"Owning" iDevice is only about owning the small piece of silicon, glass, metal and some plastic. the real value that you get is from the apps and other services that could not have been created _the way they are_ without the infrastructure apple has provided.
as for your point about installing solar panels, a system (like a city, or apple ecosystem) doesnt exist by prescribing absolutely everything. in the case of solar panels one is free to install them. similarly there are many things you can do under apple rule. only _few_ things you can't.
as for your point about that its not impossible to purchase something via a browser, i agree, ist not. apple's rule i suspect isnt about preventing others from making money but about maintaining consistently compelling user experience. right or wrong they believe that in-app purchase is part of such experience.
lastly i think you're underestimating the degree to which "regular people" rely on app's handholding for performing such trivial (to you, to me, to most/.tters) tasks as upgrading a dropbox account. having created such experience, it is _my_ view that apple deserves the cut. but even if you disagree that they deserve it, _its their sandbox, they set the rules_.
apple built all the roads and all the buildings and all the attractions in the town, customers are streaming in. now you rent a room in one of their stores and use it to teleport customers over to the next town where you have a royalty free store.
The infrastructure apple built is a combination of hardware, software and a whole lot of know how
And at what point does that matter to a service that completely bypasses Apple's infrastructure?
It matters because the mere existence of this ecosystem attracts paying customers. If it didnt, Dropbox wouldnt be here, pitching their service to potential customers.
Same as living in a city, you pay extra tax, because it costs more money to run a city, to make it attractive, to keep it vibrant. But you _choose_ to do so because you prefer city dwelling over other alternatives. Its more fun, more jobs, whatever it is that attracts you. Obviously not everybody does, and that is fine also.
There is a flip side to this coin. City establishes rules, rules some might find offensive. For example I dont like being told where I can or can't go. But I accept that inconvenience because I enjoy the many parades New York has. I think that adds a great deal to the soul of the city.
Here's my point. Whether I agree with the rules or not, the city HAS to enforce these rules FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL OF THE CITIZENS. And guess what, if I really dont like obeying the rules, I cal leave, no problem.
Of course if there was only one city, we'd be having an entirely different conversation.
Bottom line, apple are building and nurturing ecosystem they believe (which is pretty evident, too) is attractive to customers and is inviting to third party devs. The only catch is, the devs must play by the rules.
Do I somehow owe Apple money if an app uses my API?
Effectively, yes you do.
If you feel that you dont, if you feel the ecosystem that apple has built isnt worth the 30% cut they demand, well, there are alternatives.
It baffles me that people dont recognize that shit just doest come free. The infrastructure apple built is a combination of hardware, software and a whole lot of know how ALL of which cost mucho $$.
it is just as legitimate to say that dropbox brought people to apple
and that very well could be grounds for dropbox to negotiate a special deal with apple. and then it'll be up to apple to consider whether such special considerations help or harm apple in the long term.
as it stands, however, dropbox is required to obey the rules. as i'm sure they will.
disclaimer: i LOVE dropbox. have at least a dozen apps i use regularly that integrate with it. i think its a better product than icloud (at least as of now). and i like the crew of drop box, i'm sure they'll figure out a way out of this problem.
if you play by the rules (=share the spoils) absolutely nothing.
this isnt charity this is business. you get the platform that compels users to participate, ultimately resulting in a sale for you, you have to chip in to the guys who made it possible.
Apple followed established rules. As they should have. Dropbox, wether knowingly or by mistake broke the rules. If you are arguing that the response from apple was overly/unnecessarily harsh we have ground for agreement, if you're saying this is bad policy then I'm sorry I can't agree with that at all.
As far as modding, screw that I dont care about karma enough to waste time talking about other people's modding choices.
If the cab driver was stopped for speeding where the laws were not clearly posted, or were deliberately confusing, yes, I would blame the cop for setting a speed trap. You know, speed traps - designed solely to bring in more income.
If that were the case you'd have a point, but that doesnt appear to be the case. Apple is pretty clear about soliciting business through apps, they acted swiftly and as such there's a good likelihood that it wont happen again from others.
So while I agree this has been an inconvenience, I also think on balance its a good thing for the greater apple community.
It does. Criticism is only constructive from people who understand the subject matter sufficiently well. If they simply bitch about stuff they dont know, well, its just that, bitching about stuff they dont know.
The guy (or gal) admitted to not using apple products but chooses to criticize apple's practices on behalf of people who do. How is that sensible? AND on top of that mods down people who disagree with him. Thats just childish.
