8 ms·

It's not Apple vs. Fortnite. It's actually Apple vs. Users. Apple has been taking us for a ride this whole time. We pay damn much and buy the phone. It is the u

• pferde 6y ago
  What monopoly? Nobody is forcing you to buy Apple and enter into their rotten walled garden. If you "pay damn much and buy the phone", you are doing it of your own volition. "Take the power back" by not continuing to give them your money.
  • grenoire 6y ago
    The android ecosystem and OEM's lack of support for older phones (for one) is something that is 'forcing' me to enter their walled garden. I can't, also as a customer, ignore that Apple has done a lot of things very well, but that doesn't at all stop me from also complaining about their bad practices.
    • gwd 6y ago
      Don't you think these things may have some relationship to each other? All the work Apple does has to be paid for somehow; and realistically, in a for-profit company like Apple, has to be paid for in a way that will generate not just barely enough to pay for itself, but has to be paid for in a way that will generate lots of profits. Google makes money off of advertising. Apple makes money, in part, off of taxing apps. If Apple can't tax apps, then suddenly their business model isn't nearly as appealing, and they start needing to make changes to keep things profitable -- things like maybe selling more of your data, or "encouraging" you to upgrade by not supporting older phones as well. This whole discussion always makes me angry because right now I have a choice: I can choose to buy a product supported by app taxes, or I can choose to buy a product supported by spying on me. If Apple is forced to allow other app stores, and thus forced to look for other business models to remain profitable, I may not have that choice any more. If Fortnite doesn't like it, why don't they just charge 50% more for the app on iOS? If people complain, just show them the math, so they know that it's the Apple Tax making things more expensive. I'm happy to pay 30% more for apps.
      • grenoire 6y ago
        I understand where your arguments come from, and I do agree to the fundamental economics of it. It all holds well too, until you realise, however, that Apple is sitting on 200 billion dollars in cash. Also: Epic did actually give an option to pay less for their microtransactions if you paid them directly, and were about to refund people for their transactions in the past month for the Apple tax itself. Their rebellion is the main reason Apple retaliated like this.
        • ghostwriter 6y ago
          > it all holds well too, until you realise, however, that Apple is sitting on 200 billion dollars in cash. how does that negate the given points? These 200b is an indicator of a healthy business that can survive major downturns for a long period of time, which should be much more appealing that an open credit line and piles of debt in accounting tables, so much prevalent in the industry nowadays.
          • grenoire 6y ago
            It wasn't supposed to negate his points, I said I agree to them too. The issue is that Apple would be still be comfortably profitable at a much lower and less predatory level of Apple-tax-rate. They are fundamentally not entitled to the profits of the companies who have to be on their market. The value they provide to the developers and customers collectively for simply hosting and reviewing these apps is not 30%. As other commenters have pointed out, they are willing to pay a portion of this extra 30% if and only if it goes to the people who build the applications. It's not a supply-demand mismatch issue, it's overreach and exploitation. On the other hand, I don't quite get what your point is about Apple being a healthy business or them not accumulating debt (which is arguably wrong, Apple has ~91,807,000,000 USD in long-term debt (out of 142B USD in non-current liabilities)). I don't think that is relevant here, let alone discounts my point about the excessive profits they've accumulated.
            • ghostwriter 6y ago
              > They are fundamentally not entitled to the profits of the companies who have to be on their market. that's not how markets work. Apple is absolutely entitled to charge whatever amount of money they wish, firstly because other companies engage into trade with Apple voluntarily and no one is forcing companies into App Store, they enter it because they know they are going to make money there, and secondly because if Apple is not entitled to this money by their right of ownership of the platform that millions of customers find outstanding, everyone else is even less entitled to own and dispose of these earnings. It is also up to Apple shareholders to decide what is comfortably profitable. As for the debt that you mention, accounting doesn't work that way either. Their total long-term and current operational debt as of 2020 can be paid in full, by the half of their immediately available disposable cash. This IS a prime example of a healthy business.
  • hijklmno 6y ago
    Take the money back and go where? Live in a hut? It's such enabling behaviors that embolden these elitists to lord over our lives. You can't let anyone be a gatekeeper to technology and progress. This applies to every major tech player. And this is the time that we need to make our voices heard.
