[HN Gopher] Apple execs describe a "unique arrangement" with Net...
___________________________________________________________________
Apple execs describe a "unique arrangement" with Netflix
Author : osynavets
Score : 446 points
Date : 2021-10-04 16:25 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| echelon wrote:
| Steve Jobs and Tim Cook are the iPhone Al Capone.
|
| There's no technical reason software needs to be distributed this
| way. It's only greed.
|
| I hope this mounting evidence leads to a single verdict from the
| DOJ: "no more app stores" for common computing devices.
|
| (Please don't rehash the video game console argument.)
| germinalphrase wrote:
| You don't think the security/trust argument has any merit?
| oauea wrote:
| I trust my own judgement, thank you very much. I don't need
| Big Daddy Apple making all my decisions for me.
|
| Also, that has absolutely nothing to do with banning third
| party payment processors for IAPs. That is just criminal, or
| well, it should be.
| nemothekid wrote:
| > _Also, that has absolutely nothing to do with banning
| third party payment processors for IAPs. That is just
| criminal, or well, it should be._
|
| I find this sentiment interesting vs the juxtaposition that
| Netflix wanted off of IAP because Apple makes it too easy
| to cancel your subscription.
|
| I've always viewed the current tension over the App Store
| not to be Apple vs. Users, but Apple vs. Scumbag Developers
| tombert wrote:
| Obviously not the OP, but figured I'll give my unsolicited
| opinion anyway.
|
| I think there's "merit" to it, in that the logic holds: if we
| restrict the apps in an app store to be selected by a trusted
| entity then we can more likely trust the app. This computes,
| I think it's reasonable enough logic, but we could extend
| this further to something farcical too: I could make my phone
| "unhackable" and "more secure" by throwing it into a wood
| chipper. It would be impossible to hack, there's virtually no
| chance of my personal details leaking because of it, but of
| course I lose access to features of the phone (or in this
| case the entire phone itself). A corporation (or any large
| entity) will _always_ be able to justify a restriction as a
| means of "increased security". Security vulnerabilities will
| almost always come from being able to actually use a computer
| _as a computer_.
|
| This wouldn't inherently be a problem if it weren't for the
| fact that there are plenty of things things that are
| perfectly legal, but Apple won't approve, presumably out of
| fears of legal headaches, like video game console emulators.
|
| My "solution" to approximate something decent would be to do
| something more or less akin to what macOS does. By default,
| don't allow any sideloading and only allow things to be
| installed via the App Store. If one would like to install
| something outside of the app store, they must (on a per-app
| basis) go into the security settings and allow things. This
| would still give preferential treatment to the App Store, but
| would allow people who know what they're doing to go around
| this.
|
| NOTE: I'm aware of the self-signing AltStore thing, and it's
| definitely a step in the right direction, if still a bigger
| pain in the ass than it should be.
| echelon wrote:
| The device performs involuntary "CSAM" scans (where "CSAM"
| means whatever any given nation's intelligence apparatus
| doesn't like). If you don't believe it, just look to what
| they've done to their customers in non-US regions. Or that
| Mac phones home about what programs you run.
|
| App review is meant to enforce Apple's payment rules as much
| as anything. They don't and can't catch everything.
|
| Strong sandboxing, granular permissions, and remote kill
| switch (that can be disabled) can do effectively the same
| job. It just won't earn Apple gobs of racketeering money.
| shadowfiend wrote:
| > The device performs involuntary "CSAM" scans
|
| It does not.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| > It does not.
|
| Yet.
| raiyu wrote:
| There is a definitely a benefit in terms of trust and
| security, though not fool proof.
|
| However, when you force companies to only signup and accept
| payment through your payment gateway instead of giving
| customers the option, and then unequally applying rules and
| colluding with other companies you start to get in trouble in
| regards to monopolistic practices.
| derefr wrote:
| Nitpick: developers aren't required by Apple to restrict
| payment to only go through the App Store / Apple Pay.
| They're just required to take an equivalent App Store levy
| out of whatever gross they're making, regardless of what
| payment processor they use, and hand that levy to Apple.
