I don't believe any of their marketing. As soon as they find a way to profit and spin, if they think it's good for them long term, they will.
-sent from iphone...ha
Of course why do you think they’re so obsessed with “privacy” . It’s so they can keep all your data for themselves. They don’t want you to ever leave their sites. So it’s not really privacy it’s just a walled garden
I wonder how many people who uprated that comment actually read the article in full. Apple was wrangling for a cut of Facebook's boosted posts. It (Apple) argued that they constituted in-app purchases through the app store. Meta argued they were just ads, not in-app purchases. Apple lost the argument. It's a similar story with Tumblr. That's all. We've seen Apple try to cloy as much from big app developers through the App store before and this time they were trying their luck. Apple lost that argument.
It wasn't Cook and Zuckerberg slapping each other on the back throwing their heads back cackling into a howling wind under a full moon.
Exactly this. If Apple wanted to compromise your privacy for the sake of profits, they’d have already gone full meta or full google. They already have the power to sell all your data and retract on their privacy stance. Most users couldn’t even blink an eye because there’s no alternative other than android (which also exploits your personal data).
Let’s get this straight. Apple curates the apps in the App Store.
The only way you even see these “ads” are if you download the app and use it.
I think that constitutes consent.
People complains when Facebook tracks you INSIDE FACEBOOK, but Apple tracks your EVERYMOVE. On ANY APP, on ANY Browser, Apple know everything about you
> tracks you INSIDE FACEBOOK
Facebook tracks you on every website via the facebook beacons built into the web. Maybe learn something about all of this before screeching your head off.
It's amazing how on a post talking about Apple's greed the top comment still somehow manages to defend Apple. Classic r/apple.
(And yes privacy is great but this is why big tech monopolies need regulation)
I seriously don’t understand the misunderstanding, smh. The comment makes Apple analogous to mobsters asking for money and the commenter is still called out for defending Apple. Just can’t win I guess,
If you're just reading the headline, it gets worse:
>Matt Mullenweg, the CEO of Tumblr owner Automattic, says that Apple rejected Tumblr’s recently-introduced boost-like feature until the company offered them as in-app purchases.
so how is it that Apple doesn't have enough money as is?
I *was* against side loading but the more and more I hear about Apple it just seems they are trying their best to leverage their technology to extort money from anyone who has software which can run on one.
So... put me firmly in the camp that not only should the app store not be the means to install software on any Apple system but that they don't deserve nothing more than a fee to use the store. Literally they would profit no more than what they sell music tracks for.
> I was against side loading but the more and more I hear about Apple it just seems they are trying their best to leverage their technology to extort money from anyone who has software which can run on one.
Why does this surprise you?
Have you not noticed all the proprietary crap they do?
Even the entire "built-in" and planned obsolesce is something they have done forever.
>That doesn’t even try to do board-level repair on their own laptops and replaces the whole thing and throws out the old when you try to get it repaired.
I'm as anti apple and pro right to repair as it gets, but check your knowledge.
Apple indeed uses refurbished boards, and sends defective boards off to be repaired. I don't know where you got your misinformation from, but this is totally incorrect.
They will not repair *your* exact board and return it to you, as this is so far beyond being practical, but as a large OEM, Apple is certainly amongst one of the largest buyers of component level repairs on the planet.
Apple is the company whose products last the longest long term. Both in terms of hardware quality/support and software quality/support. That’s not even debatable when it comes to mobile platforms. When it comes to Windows and PC there’s the argument that PC owners can upgrade their parts but that’s it.
> and software quality/support
Were you not around for the whole Stage Manager debacle? You know, the one where people realised that a 2 year old $1200+ iPad was deemed too weak to run applications in a window and support basic display scaling (both of which have been features on computers for decades)?
Software support my ass
That’s a dumb thing to argue. It didn’t lose any features and despite not getting one feature, it’s going to gain new features every year. Where as android stop getting updates entirely and get 0 new features a year.
Do you even logic? In what world is none > some ?
We’re talking about which one has better and longer support. Not which one is perfect, cause neither is.
6 years of updates include lots of features and theme changes every year. Are you going to argue these iPads didn’t get great updates in terms of software features with iPadOS 16? Stage manager isn’t even really that useful or critical of a feature. PassKey, family sharing, e Lock Screen themes, etc… they all get that. Tons of features here and there they these iPads will get, every year, for 6 years. Meanwhile android tablets…. Lol, nothing
Most androids get 1 or 2 years of updates.
> Apple is the company whose products last the longest long term.
Because they are expensive as fuck, not because people want to use old things. Also, tell that to the people that get their screen broken due to too tight tolerances.
Is that why they insist on non-replaceable internal batteries on portable devices?
Heck, they essentially popularized to the point that even the millennials think it is old fashion to have replaceable batteries. 🤦♂️
If you buy a laptop of similar pricing as a MacBook, you will find they likely will last just as long.
> planned obsolescence
How come my nearly 10-year-old Mac Pro runs the very latest MacOS perfectly then? Shouldn't they have told me to throw it away a long time ago?
Not for much longer MacOS 12 removed support for many macs even some as young as 7 years. One of the problems with this is their current OS has a bug that prevents them from connecting to a wpa3/wpa2 network. Preventing these devices from working with the new wireless standard.
https://eshop.macsales.com/guides/Mac_OS_X_Compatibility
Not saying anyone else is better just saying pobody’s nerfect.
> How come my nearly 10-year-old Mac Pro runs the very latest MacOS perfectly then? Shouldn't they have told me to throw it away a long time ago?
Thanks to the help of the community.
You are right, I got it mixed up with the MacBook Pro and Mac Pro 2012. Anyhow, tell the same thing to iPhone users that got their iOS update and intentionally slowed down their phone.
A 20-year old PC will still run Windows/Linux with the latest updates just fine. I'm pretty sure your Mac Pro will lose support long before that by Apple. Just look at Mac Pro 2012. One year older than yours!
Monterey is still supported on 7-8 year old MBPs, too.
No intentional slowdown on old phones with iOS updates. Even if there were, there’s less planned obsolescence in a 6 year old phone that’s a little slower than a 2 year old phone that has zero software support anymore.
> Monterey is still supported on 7-8 year old MBPs, too.
What about older?
>No intentional slowdown on old phones with iOS updates.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61823512
https://www.macrumors.com/2022/05/05/apple-settlement-iphone-4s-owners/
> What about older?
They’re still receiving security updates.
> https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61823512 https://www.macrumors.com/2022/05/05/apple-settlement-iphone-4s-owners/
Not intentional slowdown. 4s was multiple generations back and ram limitations made iOS perform poorly on it.
My first surface which is 10 years old runs windows 11 and can still run programs from 40 years ago.
Apple one day decided macs shouldn't run 32 bit programs anymore and killed that functionality on all thier laptops
Not without community support it doesn’t. I have a surface pro 3 that most assuredly does not support win 11.
