Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Apple

Epic, Spotify, Tinder-Parent Firm Match, Tile and More Form Coalition To Take on Apple's App Store Rules (cnet.com) 134

More than a dozen app makers and other companies have joined together to form the Coalition for App Fairness, a nonprofit group that's taking aim at Apple and its App Store rules. Among the founding members are Spotify, Epic Games, ProtonMail, and Match Group, all of which have been vocal critics of the fees Apple charges developers. From a report: "As enforcers, regulators, and legislators around the world investigate Apple for its anti-competitive behavior, The Coalition for App Fairness will be the voice of app and game developers in the effort to protect consumer choice and create a level playing field for all," said Horacio Gutierrez, head of global affairs at Spotify, in a release on Thursday. The coalition comes as Apple is locked in a public battle with Fortnite developer Epic Games. Fortnite was kicked off both the Apple App Store and the Google Play Store in August after Epic attempted to bypass the 30% fee Apple and Google charge developers. Epic countered by filing lawsuits against both companies. Apple earlier this month raised the stakes further by requesting monetary damages if it convinces a judge that it was within its rights to kick Fortnite off its more than 1.5 billion active iPhones and iPads.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Epic, Spotify, Tinder-Parent Firm Match, Tile and More Form Coalition To Take on Apple's App Store Rules

Comments Filter:
  • "Fairness" (Score:2, Insightful)

    by gnasher719 ( 869701 )
    Fairness is when everyone pays the same, and the big boys possibly pay a bit more. So this isn't about fairness, it is a non-profit organisation that explicitly wants to create profit.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Fairness is when there is a healthy marketplace that allows for market pressures to come into play to stop profiteering and to drive prices for consumers down by driving down prices for developers.

      Unfortunately that doesn't describe Apple or Google's app stores it seems.

      • Re:"Fairness" (Score:4, Insightful)

        by NFN_NLN ( 633283 ) on Thursday September 24, 2020 @10:16AM (#60540284)

        You seem to overestimate people's understanding of capitalism. You assume people can differentiate between anarchy and free market.

        Most people think free market means free for all of total anarchy, when in fact capitalism is an equilibrium state that takes away the micromanagement of government from day to day financial transactions. And it's the governments responsibility to intervene to put the system back into equilibrium in order to free themselves of the burden of centrally planning.

      • > Fairness is when there is a healthy marketplace that allows for market pressures to come into play to stop profiteering and to drive prices for consumers down by driving down prices for developers. I'm waiting for Epic to allow me to connect to Fortnite servers and play because they give up their Fortnite client monopoly...
      • Fairness is when Epic allows me to sell dance emotes and cosmetic DLC without going through Epics payment processing and not having to give them a cut of what I make.
        • by U0K ( 6195040 )
          Check out their free to play list: https://www.epicgames.com/stor... [epicgames.com]
          And then look up the webpages of some of those games there. I'm going ahead and name some examples.

          https://heroesandgenerals.com/... [heroesandgenerals.com] - A lot of options that don't involve Epic.
          https://www.pathofexile.com/pu... [pathofexile.com] - You can see the shop option right there, without Epic.
          https://archive.smitegame.com/... [smitegame.com] - Also their own shop right there. No Epic in sight.
          https://store.paladins.com/ [paladins.com] - Same story here.
          • And then look up the webpages of some of those games there.

            Excuse me, but the contract between Apple and Epic (now cancelled) also stated that Epic is absolutely free to sell whatever they want on their website, without handing any money to Apple.

            • by U0K ( 6195040 )
              GP's statement was:

              Fairness is when Epic allows me to sell dance emotes and cosmetic DLC without going through Epics payment processing and not having to give them a cut of what I make.

              Epic allows that. Apple allowing the same thing doesn't change that Epic allows that.

              This just shows that there are misconceptions going around about what actually transpired there.

              To re-iterate: Epic implemented their "Epic direct pay" feature into Fortnite, which allows user to conduct payments directly from within the

      • "Fairness" is a bullshit term that sounds nice but can be argued to mean whatever you want. I have no doubt what they are arguing for here is a version of fair which benefits larger corporations at the expense of individual publisher and consumers.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Fairness is when everyone pays the same, and the big boys possibly pay a bit more. So this isn't about fairness, it is a non-profit organisation that explicitly wants to create profit.