|
| For example, there's no TOS requirement preventing Amazon
| from having been selling Kindle books through its iOS
| Kindle app this whole time, and charging those sales
| through the user's Amazon payment processing as per usual.
| The only TOS requirement is that they would have just had
| to take 30% off the top of those sales for Apple. Amazon
| doesn't want to do this (and perhaps would have negative
| margins if they did), so instead they have decided to not
| have any kind of store view in the iOS Kindle app, and
| instead to just tell iOS Kindle users to go to the Amazon
| website to shop for Kindle books.
| summerlight wrote:
| It has some merits, but not worth enough to justify 30% tax.
| Perhaps 10% would be acceptable. 5% can make a good case for
| Apple.
| m463 wrote:
| lip service.
|
| Trust and security don't mean much when apps have unfettered
| internet access. You cannot find who the app is contacting,
| how often and what is sent. You also have no ability to
| filter or block the contact. *
|
| * there are minor hacks.
| badmadrad wrote:
| how about instead of "no more app stores" you and others with
| your interest go make more app stores. more is better. if you
| have a good product you will gain the leverage you need.
| criddell wrote:
| > (Please don't rehash the video game console argument.)
|
| Why not?
| throwaway78981 wrote:
| From February this year - Apple App store is home to multi-
| million dollar scams. The method the guy used to find this is
| so childish it's a wonder how Apple could have missed. Also
| Apple employs some dark patterns if you wanna report scams.
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/8/22272849/apple-app-store-s...
| haunter wrote:
| >Rep. Johnson: Does Apple treat every app and every developer the
| same?
|
| >Cook: "We treat every developer the same. We have open rules.
| It's a rigorous process. Because we care about privacy and
| quality, we do look at every app before it goes on. We apply
| these rules equally to everyone."
| drdaeman wrote:
| To be fair, from the third email it's clear they meant for
| Netflix to be treated as everyone else (after they figured the
| rules for the program they mention), eliminating this special
| treatment.
|
| In my personal belief, Cook would've won more by admitting they
| may have some exceptions, but actively try to get rid of those.
| It's arguable of course, but it the email he justifies it by
| end-user interests and he probably means it. That's just real-
| world realities - that exceptions happen even with the
| principled people, just because things are never white-and-
| black.
|
| Instead, he told a lie how they're holier than the Pope. Even
| if he believes in that and genuinely wants things to be that
| way, he surely knew it's not the reality.
|
| And I just wonder why. I don't have any knowledge how things
| work at those levels, but my very naive risk analysis is that
| if there's any serious investigation there are significant
| chances such lie would be uncovered, and legal and PR
| consequences of that would be harsher than admittance,
| especially with justifications.
| [deleted]
| aaaaaaaaaaab wrote:
| What is the consequence of such a blatantly false testimony to
| Congress?
| comeonseriously wrote:
| Absolutely nothing.
| rudyfink wrote:
| "Law? What do I care about the law. Ain't I got the power?"
| (attributed to Cornelius Vanderbilt
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_Vanderbilt)
|
| Your question made me think of that quote. There are
| technical answers to you question (that lying under oath is a
| crime), but the realist answer is, that unless
| Congress/executive has the will to enforce consequences, very
| little.
| misnome wrote:
| It's only blatantly false if you ignore the context that it
| was spoken in of talking about basic App review and not IAP
| commission. And plenty of wiggle room there, especially if
| the "same process applied to everyone" includes the stage
| "Have we negotiated a contract with them for an exception on
| this"
|
| Not that I think that anything would happen if it were in the
| IAP context.
| mthoms wrote:
| Err... even in that context, it's blatantly false.
