ProtonMail vs Apple

JeeJeeStudio jeejeestudio at
Fri Aug 14 05:31:05 EDT 2020

Waaah, now even EPIC with Fortnite has been kicked off the appstore,
because they found a way to sell things past the appstore. And then Apple
don't get 30%....
It's in dutch but you get the message.
or this one

Op zo 9 aug. 2020 om 16:52 schreef Andre Garzia via use-livecode <
use-livecode at>:

> > Do Apple's actions and policies monopolistically harm consumers?
> Yes it does. There is a ton of innovation that is user friendly that is
> prevented from being present in iOS due to Apples practices. A simple
> example is new browser engines, you can't have them. Which means you can't
> have more private engines than what Safari uses. This also makes it harder
> to bring lots of API innovation to iOS which would benefit users because it
> would allow for better and more powerful web apps.
> Since you can't sideload apps, you as a user need to have Apple permission
> before installing software on the device you purchased and should own. You
> as a developer are allowed to sell software outside of Apple's blessing,
> even if you have customers interested in the software you make. Apple is a
> gatekeeper and a very picky one.
> Gatekeepers are harmful to consumers and sellers. Since you as a developer
> can't simply compile software and sell it own your own page without Apple
> double blessing, you're not really in control of your platform and Apple
> may exercise the right to cut you out of the platform at any time. This is
> harmful.
> > Consumer behavior itself argues against that. Quite the contrary,
> consumers are willing to pay a premium for Apple products and services
> That is totally not true because you can't measure it. You can't measure
> "iOS with a more open ecosystem" vs "iOS with its current draconian
> ecosystem" because that you don't have the more open version to match it
> against the current one. The choice here is not between Apple and Android.
> Apple could still offer the same software, services, and hardware, and be
> more open. People would still choose them. No one chooses the option with
> less options and gatekeepers if they have an alternative. The tight
> integration between iOS and macOS devices is wonderful and people are happy
> to pay a premium for such quality. If you ask any Apple user why they buy
> Apple, no one will answer: "Because I like the way they don't allow
> developers to compete with Apple itself" which is why the EU and other
> companies are crying wolf in the direction of one infinite loop. People
> will say they choose Apple because of the attention to detail, the quality
> of service, hardware, and software, none of which would be gone if Apple
> was more open.
> The key to understand this is that all that you like about Apple can still
> be there, including the App store. If you want to stay in an environment
> like what we have today, it should be possible to do so. But you should
> also have options for when you want to step outside. There should be
> alternative stores or alternative ways to distribute software.
> I'm not saying "burn iOS and Apple". I'm saying the current practices
> benefit no one but Apple and are harmful to a healthy ecosystem. They could
> still be Apple and not be a bully. For example, the need of notarizing apps
> is going to make distributing FOSS on macOS a bit harder. Once Apple moves
> to its own ARM CPUs, it will be harder for every third-party vendor to
> compete with Apple solutions as they'll be able to cram custom silicon like
> T2 and lock down the machine in a way that has not been done in ages.
> If I was LC I'd be throwing some more people into making sure LC runs
> really well under Linux and Windows, both of which are second class
> citizens when compared to macOS. Heck the IDE under windows is horribly
> slow, I have no idea how it performs under Linux. When dealing with Apple
> you always need a plan b.
> On Sat, 8 Aug 2020 at 22:16, Jim Lambert via use-livecode <
> use-livecode at> wrote:
> > BrianM wrote:
> > > One thing that seems to be missing in this discussion is the point of
> > view of the ?client?, the one who downloads the app and pays for it
> >
> > True.
> > In the U.S. the laws against monopoly (the Sherman Act of 1890, the
> > Clayton Act of 1914 and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914) are
> there
> > to promote competition amongst companies for the benefit of consumers.
>  Or
> > our end users.
> >
> > Do Apple's actions and policies monopolistically harm consumers? Consumer
> > behavior itself argues against that. Quite the contrary, consumers are
> > willing to pay a premium for Apple products and services.
> >
> > Andre notes that Apple exercises a monopoly WITHIN the iOS system. But
> > that is a misnomer. Apple has a proprietary system not a monopolistic
> one.
> > And they strictly control it. It's simply not true that "there is nothing
> > iOS users can do about that." Yes, there is. Consumers who don't want to
> > buy into Apple’s closed system are free to buy elsewhere. Consumers can
> > choose Android or any other alternative products. No one is forcing
> > consumers to buy and use Apple products, which is what would happen if
> > Apple had an actual monopoly. In fact, some consumers prefer Apple's
> strict
> > proprietary control and are willing to pay mucho dinero for it.
> >
> > Now look at it from the developers' point of view. Apple makes us jump
> > through many more hoops than Android developers do. Apple constantly
> > changes these hoops which can seem inexplicably capricious. But is it? Or
> > is it a constant effort to assure safe computing for their consumers?
> >
> > There seems to be an assumption that the 30% cut Apple takes is
> > outrageous. But what does a developer get for that Apple %? If you think
> > you can replace what Apple offers for less money, then just sell your app
> > on Android and rake in the extra bucks. What's stopping you?
> >
> > The reality is that the vast majority of smartphone apps make little or
> no
> > money, regardless of OS.
> > So is it painful to surrender 30% of nothing? ;)
> >
> > But back to the purpose of this list, aren't we lucky to have LiveCode, a
> > development platform that gives us the power to develop for whatever
> > platforms make sense for us?
> >
> > Jim Lambert
> > _______________________________________________
> > use-livecode mailing list
> > use-livecode at
> > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> > subscription preferences:
> >
> >
> --
> <>
> Want to support me? Buy me a coffee at
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:

More information about the use-livecode mailing list