      Wrong.

      This is a non-profit organization working on behalf of for-profit companies to secure their profits, which have now been forcefully taken away (Epic Games).

      And your definition of "fairness" is like getting pissed at lawyers for having the gall to charge money. Ever.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by sabri ( 584428 )

        which have now been forcefully taken away

        Forcefully?

        If you come into my house, you adhere to my rules. If you don't you'll be asked to leave.

        You can then of course complain that my rules are not fair, and that's exactly what they are doing here.

        Apple's house, Apple's rules. If you don't like it, build your own house.

        • Re:"Fairness" (Score:5, Insightful)

          by jythie ( 914043 ) on Thursday September 24, 2020 @12:31PM (#60540798)
          Eh, a lot of 'free market capitalism' people see markets through a sense of asymmetric entitlement. Anything that keeps them from what they want is oppression, and anything that keeps them from deciding if other people have access to things they control is also oppression.
    • Re: "Fairness" (Score:5, Insightful)

      by xgerrit ( 2879313 ) on Thursday September 24, 2020 @11:32AM (#60540578)

      Fairness is when everyone pays the same, and the big boys possibly pay a bit more. So this isn't about fairness, it is a non-profit organisation that explicitly wants to create profit.

      "Fairness" is when a consumer buys a device and the device maker doesn't decide how they use it and what business may be conducted on it. That's kinda the point of ownership afterall. Anyone who thinks Apple is in the right is advocating for a future world where car-makers can decide they should get 30% of all transactions that your car provided transportation to, and your car will simply refuse to take you to places that don't pay up.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Joviex ( 976416 )

        "Fairness" is when a consumer buys a device and the device maker doesn't decide how they use it and what business may be conducted on it.

        Apple isn't deciding how you can use it, or what business may be conducted on it. Comparing it to 30% of future car travels going to the manufacturer is so far off in the field, you have an army of strawmen.

        They are charging for someone using their platform to make apps.

        Don't like it? Don't use it. There are MANY other CHOICES.

        Complaining about walking into a walled garden and saying it has walls, is fucking lel.

  • Translation (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by LenKagetsu ( 6196102 )

    China-owned company runs to all his friends because the upperclassman he was trying to bully got a teacher involved.

  • FFS (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 24, 2020 @09:56AM (#60540210)
    All of you agreed to Apple's terms. If you no longer agree with their terms, leave! If you want to effect changes in Apple's terms, get enough of you to leave and maybe Apple will consider that it is losing app developers because their terms are unfair.
    • Uh, they did leave, didn't they?

    • All of you agreed to Apple's terms. If you no longer agree with their terms, leave! If you want to effect changes in Apple's terms, get enough of you to leave and maybe Apple will consider that it is losing app developers because their terms are unfair.

      How exactly is Spotify supposed to leave the App Store as a negotiating tactic when their biggest competitor is Apple itself? So your advice is to just cede the market to Apple...? You realize a large part of what's broken about the App Store is exactly this power-imbalance, right?

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • by Raistlin77 ( 754120 ) on Thursday September 24, 2020 @10:24AM (#60540330)

      Not buying the argument "their platform, their choice."

      That is not an argument, that is a fact. Apple has absolutely no obligation to let anyone at all on its platform. Apple is also perfectly within its rights to pick and choose who it lets in. Apple would also be well within its rights to charge developers differently if it so chose.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Apple is also perfectly within its rights to pick and choose who it lets in.

        Then no safe harbor protection for them. If Apple is allowing the installation of secure communications apps on its platforms and these apps are being used by terrorist organizations, Apple is culpable.

      • Do Apple, really have a right to determine which software the owner of the iPhone can run? Remember it's not apples phone, they sold it to the customer.

        • The owners bought the phone with the walled-garden being a well known feature of the device. And in fact many many millions of those very consumers would tell you that they appreciate the sense of security they get from that walled-garden and while one could try to argue that sense of security feeling is invalid, the point is, to them, it's valid.

          And really, Epic has sort of demonstrated the red-herring nature of that argument by suing Google also claiming that while Android does support alternate app stor

        • Then jailbreak it!

          But the phone is more than just the physical hardware, at least to most of the users. The users want to access Apples services too, and you do not own those. If you have a non-jailbreaked phone Apple allows you to use those services (many for free).