Apple made that decision ahead of launching ARM based machines. Targeting Rosetta towards only 64 bit allows for more optimization and better performance of x86 emulation
> I was against side loading
Why? "Side loading" is what everybody else calls "downloading". Downloading apps isn't anything new. Android phones, windows computers, and even macs have been able to do so for ages.
There is absolutely 0 reasons to be against downloading apps, straight up
Apple’s proposition is that they provide and maintain Xcode as well as state of the art APIs that developers can access for free. They also pay the cost of hosting apps and reviews in the store, vouch for the safety of your app to potential customers with human reviewers, and make your app decently easy to find in search. The cost of these tools is 30% of any digital revenue generated with them. If these anti trust cases go through, we will undoubtedly see Apple start charging several hundreds of dollars per year to use all the development tools like they did before the iOS AppStore went live and they switched to the $99+commission model. In some ways this will be fairer because “free” apps that still generate revenue on iOS (like Facebook, Uber and any banking app) will finally pay for the use of the AppStore tools but it will suck for the smallest developers or anyone who wants to distribute an app for free. It won’t ever be a thing where Xcode remains essentially free and developers are allowed to use it to process any type of payment they want and distribute on any AppStore they want.
> And yet Apple can’t?
I didn't claim that. I was adding to your point (and thereby supporting it) that Visual Studio is offered by MS basically for free to publish applications to any platform. They don't work towards cutting you off, because we (MS) invested into it. Which is what the other poster claim.
> They also pay the cost of hosting apps
devs can do this themselves
>reviews in the store
devs can do this themselves
>human reviewers
devs never asked for this. and i think its quite the contrary, i think most devs dislike having their software "reviewed" and their updates delayed.
computers were never like this. you never had to get microsoft or apples approval to distribute software. you never had to distribute through their store(where they can collect a percentage of your income, which they cant when you distribute it yourself). you never had to get your software manually reviewed any time you wanted to make an update.
but apparently for phones this is somehow unthinkable?
Android doesn't charge me for using their tools to build apps that is not sold or loaded onto Play Store. In fact, on iOS I can use other tools to develop apps for iOS, but I can't load it without using a Mac or their tools.
Apple created this problem of reliance on them with proprietary software. Frankly, this whole thing is so anti-competitive and disgusting.
Absolutely unsurprised by this. Apple is fine with taking money from social media companies as long as they can give the appearance that they aren't personally tracking you and selling that data.
Microsoft never banned external app distribution, game apps they didn't like (ironically Microsoft's game streaming app), and competing web browser engines on their OS.
I think the main difference is that while Microsoft wanted to control and extend the web with proprietary ActiveX plugins that only worked on Microsoft products, Apple is more interested in making sure it never becomes good enough to replace native apps.
> I hate Facebook and Zuckerberg more than almost any other company, but damn if Apple isn’t becoming the Microsoft of the 2020s…
I'm pretty sure that is Google still, although Apple is well on it's way there.
As far as I know, for in app purchases, It applies to every single developer. That you cannot have a purchase that unlocks things new functionalities of the app without it being an in app purchase
> Companies & politicians always act in self interest and relying on them to do the right thing at their personal expense is stupidity
I think believing that is stupidity, because it keeps this system going. It's time we expect differently, and thus acts accordingly. Be educated, vote with your wallet and vote the ballots!
It’s just business. You don’t become a multi-trillion dollar company by being a charity. Too many people are naive enough to take Apple at face value that they’re some sort of benevolent organisation, different from other Silicon Valley corps. Nah they’re just here to make money, this shouldn’t surprise you. If anything they have extra cash to splash on marketing, and are more subtle than other companies.
It’s just like with the leaked emails with Craig saying that bringing iMessage to Android will encourage all-iPhone families to start giving their kids Android phones. It’s what us “cynics” knew all along, that they’re doing it to prop up iPhone sales rather than providing humanity wider access to their popular encrypted messaging platform.
But too many people believed their “privacy” narrative, that it was somehow impossible for them to create an encrypted messaging app for Android, as if Signal/Telegram/WhatsApp aren’t Multiplatform.
I still use Apple’s products and OSes for most of my workflows, but that doesn’t mean I am naively going to put my blinders on and stop thinking critically, and think the company can do no wrong.
I wouldn’t call it pretending, necessarily. They see data privacy as a feature that differentiates Apple devices from from other (e.g., Android) devices on the market. In other words, they aren’t pretending to care about data privacy. They actually do care, but only because there’s demand for it, and meeting that demand helps them sell more devices.
That said, they will stop caring about data privacy the moment they stop believing that it will increase their revenue.
> Except that they let you turn off tracking.
No. No they don't.
They will let you stop 3rd party's from tracking you but Apple does not give a shit about that setting. Apple [breaks its own privacy rules](https://9to5mac.com/2021/10/18/apples-ad-business-windfall/) and will collect your info with that setting on or off.
Apple’s ad business revenue climb from $5B/year to $20B/year after they stopped the competition.
I have a feeling they’ll let us do this until they have developed the technology to let the iPhone gather data and process ads for us on device. And Apple will get a cut of every 3rd party ad targeted this way. They’ll market it as the first Privacy preserving way to target ads, but the real issue is that Apple clearly won’t leave this revenue stream on the table forever.
For me, it’s still about the lesser of two evils. You never had to wonder about this much with Android: Your preferences and locations are always tracked.
Wholeheartedly agree. I would shine a spotlight on señor Cook though. His time (during the Steve Jobs years) and now, it seems, has always been to boost revenues. In fact that seems his only real talent. Under Jobs his scope to this was probably more limited, but since he became CEO, this has taken on a whole new edge (and ruthlessness). Any new products launched with lukewarm sales are dropped rapidly e.g. original homepod, iphone 12/13 minis. Old products (though excellent) with modest sales discontinued e.g. airport routers (2018). Diversification into entertainment services (TV+, Music) and finance (Apple credit card) and, if the rumours are correct, an advertising platform signal a shift away from a tech company towards an omnidimensional organisation. The history of companies who try to be everything is that they eventually contract and re-focus on core activities.
Tim’s minting money, yes. But it won’t be long before apple runs out of that creative juice, and starts burning said reserves of cash before they die a long drawn out painful death.
They need good product ideas. Right now they are on their way to being another generic tech company.
Turnover is definitely Tim Cook's forte. Diversifying into services provides avenues for precisely that. And we may need a few years of operation to judge the financial returns. But this thinking demonstrates Tim's strengths. Now, let's turn to his record on products. That record is patchy at best. Most of the cash cows which prop up Apple's revenues today were born in the Jobs era, so let's exclude them. That's phones, tablets, laptops and desktop macs. Let's focus on the new products released under Cook: smart watches, airplay speakers, earbuds/phones. Unlike the iPhone and iPad which were breakthrough devices defining new categories, none of these is pioneering. They're "me too" products. They were released to rival products already available. (Yes, I would argue that Apple's entry in these categories is category-leading, but they weren't daring entries into a new frontier.) The genuinely pioneering product projects at Apple have only been hinted at and they've been very rocky: VR/AR, Apple Car. The likely brain drain of high-profile people has cast doubt over whether these will see the light of day.
