Apple Attempts to Stop Developers Promoting Alternative Payment Options for In-App Purchases in Russia

[Sophisticatednut]

That’s supposition as you don’t know what happens behind the scenes.

Sure, appeal is the right thing to do. No double standards. Only something fictionalized to criticize apple as I see it.

It’s not supposition as these are public things they announce.
Every time apple is asked to break their morals or beliefs they happily do it with no fight to try and stop it or postpone the decisions.

If it’s against their profits they will spare no expense fighting it. Just look at Korea.
But every time it’s against their bottom line they throw the users under the buss and if it’s good for users but bad for apple they equally show their true identity ( they are just like any other company ) by throwing user under the buss

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Yet consists of many $$$ and proprietary IP.

Sorry but why does apple deserve so much money if a user:
1. Googles after an app
2: ends on developers website
3: klick download link
4(this is the controversial part). Developers are FORCED to link to the Apple AppStore and pay apple taxes just as they searched in apple AppStore.

You can’t even develop an app saying hello world without being forced to use apple ip/Xcode

 

[svish]

Apple will try its best to avoid alternate payment methods.

 

[I7guy]

It’s not supposition as these are public things they announce.

It is most certainly supposition. Seems like criticism for criticisms’ sake.

Every time apple is asked to break their morals or beliefs they happily do it with no fight to try and stop it or postpone the decisions.

If it’s against their profits they will spare no expense fighting it. Just look at Korea.
But every time it’s against their bottom line they throw the users under the buss and if it’s good for users but bad for apple they equally show their true identity ( they are just like any other company ) by throwing user under the buss

Apple is not the worlds gatekeeper. They are in no way obligated to fight for “truth , justice and the American way”. Yet they do. However, they should legally fight where required. So what’s the issue?

 

[I7guy]

Sorry but why does apple deserve so much money if a user:
1. Googles after an app
2: ends on developers website
3: klick download link
4(this is the controversial part). Developers are FORCED to link to the Apple AppStore and pay apple taxes just as they searched in apple AppStore.

You can’t even develop an app saying hello world without being forced to use apple ip/Xcode

Because it’s apples platform, their ip, their rules. They aren’t the only game in town. There are other smartphone manufacturers and app stores. Competition is good, or so I’m told.

 

[RadioHedgeFund]

Apple is a curb defender of democracy

How is a tech monopoly that repeatedly refuses to play nice with its rivals to the benefit of consumers 'democratic'?

If anything Apple is a totalitarian dicatator that won't let you do anything without their express say-so!

 

[Sophisticatednut]

It is most certainly supposition. Seems like criticism for criticisms’ sake.

Apple is not the worlds gatekeeper. They are in no way obligated to fight for “truth , justice and the American way”. Yet they do. However, they should legally fight where required. So what’s the issue?

Oh no, absolutely they have no obligations to do that. But then they should stop pretending to be the gatekeepers of the world and shut up about it.

Apple is not the worlds gatekeeper. They are in no way obligated to fight for “truth , justice and the American way”. Yet they do.

They have never done this ever. This includes doing the legal battles otherwise it’s just meaningless talk, window dressing.
But they only legally fight for their profits, and that’s okey if they are honest.

Notice nobody complains about Sony or Microsoft and google etc and that’s because they are honest about their greed

 

[I7guy]

Oh no, absolutely they have no obligations to do that. But then they should stop pretending to be the gatekeepers of the world and shut up about it.

Oh I agree if they were pretending. But they aren’t pretending, they have causes they decide they want to participate in. That doesn’t mean they have to participate in every cause a MR poster wants them to or that they are they worlds gatekeepers.

They have never done this ever. This includes doing the legal battles otherwise it’s just meaningless talk, window dressing.
But they only legally fight for their profits, and that’s okey if they are honest.

They are honest.

Notice nobody complains about Sony or Microsoft and google etc and that’s because they are honest about their greed

They don’t really care and they are dishonest.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

@Sophisticatednut

You don’t understand … Apple honest … competition dishonest. My opinion … my shares.

There is nothing to learn here.

Cheers.

 

[I7guy]

@Nuno Lopes See what happens when you become an Apple shareholder, and how your world views change.

Nothing more to understand here, move along!

 

[Nuno Lopes]

@Nuno Lopes See what happens when you become an Apple shareholder, and how your world views change.

Nothing more to understand here, move along!

Finally some honesty. My advice is to diversify the portfolio. Than your opinions may be …. let’s say cover a wider circle of moral and property interests?

 

[I7guy]

Finally some honesty. My advice is to diversify the portfolio. Than your opinions may be …. let’s say cover a wider circle of moral and property interests?