Such is the Internet, I guess. Just wanted to point that out.
a cab driver gets stopped for running a red light (or speeding, whatever). cop arrests him. the passengers are inconvenienced. do you blame the cop?
is that a disservice to the passengers or is this a service to the community who wont suffer another death from an accident this cabbie might have caused?
i think you're seeing this way too narrowly. apple are building an ecosystem. its easy to criticize their decisions out of context, but at the end of the day what they do works for a whole lot of people.
of course, it doesnt work for all, you are on android, and god bless. but with all due respect you're the one missing the point here.
Right, but thats my question, was it apple who caused the problem or dropbox? So is it your criticism that they didnt give Dropbox the time to remedy the issue?
Nor does dropbox have to solicit business from an app _around_ the well defined process per established rules. They COULD stop short of sending people to their site, couldnt they? They could also say hey, if you like to pay for your account upgrade here, its a 30% surcharge. Or absorb the difference. Or, in fact, offer a discount(!).
Bottom line, there is no "apple tax" there's just a company (apple) doing business the way they see fit. This is a free market, and they are NOT a monopoly. If apple's business doesnt suit you, dont buy, simple as that.
doesnt mean that they should, either, even for their own sake, but since they can, they will. until they can't and then they wont. but it'll be too late for _them_.
Can't have it both ways. Either free speech, paid or not, or, a form of censorship. Because someone will have to be enforcing the disclosure requirement. and that someone would _have_ to be given authority to investigate any twitterer. On the scale of the internet this is _insane_.
corporations are proxies for (usually) groups of people, so its only natural that they get _some_ rights enjoyed by people. because there are people behind them. not ALL rights, say they can't vote for example.
not exactly. the're using zip code to deter a very specific case of drive-by CC test, popular among CC thieves. its not meant to be perfect. if zip code wasnt available they could just as well have used the street number of your billing address.
Slashdot Mirror
corporatism isnt same as capitalism. companies that forget to keep competitive and efficient go out of existence. happens every day.
unless the government bails them out that is...
"Owning" iDevice is only about owning the small piece of silicon, glass, metal and some plastic. the real value that you get is from the apps and other services that could not have been created _the way they are_ without the infrastructure apple has provided.
as for your point about installing solar panels, a system (like a city, or apple ecosystem) doesnt exist by prescribing absolutely everything. in the case of solar panels one is free to install them. similarly there are many things you can do under apple rule. only _few_ things you can't.
as for your point about that its not impossible to purchase something via a browser, i agree, ist not. apple's rule i suspect isnt about preventing others from making money but about maintaining consistently compelling user experience. right or wrong they believe that in-app purchase is part of such experience.
lastly i think you're underestimating the degree to which "regular people" rely on app's handholding for performing such trivial (to you, to me, to most /.tters) tasks as upgrading a dropbox account. having created such experience, it is _my_ view that apple deserves the cut. but even if you disagree that they deserve it, _its their sandbox, they set the rules_.
its not like that at all.
apple built all the roads and all the buildings and all the attractions in the town, customers are streaming in. now you rent a room in one of their stores and use it to teleport customers over to the next town where you have a royalty free store.
And at what point does that matter to a service that completely bypasses Apple's infrastructure?
It matters because the mere existence of this ecosystem attracts paying customers. If it didnt, Dropbox wouldnt be here, pitching their service to potential customers.
Same as living in a city, you pay extra tax, because it costs more money to run a city, to make it attractive, to keep it vibrant. But you _choose_ to do so because you prefer city dwelling over other alternatives. Its more fun, more jobs, whatever it is that attracts you. Obviously not everybody does, and that is fine also.
There is a flip side to this coin. City establishes rules, rules some might find offensive. For example I dont like being told where I can or can't go. But I accept that inconvenience because I enjoy the many parades New York has. I think that adds a great deal to the soul of the city.
Here's my point. Whether I agree with the rules or not, the city HAS to enforce these rules FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL OF THE CITIZENS. And guess what, if I really dont like obeying the rules, I cal leave, no problem.
Of course if there was only one city, we'd be having an entirely different conversation.
Bottom line, apple are building and nurturing ecosystem they believe (which is pretty evident, too) is attractive to customers and is inviting to third party devs. The only catch is, the devs must play by the rules.
Actual execution of the MAD strategy doesnt work. Might provide a healthy platform for negotiating.
I dont follow your logic.
Do I somehow owe Apple money if an app uses my API?
Effectively, yes you do.
If you feel that you dont, if you feel the ecosystem that apple has built isnt worth the 30% cut they demand, well, there are alternatives.