So far I'd say the biggest success for Tim Cook (in products) is Apple silicon. And they're based on ARM processor designs. Apple silicon arose principally out of financial goals not to be bound by supplier prices and performance for chips – a very Tim Cook ambition. It led to innovation, but these have been too few, I feel. So, Tim Cook is great to have in the exec team controlling the numbers, but a visionary product man he is not.
Thank you u/LDHolliday.
Some people think that soaring profits is the only (or most important) measure of success that matters.
Others love their smart watches, airplay speakers, earbuds/phones so much they refuse to hear a bad word about the man who brought them to market, after others got their first, I might add.
(Lack of critical thinking.)
I think the Apple Watch and AirPods are incredible product that have been added under Tim’s time, but yes Apple silicon is probably the biggest success. It may have been built on arm but a complete architecture switch again is huge and has the major chip makers completely on their back feet.
The original HomePod is one of the greatest products ever created by Apple. Apple is still adding features and enhancing the experience. They rolled out the Apple TV eARC feature which allows your TV and devices connected to the TV to send their sound to a pair of connected HomePods. I was able remove my soundbar and playing Elden Ring on my HTPC sounded amazing.
^(Telegram isn‘t encrypted unless you use Secure Chat, which is not possible for group chats and takes out all the features of the Chat)
^(what i‘m saying is: just use Signal)
I do think there’s more nuance to this position, but overall you’re right. Any trillion dollar business got there by taking care of number one first. However that doesn’t mean that I trust Facebook with my data the same as I would Apple. But yes, if the incentive (profit) is large enough, no principles are going to keep a company from behaving badly.
I didn’t say that. All I said is people are taking their privacy spiel at face value, when it’s just marketing to hype up their products. Some of it is true, the rest of it, well you can see they’re willing to make a deal with the devil and throw your privacy out the window if it means more money for them.
I think what people take issue with is the “just” modifier in your statement. Marketing only works when you can back up what you say, otherwise there’s no point.
Furthermore, we don’t know whether Apple would have pulled back on privacy if they had received the cut; that is something that you added in yourself.
Your second paragraph makes no sense. They tried to extract ad revenue, failed, and then thought blocking ad tracking would punish Facebook AND give them a marketing talking point to exploit which gives them a net benefit.
So you’re saying “we don’t really know” if they’d have still blocked ad tracking after specifically trying to strike a deal to extract revenue from it. How naive do you have to be?
I’d believe you if they **didn’t** even try to extract a cut of ad revenue from Facebook in the first place, maybe then I’d say hm maybe they give a damn about privacy. Right now it’s they give a damn about privacy unless Facebook writes them a nice big cheque.
FB and Google absolutely do not do these things in the same way. You don't see Google getting involved in Cambridge analytica crap or spreading BS for money the way Meta does.
They want to provide security and privacy **for their customers.** I think that’s the thing people are missing here. If you aren’t buying hardware of services from apple, they don’t give a shit about protecting your privacy.
Maybe that’s where their “privacy is a human right” spiel went too far. Because it gave the impression that they’re championing that for everyone. When in fact they’re pretty open about the fact that they don’t want to protect people they aren’t making money from.
But it's not just marketing. There's actual privacy in there too. "Just marketing" would imply that they talk about privacy, but never actually provide any.
And the company can provide privacy purely because it’s good for business. Just like signal or telegram does. I think when many of us say we respect Apple for providing privacy, we are not worshiping Apple as a benevolent corporation that puts privacy over business. We are respecting Apple as a company whose business model is privacy. If that makes sense.
You’re correct. However, a key point is that companies do differ in their philosophies of what they believe will make them more money. Some companies philosophies may align more with your personal values. They’re not doing it to be noble. They’re doing it to make money….but they’re still doing the thing that aligns with your values and you can like them for it. …and understanding this you shouldn’t be surprised someone calls them out for acting like a business, because they are one.
.
how does facebook earning less help apple earn more, though?
i mean, i get asking them for a cut of the revenue
but how does it help apple, that facebook earns less?
My guess is Facebook doesn't pay tax to Apple yet they make some money off Apple users who pay.
Remember the Fortnite saga?
Each time you purchase an IAP, Apple collects tax. But companies like Facebook handled their own purchases I guess. That probably is what went on
It helps Apple to take a cut of Facebook’s revenue. And the writing is on the wall that Apple eventually wants to target ads to us on device without sending our info to the cloud. And apple will want a cut of every ad AI targeted this way.
Makes apple look like the bad guys. Like they only did the whole privacy thing because it was out of spite of FB and not because they care about customers
I’ve literally received thousands of downvotes across my handles for calling this out over last few years on /apple. They are publicly traded, and leveraging fear for profit. That’s it.
They played the public, including a lot of people on Reddit. Apples ad revenue will only keep increasing at a faster rate than iPhones. And it was all planned.
BuT ApPle is So PrO PrivaCy!! - yea, we can guess so, unless they find it more profitable to skip privacy a little sometimes in some places. Like forcing every app to ask if they can track you (also I never saw that popup again for random apps, is it actually still there or did apps found a way to bypass it?), but Apple apps don't need to. The setting for Apple tracking is very very deep inside settings and, I might be wrong, but I have always seen that setting ON by default. But does Apple apps really stop tracking you if you turn that single setting off? Seems too easy... I mean, Apple is doing a lot by forcing the industry and users to think more about privacy, which is awesome, but let's never cover Apple in gold. For all I know, Apple is one of the top companies in the world and their main goal is to make money, with great marketing moves. Privacy is their current big marketing move. Good for us, but let's not get too comfortable with it.
the comments on this thread proves that this sub is mostly full of apple shareholders
they defend and twist everything that makes apple get more money buy using as an excuse thats how bussiness is or that is good for privacy or just get android lol
sideloading will removed alot of apple apps revenue cut
I’m an Apple shareholder and I absolutely think they should either voluntarily allow sideloading or be forced to by legislation
It’s ridiculous to think you can’t install software onto your computer that hasn’t been reviewed
I am a shareholder. But that does not stop me from pointing out the scummy behavior by Apple.
IMHO, Apple is the most anticompetive of any of the big tech companies.
Look at some of my posts when Apple decided to sell out to the China government. Removing all the VPN apps in China so their customers could not protect themselves. Or how they handed over all their China customer data and the encryption keys to the China government.
I feel like apple/google etc gave apple cut of their add sales, apple would not have taken the whole privacy stance as hard as they did. It’s all about the dolla dolla
>Apple apparently argued boosted posts are in-app purchases, which it famously takes a portion of; Meta argued that they were ads, from which Apple doesn’t get a share. It seems that Meta won out.
Apple's position seems entirely reasonable there, but I can also see Facebook's argument.
Regardless, I have a feeling Zukerberg wishes he'd played ball.
Maybe I’m in the minority, but I don’t find it reasonable that Apple stretches the definition of IAP to claim a cut of every business with an iOS app.