          I know of no-one that bought an iPhone because of the hardware. Everyone I know of got them for the whole package. Those that just cared about superior hardware got the blingiest Android of the day. YMMV.

        • by Bookwyrm ( 3535 ) on Thursday September 24, 2020 @11:49AM (#60540646)

          Do you believe the GPL in all its variations is enforceable? That is, if someone downloads a bunch of GPL's software, should they be bound by the GPL? If a person downloads GPL software onto their own hardware, do they 'own' it? Can they do whatever they want regardless of the GPL?

          The GPL functions because software (aka 'intellectual property'. Sigh.) is *licensed*, not sold. There is no transfer of ownership. The owner of the iPhone owns the hardware, not the software. The software is licensed. The owner has no inherent rights to the software. The owner only has the rights granted by the license and under the terms of the license (see the GPL.)

          So, the owner of the phone can do whatever they want with the hardware. They can put whatever they want on the hardware... unless they are using iOS, or the Apple firmware, or other Apple software to do so. Apple software is always Apple's and only licensed to the owner to use under the terms of the license agreement (again, this is why the GPL is enforceable. The owner of the 'intellectual property' gets to set the terms of use.) Apple can't enforce what software is run on the hardware, but they can enforce what software is run on their software. (See GPL3 and variants where just 'linking' with other software can trigger the terms.)

          The linkage of hardware (which is bought and sold with transfer of ownership) with software (which is licensed) is getting to be a bit of a problem because companies are using the latter to control the former, but this is how the current 'intellectual property' system is set up. There is certain arguments to be made that it should be changed -- but people should probably be wary of doing so. If limits are placed on what the creators of software can and cannot limit in the licenses... there are no doubt many, many companies that would enjoy being able to blow off the GPL class of licenses if such terms were no longer enforceable.

          That's the long winded way of saying, basically, yes, Apple does have the 'right' to determine what software iOS on the phone can run. That's what 'copyright' grants them. The right ends at the hardware, but as long as the hardware requires the firmware/drivers/software to operate, from the practical point of view, it's pretty much the same. To say otherwise implies that the GPL on any hardware driver would be invalid. If people claim that Apple cannot specify the terms of use for an operating system, then people will argue that the GPL cannot be applied to Linux.

          This isn't a great situation. However, it's not clear how to deal with 'intellectual property' (ugh) in a way that reduces the power of large companies without imperiling smaller companies. I suspect because of this most of the cases will fizzle out because the judges will want to punt the issue to congress (particularly given issues of international commerce/copyright treaties) rather than make dramatic rulings.

          • They can put whatever they want on the hardware...

            Except, the owner of the device can't, because the bootloader won't allow it.

            The crux of the issue is whether or not it's legal to use immutable software to lock owners out of the hardware they've purchased. Based on similar situations in the automotive industry (where vehicle manufacturers used the threat of invalidating warranty coverage, as the technology didn't exist at the time to render the car inoperable if you installed an aftermarket component), it was eventually found to be an illegal business pr

      • That is not an argument, that is a fact. Apple has absolutely no obligation to let anyone at all on its platform.

        This is not true at all legally. That's why Apple had to stop jailbreaking with technical measures and not legal ones.

        If you had the signing keys to code-sign new firmware, it would be totally legal and fine install Linux on an iPhone, or creating your own apps and install them outside the App Store. The fact that Apple is picky about who they give signing keys too doesn't legally grant them any special powers, and may in fact make them in violation of anti-trust law.

      • Apple has absolutely no obligation to let anyone at all on its platform.

        It's an interesting debate, I will admit.

        On the one hand, Apple devoted the time, effort, and resources to develop their platform and can certainly decide "the rules" for using that platform. If you don't like their rules, don't use the platform. There is another platform available whose terms are not so onerous.

        That said, one complaint I have is when Apple steps in to compete with third-party developers and, therefore, doesn't have to follow the same rules. For example, Spotify has to pay 30% of it's su

  • by dark.nebulae ( 3950923 ) on Thursday September 24, 2020 @10:07AM (#60540242)

    It's all about who gets the money, either them or Apple.

    There's nothing here how any change would lower costs for consumers or make better products or anything.

    They're just upset about the size of their slice of the pie and want a bigger one.

