why can't I create my own skins with paint and sell them for whatever I want?
Can you provide some reasoning behind that. What should I like, so I can dislike uPlay in the first place?
This is common in the gaming community. Full disclosure: I used to work in the studio that developed and maintained uplay.
One of the games I worked on was an epic store exclusive (or, wouldn’t launch on steam) and it was met with harsh criticism for that. Many players outright said that they wouldn’t buy the game if it wasn’t on steam.
Judging by PC sales, they held true to their word.
Back, years ago the distribution way were tons of 3.5" diskettes, or better yet - transportable hard disk with a jumper switch to slave mode. A lot has changed since, however subscribing to the model that one company has to govern my entertainment model is beyond silly.
Why are we all talking about creating more stores? Shouldn't we opt into creating systems API for stores? That way you could choose store application and have products from all repositories (stores) available in there.
On most Linuxes you add repository and it doesn't matter if you use official package manager, graphical one, or some unofficial bash script. You are able to install same software.
not bad for all customers. I would like to side-load third party apps on my Iphone. Remember when app store banned a hn reader app because it showed Covid-related submissions[1]
This is something I'm pretty sure Epic would provide with their own app store.
How is allowing developers to use alternate payment platforms "bad for customers"? Or, if not on the phone, at least to allow them to add funds to their account from the browser/another platform and use it in their iOS app?
Surely we can just apply the Windows argument of "well they should get antivirus software and stop browsing shady sites" and go about our day having improved the landscape for the tech-literate, while having increased the risk other people take on by using their phone if they don't know the first thing about ensuring the apps they download are safe or privacy-preserving. That's why people buy iPhone - you literally do not have to worry about malicious App Store apps.
Because those "alternate payment platforms" don't prioritise consumer protection.
Deliveroo did an update their software that wiped out my login settings. They didn't support apple login, so I lost access to my account. They won't recover my email because of a special character in it, and so they continued to charge me for their "plus" service every month, and avoided any emails I tried to send asking to stop (asking me to "log in" to change my payment settings!).
Requiring apps use Apple's channel would have protected me from that experience.
“Oh, you want Photoshop? Just add the Adobe store (don’t look at permissions, also please give us your debit card number, we promise it’ll be safe)”.
“Oh, you want that nifty game? Just install our store. And also give us your bank account.”
“Yes, Apple is draconian. So to get the Facebook app, you must give us complete access to your phone and all data you send. Sign with your blood here.”
From an opsec perspective, Apple’s store associated with a prepaid debit card is great. They are far from ideal, but they have amongst the best privacy practices in the industry, have great customer support, and their interests align with mine better than those of their competitors.
We know that the second third party stores are allowed, some developer will force them on us.
Exactly the same thing goes for what I do with the devices I buy, and what software I install on them. It's not in Apple's interest that I have a choice of what source of apps I use - but giving me as a consumer that choice would expand the market (e.g. by making it possible to sell an app-based service with a 20% profit margin - currently if you tried to make one, you'd lose 10% on every sale). So yes, consumers currently have a choice of which side of the duopoly they want to live on. I believe more choice would be better, both for consumers and for the ecosystem as a whole.
Windows and Mac and Linux environments are not sandboxed like this either. All my data is files in folders, and I can export it as I like to another machine.
If I have a windows computer, and I buy a mac, I can't run all my windows software. The developers of that software may not even make mac equivalents.
The idea that choices need to be ultimately convenient and consequence free is just not realistic. Depreciation, transaction costs, and functional differences between products are a consumer's problem to manage.
I agree with you on media files, but, I also know that there are plenty of workarounds to exporting iTunes specific media formats if you would rather leave iTunes behind.
Incidentally, employers already have the ability to distribute custom iOS software for their employees, so your scenario wouldn't happen.
As for social, why isn't this happening on Android if it's so inevitable?
if they like it, they can keep using it.
EDIT: apparently suggesting people to keep using something they like deserves downvotes :)
Apple demand Facebook do thing = Good for Apple (bad for FB) yes way
So Apple is allowed to get its own way, 100% of the time, no questions asked, what they want is what they get end of (by virtue of holding all the cards and owning the platform they dictate the rules on)
How about no? You can play by your rules in your sandbox, but Epic has a right to demand it's allowed a sandbox in the same park, maybe Apple will be forced to change its business if everyone starts playing in Epic's sandbox and consumers decide Apple's policies are rubbish?
That's the very definition of "competition" something Apple has avoided for over a decade at this point (as far as iOS inter-competition goes)