The world is a big place and big enough have diverse opinions, diverse morality and diverse interests. All of which do NOT go against the mores of society. But if you are saying people sometimes don't see beyond their opinions and they don't know they do this....I agree.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

But if you are saying people sometimes don't see beyond their opinions and they don't know they do this....I agree.

Yeah. It’s quite common that people think it only happens to others. Especially the ones we don’t agree with .

I mean, some people agree with the idea of one enforcing charges for things that does not invent, not create, not invest, not produce, not build, not distribute and not sell just because it finds a situation that it can. Actually some people think that have the moral right to do so … a sense of entitlement coming from their contributions to the development of mankind … or maybe just a fact of nature .. natural organization. Some people have that sense and share such beliefs.

I don’t. I believe that if that was correct the USA could never be. Democracy could never be. Heck Apple could never be. Democratic capitalism could never be. But than again some can have China on their payroll. Royalty.

So I do think some opinions do go against the mores of society … depending of course what society we are talking about.

Opinions.

 

[I7guy]

Yeah. It’s quite common that people think it only happens to others. Especially the ones we don’t agree with .

True on this.

I mean, some people agree with the idea of one enforcing charges for things that does not invent, not create, not invest, not produce, not build, not distribute and not sell just because it finds a situation that it can. Actually some people think that have the moral right to do so … a sense of entitlement coming from their contributions to the development of mankind … or maybe just a fact of nature .. natural organization. Some people have that sense and share such beliefs.

I don’t. I believe that if that was correct the USA could never be. Democracy could never be. Heck Apple could never be. Democratic capitalism could never be. But than again some can have China on their payroll. Royalty.

So I do think some opinions do go against the mores of society … depending of course what society we are talking about.

Opinions.

Yeah, it's astounding that people think that a company that sells hundreds of millions of consumer devices should build a device to their exacting specifications. Instead they want the government to go in and force the company to build the exact product. As you say...a sense of entitlement.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Yeah, it's astounding that people think that a company that sells hundreds of millions of consumer devices should build a device to their exacting specifications.

Well you see. You are equating what I’ve said to some company device specification. Superb oversimplification. Gaslighting. Spread the gas ….

Yes some devices specifications that enforce practices such as the ones mentioned are or will be illegal. Practices difficult to implement before technology matured. Well … actually were … but we got rid the most of it …

It’s not that weird … it’s a common market affair not particular to a company. Some practices are or won’t be allowed.

PS: Also if you look at the current regulations that cover “device specifications” has little todo with the value of shares altogether. It’s not the job of regulators to maintain or demote the value of a company shares. But to identify potential abuses and condition them up to eradication..

Take markets created after Pyramid schemes … are now forbidden. They started as a legitimate practice … shareholders and all.

Don’t understand your surprise.

 

[I7guy]

Well you see. You are equating what I’ve said to some company device specification. Superb oversimplification. Yes some devices specifications are or will be illegal.

It’s not that weird … it’s a common market affair meaning not particular to a company.

PS: Also if you look at the current regulations that cover “device specifications” has little todo with the price of shares altogether. It’s not the job of regulators to maintain or demote the value of a company shares.

Take markets created after Pyramid schemes … are forbidden.

Oversimplification is clearly needed here. There are laws all around the globe that protect consumers and I don't see anybody suggesting that products that go against safety protocols be manufactured; even if abundantly requested.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Oversimplification is clearly needed here. There are laws all around the globe that protect consumers and I don't see anybody suggesting that products that go against safety protocols be manufactured; even if abundantly requested.

Well you are advocating such protocols. You basically avoided the core point of the previous post and tried to diversion remitting it to device specifications …

I mean, some people agree with the idea of one enforcing charges for things that does not invent, not create, not invest, not produce, not build, not distribute, do not support and not sell just because it finds or creates a situation that it can. Actually some people think that have the moral right to do so … a sense of entitlement coming from their contributions to the development of mankind … or maybe just a fact of nature .. natural organization. Some people have that sense and share such beliefs.

The millions of people that bought the devices did not specifically agree with such practice. So it can’t be used to legitimate it.

 

[I7guy]

Well you are advocating such protocols. You basically avoided the core point of the previous post and tried to diversion remitting it to device specifications …

You claim I am advocating such protocols, when in reality that is an interpretation far and away from what was said. Yes, I avoided the part the wasn't central to my point.

The millions of people that bought the devices did not specifically agree with such practice. So it can’t be used to legitimate it.

