What happened to the days where everyone controlled their own domains/IP addresses/servers?
Why would anyone want to risk being deplatformed? I trust ICANN more than I trust Apple and ${CLOUD_PROVIDER}
replies(5):
Why would anyone want to risk being deplatformed? I trust ICANN more than I trust Apple and ${CLOUD_PROVIDER}
Unfortunately, Apple is going to continue this nonsense unless people stop buying into their reality distortion spells.
They give you "incredible access" because they're basically the only access. Their OSes would be complete flops if app stores were the only option and nobody would use them...
There is no historical mainstream analog since desktop/laptop OS software has never been so locked-down that it was impossible to install software without 1st-party permission. Even early videogame consoles had unlicensed games run on them, and the console vendors could only stop them by releasing new hardware.
Yes, and that's the problem that needs solving. If Apple allowed sideloading apps, every single of their justifications about App Store rules would start making sense. You either pay 30% and get a nice listing and discoverability, or you pay nothing but are completely on your own.
If you really want to make a radio for Lamborghini's, but they say no, then you go to a different manufacturer. "oh but Lambo owners have so much spend/revenue per owner" doesn't really hold water.
[1] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide
As far as my personal preferences go, I use Android since 2011 and can't fathom switching to iOS.
If Apple wasn't both the largest US phone maker and a legal monopoly, their behavior would not be as problematic, as you could (at least in theory, probably in practice too) sell other hardware to run ios/macos, or resell legally obtained, and modified software without Apple restrictions.
Whether their behavior is acceptable or not must be framed in a much larger picture. Companies are given legal rights by virtue of expectations of that being the best for society, and that's the metric that companies should be measured against.
Would it be good, and acceptable for society if all technology vendors/brands acted exactly as Apple regarding the App Store?
It's quite easy to answer that with a no, since clearly tying many frequnt small purchases indefinitely to a bigger purchase is not something that can ever increase competition. As it will form a less effective market, it can't be said to be desirable.
This wasn't true when Apple was a small fry so why would it be true when they are the largest US phone maker?
Seems like those that wish to use Apple (consumers, Epic) should either deal with the consequences, beg the government for help, or build their own open standard.
For me I lean towards building the open standard and teaching people how to use it. The App Store is for the lazy.
If people don't want to do that, that's on them.
If Epic doesn't want to invest in an open cell phone platform that can run Epic binaries, then its only options are to beg the government for help, or to take Apple's bs on the chin
A large and growing ecosystem of applications and services grew around the network which this American company controlled, and the network became central to the American economy [1]. Other businesses had to connect to this company's network, so that they could reach the company's many end users. But the company jealously guarded its end users, inflicting onerous burdens on competitors, or disconnecting them entirely [2].
That company, the American Telephone and Telegraph company, was eventually dissolved by the US Department of Justice due to charges filed under the Sherman Antitrust Act [3].
Anyway, what were we talking about? Oh, right, there aren't any historical analogs to the App Store. Apple is a bastion of innovation and an important defender of privacy rights, and I can't imagine that its management would ever recklessly endanger that by running afoul of antitrust law.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterfone
[2] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=107525656002865...
One, it had no standing, nor contractual agreement (granted, a lawsuit can be a big weapon to wield).
> Ferrari took the most offense to his custom badges and floor mats with Purrari logos
And to look at that picture, you can see why, the logos were practically identical and arguable from a trademark infringement perspective.
But he was not and was never prohibited from painting his car (and a cease and desist is not a prohibition).