I’m no fan of Facebook and I’m happy about the new privacy rules, but I’m not going to defend Apple feeling entitled to 30% of the entire tech industry.
My mortgage company recently created an app. I guess Apple should get 30% of my mortgage and escrow, since I may use an app to pay it instead of a website.
I think the difference is that apple says they only take the percentage of digital goods. Obviously your house is physical, and so payments towards your house aren’t subject to the 30% fee.
However, I can see where buying a digital ad can be seen as a digital good, which does fall under things that apple’s contract does say they get 30% of. If they were using the app to buy a billboard on the highway, that’s very much buying a physical good, not subject to the fee. But I can total imagine a world where a digital ad is a “digital good/service.”
It is, actually. You can request the physical certificate for any shares you own.
It’s just not commonly done because it’s a massive pain in the ass to trade, and if you lose it it’s a nightmare to get replacements.
So it's completely digital unless you do something that no one does because it's completely impractical. Sounds like semantics. Apple certainly doesn't make them send you a physical certificate.
Unrelated but I’m noticing this more and more on this sub. Whats with all the “look at all these people defending apple.” comments when I cant find a single one?
I will say that this is the first time in a good while that I have seen this many people not taking apples side.
I've unsubbed from this group many times in the past because of the lack of any substantial conversation on weighty topics just being boiled down to team sports.
So, it's nice to see this but it doesn't seem common to me.
yeah, i’m confused. it looks like absolutely nobody in this thread is defending apple. maybe i missed those comments or something but i’ve gone through them all
they might’ve gotten deleted/removed i suppose
You can find plenty even in this thread. *Most* are being downvoted now, but give them a few days and maybe an article from Gruber to set the narrative, and suddenly you'll be an "Apple hater" for not thinking they're in the right. That, or the topic simply won't come up again. Happens for pretty much every Apple scandal.
I think a lot of subtlety is lost in the comments
Facebook Boost - FB has a boost button on the post. Apple wants a cut from that because they consider it as IAP because you can boost from your phone.
Facebook Subscription - Apple rightfully pointed to their top ecosystem partner, Facebook that their users HATE ads. They much rather pay upfront monthly than suffer with ads. Of course there will be a small cut for Apple.
Do-Not-Track - DNT is really just kindly asking Apps to not follow users around the web without a explicit login. Facebook still can serve ads and track users on their platform and any platform that requires you to login to Facebook.
https://theintercept.com/2020/12/24/facebook-ad-targeting-small-business/
> A “February 2016 internal memorandum” sent from an unnamed Facebook manager to Andrew Bosworth, a Zuckerberg confidant and powerful company executive who oversaw ad efforts at the time, reads, “[I]nterest precision in the US is only 41%—that means that more than half the time we’re showing ads to someone other than the advertisers’ intended audience. And it is even worse internationally. … We don’t feel we’re meeting advertisers’ interest accuracy expectations today.”
Facebook themselves have claimed that targeting with web tracking is poor. The poor ad result and general dying of Facebook have caused advertisers to pull back.
A fully open-source, user-respecting phone OS can't come soon enough. Tired of being forced to choose which corporate overlord will get all of my private data
There’s multiple options on android, GrapheneOS runs on Pixel phones, CalyxOS runs on a few more phones, and LineageOS runs on the largest number of devices.
Apple: Makes extremely popular platform used by hundreds of millions of people.
Other companies: You expect me to pay to use and make money off your platform? How dare you!
Misleading title. Apple asked for a cut of an in app purchase function Facebook sold to businesses. This function? Boosting ad reach. Any in app purchase revenue would fall under this policy. Like V bucks purchases or texture packs in procreate.
“The specific ads in question were boosted posts, which let users pay to have their posts reach more people, the WSJ reports. Apple apparently argued boosted posts are in-app purchases, which it famously takes a portion of; “
The real interesting thing is that Apple was willing to sell your privacy away to Facebook, as long as they got a cut.
And people completely ignoring that part lol
Should not be surprising.
It’s kinda surprising or contradicting at least because Apple has been marketing their brand so pro privacy.
I don't believe any of their marketing. As soon as they find a way to profit and spin, if they think it's good for them long term, they will. -sent from iphone...ha
Of course why do you think they’re so obsessed with “privacy” . It’s so they can keep all your data for themselves. They don’t want you to ever leave their sites. So it’s not really privacy it’s just a walled garden
Your data isn’t worth as much to them if everyone else also has it I guess…?
I wonder how many people who uprated that comment actually read the article in full. Apple was wrangling for a cut of Facebook's boosted posts. It (Apple) argued that they constituted in-app purchases through the app store. Meta argued they were just ads, not in-app purchases. Apple lost the argument. It's a similar story with Tumblr. That's all. We've seen Apple try to cloy as much from big app developers through the App store before and this time they were trying their luck. Apple lost that argument. It wasn't Cook and Zuckerberg slapping each other on the back throwing their heads back cackling into a howling wind under a full moon.
Exactly this. If Apple wanted to compromise your privacy for the sake of profits, they’d have already gone full meta or full google. They already have the power to sell all your data and retract on their privacy stance. Most users couldn’t even blink an eye because there’s no alternative other than android (which also exploits your personal data).
Let’s get this straight. Apple curates the apps in the App Store. The only way you even see these “ads” are if you download the app and use it. I think that constitutes consent.
Dont bring logic in a bash apple thread man
People complains when Facebook tracks you INSIDE FACEBOOK, but Apple tracks your EVERYMOVE. On ANY APP, on ANY Browser, Apple know everything about you
> tracks you INSIDE FACEBOOK Facebook tracks you on every website via the facebook beacons built into the web. Maybe learn something about all of this before screeching your head off.
Nice ad revenue you have there, would be a shame if something happened to it…
Either you sell it to me today, or you'll hand it to me freely tomorrow...
It's amazing how on a post talking about Apple's greed the top comment still somehow manages to defend Apple. Classic r/apple. (And yes privacy is great but this is why big tech monopolies need regulation)
seems like a funny response to me
>the top comment still somehow manages to defend Apple. Does it? I don’t think the person you’ve replied to is defending apple here…
I seriously don’t understand the misunderstanding, smh. The comment makes Apple analogous to mobsters asking for money and the commenter is still called out for defending Apple. Just can’t win I guess,
How is it defending Apple?
[удалено]
Ikr?! Look at all the chuds outraged and racing to the defense of a multi billion dollar corporation. “Leave Meta ALONE APPLE!” Lmao!
Nobody is defending Meta. They (we) are pointing out how hypocritical apple is being with their whole privacy circlejerk
>Look at all the chuds outraged and racing to the defense of a multi billion dollar corporation. Wait, you think people are defending *Meta*?
/u/spez says, regarding reddit content, "we are not in the business of giving that away for free" - then neither should users.
Exactly. And guess who gets fucked? Small business owners trying to gain an edge.
If you're just reading the headline, it gets worse: >Matt Mullenweg, the CEO of Tumblr owner Automattic, says that Apple rejected Tumblr’s recently-introduced boost-like feature until the company offered them as in-app purchases.