    • evbpcapfxy 6y ago
      Personally I think the best option if we could move away from iOS and Android to a pure Linux phone like Librem5. I don't think it's there yet though. Seems like Vavle have had some success in supporting gaming on Linux so having a better alternative seems possible.
    • YarickR2 6y ago
      Found a company. Bring it to success. Build an ecosystem around it . Your voice will be heard, then.
      • eirini1 6y ago
        lol
      • jason0597 6y ago
        Easier said than done
    • bzb4 6y ago
      Take the money back and go to Android.
    • pferde 6y ago
      Yes, sure, make your voice heard, fight against the abuses, that can only help. But at the same time, do not pretend that there are not any alternatives. Yes, perhaps those alternatives are not as convenient, but choosing them over the "wrong" choice should be an equal part of the fight. And "Live in a hut"? Please do not be overly maudlin. We are talking consumer electronics here - something that is still considered luxury - not fundamental philosophies of life or economic models of society.
  • anilakar 6y ago
    Uninformed consumers will normalize the abusive behavior and pricing by buying the product. Mocking and complaining about unacceptable business practices is everyone's right and responsibility.
    • pferde 6y ago
      By all means, yes, mock away and raise awareness. That's good, it helps. But I know too many people who are very vocal about how Apple is bad and how they should be stopped, and yet these people keep buying a new iThing every year.
      • hijklmno 6y ago
        Do you think defending bad practices and stereotyping is going to change anything?
        • pferde 6y ago
          I am sorry if my post came across as defending Apple, I certainly did not mean to do that. I was merely trying to point out that people tend to put too much emphasis in being safely vocal (online, where you're sitting safely in your own home) against bad behavior, and not enough emphasis in actually not rewarding said bad behavior. For many, the latter option is not even present in their mind anymore.
      • mytherin 6y ago
        Mister Gotcha [1] is ever relevant. [1] https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/ https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/
        • pferde 6y ago
          I'm sorry, but that overrated comic strip is not relevant at all. It shows three situations, two of which depict normal progress ("there is this useful thing that has flaws because nobody has cared enough to fix those flaws, let's try"; Mr. Gotcha's burn is out of line), and one depicts standard corporate behavior ("a brand is willfully behaving in several ways that the society knows is abusive, and fans of that brand are willfully blind towards that)"; Mr. Gotcha's burn is very much deserved). In short, one of these things is not like the others.
  • takeda 6y ago
    Back in the late 90s no one forced you to use Windows and Microsoft Office. You could just live without a PC.
    • thaumasiotes 6y ago
      > Back in the late 90s no one forced you to use Windows and Microsoft Office. You could just live without a PC. This was not unusual in the late 90s.
• hrktb 6y ago
  > It is the user's property from then on I guess that's what's going to change more and more in our future. Just like apps/programs, movies, books, music tracks were our properties.
  • thatguy0900 6y ago
    Most people already lease phones, to them it wouldn't be that big of a change to just say you can only rent them
    • cookieswumchorr 6y ago
      care to bring in some statistics? In what part of the world? I havent't found numbers, and my anecdotal experience is opposite
      • shawnz 6y ago
        Carrier subsidized devices are the norm in North America.
        • twduke 6y ago
          Same in Sweden, if you can't afford to, or don't want to spend the cash for a >1000$ phone. You can lock yourself in for 12-24 months on a provider with a raised monthly fee. Very common in my experience.
        • hrktb 6y ago
          It's too long since I entered these contracts, is it loaned/leased ? Where I am the loan would be on the purchasing money, so technically you own the device, but would have to pay your carrier the remaining price + some penalty if you needed to stop the contract, or give back the device + penalty if you are not in a position to pay. The device stays with you after the loan/contract period is done. There is still the carrier lockin, so you can't change carrier willy-nilly before the loan is paid, but that wouldn't stop you from selling your phone to someone else using the same carrier for instance.
• mobilemidget 6y ago
  afaik google kicked them out of the store too. https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2020/8/13/21368079/fortnite-epic-android-banned-google-play-app-store-rule-violation https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2020/8/13/21368079/for...
  • rottingfruit 6y ago
    The reason I, and I assume many others, have less of a problem with that is that you can fairly easily still download and play fortnite without the Play Store. As far as I know that’s not an option on iOS outside of jailbreaking your phone.
