Good for them, they're the pioneer who opened this world to others, and providing a service to process payment and that's totally fine.
Now let's have a small thought experiment. Imagine that Visa decides to have 30% fees from the merchant for each transactions (which would be absurd, but that's not the point), most merchants would drop them almost instantly. Now, let's say that that payment processor decides to also get into the wholesale market and makes a huge breakthrough and becomes basically Amazon, Wal-Mart, etc.
Some of their own services are exclusively sold there. Sure, they do not have a monopoly, but if you want that service you HAVE to get it there, using that payment processor only. Since Visa is the payment processor and they sell the service, all the money goes to them. Fine.
Now, a competing service, that existed many years before, that is normally cheaper or similarly priced to the Visa one is sold in other places, but to reach a significant market you have to offer it through Visa's store. The thing is, if you want to make it easy to get it for Visa's customers, you have to use that payment processor. Since Visa is bigger than you and control the payment system, you have no other way to compete but to either increase your price, making your service less attractive, or operate at a loss which is out of question.
This is how Apple can and will extinguish competitors, because they control the whole supply chain and it doesn't matter that you were there before, they'll kill you by systematically taking 30% of your sales because they did all the colossal work before. It's a tough situation to rectify, making sure that competitors have a fair ground but also that Apple is rewarded for maintaining their ecosystem.
Spotify could make a phone and sell music services on it too
lol, Microsoft tried to get into the smartphone market later in the game and they failed monumentally. It's unrealistic now to even think that a smaller business could break into that market solely to sell their music services. Apple does deserve to be compensated for their services, but to ask anyone to build an empire like this from the ground up to fight this is insane and out of touch with reality.
Apple owns an app market because it created one for itself. Spotify is free to do the same.
Can it add its own market on the iPhone though? No. It's a walled garden.
Sure, Spotify will make its own smartphone company from the ground up, make an app store, etc.
Even Microsoft tried getting in the game late with Windows Phone and didn't succeed. It's highly unlikely a competitor will be able to break in and have a significant enough marketshare to overtake Apple and tip the game in their favor now.
Is the payment platform providing the same exact service that the one being offered, therefore being in direct competition, or is it just handling the money processing?
Are they not allowed to just charge iOS users more
They are, but whoever isn't tech-savvy or aware of that will compare Apple Music and Spotify and might decide to choose the former because Apple doesn't have to markup their subscription pricing to compensate the 30% cut.
Sure, it's capitalism at work, but Apple is basically double-dipping on each subscriptions made through IAPs from their direct competitors.
or require subscriptions to be bought via their web site?
They can, but they cannot link or make it easy whatsoever for the customer to land on such a page, or make any mention of that possibility. Something that Apple also doesn't have to work around.
Unfortunately it's not always this black and white. Some people REQUIRE an iPhone for work because of some apps that aren't available on competing platforms, so they are basically stuff in Apple's walled garden. The free market is an illusion at best.
Who cares on which "side" they're on, if you're giving death threats because of some insecurities caused by someone else opinion you really need to get checked for mental issues.
Which shouldn't matter when you get an Android One device, but the spirit of Android One doesn't seem well thought out or gives too much leeway to manufacturers.
The only sensible reason I could see for a wall would not be to stop immigrants from coming in but to keep all the nutjobs inside and avoid the world from being contaminated by them
I'd be pissed if my other family members would constantly fight to know who can watches a specific service without disrupting someone elses experience or logout a legitimate device.
It's actually a nice worry-free systems for many relatives of mine. They basically only go online to check their emails, do some banking stuff, read the news and check their Facebook.
Since they switched to this, I rarely if ever get any calls for help because their system is slow, shows popups, has malwares, etc.
I'm sure they could achieve something similar with a Linux distro, but for them it just works right out of the box and it's easy to use.
The nice thing in the end is that most vendors will eventually face pressure from their customers because they're dragging their feet.
Flash needs to be eliminated, and dropping support is the only way to achieve that. It's like removing a band-aid, the slower you do it, the more painful it will be.
It takes a whole to get used to, but once you do you will sorely miss its precision when you go back to regular controller.
IMO, it shines when you combine the right trackpad (for large motions) with the gyro (for small motions).
Slashdot Mirror
Looks like he's going for an officially-sponsored shilling position with Intel.