    I'm sorry, but I don't really give a shit.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Not just that. Remember when Instagram banned porn because Apple booted their app for being porn?

      Or when they kicked off Gab? Alternative app stores and side-loading would at least allow such apps to exist.

      • Not just that. Remember when Instagram banned porn because Apple booted their app for being porn?

        And your complaint is what exactly? Porn is pretty obvious. If you allow it on your app, and the platform hosting your app does NOT, then you have a choice, and it's pretty damn obvious.

        Or when they kicked off Gab? Alternative app stores and side-loading would at least allow such apps to exist.

        We've made great progress in eliminating malware app stores and trying to secure our mobile devices from becoming compromised with side-loading bullshit.

        And now you want to dismantle all that. For a game.

        Brilliant fucking idea.

      • Or when they kicked off Gab? Alternative app stores and side-loading would at least allow such apps to exist.

        According to Wikipedia: In July 2019, Gab switched its software infrastructure to a fork of Mastodon, a free and open-source social network platform. Mastodon released a statement in protest, denouncing Gab as trying to "monetize and platform racist content while hiding behind the banner of free speech."

        If Apple doesn't let Neo-nazis on the App Store, I fully agree with that.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Oh me too, fuck those guys. The point was only that it's not just about money.

        • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

          Or when they kicked off Gab? Alternative app stores and side-loading would at least allow such apps to exist.

          According to Wikipedia: In July 2019, Gab switched its software infrastructure to a fork of Mastodon, a free and open-source social network platform. Mastodon released a statement in protest, denouncing Gab as trying to "monetize and platform racist content while hiding behind the banner of free speech."

          If Apple doesn't let Neo-nazis on the App Store, I fully agree with that.

          Now let's turn that around. What if instead of some neo-Nazi discussion board, it's an app being used to allow anti-government speech pseudonymously in a country that restricts that sort of speech? Because Apple has a legal obligation to block it, they would, of course, do so. But can you argue that the resulting platform is in users' best interests? Would it not be better if Apple had no technical means to completely prevent that app from being side-loadable?

          IMO, from a human rights perspective, Apple'

    • There's nothing here how any change would lower costs for consumers or make better products or anything.

      The money we are talking about is all for in-app purchases which don't cost Epic any money, therefore pure profits. If we want to reduce prices for customers they can do that very easily. It would come out of their pockets.

    • It's all about who gets the money, either them or Apple. ... I'm sorry, but I don't really give a shit.

      This is really about if consumers own their devices or not. To use my analogy from another post: If your Honda refused to take you anywhere that didn't pay Honda a 30% cut of transactions at your destination, would you care then?

      • I might care, then I'd buy a Toyota. However, people are still free to choose which car they want. So what's the problem in your analogy?

    • It's all about who gets the money, either them or Apple.

      There's nothing here how any change would lower costs for consumers or make better products or anything.

      If you read the 10 commandments of this coalition they are about choice, competition and prevention of conflicts of interest / discrimination.

      These things promote competition in the market delivering more value per dollar to the customer.

      https://appfairness.org/our-vi... [appfairness.org]

    • They're just upset about the size of their slice of the pie and want a bigger one.

      You've basically just described politics, too.

    • There's nothing here how any change would lower costs for consumers or make better products or anything.

      Well, you don't have to look very far to see how it would improve things. Apple wouldn't be able to block whole categories of apps like xCloud and Stadia for starters. Apps you might want, but are being blocked for no reason other than because they don't make Apple enough money. Apple isn't trying to "tax" those apps, they are literally just preventing you from ever having them.

  • by mlw4428 ( 1029576 ) on Thursday September 24, 2020 @10:14AM (#60540276)
    Epic Games wants me to pay $8/month to access various features of their game. I feel $8/month is far too much money and is unfair for those of us unwilling to allocate that much of our financial budget for a game. Will they lower their price to the $1/month that I feel is fair? If I don't want ads in my music and I use Spotify I have to pay $10/month to bypass ads ruining my experience. I feel that's unfair. How about $.50/month? I feel that is fair. This is more or less the core of at least a third of their stated issues.
    • by xgerrit ( 2879313 ) on Thursday September 24, 2020 @11:50AM (#60540648)
      Your analogy would be more correct if Epic wanted you to pay a monthly fee for games they didn't make and Spotify wanted a fee for music not on their service and they cut off your access if you didn't pay up.
      • by JBMcB ( 73720 )

        Epic takes a cut of games on their own app store. You think you get to be on there for free?

