It's baffling to me. I can buy a USD1k+ device and still not be able to install on it the apps I want because the manufacturer doesn't want me to, and this is legal? Such horsecrap.
People get annoyed when folks on the internet repeatedly bring up Libre/Free software and software freedoms, but just look at this shit.
There's essentially no way for me to install an app on my iPhone if Apple doesn't want me to, even though I paid over $1000 for it.
I'm a diehard Android user, but you cant deny the benefits of Apple's tightknit ecosystem.
Apple is a very "my way or the highway" in their approach to software design. This doesn't really matter to Apple as a company because an overwhelming majority of their customers wont know or care about this controversy or limitation and will continue to use the apps Apple allows and only those.
For me back when I had time as a kid I loved tinkering. Now it's work. The less time I spend on my screen/dealing with tech the happier I am. I'm big on convenience, and also don't do such specific stuff where I need a windows setup. I've had my macbook since 2015 and it hasn't died on me yet or had a single problem and still runs blender and vim and whatever else just fine. The $2k I spent on it 5 years ago is already back in my pocket just by not wasting time on anything.
Something like text syncing between my phone and computer is huge. I type much faster at my PC and its easier to navigate, so as a result I pretty much never use my phone. All I want are some photos, text sync, and access to good apps.
If I ever get a new phone I just find the cheapest iphone 7 or 8 via orchard instead of dropping 1-1.5k on a 'new iphone'. Everything works perfectly on my 7, still buttery smooth.
It's been an established practice for several years now to exclusively allow in-app purchases through websites to avoid the cut on in-app payments. A while back apps would display the catalog of available purchases in app and kick users to a web browser when they went to buy. Apple didn't like that. IIRC this was another big deal with Fortnite. Originally Epic was going to have users download the APKs to get around the play store tariff. I think this prompted Google to offer more favorable terms.
More and more it feels like Apple isn't selling hardware so much as licensing hardware. Google has similar issues but it's much easier to get around them. At least they still let users install arbitrary APKs if they enable it in settings.
Paying for email service has nothing to do with their store. What sort of in-app purchases would this be, paying to Apple a couple of cents for each email you send and receive, how ridiculous can it be?
Does anyone know how Apple deal with other email providers such as Outlook, ProtonMail, Gmail, etc. that offer consumer paid services with a custom client in the App Store?
Does Apple get a cut of Outlook Premium, ProtonMail's monthly charge, GSuite, etc?
One vector is if you pay in the app, Apple gets its cut.
Platforms that are "mobile first" are at a disadvantage (I'm not sure what Hey's split is).
But in your list, a desktop web UI is primary, and billing can happen there without addition costs. If a company wants to offer payment natively and via an iOS app, Apple gets their 30% on the mobile payments.
So what you're saying is as Microsoft (as an example) does not let you signup/pay for Outlook Premium within the Outlook iOS app Apple do not get a cut?
If so why is this approach being denied to Hey.com? Reading David's tweet it seems Apple are saying Hey.com have to add an option to subscribe and pay for the Hey service within the app and give Apple a 30% cut. Or am I not reading things right?
Edit: further reading shows Apple are comparing "business services" and "consumer" products as being the difference.
As in a "business service" can charge externally to the App Store and provide an app for said service without Apple getting a cut but as a "consumer" that exception is void.
Not really sure how that makes any difference though as Microsoft (again as an example) allow anyone to buy their services be it a business or a consumer. I don't see how this is any different for Hey.com.
I'm not suggesting that Apple applies its policies uniformly, nor that Apple's economics are good nor bad. A company like Microsoft has leverage that Hey does not, and that may be a problem.
11 comments
[ 787 ms ] story [ 163 ms ] threadPeople get annoyed when folks on the internet repeatedly bring up Libre/Free software and software freedoms, but just look at this shit.
There's essentially no way for me to install an app on my iPhone if Apple doesn't want me to, even though I paid over $1000 for it.
Apple is a very "my way or the highway" in their approach to software design. This doesn't really matter to Apple as a company because an overwhelming majority of their customers wont know or care about this controversy or limitation and will continue to use the apps Apple allows and only those.
Something like text syncing between my phone and computer is huge. I type much faster at my PC and its easier to navigate, so as a result I pretty much never use my phone. All I want are some photos, text sync, and access to good apps.
If I ever get a new phone I just find the cheapest iphone 7 or 8 via orchard instead of dropping 1-1.5k on a 'new iphone'. Everything works perfectly on my 7, still buttery smooth.
Besides, if Apple want to undermine their platform and have mobile web continue to take over - that's up to them.
More and more it feels like Apple isn't selling hardware so much as licensing hardware. Google has similar issues but it's much easier to get around them. At least they still let users install arbitrary APKs if they enable it in settings.
Does Apple get a cut of Outlook Premium, ProtonMail's monthly charge, GSuite, etc?
Platforms that are "mobile first" are at a disadvantage (I'm not sure what Hey's split is).
But in your list, a desktop web UI is primary, and billing can happen there without addition costs. If a company wants to offer payment natively and via an iOS app, Apple gets their 30% on the mobile payments.
If so why is this approach being denied to Hey.com? Reading David's tweet it seems Apple are saying Hey.com have to add an option to subscribe and pay for the Hey service within the app and give Apple a 30% cut. Or am I not reading things right?
Edit: further reading shows Apple are comparing "business services" and "consumer" products as being the difference.
As in a "business service" can charge externally to the App Store and provide an app for said service without Apple getting a cut but as a "consumer" that exception is void.
Not really sure how that makes any difference though as Microsoft (again as an example) allow anyone to buy their services be it a business or a consumer. I don't see how this is any different for Hey.com.