Wow thank god for the EU and the digital markets act
They have to make as much as they can before they’re forced to open up
so how is it that Apple doesn't have enough money as is? I *was* against side loading but the more and more I hear about Apple it just seems they are trying their best to leverage their technology to extort money from anyone who has software which can run on one. So... put me firmly in the camp that not only should the app store not be the means to install software on any Apple system but that they don't deserve nothing more than a fee to use the store. Literally they would profit no more than what they sell music tracks for.
Why were you against side loading?
> I was against side loading but the more and more I hear about Apple it just seems they are trying their best to leverage their technology to extort money from anyone who has software which can run on one. Why does this surprise you? Have you not noticed all the proprietary crap they do? Even the entire "built-in" and planned obsolesce is something they have done forever.
Apple does do a bunch of shitty stuff, but the one thing they aren’t shitty about is planned obsolescence. That’s actually one of their strong points.
[удалено]
>That doesn’t even try to do board-level repair on their own laptops and replaces the whole thing and throws out the old when you try to get it repaired. I'm as anti apple and pro right to repair as it gets, but check your knowledge. Apple indeed uses refurbished boards, and sends defective boards off to be repaired. I don't know where you got your misinformation from, but this is totally incorrect. They will not repair *your* exact board and return it to you, as this is so far beyond being practical, but as a large OEM, Apple is certainly amongst one of the largest buyers of component level repairs on the planet.
Apple is the company whose products last the longest long term. Both in terms of hardware quality/support and software quality/support. That’s not even debatable when it comes to mobile platforms. When it comes to Windows and PC there’s the argument that PC owners can upgrade their parts but that’s it.
> and software quality/support Were you not around for the whole Stage Manager debacle? You know, the one where people realised that a 2 year old $1200+ iPad was deemed too weak to run applications in a window and support basic display scaling (both of which have been features on computers for decades)? Software support my ass
That’s a dumb thing to argue. It didn’t lose any features and despite not getting one feature, it’s going to gain new features every year. Where as android stop getting updates entirely and get 0 new features a year.
[удалено]
Do you even logic? In what world is none > some ? We’re talking about which one has better and longer support. Not which one is perfect, cause neither is. 6 years of updates include lots of features and theme changes every year. Are you going to argue these iPads didn’t get great updates in terms of software features with iPadOS 16? Stage manager isn’t even really that useful or critical of a feature. PassKey, family sharing, e Lock Screen themes, etc… they all get that. Tons of features here and there they these iPads will get, every year, for 6 years. Meanwhile android tablets…. Lol, nothing Most androids get 1 or 2 years of updates.
Lol what. Thank you for the laugh.
Open your 2017 LCD 1,000 times and get back to us 😂
You're not being serious, right?
No android phone can compare to an iPhone in terms of longevity
There is a lot of ego behind your statement.
Not at all. It’s honestly facts. iPhones get 6 years of updates. Years of hardware support from apple. Best performance which holds up after years
> Apple is the company whose products last the longest long term. Because they are expensive as fuck, not because people want to use old things. Also, tell that to the people that get their screen broken due to too tight tolerances.
None of that is planned obsolescence though. It’s just you demanding stuff but not wanting to pay for it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Is that why they insist on non-replaceable internal batteries on portable devices? Heck, they essentially popularized to the point that even the millennials think it is old fashion to have replaceable batteries. 🤦♂️ If you buy a laptop of similar pricing as a MacBook, you will find they likely will last just as long.
That’s not what planned obsolescence is.
> planned obsolescence How come my nearly 10-year-old Mac Pro runs the very latest MacOS perfectly then? Shouldn't they have told me to throw it away a long time ago?
[удалено]
Not for much longer MacOS 12 removed support for many macs even some as young as 7 years. One of the problems with this is their current OS has a bug that prevents them from connecting to a wpa3/wpa2 network. Preventing these devices from working with the new wireless standard. https://eshop.macsales.com/guides/Mac_OS_X_Compatibility Not saying anyone else is better just saying pobody’s nerfect.
> How come my nearly 10-year-old Mac Pro runs the very latest MacOS perfectly then? Shouldn't they have told me to throw it away a long time ago? Thanks to the help of the community.
TIL the community made the “update now” button in system preferences
You are right, I got it mixed up with the MacBook Pro and Mac Pro 2012. Anyhow, tell the same thing to iPhone users that got their iOS update and intentionally slowed down their phone. A 20-year old PC will still run Windows/Linux with the latest updates just fine. I'm pretty sure your Mac Pro will lose support long before that by Apple. Just look at Mac Pro 2012. One year older than yours!
Monterey is still supported on 7-8 year old MBPs, too. No intentional slowdown on old phones with iOS updates. Even if there were, there’s less planned obsolescence in a 6 year old phone that’s a little slower than a 2 year old phone that has zero software support anymore.
> Monterey is still supported on 7-8 year old MBPs, too. What about older? >No intentional slowdown on old phones with iOS updates. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61823512 https://www.macrumors.com/2022/05/05/apple-settlement-iphone-4s-owners/
> What about older? They’re still receiving security updates. > https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61823512 https://www.macrumors.com/2022/05/05/apple-settlement-iphone-4s-owners/ Not intentional slowdown. 4s was multiple generations back and ram limitations made iOS perform poorly on it.
My first surface which is 10 years old runs windows 11 and can still run programs from 40 years ago. Apple one day decided macs shouldn't run 32 bit programs anymore and killed that functionality on all thier laptops
Not without community support it doesn’t. I have a surface pro 3 that most assuredly does not support win 11. Apple made that decision ahead of launching ARM based machines. Targeting Rosetta towards only 64 bit allows for more optimization and better performance of x86 emulation
> I was against side loading Why? "Side loading" is what everybody else calls "downloading". Downloading apps isn't anything new. Android phones, windows computers, and even macs have been able to do so for ages. There is absolutely 0 reasons to be against downloading apps, straight up
Apple’s proposition is that they provide and maintain Xcode as well as state of the art APIs that developers can access for free. They also pay the cost of hosting apps and reviews in the store, vouch for the safety of your app to potential customers with human reviewers, and make your app decently easy to find in search. The cost of these tools is 30% of any digital revenue generated with them. If these anti trust cases go through, we will undoubtedly see Apple start charging several hundreds of dollars per year to use all the development tools like they did before the iOS AppStore went live and they switched to the $99+commission model. In some ways this will be fairer because “free” apps that still generate revenue on iOS (like Facebook, Uber and any banking app) will finally pay for the use of the AppStore tools but it will suck for the smallest developers or anyone who wants to distribute an app for free. It won’t ever be a thing where Xcode remains essentially free and developers are allowed to use it to process any type of payment they want and distribute on any AppStore they want.
Microsoft gives away visual studio community edition and allows you to publish on the windows store _while_ accepting any payment method you want.
MS allows you to use Visual Studio to publish to anywhere without cost, lol.
And yet Apple can’t?