        • by fazig ( 2909523 )
          You can. More or less.
          There are free-to-play games that finance themselves through microtransaction cash shops. Epic offers to buy cash shop currency through their platfrom, from where they will most likely take a cut. But that is not the only option they allow. They also allow the game's publishers/developers to run their own payment methods.

          Valve does the same on Steam.

          An example of this would be an ARPG I used to play in the past - Path of Exile. It's both on Steam and Epic, where you can buy microt
        • Epic takes a cut of games on their own app store. You think you get to be on there for free?

          But in the world where Epic had a game store on iOS, no developer would be forced to use it, and the vast majority of developers wouldn't.

      • by jythie ( 914043 )
        Isn't that kinda what epic is trying to do though? They want devs to go through their app store and payment system rather than apple's so they can charge rent.
  • Google isn't mentioned, Microsoft isn't mentioned, Sony isn't mentioned, Steam isn't mentioned... and EPIC isn't mentioned. Why not?

    Wait! I know why!!!

    Because it just doesnâ(TM)t look so unfair when the entire online software sales "industry", including one of the Complainers(!!!) does EXACTLY the same rent-seeking practices, and charges within a few percentage-points, of one another.

    And those companies didn't collude to "price-fix"; they simply came to approximately the same conclusion of what was a r

    • Lol. You are a funny little apple stooge.
    • by fazig ( 2909523 )
      Valve's Steam allows 3rd party payment systems.

      Valve also offers their own payment service, which they make attractive for the Steam users by giving the Steam users additional 'benefits' (depends on how you put it) for spending money through their services.
      That's how you do it right, in my opinion at least.

      And that is also where Steam differs from Apple's App Store. Apple thinks they're entitled to a cut from all the transactions that happen, even though a 3rd party was used.
  • by DontBeAMoran ( 4843879 ) on Thursday September 24, 2020 @10:39AM (#60540376)

    Stop debating wether or not Apple or Epic are in the right here. Apple charges 30% of all transactions happening on their platform and Epic broke their contract. Those are facts.

    The real question is that 30% charge. Should Apple be allowed to charge 30%?

    I think they should be charging different fixed amounts depending on the sale, but not a percentage of the sale itself.

    Think about it for a second. If I make a free game that's 50GB in size (or whatever the maximum is allowed for iOS applications) then Apple has to assume the costs from my annual 99 dollars developer license. But if a big company sells a game for 999 dollars and their game is only 1MB in size, Apple gets a lot of money.

    For sales of virtual assets that are already on the device (ex: adding more virtual coins is just a variable change, it does not require the download of new graphics/sounds/whatever) then I think something similar to credit card fees should apply, i.e. a small amount per transaction. Wether someone buys 500 or 50000 virtual coins, it's the same thing from a technical point of view.

    So not only do I hope this new coalition wins, I hope they win against Apple, Google, Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony because we're the ones paying that 30% cost.

    • Found this while searching for credit card processing fees:

      "Square offers competitive pricing when it comes to online credit card. You pay 2.9% + $0.30 for each transaction."

      Given that Apple, Google and the others are not small companies, I'm sure they get much better rates than that from MasterCard, VISA and the others.

      • Although Epic tries to bamboozle people into thinking that Apple charges a 30% transaction fee, that is not the case. It pays for a lot, lot more. For example handling all your taxes in 150 countries. Allowing the use of gift cards, when Apple doesn't actually get $100 when you buy a $100 gift card. Services like maps, notifications, login with AppleID, iCloud storage etc. Advertising your app on the store, storing it, downloading it. Plus paying for all the free apps. It all adds up.
        • Although Epic tries to bamboozle people into thinking that Apple charges a 30% transaction fee, that is not the case. It pays for a lot, lot more. For example handling all your taxes in 150 countries. Allowing the use of gift cards, when Apple doesn't actually get $100 when you buy a $100 gift card. Services like maps, notifications, login with AppleID, iCloud storage etc. Advertising your app on the store, storing it, downloading it. Plus paying for all the free apps. It all adds up.