    • mobilemidget 6y ago
      It's App Store policy and payment handling within apps, not so much about being to install it. I don't like to see trillion new payment providers, I also don't like to see monopolies. It's a very long and big discussion. But I do wonder, can and _would_ you do payments in a non store app with their own payment provider? E.g. the fortnite you have downloaded and installed outside of the play store?
      • blackoil 6y ago
        We already do it over the internet, there are many players as payment gateway. To secure it, the payment systems need to improve and have proper notifications, 2FA etc. and not rely on benevolence and whims of the monopolies.
      • camhart 6y ago
        The lawsuit is about app distribution on iOS as well as the 30% cut. There won't be anymore than what the web already has. Stripe or Paypal would likely be popular choices. Payment processors are required by law to be PCI compliant, though that doesn't guarantee they are. Yes I would do payments in a non app store app with their own payment provider if I felt I trusted the app. It's no different than paying on any website (there's no Apple review process for websites).
      • 6y ago
• longtermdd 6y ago
  You sound like a pissed 8-year-old who missed to invest in Apple :D
• tommymachine 6y ago
  I like the 30% cut for the App Store. It provides them incentive to promote & sell apps, and make sure the App Store is a smooth experience for users, & a profitable one for developers. It’s certainly healthy, if on the high side. But I’d sure rather have a healthy app ecosystem than an unhealthy one. The problem with them experimenting with lowering the rate is once its lowered, imagine the fuss which would ensue if they then raised it.
  • adrianh 6y ago
    They already have an incentive to promote and sell apps: if the ecosystem has more/better apps, then more people will want to buy an iPhone/iPad. They've explicitly stated this in their marketing: "There's an app for that."
  • celticninja 6y ago
    30% of subscriptions/coin purchases is too much. Possibly warranted for actual app sales due to the review process, but after the app is sold 30% of every subsequent payment is a protection racket.
    • TLightful 6y ago
      10% is a normal'ish partner cut for providing a platform for others to transact on (ignoring money transfers services). 30% is laughable, long term. Not even a "one more thing" cut to 29%, lol, ever!
      • tommymachine 6y ago
        Thats when you pay your own way on distribution.
• TLightful 6y ago
  Agreed. Do you remember Jobs talked about computers being the bicycle of the mind ... ? Not so much when you're slapping 30%, kicking back, and resting your feet up on the table.
• mojuba 6y ago
  > We pay damn much and buy the phone. It is the user's property from then on. Sure, the App Store and its services however are not the user's property.
  • fastball 6y ago
    Right, but Apple prohibits the installation of apps that are not from their app store.
    • mojuba 6y ago
      True, but you are free to install only free apps, or no apps, or only your own apps pushed directly onto the phone. In fact you are free to fully operate without iCloud/AppStore (if I'm not mistaken)
      • saagarjha 6y ago
        Buying a general-purpose computing device to run a handful of built-in applications is not really fully operating it.
• vogre 6y ago
  >Taking a cut of say, 3%, to keep the app store running is forgivable. But 30% digging into users pocket is unpardonable. What makes you think that 3% cut is enough?
  • ralfn 6y ago
    Because its the sort of above most transaction fees of most payment providers in the world. But Apple can ask whatever they want. They can't block side-loading though. That's the uncompetitive part. You can run your store and pick whatever terms you like. You can't use your marketshare in hardware sales to bundle a forced store. Imagine Tesla charging you 30% of any grocery shopping (i.e. would refuse to open the doors if the store didn't share 30% of its gross revenue). I mean, its literally, textbook anti-competitive. The App Store as a store isn't competing fairly, on its own merits. Also keep in mind, that this whole getting raped with transaction fees is a 'america-only' thing. This is much better regulated in the rest of the world. Specifically the costs are fixed, so anything that is a percentage is just fucking nonsense. It doesn't cost more to charge 5 euro's than it does to charge 1 euro. It uses the same electricity, the same personel costs. There is a point where its get more expensive because of risk management, but thats above 100 euro per transaction. Percentages on transactions are generally only allowed when its a loan. Which is why Americans are always buying things with credit cards ("loaning the money"). Most people pay for things with their own money, not with a loan. (i.e. direct bank transfer). And those transactions have a fixed transaction costs. Worst case 1 euro (low-volume, your personal webshop) all the way down to 5 euro cent (high-volume, i.e. the supermarket). So explain to me where the hell you get your 3% from? You just sound like an already boiled frog saying 'are you sure we can survive in cold water?'