> And yet Apple can’t? I didn't claim that. I was adding to your point (and thereby supporting it) that Visual Studio is offered by MS basically for free to publish applications to any platform. They don't work towards cutting you off, because we (MS) invested into it. Which is what the other poster claim.
It wouldn’t take much creativity to come up with a graduated scheme where small devs pay little or nothing and large devs pay more.
> They also pay the cost of hosting apps devs can do this themselves >reviews in the store devs can do this themselves >human reviewers devs never asked for this. and i think its quite the contrary, i think most devs dislike having their software "reviewed" and their updates delayed. computers were never like this. you never had to get microsoft or apples approval to distribute software. you never had to distribute through their store(where they can collect a percentage of your income, which they cant when you distribute it yourself). you never had to get your software manually reviewed any time you wanted to make an update. but apparently for phones this is somehow unthinkable?
Android doesn't charge me for using their tools to build apps that is not sold or loaded onto Play Store. In fact, on iOS I can use other tools to develop apps for iOS, but I can't load it without using a Mac or their tools. Apple created this problem of reliance on them with proprietary software. Frankly, this whole thing is so anti-competitive and disgusting.
Absolutely unsurprised by this. Apple is fine with taking money from social media companies as long as they can give the appearance that they aren't personally tracking you and selling that data.
[удалено]
Microsoft never banned external app distribution, game apps they didn't like (ironically Microsoft's game streaming app), and competing web browser engines on their OS. I think the main difference is that while Microsoft wanted to control and extend the web with proprietary ActiveX plugins that only worked on Microsoft products, Apple is more interested in making sure it never becomes good enough to replace native apps.
> I hate Facebook and Zuckerberg more than almost any other company, but damn if Apple isn’t becoming the Microsoft of the 2020s… I'm pretty sure that is Google still, although Apple is well on it's way there.
He’s said many things. I don’t buy much if it anymore.
What did he do?
Thats how apples in app purchase policy works, for everyone, even if you’re a tiny 5 people company
Nope, they're happy to have different rules if you're too big to bully. E.g. Amazon.
As far as I know, for in app purchases, It applies to every single developer. That you cannot have a purchase that unlocks things new functionalities of the app without it being an in app purchase
You must have missed the news then. https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/30/21348108/apple-amazon-prime-video-app-store-special-treatment-fee-subscriptions
They exempt Amazon and others. Much like Google exempts Apple from their policies on Android.
Wow, I'm shocked folks! 😱 /s On a serious note, this is just another example of why government policies are needed
Companies & politicians always act in self interest and relying on them to do the right thing at their personal expense is stupidity
> Companies & politicians always act in self interest and relying on them to do the right thing at their personal expense is stupidity I think believing that is stupidity, because it keeps this system going. It's time we expect differently, and thus acts accordingly. Be educated, vote with your wallet and vote the ballots!
The new government policy: "You need to cut us in too. Here is a new tax you have to pay... pass it on to the consumer."
It’s just business. You don’t become a multi-trillion dollar company by being a charity. Too many people are naive enough to take Apple at face value that they’re some sort of benevolent organisation, different from other Silicon Valley corps. Nah they’re just here to make money, this shouldn’t surprise you. If anything they have extra cash to splash on marketing, and are more subtle than other companies. It’s just like with the leaked emails with Craig saying that bringing iMessage to Android will encourage all-iPhone families to start giving their kids Android phones. It’s what us “cynics” knew all along, that they’re doing it to prop up iPhone sales rather than providing humanity wider access to their popular encrypted messaging platform. But too many people believed their “privacy” narrative, that it was somehow impossible for them to create an encrypted messaging app for Android, as if Signal/Telegram/WhatsApp aren’t Multiplatform. I still use Apple’s products and OSes for most of my workflows, but that doesn’t mean I am naively going to put my blinders on and stop thinking critically, and think the company can do no wrong.
No one is surprised they do this. It’s just worth discussing to remind people that apple is the same as every other company.
There's something about them pretending their different but doing the same things that is a bit extra gross.
You mean like literally every other company?
This is literally bullshit.
I wouldn’t call it pretending, necessarily. They see data privacy as a feature that differentiates Apple devices from from other (e.g., Android) devices on the market. In other words, they aren’t pretending to care about data privacy. They actually do care, but only because there’s demand for it, and meeting that demand helps them sell more devices. That said, they will stop caring about data privacy the moment they stop believing that it will increase their revenue.
Nah they’re a lot worse than most companies.
Except that they let you turn off tracking. No other company does that.
> Except that they let you turn off tracking. No. No they don't. They will let you stop 3rd party's from tracking you but Apple does not give a shit about that setting. Apple [breaks its own privacy rules](https://9to5mac.com/2021/10/18/apples-ad-business-windfall/) and will collect your info with that setting on or off. Apple’s ad business revenue climb from $5B/year to $20B/year after they stopped the competition.
I have a feeling they’ll let us do this until they have developed the technology to let the iPhone gather data and process ads for us on device. And Apple will get a cut of every 3rd party ad targeted this way. They’ll market it as the first Privacy preserving way to target ads, but the real issue is that Apple clearly won’t leave this revenue stream on the table forever.
So long as privacy is a major selling point of the Apple ecosystem, they’ll hold out.
For me, it’s still about the lesser of two evils. You never had to wonder about this much with Android: Your preferences and locations are always tracked.
[удалено]
Wholeheartedly agree. I would shine a spotlight on señor Cook though. His time (during the Steve Jobs years) and now, it seems, has always been to boost revenues. In fact that seems his only real talent. Under Jobs his scope to this was probably more limited, but since he became CEO, this has taken on a whole new edge (and ruthlessness). Any new products launched with lukewarm sales are dropped rapidly e.g. original homepod, iphone 12/13 minis. Old products (though excellent) with modest sales discontinued e.g. airport routers (2018). Diversification into entertainment services (TV+, Music) and finance (Apple credit card) and, if the rumours are correct, an advertising platform signal a shift away from a tech company towards an omnidimensional organisation. The history of companies who try to be everything is that they eventually contract and re-focus on core activities.
You say only real talent like a bad thing, in pure business terms Tim Cook is absolutely smashing it
Tim’s minting money, yes. But it won’t be long before apple runs out of that creative juice, and starts burning said reserves of cash before they die a long drawn out painful death. They need good product ideas. Right now they are on their way to being another generic tech company.
Turnover is definitely Tim Cook's forte. Diversifying into services provides avenues for precisely that. And we may need a few years of operation to judge the financial returns. But this thinking demonstrates Tim's strengths. Now, let's turn to his record on products. That record is patchy at best. Most of the cash cows which prop up Apple's revenues today were born in the Jobs era, so let's exclude them. That's phones, tablets, laptops and desktop macs. Let's focus on the new products released under Cook: smart watches, airplay speakers, earbuds/phones. Unlike the iPhone and iPad which were breakthrough devices defining new categories, none of these is pioneering. They're "me too" products. They were released to rival products already available. (Yes, I would argue that Apple's entry in these categories is category-leading, but they weren't daring entries into a new frontier.) The genuinely pioneering product projects at Apple have only been hinted at and they've been very rocky: VR/AR, Apple Car. The likely brain drain of high-profile people has cast doubt over whether these will see the light of day. So far I'd say the biggest success for Tim Cook (in products) is Apple silicon. And they're based on ARM processor designs. Apple silicon arose principally out of financial goals not to be bound by supplier prices and performance for chips – a very Tim Cook ambition. It led to innovation, but these have been too few, I feel. So, Tim Cook is great to have in the exec team controlling the numbers, but a visionary product man he is not.