Good for them, they're the pioneer who opened this world to others, and providing a service to process payment and that's totally fine. Now let's have a small thought experiment. Imagine that Visa decides to have 30% fees from the merchant for each transactions (which would be absurd, but that's not the point), most merchants would drop them almost instantly. Now, let's say that that payment processor decides to also get into the wholesale market and makes a huge breakthrough and becomes basically Amazon, Wal-Mart, etc. Some of their own services are exclusively sold there. Sure, they do not have a monopoly, but if you want that service you HAVE to get it there, using that payment processor only. Since Visa is the payment processor and they sell the service, all the money goes to them. Fine. Now, a competing service, that existed many years before, that is normally cheaper or similarly priced to the Visa one is sold in other places, but to reach a significant market you have to offer it through Visa's store. The thing is, if you want to make it easy to get it for Visa's customers, you have to use that payment processor. Since Visa is bigger than you and control the payment system, you have no other way to compete but to either increase your price, making your service less attractive, or operate at a loss which is out of question. This is how Apple can and will extinguish competitors, because they control the whole supply chain and it doesn't matter that you were there before, they'll kill you by systematically taking 30% of your sales because they did all the colossal work before. It's a tough situation to rectify, making sure that competitors have a fair ground but also that Apple is rewarded for maintaining their ecosystem.
Spotify could make a phone and sell music services on it too
lol, Microsoft tried to get into the smartphone market later in the game and they failed monumentally. It's unrealistic now to even think that a smaller business could break into that market solely to sell their music services. Apple does deserve to be compensated for their services, but to ask anyone to build an empire like this from the ground up to fight this is insane and out of touch with reality.
Apple owns an app market because it created one for itself. Spotify is free to do the same.
Can it add its own market on the iPhone though? No. It's a walled garden. Sure, Spotify will make its own smartphone company from the ground up, make an app store, etc. Even Microsoft tried getting in the game late with Windows Phone and didn't succeed. It's highly unlikely a competitor will be able to break in and have a significant enough marketshare to overtake Apple and tip the game in their favor now.
Just like any other payment platform.
Is the payment platform providing the same exact service that the one being offered, therefore being in direct competition, or is it just handling the money processing?
Are they not allowed to just charge iOS users more
They are, but whoever isn't tech-savvy or aware of that will compare Apple Music and Spotify and might decide to choose the former because Apple doesn't have to markup their subscription pricing to compensate the 30% cut. Sure, it's capitalism at work, but Apple is basically double-dipping on each subscriptions made through IAPs from their direct competitors.
or require subscriptions to be bought via their web site?
They can, but they cannot link or make it easy whatsoever for the customer to land on such a page, or make any mention of that possibility. Something that Apple also doesn't have to work around.
Unfortunately it's not always this black and white. Some people REQUIRE an iPhone for work because of some apps that aren't available on competing platforms, so they are basically stuff in Apple's walled garden. The free market is an illusion at best.
Not with a Chromecast.
Who cares on which "side" they're on, if you're giving death threats because of some insecurities caused by someone else opinion you really need to get checked for mental issues.
Which shouldn't matter when you get an Android One device, but the spirit of Android One doesn't seem well thought out or gives too much leeway to manufacturers.
To be fair, I had some edge cases where Google Play Services itself would be a battery drain without being able to tell the root cause.
And that said, I'd still get an Android One phone over many other devices. (sorry, I wasn't signed in my previous comment.
The file manager is a joke though.
..the porn industry having a field day with this.
They're leaders in a lucrative market mostly because of corporate spying on Nortel.
Even cooler.
The only sensible reason I could see for a wall would not be to stop immigrants from coming in but to keep all the nutjobs inside and avoid the world from being contaminated by them
Apparently 91.6 millions of those bought PS4s.
I'd be pissed if my other family members would constantly fight to know who can watches a specific service without disrupting someone elses experience or logout a legitimate device.
I'll just redirect my relatives to my personal Plex server if I decide not to subscribe to Netflix anymore.
It's actually a nice worry-free systems for many relatives of mine. They basically only go online to check their emails, do some banking stuff, read the news and check their Facebook. Since they switched to this, I rarely if ever get any calls for help because their system is slow, shows popups, has malwares, etc. I'm sure they could achieve something similar with a Linux distro, but for them it just works right out of the box and it's easy to use.
The nice thing in the end is that most vendors will eventually face pressure from their customers because they're dragging their feet. Flash needs to be eliminated, and dropping support is the only way to achieve that. It's like removing a band-aid, the slower you do it, the more painful it will be.
What's wrong with vim? ;)
*grabs popcorn*
It takes a whole to get used to, but once you do you will sorely miss its precision when you go back to regular controller. IMO, it shines when you combine the right trackpad (for large motions) with the gyro (for small motions).
And NFC payment and I'm sold. Until then, I'm crossing my fingers that my Pebble Time Steel live on.