    • AdrianB1 6y ago
      Not trying to debate, just having an idea: the percentage versus fix cost is coming from the tax system. You don't pay a fix dollar tax per citizen, but a percentage of your income. I can see private companies doing the same.
      • ralfn 6y ago
• speleding 6y ago
  > 3% to keep the app store running is forgivable Payment processing alone would cost Apple that much. You easily lose 1.5%-2% in payment fees and another 2% in handling fraud and customer support queries about payments. For example, if a payment for an app is $1.99, Apple now takes $0.60. If a customer calls support to ask a question about the purchase it can cost anywhere from $15 to $30 in call center fees, so it takes 50 purchases to make good on that. If you lower that to a $0.06 take apple would have to make 500 sales for every phone call to support. People don't realise good customer support is very expensive.
  • alkonaut 6y ago
    If we disregard the app purchase (which few complain about) and focus on in-app purchases now. E.g. for buying fortnite hats or netflix subscriptions, where the in-app purchase is NOT processed by apple, surely that can't give rise to any kind of added costs for apple (customer support, transaction costs)?
    • speleding 6y ago
      In-app purchases are processed by apple as well.
      • ralfn 6y ago
        No, in-app purchases are forced to BE proccessed by Apple. Epic would like to proccess these themselves. They dont want apple to turn on their economic output. When you charge money for the work others do -- that's like communism.
      • alkonaut 6y ago
        No, not when they are angered by apps NOT doing that (e.g. Epic in this case, or netflix/spotify charging for subscriptions outside, etc). This discussion is about Epic charging for in-app things outside of Apple's control. So apple can't use the argument that they have costs (support, payment) for those transactions.
• isodude 6y ago
  To reach a good balance you don't use rebellion, you don't need to take action. If you want to fight greed, start with yourself and then maybe your peers. Accept what is and don't buy stuff you don't need. Hopefully we learn this before something worse than covid destroys all. Also it's very hard task to keep a good eco system running, both Google and Apple do their best here. Most organisations crumble from the inside at their size. Hey, actually several companies reached a size where they have the stability to offer the same service to most part of the world and it allows us to communicate basically free. We also have gadgets that is super duper advanced in our pockets. Embrace that give them some slack. Lead them by example and create a counter culture that takes all the good parts and makes them better. You got a silver plate of goodies, anyone in the past would trade that spot with you in an instance.
• Waterfall 6y ago
  In their profit reports I am told that the 30% is not profit it just maintains the app store. I read that from some jailbreakers, they seemed legit since it was talking about how apple locks it down too much. It was in the earnings report, so they didn't have a reason to lie (I think). I wonder if they cook the numbers or something to lie about it.
  • jeffisabelle 6y ago
    According to the article [1] - App store made 11.5 Billion $ revenue in 2017. That's like 30 million dollars per day. I'm not even going to argue that you need such money to maintain a static binary distribution platform. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2018/01/06/apples-app-store-generated-over-11-billion-in-revenue-for-the-company-last-year/#719804836613 https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2018/01/06/apples-ap...
    • Waterfall 6y ago
      Revenue is not profit. I am not saying I believe them but it was in their earnings report. I think maybe it doesn't turn profit the same way that movies lose money.
• fsewe20 6y ago
  It is interesting that we criticise monopoly in one form (apple), but encourage it in another ("It is the user's property"). If we go down the logical road of "why monopoly is bad" it is because property may not be utilised in the most effective way for the common good, all property is monopoly. I wonder if auction based app store costs are a possible solution to the increasing developer frustration with Apple? Self Assessed Licenses Sold via Auction across many marketplaces may help combat monopoly. I can see Apple (with their privacy angle) moving towards facilitating users selling their data/data unions. Perhaps some other radical-liberalism ideas could come through too. https://www.radicalxchange.org/concepts/ https://www.radicalxchange.org/concepts/ https://blog.radicalxchange.org/blog/posts/millennials-zoomers-and-salsa-just-radical-enough/ https://blog.radicalxchange.org/blog/posts/millennials-zoome...