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20210712060426/https://www.tele
| g...
| hh3k0 wrote:
| For your average Joe or the CEO of a trillion-dollar company?
| tialaramex wrote:
| In practice? None whatsoever. Even under oath.
|
| After all, Congress critters constantly lie or spout
| nonsense, why should we ask more of those before them?
|
| In principle, it's a crime. But, nobody will do anything
| about it, especially when it comes to a powerful white man.
| [deleted]
| Supermancho wrote:
| Ironically, it's both common knowledge and trivially
| verifiable. I'm not sure how this is a "debated" topic.
| apendleton wrote:
| Lying to Congress is a crime (distinct from perjury), but
| it's unusual for anyone to be tried for/convicted of it
| though. Michael Cohen, Trump's lawyer, is a (rare) recent
| example.
| hh3k0 wrote:
| Cook was under oath, no? So as per my understanding, it is
| perjury on top of lying to congress. I am, however, not a
| lawyer.
| qwytw wrote:
| Also you didn't read what Cook actually said in the
| preceding and following sentences.
| apendleton wrote:
| Right, lying to Congress is a crime regardless of whether
| you're under oath, but if you're under oath and lie, it's
| both.
| i21QMgplhRJs2OL wrote:
| It depends on who your friends are. Compare Clapper and
| Flynn.
| leeoniya wrote:
| "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than
| others."
| smoldesu wrote:
| "Privacy is a human right, but humanity has such a fickle
| definition these days."
| capableweb wrote:
| > Apple CEO Tim Cook defended the company's App Store
| commission structure in his sworn testimony before the House
| Antitrust Subcommittee on Wednesday.
|
| > "We treat every developer the same. We have open and
| transparent rules," Cook said, in his testimony. "It's a
| rigorous process, because we care so deeply about privacy and
| security and quality. We do look at every app before it goes
| on," he added.
|
| Slightly different quote, added some context and here is a
| source too: https://techcrunch.com/2020/07/29/apples-app-store-
| commissio...
| misnome wrote:
| You seem to have missed out the crucial piece on context from
| that source, in that it's talking explicitly about app review
| and not IAP commission.
| saagarjha wrote:
| Which also has special-case rules (or lack of enforcement
| thereof...)
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| This is glaringly evident at the very least in the way
| Apple and Google (don't) apply app store review to their
| own apps, so I don't understand why you're being
| downvoted.
| [deleted]
| monocasa wrote:
| Isn't complying with IAP rules part of app review?
| tshaddox wrote:
| The amount of commission that Apple receives from an IAP
| isn't something that's in the code for an app. It's not
| something that could be part of the app review process.
| It's an arrangement between Apple and the developer.
| monocasa wrote:
| The app review processes explicitly are testing the
| backend components for compliance as well.
|
| The Fortnite app behind the lawsuit that we got these
| docs from was explicitly taken down for failing app
| review by not complying with IAP guidelines.
| judge2020 wrote:
| Presumably any video platform could apply for the "Video
| Partner Program" mentioned in the email.
| Ajedi32 wrote:
| ...which that email says in the very same sentence is
| different from the "unique arrangement" they have with
| Netflix.
| fiftyfifty wrote:
| They're unique arrangement with Netflix predates their
| Video Partner Program and probably some of their other app
| store rules:
|
| Peter Stern:
|
| "Longer Version: I explained that these IAP tests are not
| OK for Apple. Our commitment to developers and customers is
| to run the world's best App Store, and when Netflix is
| cycling in and out, they are undermining that. I also
| explained that we run a principled App Store, and they have
| a unique arrangement because it was struck before the
| existing Video Partner Program came into effect..."
| emsy wrote:
| The problem here are not the special deals, saurik commented he
| cut special deals in the Cydia store occasionally the last time
| this topic came up. The problem is that there is no alternative
| to Apple when it comes to publishing software and content on the
| iPhone and that makes these kind of deals unfair.
| netcan wrote:
| This is naive, IMO.
|
| Even if the app store was run differently, say allowing a
| competing way of installing apps, Apple still have plenty of
| fungible power to make such deals. You might have ticked a box
| to make it technically fair, for some definition of, but that
| would probably be just cosmetic. IE, app store would still
| represent most revenue and everyone is in the same position but
| a few geeks.
|
| The "platform game" establishes market power, where buyers and
| sellers need to go through you. They have no negotiating power,
| and you can price to make deals that take all the "surplus
| utility" off the table, in classic economic terms.