It baffles me that people dont recognize that shit just doest come free. The infrastructure apple built is a combination of hardware, software and a whole lot of know how ALL of which cost mucho $$.
No doubt. And if that happens, they will meet the fate of microsoft. Although one would hope they have learned from their lesson.
it is just as legitimate to say that dropbox brought people to apple
and that very well could be grounds for dropbox to negotiate a special deal with apple. and then it'll be up to apple to consider whether such special considerations help or harm apple in the long term.
as it stands, however, dropbox is required to obey the rules. as i'm sure they will.
disclaimer: i LOVE dropbox. have at least a dozen apps i use regularly that integrate with it. i think its a better product than icloud (at least as of now). and i like the crew of drop box, i'm sure they'll figure out a way out of this problem.
if you play by the rules (=share the spoils) absolutely nothing.
this isnt charity this is business. you get the platform that compels users to participate, ultimately resulting in a sale for you, you have to chip in to the guys who made it possible.
whats wrong with that?
Indeed every company is trying to be a monopoly, thats nothing to fault them for. When they do, we deal with that.
So far so good :)
Wow. Extensive.
Apple followed established rules. As they should have. Dropbox, wether knowingly or by mistake broke the rules. If you are arguing that the response from apple was overly/unnecessarily harsh we have ground for agreement, if you're saying this is bad policy then I'm sorry I can't agree with that at all.
As far as modding, screw that I dont care about karma enough to waste time talking about other people's modding choices.
If the cab driver was stopped for speeding where the laws were not clearly posted, or were deliberately confusing, yes, I would blame the cop for setting a speed trap. You know, speed traps - designed solely to bring in more income.
If that were the case you'd have a point, but that doesnt appear to be the case. Apple is pretty clear about soliciting business through apps, they acted swiftly and as such there's a good likelihood that it wont happen again from others.
So while I agree this has been an inconvenience, I also think on balance its a good thing for the greater apple community.
It does. Criticism is only constructive from people who understand the subject matter sufficiently well. If they simply bitch about stuff they dont know, well, its just that, bitching about stuff they dont know.
The guy (or gal) admitted to not using apple products but chooses to criticize apple's practices on behalf of people who do. How is that sensible? AND on top of that mods down people who disagree with him. Thats just childish.
Such is the Internet, I guess. Just wanted to point that out.
> and modded minus one
because...?
this is not a government we're talking about, just dont buy apple, whats the problem?
a cab driver gets stopped for running a red light (or speeding, whatever). cop arrests him. the passengers are inconvenienced. do you blame the cop?
is that a disservice to the passengers or is this a service to the community who wont suffer another death from an accident this cabbie might have caused?
i think you're seeing this way too narrowly. apple are building an ecosystem. its easy to criticize their decisions out of context, but at the end of the day what they do works for a whole lot of people.
of course, it doesnt work for all, you are on android, and god bless. but with all due respect you're the one missing the point here.
Right, but thats my question, was it apple who caused the problem or dropbox? So is it your criticism that they didnt give Dropbox the time to remedy the issue?
Nor does dropbox have to solicit business from an app _around_ the well defined process per established rules. They COULD stop short of sending people to their site, couldnt they? They could also say hey, if you like to pay for your account upgrade here, its a 30% surcharge. Or absorb the difference. Or, in fact, offer a discount(!).
Bottom line, there is no "apple tax" there's just a company (apple) doing business the way they see fit. This is a free market, and they are NOT a monopoly. If apple's business doesnt suit you, dont buy, simple as that.
Who is the guilty party here, that which broke the rules or that which upholds them?
I dont know about the strawman, perhaps, but you're clearly misdirecting the blame here.
because they can. it really is simple as that.
doesnt mean that they should, either, even for their own sake, but since they can, they will. until they can't and then they wont. but it'll be too late for _them_.
Can't have it both ways. Either free speech, paid or not, or, a form of censorship. Because someone will have to be enforcing the disclosure requirement. and that someone would _have_ to be given authority to investigate any twitterer. On the scale of the internet this is _insane_.
corporations are proxies for (usually) groups of people, so its only natural that they get _some_ rights enjoyed by people. because there are people behind them. not ALL rights, say they can't vote for example.
why funny? i'd propose insightful if it wasn't obvious (no offense to polar red!)
not exactly. the're using zip code to deter a very specific case of drive-by CC test, popular among CC thieves. its not meant to be perfect. if zip code wasnt available they could just as well have used the street number of your billing address.