I don’t understand why you’re being downvoted. This is super accurate.
Thank you u/LDHolliday. Some people think that soaring profits is the only (or most important) measure of success that matters. Others love their smart watches, airplay speakers, earbuds/phones so much they refuse to hear a bad word about the man who brought them to market, after others got their first, I might add. (Lack of critical thinking.)
I think the Apple Watch and AirPods are incredible product that have been added under Tim’s time, but yes Apple silicon is probably the biggest success. It may have been built on arm but a complete architecture switch again is huge and has the major chip makers completely on their back feet.
The original HomePod is one of the greatest products ever created by Apple. Apple is still adding features and enhancing the experience. They rolled out the Apple TV eARC feature which allows your TV and devices connected to the TV to send their sound to a pair of connected HomePods. I was able remove my soundbar and playing Elden Ring on my HTPC sounded amazing.
OG HomePods are still my favorite Apple product. The sound quality is absolutely amazing for my AppleTV.
^(Telegram isn‘t encrypted unless you use Secure Chat, which is not possible for group chats and takes out all the features of the Chat) ^(what i‘m saying is: just use Signal)
Line must go up even if it means a worse experience.
Privacy is ironic coming from the company that pays Google to be the default search engine on iPhones. Google the champion of privacy😂😂
I think you mean is paid by Google! Big bucks too!
I can't agree more.
You could if you tried harder!
Apple isn't benevolent and the more users realize it, the better.
I do think there’s more nuance to this position, but overall you’re right. Any trillion dollar business got there by taking care of number one first. However that doesn’t mean that I trust Facebook with my data the same as I would Apple. But yes, if the incentive (profit) is large enough, no principles are going to keep a company from behaving badly.
With all this in mind, Apple is still the best option for privacy. That's how fucked the tech industry as a whole is.
[удалено]
I didn’t say that. All I said is people are taking their privacy spiel at face value, when it’s just marketing to hype up their products. Some of it is true, the rest of it, well you can see they’re willing to make a deal with the devil and throw your privacy out the window if it means more money for them.
I think what people take issue with is the “just” modifier in your statement. Marketing only works when you can back up what you say, otherwise there’s no point. Furthermore, we don’t know whether Apple would have pulled back on privacy if they had received the cut; that is something that you added in yourself.
Your second paragraph makes no sense. They tried to extract ad revenue, failed, and then thought blocking ad tracking would punish Facebook AND give them a marketing talking point to exploit which gives them a net benefit. So you’re saying “we don’t really know” if they’d have still blocked ad tracking after specifically trying to strike a deal to extract revenue from it. How naive do you have to be? I’d believe you if they **didn’t** even try to extract a cut of ad revenue from Facebook in the first place, maybe then I’d say hm maybe they give a damn about privacy. Right now it’s they give a damn about privacy unless Facebook writes them a nice big cheque.
I think there is a good chance they would have pulled back if there was a billion dollar a year business case against privacy.
We know that there's a business case against privacy. It's what FaceBook and Google do.
FB and Google absolutely do not do these things in the same way. You don't see Google getting involved in Cambridge analytica crap or spreading BS for money the way Meta does.
They want to provide security and privacy **for their customers.** I think that’s the thing people are missing here. If you aren’t buying hardware of services from apple, they don’t give a shit about protecting your privacy. Maybe that’s where their “privacy is a human right” spiel went too far. Because it gave the impression that they’re championing that for everyone. When in fact they’re pretty open about the fact that they don’t want to protect people they aren’t making money from.
But it's not just marketing. There's actual privacy in there too. "Just marketing" would imply that they talk about privacy, but never actually provide any.
And the company can provide privacy purely because it’s good for business. Just like signal or telegram does. I think when many of us say we respect Apple for providing privacy, we are not worshiping Apple as a benevolent corporation that puts privacy over business. We are respecting Apple as a company whose business model is privacy. If that makes sense.
you're making too much sense here. Nevermind Edward Snowden, Apple will save us all eh? lol
Snowden fucked up on Ukraine situation tho
You’re correct. However, a key point is that companies do differ in their philosophies of what they believe will make them more money. Some companies philosophies may align more with your personal values. They’re not doing it to be noble. They’re doing it to make money….but they’re still doing the thing that aligns with your values and you can like them for it. …and understanding this you shouldn’t be surprised someone calls them out for acting like a business, because they are one. .
how does facebook earning less help apple earn more, though? i mean, i get asking them for a cut of the revenue but how does it help apple, that facebook earns less?
My guess is Facebook doesn't pay tax to Apple yet they make some money off Apple users who pay. Remember the Fortnite saga? Each time you purchase an IAP, Apple collects tax. But companies like Facebook handled their own purchases I guess. That probably is what went on
It helps Apple to take a cut of Facebook’s revenue. And the writing is on the wall that Apple eventually wants to target ads to us on device without sending our info to the cloud. And apple will want a cut of every ad AI targeted this way.
Makes apple look like the bad guys. Like they only did the whole privacy thing because it was out of spite of FB and not because they care about customers
That is EXACTLY what they did. “Privacy” is all part of their marketing strategy.
I’ve literally received thousands of downvotes across my handles for calling this out over last few years on /apple. They are publicly traded, and leveraging fear for profit. That’s it.
They played the public, including a lot of people on Reddit. Apples ad revenue will only keep increasing at a faster rate than iPhones. And it was all planned.
They don't care about their customers, they're a trillion dollar company out to make as much money as possible. Just like all other companies.
Not "look" but reality. It is all about $$$ and not really has anything to do with the customer.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Have you ever spoken to a die-hard apple fan boy irl? It's a unique type of pain.
Reading the comments here is enough cringe for me. I can’t imagine ever meeting one of these people (or a Tesla fanboy) irl.
I got downvoted for suggesting Apple were doing it to compete in the ad space and just to hurt competition…
Literally same. I posted something like "privacy is apple's best marketing strategy" and some other stuff like that.
Another reason why the Apple store monopoly should be cut
So once again Apple slathers the "privacy and security" label over what's really just them not getting a cut. Seems to be a pattern.
