Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Apple Technology

Apple Critics Say App Store Changes Not Sufficient (axios.com) 30

Although Apple is making some changes to its App Store policies and setting up a $100 million fund for small developers, critics say that the terms of a class-action settlement don't meaningfully loosen the company's grip on its digital marketplace. From a report: Spotify Chief Legal Officer Horacio Gutierrez: "Apple's proposed concessions fail to address the most basic aspects of their anticompetitive and unfair App Store practices. They are attempting to distract policymakers and regulators and slow down the momentum that's building around the world to address their behavior."

Match Group: "This is a raw demonstration of their monopolistic power: making capricious changes designed to spur good PR for their benefit right as legislation, regulatory scrutiny and developer complaints are closing in on them. We hope everyone sees this for what it is -- a sham."

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-NY): "This new action by Apple is a good first step towards addressing some of these competition concerns, but more must be done to ensure an open, competitive mobile app marketplace, including commonsense legislation to set rules of the road for dominant app stores."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Critics Say App Store Changes Not Sufficient

Comments Filter:
  • by mark-t ( 151149 ) <markt AT nerdflat DOT com> on Monday August 30, 2021 @10:25AM (#61744645) Journal

    ... their heads out of their own asses.

    If you write for iOS, your client is *NOT* the person who uses your app. Your client is Apple. Period. The person who uses the app is Apple's client, and Apple isn't willing to sell that client to you on their own platform. There is precisely zero reason that I can see that Apple needs to change its app policies on payment methods permitted for it's own clients. A store that doesn't accept American Express, for example, can't be sued by Amex customers for not taking that credit card. As I see it, this is pretty much the same thing. Why should people who prefer one payment system be able to strongarm any business, outside of using financial pressure and simply not supporting that business's productc, to support a particular payment system that they have made it abundantly clear that they don't wish to adopt?

    If you wish to deal with the person who uses your app as your own client, then for god's sake, *DON'T* be developing for iOS in the first place. It isn't Apple's fault that you feel that your company business plan isn't viable unless you can make Apple's clients yours.

    • Governments have bigger militaries than Apple, good enough reason.

      • Governments are subject to the rule of law, just like Apple is. But good to know where you'd stand if you were put in charge, dictator. Pinky's Brain is an accurate description I guess...
    • There is a thing called "monopoly". In case of a mobile market it's a "duopoly". Get off your high horse and look it up in Wikipedia.

      • by mark-t ( 151149 )
        That just *might* be applicable if Google and Apple were conspiring in some way to restrict what apps Apple allowed on iOS. They are not.
        • by jdoeii ( 468503 )

          No. If they were conspiring that would have been a "cartel". Do learn before preaching.
          As for not conspiring, they did conspire in the past.

          • by mark-t ( 151149 )

            The *only* case where a duopoly might suffer the same restrictions as what might be imposed on a monopoly is when the two companies *are* conspiring.

            Do learn before trying to tell someone that they don't know what they are talking about.

    • I bought an Apple phone. I don't have any ongoing financial relations with them. I'm not their fucking client. Why should they be allowed to prevent me doing business with whoever the hell I please? If it wasn't for all those developers out there, nobody would be buying their shitty phones in the first place.

      The same can be said for Google, but at least in Google's case, they don't force either the end user or the developer to go through them.

      • by mark-t ( 151149 )
        If you pay for any apps or use in-app purchases on an iOS device, you are Apple's customer. Check the statement on your credit card. Who is the payee?
        • That's exactly my point. I don't pay for any apps or use in-app purchases, so I'm not. But Apple are FORCING both developers and end users to go through them if they want to buy/sell anything. There is no alternative, nor is there any technical reason for there being no alternative.

          • nor is there any technical reason for there being no alternative.

            Sure there is. Because they'll yank your software off of their distribution platform and delete it from every device where it may have been installed if you piss them off. That's the technical reason.

            Seriously, fuck them. I hope the storm building in front of them ends up being truly fucking legendary. Standard Oil legendary.
            I'm so fucking tired of companies abusing copyright law to maintain control over a hardware device they sold you.

  • I don't understand why this is so hard for Apple. Just allow side loading of apps and stores. Turn off side loading by default -like Google does- and then make the User intentionally have to turn it on. Put up any scary worded warnings you like, and the fact is that most users SHOULDN'T be side loading apps. But it should be an option for their use of their device.

    How hard is this?

    • I don't understand why it is so hard for people to understand that if they hate a device not supporting side loading so much then the onus should reasonably fall on them to stop supporting the infrastructure for that device, and stop buying the company's products or developing for them.
  • From the summary above:

    "Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-NY): "

    Dumb editors...

    • Slashdot editors do not really "edit" the way newspaper editors do. They just pic stories to jump to the front of the page most of the time, they pick from the firehose of user-submitted stories.
  • by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Monday August 30, 2021 @10:56AM (#61744819)

    A lot of us, just want to win, and get our way. Our way doesn't work for everyone, so if You win, a lot of other will loose, If they win, you will loose. A good compromise, You will not get everything you want but you will get some of it, as well the other side will not get everything they want but they will get some of it as well.

    Things are good, when both side have different major points that they want to keep, that don't conflict with each other.

    If both sideswould stop vilifying the other side, and realize that they may have important agenda they want to keep, that may not be as important part of your agenda, there is room for compromise, where both sides may not get everything they want but they will often get something.

    I see too much debate on good ideas, because it doesn't fix the problem 100%. However it may fix the problem 80% and the remaining 20% while may be more trouble than before, it is hardly a real show stopper, but they are so suck on WINNING like an idiot, that they rather stay on the problem then not win 100% their way.

  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Monday August 30, 2021 @11:09AM (#61744895)

    It was widely reported that Apple had changed policy. Turns out, they have not [iosdevweekly.com].

    Scroll down to "There are no App Store changes in this press release" and you'll find this:

    You have always been allowed to offer an in-app mailing list opt-in, either as a stand-alone mailing list or as part of account creation. Once you have an email address and permission to email it, Apple is no longer involved in any part of that relationship. You may email that customer whatever you like.

    • Of course not. They keep their policies vague, so that they can change their interpretation of it whenever they like.

  • I find it ironic that some people bitching about an Apple monopoly also approve of so-called single-payer health care for everybody and disapprove of school choice.

    • You find it ironic that people in favour of government regulations also approve of more government involvement in other areas? Odd.

    • I find it odd that an adult human being can have such a poorly functioning brain as to not be able to distinguish between existentially important things and... toys.

As you will see, I told them, in no uncertain terms, to see Figure one. -- Dave "First Strike" Pare

Working...