Vote with your dollars is what is needed. A manufacturer produced a device that doesn't meet your specifications. Let's say for the sake of argument you wanted Apple to allow sideloading into the device, but you knew it didn't allow sideloading and now you are on an anonymous internet forum cribbing that ios doesn't allow sideloading, all while bemoaning the "excessive" profits Apple makes from rent seeking. Well my friend, have I got a phone for you...it's the Samsung Galaxy (or any other android phone). Of course you don't want that phone. You petition your local congressman to investigate Apple for anti-trust practices to have them change their business processes. But alas, in the US it falls flat.*

* of course all of this is out of our control as the government could mandate anything and what was legal and practical yesterday, becomes illegal and impractical today.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Yes, I avoided the part the wasn't central to my point.

Well it was central to mine and anyone that take issue with some of the App Store policies. Seriously what other issues could third parties be concerned with?

Given that you tried to blank it out I assume your point is made regardless or in favor of these kind of property threatening protocols. So either totally abstract to the issues being put forward by concerned entities or in favor of such practices.

By the way, agreements do not cover future changes yet it has been used by Apple to force on new changes. Some judges and regulators might consider Apple interpretation of their own agreements one of abuse of power over previously accepting parts.

Actually in the US at least one Federal Judge has considered so and ordered Apple to stop some practices.

In China … does not surprise me that this is not much of an issue given enough compensation.

 

[I7guy]

Well it was central to mine and anyone that take issue with some of the App Store policies. Seriously what else could the issues be about?

I assume your point is made regardless. So totally abstract to the issues being put forward by concerned entities.

By the way, binding agreements not cover future changes yet it has been used by Apple to force on new changes. Some judges and regulators might consider Apple interpretation of their own agreements one of abuse of power over previously accepting parts.

Actually in the US at least one Federal Judge has considered so and ordered Apple to stop some practices.

There are different ways to force a corporation to change:
1. lawsuit
2. lobby congress for new laws
3. vote with your dollars
4. write the ceo
5. all of the above

Suing Apple didn't work out exactly, imo, as Epic thought it would. And yes, one anti-steering provision point was lost by Apple. Unless a miracle occurs, it looks like Apple will have to comply tomorrow. But then we will have to see where the appeals process goes and how far up the US court system Apple will take this and what will happen if Apple miraculously wins.

I don't know if the courts have declared that future changes to a TOS are invalid. It seems every company does the same thing and the courts haven't struck those down (at least not that I am aware of)

edit: https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...implement-app-store-changes-tomorrow.2326733/ Miracle occurred for Apple. Will be lots of unhappy MR posters and the companies who were hoping for a cash grab.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Suing Apple didn't work out exactly, imo, as Epic thought it would.

Don’t care for Epic. Given the result don’t think the Judge cared much for either Apple or Epic. I mean mr E complains about what mr A is doing to him because by doing so he cannot do the same to others? Ridiculous.

The judge did seam to care about what I described and as it seams there are some US laws, sorry Californian laws, that condition who attempt these kinds of practices. Case in case the likes of Apple.

The Judge is really smart. Amongst all the mambo jambo of both Epic and Apple she was spot on, she figured out what looked to be the actual fishy game and made it to stop as much as she could.

No wonder both Epic and Apple felt they lost the case. Both want the same thing … but one is in a position to enforce the practice … the other isn’t but would like to be able to. The judge “said” … stop it already.

Even more ridiculous was both Apple and Epic appeal.

But Epic CEO I must say that broke it even further. Coming with the idea of an universal App Store … that smelled like “oh If I cannot do what Apple can, no one should be”.

There is one thing though that Epic has merit. The company case really bring to the light to some unfair practices being played in the App Store to the court.

I say some because others equally fishy practices were not touched … were clouded due to the demerit of Epic claims. Maybe others will follow and bring light to practices that weren’t tackled in court yet.

For instance Apple steering users properties through the App Store, in particular users iPads and iPhones, with the aim of imposing third parties a business model for their services that is more convenient for Apple to persue and expand the practice of charging for things that they do not … I will not repeat myself …

Case in case the Game Stream Gate: “Oh, user can always opt to use Safari.” Just ask any iPhone or iPad user if they bought the device for hundreds if not thousands of dollars to access their favorite digital services through Safari? Of course not! They signed up to use Apps to do so. Also they did not signed up for such manipulation of their properties … where is that written in the agreements agreed by iPhone and iPad users 3 years ago? If they can do that do big fish such as Google and Microsoft … imagine what they can do to smaller fish.

 

[KindJamz]

I’m paying for Netflix, Spotify, Disney+ and Viaplay directly from their websites yet using it on Apple devices without them paying Apple. Why does Apple allow that?

Because they don’t have the balls to pull those apps.