|
| So... reality isn't perfect and some players _are_ big enough
| to negotiate. Netflix is that player here. They negotiate when
| they have to, but try to keep it quite.
|
| When the market is this structured, this is how it works.
| emsy wrote:
| You said it's naive but didn't actually present a reasonable
| alternative.
| netcan wrote:
| Sorry. Poor choice of words.
|
| Alternative to what? A law that says apple must allow
| alternative App Stores? I'm ok with that, and it might be
| useful to some people. I just don't think it will affect
| the market much.
|
| The App Store "market" is not going to become a competitive
| market with a quick fix like that. Any solution that does
| make it a competitive market also tanks the business model.
| 30% to deliver an app is many times what a competitive rate
| would be. The competitive rate might be 0. We didn't have
| app stores before app stores.
|
| Any kind of antitrust effort would need to start from the
| understanding that this is not a competitive market. Apple
| has all the power. A few app devs have the leverage to
| negotiate and everyone else is a price taker. You could
| "solve" it by regulating prices, enforcing a single price
| or otherwise limiting apple's choices directly. Or... you
| could leave it as is, which is (IMO) about the same as
| ruling that they must allow side loading or alternative app
| stores.
|
| Similarly, it will be very hard to limit fb from making
| their app addictive, shrill or other such problems. Their
| incentives are very strongly tied to these.
| amelius wrote:
| > The "platform game" establishes market power, where buyers
| and sellers need to go through you.
|
| So we have to get a law against a "monopoly that arises after
| you've bought a product".
| vorpalhex wrote:
| An alternative market would create pressure on Apple. If
| Netflix tells the App store to go screw themselves and lists
| on a different store, then the App Store gets that much less
| traffic and either has to compete or lose out.
| netcan wrote:
| I don't think it does, beyond box ticking. You're not
| likely to get enough competition to get competitive market
| dynamics on iPhones. Sure, a highly motivated user might go
| to alternative app stores.
|
| Netflix does not need to go to a different store. They're
| influential enough to negotiate. Apple would cut them the
| discount, like now, and they wouldn't. The other store will
| not have enough users to make the reduced fees worth
| ditching the app store.
|
| If there was enough competition, most of the app store
| profits would dissipate. That's what competition does.
| Users wouldn't pay 20-30%'extra to have apple's stamp,
| prices would fall and the business model is gone.
|
| No little tickbox rule will make a competitive market in
| app stores. These markets are structured by nature. That's
| why platforms are so powerful.
| kyle-rb wrote:
| >Sure, a highly motivated user might go to alternative
| app stores.
|
| Highly motivated users like kids who want to install
| Fortnite on their phones? That would give an "iOS Epic
| Store" a foot in the door, and while I'm not a huge fan
| of Epic, I think that would at least introduce some
| competition for Apple.
| [deleted]
| Jcowell wrote:
| From a consumer point of view, this is terrible.
| fbelzile wrote:
| No, it increases choice and lowers costs for the
| consumer. If you see switching app stores a "cost"
| because it's less practical, you most likely would still
| be able to use your store of choice, but you might need
| to pay more.
|
| I don't see Netflix pulling out of the App Store if there
| alternatives. Right now, this is the only thing they can
| do to retaliate.
| Osiris wrote:
| That seems to undermine their "everyone is treated equally"
| argument.
| 8ytecoder wrote:
| The same deal is available for everyone though.
|
| https://developer.apple.com/programs/video-partner/
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| cma wrote:
| This is an example of the "special friend" technique harmful
| platforms make use of (slide 40):
|
| https://www.slideshare.net/danctheduck/gdc-2011-game-of-plat...
|
| "First you sign long-term contracts with certain influential
| developers"
| shmerl wrote:
| Both Apple and MS are despicable.
| actusual wrote:
| For those unfamiliar with IAP as a term of art: IAP = In App
| Purchases
| redbell wrote:
| Thanks! That saved me. I was trying to decipher this acronym
| based on the context where it was mentioned with no luck.
| [deleted]
| ksec wrote:
| I am pretty sure I read something similar before. Probably from
| Benedict Evans or somewhere else.