          There's a lot wrong with your list, but it doesn't really matter. The issue is that developers should be able to deliver apps outside the App Store and if they see value in being in the App Store they can still be free to choose that road at whatever percentage Apple would like. If you want a hint about how much value there is in all of the things you mentioned, on the Mac (where the App Store is optional) developers have nearly universally shunned the App Store. There simply isn't any value in it.

      • And? Are you suggesting that Apple, Google, Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony only handles monetary transactions? That they have not invested in an eco-system that they are maintaining?

        You are painting a false equivalency.

        But let's pretend that 30% is too much. What would you say is reasonable? Please justify your number with a calculation of how you came to that specific number.

        • And? Are you suggesting that Apple, Google, Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony only handles monetary transactions? That they have not invested in an eco-system that they are maintaining?

          The App Store is optional on Macs, and yet Apple consistently makes a profit on Macs. And the iPhone is even more profitable than Macs. In fact if you look at Apple's numbers you could completely eliminate App Store revenue and Apple would still be the largest company on Earth. Your argument that the App Store pays for the ecosystem is way off base.

    • I think they should be charging different fixed amounts depending on the sale, but not a percentage of the sale itself.

      That's what you think. Tim Cook has a different opinion. And since he is Apple's CEO, they implement his idea, not yours.

      Many years ago, before trains and lorries, when transport in England was largely done by boats, they charged a percentage of the value to transport your goods. So 1,000 times more for a small amount of diamonds worth a million than for thousand pounds worth of coal. "But who determines the value? ". Simple. The person who wants their goods transported set the value. And the person tran

    • The real question is that 30% charge. Should Apple be allowed to charge 30%?

      The only question of import is should Apple be allowed to maintain a total monopoly on software sales and distribution in a market comprising tens of millions of suppliers and 1 billion consumers.

      • Exactly this. On some level, Epic and others don't care that Apple has a store that charges 30% markup. What they really care about is that, for Apple devices, there is one and only one store, and that store has a huge markup.

        30% on all transactions really is exorbitant, but the exact percentage would be moot if owners of Apple devices were allowed to shop around for apps - if there were competing stores, then the 30% charged by Apple would naturally come down to a more reasonable level due to competition,

      • by jythie ( 914043 )
        Though the other side of that question is : should companies be permitted to create walled gardens, and should consumers be permitted to voluntarily do business with them? This could have wide ranging implications for embedded devices signed to connect to specific services and which devices service providers allow to connect, as well as anti-tampering technology.
  • Are they just going to whine about the things Apple is doing?

    It's not like they're going to get their own app store on iOS.

    iPhones are in the decline. I'm not sure why it matters.

    Also, Epic games put this on their own shoulders.
    • by jythie ( 914043 )
      Getting their own app store on IOS is exactly what Epic is going for. They see it as a market with growth potential that currently does not make up a large percentage of their income but potentially could.
      • Sounds like trying to sell Moe's Tacos in a McDonald's.

        If they don't want you there it's going to be a strained partnership.
    • Are they just going to whine about the things Apple is doing?

      Basically yes, but they are going to whine to regulators, which is called "lobbying".

      It's not like they're going to get their own app store on iOS.

      Well, that's actually up to regulators in the US and EU. That's why they are gathering support before going to them.

      iPhones are in the decline. I'm not sure why it matters

      It matters because intellectual property laws haven't caught up with the reality of what companies are doing. To use my analogy from another post, to accept Apple's position is to accept that it would be OK for future self-driving cars to refuse to take you to any destination that doesn't pay the car-maker 30%

  • Is band together to build out their own distribution system, develop hardware and software, and hire a marketing agency to convince people that they should buy the hardware in order to run their apps.

    My guess is paying the 30% to the companies that provide that functionality that is much, much cheaper.
  • The biggest problem is that consumers, customer who bought an iPhone didn't know that they can ONLY install apps if they pass by Apple's sales levy of 30%. At least with Android, you can load software from another app store or download the .apk yourself.
    The fact that Steve Jobs chose to not allow that, shows a part of his (rare) dark side. In which he still dreamt of full monopolistic control. Luckily that world is gone now. Apple just doesn't realises this yet.

    Sooner or later this was bound to happen. I

In the long run, every program becomes rococco, and then rubble. -- Alan Perlis

Working...