|
|
|
|
|
|
by Yaggo
5594 days ago
|
|
|
> monopolistic and anti-competitive practices Any examples of these? Honestly, I can think none. Wanting their cut from stuff sold in their app store for their platform is absolutely fair, IMO. Apple doesn't even have a monopoly, like MS ha[sd] in desktop OS market. Apple don't do falsifying anti-Linux/FOSS campaigns, lobby standard committee for substandard standards, ship substandard software (IE, Outlook) with their OS, or stop innovating for years when their bundled crap software becomes default choices because of their OS monopoly, etc. Want to run your [non-3D/non-high FPS] software on iOS without Apple's permission, paying $100 for developer licence or learning Objective-C? Make it a web app with simple HMTL/CSS/JS (see the demos at http://jqtouch.com). You can have native feeling, run it fullscreen, have a homescreen icon etc. All of these friendly supported by Apple. |
|
|
I haven't been following this too closely yet, but my understanding is that if your app has any kind of content subscription component, regardless of whether you are using itunes billing, you need to make it available in itunes and give Apple their cut. Correct me if my understanding is flawed.
I don't have a problem with Apple taking 30% for distribution, but if they say you can't even release an app unless your content goes through their distribution channel, that's just a huge kick in the nuts for a scrappy content-based company like mine. Honestly, we don't give a shit about Apple's monopoly position, we want to build a great app on the best platform, but Apple is basically saying that they don't want us on their platform unless we also let them do our content distribution, something which directly takes away our core business. If Apple insists on this, then they're basically driving us into the arms of Android, regardless of how inferior it is because 30% is a non-starter.