  • partyboat1586 6y ago
    Not all property is monopoly. I own my phone but no one has to use my phone to make calls, there are other sources of phones and places to make a call. If I lived in a town where I was the only person with a phone and was charging people to use it then that would be a monopoly. It's about demand as well as supply. There is no demand to use my phone specifically over any other phone.
• rimliu 6y ago
  Would you also support ditching all the free apps from the App Store?
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• mapcars 6y ago
  Apple is against freedom like since the beginning, I don't understand how anybody can use any of their products.
  • Razengan 6y ago
    Because their products are often very good in many ways and their policies protect users from many unscrupulous developers and companies.
  • shim2k 6y ago
    People who still don’t understand why people pay for Apple products really lack basic piece of wisdom, making their opinion less valuable. Yet they still boast about this particular misunderstanding of theirs.
  • jalfresi 6y ago
    Maybe because historically the developer industry has shown that some bad actors can ruin it for everyone? That maybe the App store review process is to benefit ME, as an Apple customer? I WANT a curated App store, simply because I? CANT trust any random app downloaded onto my phone. I pay Apple for that service. Apple App Store customers are NOT blind sheeple afraid of freedom; I am NOT interested in having a phone that can run any and all software! The industry has proven it cant be trusted, so I pay Apple to gatekeep that for me. If you still dont get that, I dont know what to tell you...
    • tauwauwau 6y ago
      Believe me, we got it. All developers are scummy and trying to make a living without paying 30% of your earnings to the platform is just too much to ask. Even though YOU purchased the device YOU don't want to be able to run any and all applications, even when YOU might really really want to, full stop. Apple should own what YOU can do on your device, and since YOU said it, EVERYONE should just agree to it.
      • danielscrubs 6y ago
• Razengan 6y ago
  > It's actually Apple vs. Users. Apple has been taking us for a ride this whole time. Oh please. Nobody who actually uses Apple feels that way. Though I agree they should allow a way to sideload apps. One of the downsides of being primarily an iOS dev is not being able to participate in activities like game-jams because there's no way to casually share my stuff with other users. > Taking a cut of say, 3%, to keep the app store running is forgivable. But 30% Do you know how much Google, Microsoft, Steam and Epic themselves take from sales on their stores? Apple protects its users better than the other major players. Their privacy and accessibility features alone are unparalleled, and they do a lot to curtail scummy developer practices. The entities which Apple protects users from are often the ones crying foul. See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24154647 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24154647 and similar comments: > the magnitude of this is not immediately apparent unless you’ve worked in an agency / freelanced building iOS applications. You have no idea how many user-hostile and abusive things I’ve seen blown completely out of the water with the golden phrase "Apple won’t allow that". It wins arguments in favour of the user instantly and permanently. > I’ve run up against Apple’s capricious review process more times than I can count, so I’ve got more reason than most to complain about it. But it’s impossible for me to argue that these rules don’t help the user when I’ve personally seen it happen so many times. It’s a double-edged sword to be sure, and I believe the best way of balancing things in favour of the end-user is to be more open than Apple is, but there are undeniable benefits to the user with the current system.
  • Throwawaay1199 6y ago
    > Apple protects its users better than the other major players Who wants them to stop doing that? They can still do that for the apps which chose to get the full treatment. This is not the problem here. The problem is that they don't give you an option to not participate. No alternative way. So let's not pretend here. It's all about MORE money here. They won't go broke if they allow what Epic did. They'll just get less and this is it. This is what it's all about. I don't understand this sentiment of playing marketing division for them by some users here. It's quite disgusting actually. Do you get money for that? Seriously. You'd lose NOTHING if Apple would change so what's your motivation here? It makes no sense at all. And yes, I created an extra account for that because you people are toxic as hell when the topic is Apple and someone is not part of the circlejerk.
• CrazyCatDog 6y ago
  > It's not Apple vs. Fortnite. It's actually Apple vs. Users. This would suggest that Apple is shooting itself in the foot—which is exactly the opposite of antitrust policy. Put simply: Apple’s behavior seems to be hurting itself and benefiting competitors (Samsung/Google) which, broadly speaking, would seem like an uphill battle for anyone arguing to open up the iOS ecosystem.
• pankajdoharey 6y ago
  Google also kicked Epic out but no body is talking about that not even Epic. Maybe because Statistically Android users are less likely to pay for apps and services than iOS users. So clearly iOS is where the money is and nothing wrong in Apple trying to protect that.