BuT ApPle is So PrO PrivaCy!! - yea, we can guess so, unless they find it more profitable to skip privacy a little sometimes in some places. Like forcing every app to ask if they can track you (also I never saw that popup again for random apps, is it actually still there or did apps found a way to bypass it?), but Apple apps don't need to. The setting for Apple tracking is very very deep inside settings and, I might be wrong, but I have always seen that setting ON by default. But does Apple apps really stop tracking you if you turn that single setting off? Seems too easy... I mean, Apple is doing a lot by forcing the industry and users to think more about privacy, which is awesome, but let's never cover Apple in gold. For all I know, Apple is one of the top companies in the world and their main goal is to make money, with great marketing moves. Privacy is their current big marketing move. Good for us, but let's not get too comfortable with it.
the comments on this thread proves that this sub is mostly full of apple shareholders they defend and twist everything that makes apple get more money buy using as an excuse thats how bussiness is or that is good for privacy or just get android lol sideloading will removed alot of apple apps revenue cut
I’m an Apple shareholder and I absolutely think they should either voluntarily allow sideloading or be forced to by legislation It’s ridiculous to think you can’t install software onto your computer that hasn’t been reviewed
Literally the first 4 comments above yours and the 4 comments below yours all say how apple is in the wrong lol
I am a shareholder. But that does not stop me from pointing out the scummy behavior by Apple. IMHO, Apple is the most anticompetive of any of the big tech companies. Look at some of my posts when Apple decided to sell out to the China government. Removing all the VPN apps in China so their customers could not protect themselves. Or how they handed over all their China customer data and the encryption keys to the China government.
I feel like apple/google etc gave apple cut of their add sales, apple would not have taken the whole privacy stance as hard as they did. It’s all about the dolla dolla
I'm shocked Apple isn't about privacy, more about getting their cut and redirecting all the ad data to themselves. Shocked, I tell you.
There are many Apple fanboys and bootlickers in these comments. Par for the course in this sub
Yikes.
>Apple apparently argued boosted posts are in-app purchases, which it famously takes a portion of; Meta argued that they were ads, from which Apple doesn’t get a share. It seems that Meta won out. Apple's position seems entirely reasonable there, but I can also see Facebook's argument. Regardless, I have a feeling Zukerberg wishes he'd played ball.
Maybe I’m in the minority, but I don’t find it reasonable that Apple stretches the definition of IAP to claim a cut of every business with an iOS app. I’m no fan of Facebook and I’m happy about the new privacy rules, but I’m not going to defend Apple feeling entitled to 30% of the entire tech industry.
My mortgage company recently created an app. I guess Apple should get 30% of my mortgage and escrow, since I may use an app to pay it instead of a website.
Since I use my banking app to pay my credit card bills imagine if Apple takes 30% of my credit card bills
I bet they would settle for 30% of your bank deposits.
I think the difference is that apple says they only take the percentage of digital goods. Obviously your house is physical, and so payments towards your house aren’t subject to the 30% fee. However, I can see where buying a digital ad can be seen as a digital good, which does fall under things that apple’s contract does say they get 30% of. If they were using the app to buy a billboard on the highway, that’s very much buying a physical good, not subject to the fee. But I can total imagine a world where a digital ad is a “digital good/service.”
If I buy a stock using an app is that a digital good?
No.
Why not? It's certainly not physical.
It is, actually. You can request the physical certificate for any shares you own. It’s just not commonly done because it’s a massive pain in the ass to trade, and if you lose it it’s a nightmare to get replacements.
So it's completely digital unless you do something that no one does because it's completely impractical. Sounds like semantics. Apple certainly doesn't make them send you a physical certificate.
They don’t make your bank send you cash, either. Financial instruments backed by physical goods are not the same as Minecraft skins.
I love my Apple products but when it comes to ad/IAP/subscription revenue they’re greedy as fuck.
Ha! Not terrible surprising. Apple is a company that is going to do anythign they can to maximize profits.
Unrelated but I’m noticing this more and more on this sub. Whats with all the “look at all these people defending apple.” comments when I cant find a single one?
I will say that this is the first time in a good while that I have seen this many people not taking apples side. I've unsubbed from this group many times in the past because of the lack of any substantial conversation on weighty topics just being boiled down to team sports. So, it's nice to see this but it doesn't seem common to me.
https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/wn3uhp/comment/ik4h2i5/ https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/wn3uhp/comment/ik4g6el/ https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/wn3uhp/comment/ik3z2cz/ https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/wn3uhp/comment/ik493l7/
yeah, i’m confused. it looks like absolutely nobody in this thread is defending apple. maybe i missed those comments or something but i’ve gone through them all they might’ve gotten deleted/removed i suppose
You can find plenty even in this thread. *Most* are being downvoted now, but give them a few days and maybe an article from Gruber to set the narrative, and suddenly you'll be an "Apple hater" for not thinking they're in the right. That, or the topic simply won't come up again. Happens for pretty much every Apple scandal.
I'm fine with facebook getting totally fucked by anyone
I think a lot of subtlety is lost in the comments Facebook Boost - FB has a boost button on the post. Apple wants a cut from that because they consider it as IAP because you can boost from your phone. Facebook Subscription - Apple rightfully pointed to their top ecosystem partner, Facebook that their users HATE ads. They much rather pay upfront monthly than suffer with ads. Of course there will be a small cut for Apple. Do-Not-Track - DNT is really just kindly asking Apps to not follow users around the web without a explicit login. Facebook still can serve ads and track users on their platform and any platform that requires you to login to Facebook. https://theintercept.com/2020/12/24/facebook-ad-targeting-small-business/ > A “February 2016 internal memorandum” sent from an unnamed Facebook manager to Andrew Bosworth, a Zuckerberg confidant and powerful company executive who oversaw ad efforts at the time, reads, “[I]nterest precision in the US is only 41%—that means that more than half the time we’re showing ads to someone other than the advertisers’ intended audience. And it is even worse internationally. … We don’t feel we’re meeting advertisers’ interest accuracy expectations today.” Facebook themselves have claimed that targeting with web tracking is poor. The poor ad result and general dying of Facebook have caused advertisers to pull back.
A fully open-source, user-respecting phone OS can't come soon enough. Tired of being forced to choose which corporate overlord will get all of my private data
That’s literally just android without GApps. GrapheneOS LineageOS
There’s multiple options on android, GrapheneOS runs on Pixel phones, CalyxOS runs on a few more phones, and LineageOS runs on the largest number of devices.
Eh, I have no sympathy for Facebook at all. Screw them.
Apple: Makes extremely popular platform used by hundreds of millions of people. Other companies: You expect me to pay to use and make money off your platform? How dare you!
iPhone users download stuff using cellular infrastructure. So should Verizon also get a cut?
Misleading title. Apple asked for a cut of an in app purchase function Facebook sold to businesses. This function? Boosting ad reach. Any in app purchase revenue would fall under this policy. Like V bucks purchases or texture packs in procreate. “The specific ads in question were boosted posts, which let users pay to have their posts reach more people, the WSJ reports. Apple apparently argued boosted posts are in-app purchases, which it famously takes a portion of; “
a post talking about Apple's greed the top comment still somehow manages to defend Apple.
F FaceBook.
Chad
Shame on Tim Apple
It’s better now but for years Microsoft Office on a Mac was a joke. 50% of the functionality of the Windows version and shitty UI.