Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 29th Sep 2008 12:29 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 331903
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: What is there to Understand?
by darknexus on Tue 30th Sep 2008 04:35
in reply to "RE[3]: What is there to Understand?"
This needs to be a cost that is absorbed by them, plain and simple. This is a textbook definition of bilking: Apple says "you can only use our platform to distribute your apps, and on top of that, you have to pay for it." That would be like Adobe having to pay Microsoft to use a Microsoft sanctioned distribution channel so that they can sell Photoshop.
Apple's control freakishness nature is outlandish. Their stock is through the roof lately. To basically haggle over what amounts to pennies to them is insanity at its best.
Apple's control freakishness nature is outlandish. Their stock is through the roof lately. To basically haggle over what amounts to pennies to them is insanity at its best.
In the current situation, I actually agree with you. I said that I believe it makes sense for developers to pay for distributing through the app store, but not if the app store is the _only_ method of getting apps to the platform. That is indeed insanity and I'd go so far as to describe it as blackmail (you do what we want, or you get nothing). That's why I believe that in regards to the iPhone Apple needs to learn a very valuable lesson. The fact is, though, that Apple wouldn't be able to do this if the vast majority of people didn't bend over and take it. Unfortunately they do.
These dictatorial policies leave me rolling my eyes. It just doesn't make sense from a business standpoint when every other mobile platform is open, but who knows what their motivations really are. I'd like to know, but I suppose that's about as likely as Linux becoming a unified platform--i.e. close to absolute zero.




Member since:
2005-07-06
This needs to be a cost that is absorbed by them, plain and simple. This is a textbook definition of bilking: Apple says "you can only use our platform to distribute your apps, and on top of that, you have to pay for it." That would be like Adobe having to pay Microsoft to use a Microsoft sanctioned distribution channel so that they can sell Photoshop.
Apple's control freakishness nature is outlandish. Their stock is through the roof lately. To basically haggle over what amounts to pennies to them is insanity at its best.