  • willtim 6y ago
    It's perhaps less important because software can still be installed on Android without Google Play. Don't forget that Apple has already cut special deals with Amazon, so the extortionate 30% is negotiable, if one is big enough to fight.
  • bananaface 6y ago
    I think it's closer to: Apple is the important target. If they win that suit, they automatically win against Google. IMO the fact that both processors kicked them off strengthens their case, because it's a strong argument in favour of oligopoly.
  • AndrewDavis 6y ago
    Epic filed a suit against Google too. https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21368363/epic-google-fortnite-lawsuit-antitrust-app-play-store-apple-removal?utm_campaign=theverge&utm_content=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&__twitter_impression=true https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21368363/epic-google-fort...
• jalfresi 6y ago
  What nonsense. As an Apple customer, the App store is the number one reason I use them - I dont want malware or scummy developers on my phone and I am happy with Apple charging a fee to developers in this manner. It's not like anyone going to switch phones because your app is not on there. Your app is just one of many other apps I use on my phone. Developers are very much looking at this the wrong way - the 30% fee is the price developers must pay to access Apples customers.
  • willtim 6y ago
    Many people buy Apple hardware because that's where most of the apps are, especially the iPad. I purchased an iPad for my kids for precisely this reason, and regarding the actual software that Apple provides, I am not at all impressed (e.g. app store is a mess, app approvals for kids is very broken). I am also aware that this extortionate 30% transaction cost is likely being passed on to me. If I could get all the games and educational apps we use on the iPad on another platform, I would ditch Apple in a heartbeat.
  • DoubleGlazing 6y ago
    But what if an Apple customer wants to deal with a developer directly? Apple wont allow me to do that even though I own the device. That's my bugbear with Apple, If I own a iPhone I should be able to install software from any source - even if it is risky.
  • endemic 6y ago
    > I dont want malware or scummy developers on my phone Despite what many folks say, the App Store review process doesn't protect from bad developer behavior. See the various controversies surrounding social media apps that used many shady tracking techniques. And those apps are among the most popular... you'd think they would be "reviewed" more thoroughly!
    • specialist 6y ago
      What would a future perfect review system look like? How well do Apple, Google, Microsoft perform against that perfect system? What resources do they dedicate to the task? There's apparently some ways for malware to avoid detection. So yet another arms race whackamole. Frankly, as a noob consumer, it's exhausting. It definitely impacts my spending. FWIW, one of my besties worked on an audit tool which runs apps in a sandbox, screening for malware and whatnot. My impression was that it was a lot of effort for little reward. In conclusion, sorry for braindump, thank you for reading this far: Freemium will be sidelined into its own wasteland. Like that recent piece about journalism: "truth is expensive, lies are free."
• Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  I'm fine with Apple taking 30%, 50%, or 90% of revenue on the App Store. Running the App Store isn't free, and Apple is the party best positioned to assess their own costs. However, the App Store should not be the only way to install software on my phone. Critically, if I was able to sideload apps, Apple wouldn't charge 90%, because then no developer would ever use the store. A central repository of curated, vetted apps is a key selling point for the iPhone. Apple will want to maintain that feature, as they should, but they have to put in the work to compete.
  • ksec 6y ago
    I have always considered Apple making a "Phone" with more computing capabilities, while Google was trying to a PC down to a Phone size. And in the case I agree the Phone should not be able to side load Apps. It is locked precisely because it is a Phone. And there would be 100x fewer support calls just because of that . Remember there are 1 Billion iPhone users. I can bet 900M of them dont even know what HN or programming. I am wondering if Apple shoudl allow iPad to side load App, given iPad is more like PC working in Tablet form factor. And release an iPad Nano. I mean if customer really think they should have side load Apps they would buy the Nano. ( That is of course ignoring the complexity of line up ) Personally I dont want the hassle of supporting people side loading apps and then calling for help. I would much rather Apple keep it the current way. And I have no problem with Games being charged 30% cut. But for some reason I think Apps and other Services should be charged 15% of less. Given Apple already split the Apps and Gaming Section in the App Store. I dont see this would be a problem.
• dutch3000 6y ago
  uh. they banned a video game. death of a country? dramatic much?