8 ms·

Apple takes a 30% cut of all IAP. Google scrapes info and displays it in widgets above links to the actual content. Google charges trademark holders AdWords ra

• happytoexplain 6y ago
  There are so many comments written in this weirdly contradictory tone - I can't tell if you support or oppose the behaviors of these companies.
  • MattGaiser 6y ago
    I have never heard the word "sharecrop" used in a supportive way.
  • jeffmcmahan 6y ago
    I'd say the term 'sharecrop' clearly carries a strongly negative connotation...
  • pas 6y ago
    AdWords ransom. Not a positive thing. That said, the comment is a simple terse statement of "facts".
  • rbecker 6y ago
    Comments can do more than just express support or opposition.
    • gdsdfe 6y ago
      it's all this tribalism in the world nowadays ... it's like just tell me, are you with me or against me? as if these are the only options
      • Falling3 6y ago
        And unfortunately, we need to know that information between we are willing to judge the validity of the comment.
      • ta17711771 6y ago
        That way I can downvote you or upvote you, regardless of if you contribute to the discussion.
        • gdsdfe 6y ago
          Why? I was just branching out onto what seemed to be a good conversation ... Like I'm doing right now.
• Hamuko 6y ago
  >Google charges trademark holders AdWords ransom to protect searches for their own brands. Doesn't Apple have its own version of this in the App Store?
  • wlesieutre 6y ago
    Yes
• MattGaiser 6y ago
  > Amazon kills OSS business models by offering managed OSS services on AWS at an unbeatable cost. I don't get the objection to this one. Isn't the point of open source to let the best vendor win? Too many companies fail to realize that you must relentlessly wage war on cost to survive.
  • Grimm1 6y ago
    They do it at no benefit to the OSS providers, that's the issue.
    • xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
      Why do they need to benefit the OSS provider? The license doesn't contain anything suggesting otherwise. If authors want credit and money, the license needs to state as much. You can't publish something saying "do whatever you want" and then complain that people aren't being fair to you.
      • Signez 6y ago
        > You can't publish something saying "do whatever you want" and then complain that people aren't being fair to you. Well… you can complain. You just can't sue them. But the complaint would still be valid. You can act like a jerk and follow all the laws at the same time, it's just that the consequences for you won't be identical.
        • sukilot 6y ago
          Doing exactly as you are told by the copyright holder isn't being a jerk.
      • typomatic 6y ago
        My parents asked me for some money the other day, but I told them to pound sand--if they wanted my help they should have made me sign something before they gave me all that free room and board. Suckers!
• searchableguy 6y ago
  On a more general tone, does anti trust cover knowingly destroying communities and open source tools? All the problems from app store racket still applies such as the tax. And I am not saying android doesn't need a lot of those changes, it's just they break things without helping. There are many examples if you look around. 1. Disguised ads in search results (they have been making ads less obvious) - https://i.postimg.cc/h4V8TbqF/Screenshot-20200620-041823-Google-Play-Store.png https://i.postimg.cc/h4V8TbqF/Screenshot-20200620-041823-Goo... Even if you search the exact name, it will bombard you with whoever is paying the most. 2. Google closed source their play billing library recently. Apps which use the library can't be put on fdroid. 3. At Google I/O 2018, Google introduced an alternative app distribution format called the Android App Bundle with the file extension .aab. This format requires giving a copy of your app’s signing key to Google. AABs are harder for users to manually sideload as they aren’t natively supported by Android’s package installer and must be unpacked and devs have to do more work to distribute on other platforms. 4. Google killing Termux with Android 10 and many others relying on the functionality by removing the perms to execute binaries. 5. Fdroid can't auto update because of restrictions by google. 6. Broke custom recoveries such as TWRP. 7. Irresponsible automated ban of anything covid. Surprisingly this doesn't or never affect popular apps. Must be because they whitelist them. 2] https://www.xda-developers.com/f-droid-android-apps-google-play-purchases/ https://www.xda-developers.com/f-droid-android-apps-google-p... 3] https://www.xda-developers.com/google-play-billing-v3-app-bundle-requirement-2021/ https://www.xda-developers.com/google-play-billing-v3-app-bu... 4] https://github.com/termux/termux-packages/wiki/Termux-and-Android-10 https://github.com/termux/termux-packages/wiki/Termux-and-An... 6] https://www.xda-developers.com/twrp-lead-explains-android-10-support-custom-recovery/amp/ https://www.xda-developers.com/twrp-lead-explains-android-10... 7] https://9to5google.com/2020/05/19/podcast-addict-banned/ https://9to5google.com/2020/05/19/podcast-addict-banned/
  • donmcronald 6y ago
    I wonder how Microsoft would do in the mobile market right now if they came in with the same developer first attitude we're seeing everywhere else. Microsoft hardware with Android, a decent update lifecycle, MS365, alternate store, MS billing APIs, etc. would make a compelling offering IMO. The only thing I think MS would screw up would be sideloading. They seem to be all in on the current code signing / trust system and it's absolute trash. There are so many industries that have been turned into complete garbage by rent seekers that I feel like anything that doesn't absolutely screw developers and customers would be super successful. The problem is that we only have about 5 tech companies on the planet that are big enough to compete.
• Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  I can use Google Chrome, and still use a non-Google search engine. I can use a Kindle, and still read DRM-Free epubs. Yes, all the major tech companies are engaged in rent seeking. But Apple is the only one that says users must either must pay rent or throw away their hardware. The App Store and its policies are not the problem. The App Store is Apple's store, just like Amazon.com is Amazon's store. But the App Store shouldn't be the only way to get software on my phone. And no, reinstalling apps from a computer every seven days doesn't count. (The semi-exceptions are game consoles. I don't like that either, but since they're single-purpose devices I find it much less bad.)
  • wldlyinaccurate 6y ago
    Doesn't Android have the same problem? If your app isn't in the Play Store, it may as well not exist.
    • dylz 6y ago
      A large part of the world (China) runs their own app stores for Android.
    • Wowfunhappy 6y ago
      No, because you can sideload Android apps. Fortnite for Android isn't in the Play Store, and it definitely exists.
      • jackvalentine 6y ago
        They capitulated and it’s now on the Play Store. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.epicgames.fortnite&hl=en_AU https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.epicgames....
        • Wowfunhappy 6y ago
          Whoops, thanks, guess I was out of date! Still, Fortnite was sideload-only for a while, and that's a major game.
• MrStonedOne 6y ago
  I feel it pertinent to point out that comments like yours help keep the status quo. Pointing out that apple is not alone in a thread trying to raise awareness about apple's practices both distracts from apple's unethical behavior and contributes to normalizing the behavior in public perception. So my question to you is: do you want to see these unethical behaviors end? or continue?
  • pdonis 6y ago
    Why is it unethical to charge a fee to developers who want to distribute their software through an app store that Apple owns? I get that it's unpleasant for developers who don't like the policy, and at some point it might have business consequences for Apple if they don't change the policy, but why is it unethical?
    • MrStonedOne 6y ago
      Think of a flee market. Lets say this flee market runs their own PoS system that tables can use, they require all sales happen via this PoS system "to protect customers from hacking", and they charge a percentage for providing this service, higher then normal under the guise that the transaction is being conducted on their property, they are "hosting" the "sale" under their roof, so they set the terms for it. Seems fair and good, ish Now lets say that they also own the city bank, and they are the only one allowed to take their bank's debit card as payment. Most people don't use the other, newer bank because everybody they know is using the flee markets bank as it was first. So if you want to take credit card payments you have to sale at the flee market. Is it still fair and good for them to continue to set all terms relating to how sales are conducted in a selfish way when they have a monopoly gained in part from first mover advantage? eh, maybe, maybe not. Now they say that if you sale any spare parts or consumables for a product that was originally sold at the flee market, you must only do so at the flee market. Is it still fair and good for them to use the fact that the transaction is happening on their property to set higher fees on these follow up transactions when they require these follow up transactions to happen on their property? While exploiting a first mover advantage that causes more of the initial transactions to happen on their property? Never forget that you can't just look at each piece, the whole matters too. Each individual piece of the macro is ethically an "eh" at most, but the whole is a bit more then "eh"
• sukilot 6y ago
  "Amazon accepts gifts freely given to it" is a weird accusation. OSS authors could distribute on a non-commercial CC license.
  • t0astbread 6y ago
    Let's assume the idea of Open Source is a network of small to medium-sized businesses and individual contributors helping each other out in a mutually beneficial way. A multi-billion dollar corp stepping in by undercutting those businesses' prices and taking without giving back anything of equal value is arguably against the spirit of the idea and a breach of trust. It's technically okay because it is just "accepting a gift" but I'd still say it's exploitation. Distributing under a NC-license would also go against that idea. (Apart from tipping the perception of "Open Source" towards something more restrictive which is always a bit bitter.)
• thatMurcia99 6y ago
  That’s not a tech specific feature that’s society. Corporations buy up all the viable land, then rent rooms, or sell stock. They “bank” all your money and use it to profit for themselves. Wax cylinders and vinyl records are like human society: round and round they go, skipping on all the same old knicks. The financial ownership model is your real problem. Money is speech now in America. Good luck.
• boycaught 6y ago
  "Sharecrop" is a brilliant metaphor for the entire racket.
• manfredo 6y ago
  The key difference is that the App store is the only way of running apps on an iDevice outside of rooting it (which for >99% of users means it's the only way of running apps). Apple needs to be transparent that it's not selling devices, it's licensing devices. Users do not control the devices they own.
  • ogre_codes 6y ago
    There are PWAs. I know PWAs have massive limitations, but there are some work-arounds. They just aren't great.
    • twicetwice 6y ago
      Apple deliberately cripples PWAs on their devices for exactly this reason. I get it, but I hate them for it.
• lern_too_spel 6y ago
  > Google scrapes info and displays it in widgets above links to the actual content. Google charges trademark holders AdWords ransom to protect searches for their own brands. All search engines do this. It doesn't depend on building scale and then exploiting it. The experience is better for the user. > Amazon kills OSS business models by offering managed OSS services on AWS at an unbeatable cost. All cloud providers do this. It also doesn't depend on building and exploiting scale. The experience is better for the user.