|
| I think the most important issue from these email isn't the lack
| of Alternative App Store, IAP, or 70/30 split. It is that Apple
| Execs has _Zero_ understanding of how other business works
| especially with respect to Internet or Software Services. They
| continue to think Netflix as a physical product ( As they often
| like to compare Physical Software distribution before App Store )
| that is being continuously sold with recurring revenue like
| staples or other commodities.
|
| Not to mention Netflix _knew_ Apple were doing AppleTV+. Directly
| competing with them. I love how Apple complains about testing IAP
| as not OK as in we deserve our 15%.
|
| So Reed made the decision to stop IAP. And reading all the emails
| from Apple execs, Eddy Cue often seems to be the culprit.
|
| Steve From D5
|
| > _You know, because Woz and I started the company based on doing
| the whole banana, we weren't so good at partnering with people.
| And, you know, acatually, the funny thing is, Microsoft's one of
| the few companies we were able to partner with that actually
| worked for both companies. And we weren't so good at that, where
| Bill and Microsoft were really good at it because they didn't
| make the whole thing in the early days and they learned how to
| partner with people really well._
|
| _And I think if Apple could have had a little more of that in
| its DNA, it would have served it extremely well. And I don't
| think Apple learned that until, you know, a few decades later._
| jacurtis wrote:
| For comparison Netflix spends about $1.2 Billion dollars per
| year on AWS (Amazon Web Services). Their total revenue last
| year was 27.5B. So that means that AWS fees account for 4.3% of
| Netflix's revenue.
|
| AWS is streaming video, operating hundreds of edge location CDN
| locations, and everything else running on expensive server
| infrastructure. AWS has real serious costs with offering that
| service, to the point that Netflix has yet to determine that it
| is better to build it themselves.
|
| Apple by comparison demands 15% which is 3.5x as much of a cut.
| Apple provides credit card processing, and approval into the
| App Store (plus according to a comment in this email, it sounds
| like they keep Netflix in the App Store promotion rotation as
| "free" ad-space). This isn't anywhere near the value that AWS
| provides, despite demanding a much higher premium. Of course
| this is the "generous" 15% IAP cut, instead of the normal 30%
| which is even more atrocious.
|
| Apple seems to maintain the expectation that they deserve 30%
| of revenue from massive corporations like Netflix, Amazon,
| etc.. Even the "generous" 15% fee is quite atrocious,
| especially considering the fact that Apple provides next to no
| value for Netflix, if anything they are a pain in their side or
| a necessary evil for Netflix.
|
| Apple is wildly delusional on the value that they provide. It
| is absolutely no surprise to me that Netflix would consider not
| allowing IAP subscriptions at all. They already have the
| marketing power to force people to subscribe at their website.
| I am surprised Netflix is honestly being as understanding on
| this issue as they seem to be.
| spiffytech wrote:
| > Apple seems to maintain the expectation that they deserve
| 30% of revenue from massive corporations like Netflix,
| Amazon, etc.
|
| That's _exactly_ what Apple believes.
|
| From Tim Cook's testimony in Epic v. Apple, from Ars
| Technica:
|
| > The in-app-purchasing (IAP) system itself, Cook said, is
| simply the most efficient way of collecting a 15 to 30
| percent commission on each in-app sale. "If not for IAP, we'd
| have to come up with another system to invoice developers. It
| would be a mess."
|
| This view is explicitly affirmed in the Epic v. Apple
| verdict[1]:
|
| > Under all models, Apple would be entitled to a commission
| or licensing fee, even if IAP was optional.
|
| The court found the 30% rate arbitrary but not
| objectionable[2]:
|
| > Indeed, while the Court finds no basis for the specific
| rate chosen by Apple (i.e., the 30% rate) based on the
| record, the Court still concludes that Apple is entitled to
| some compensation for use of its intellectual property.
|
| Personally, I don't approve of Apple feeling entitled to a
| cut of commerce that doesn't hit their app store, but the
| court's take (before appeals) is that it's perfectly legal.
|
| [0]: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2021/05/ceo-tim-cook-
| faces-po...
|
| [1]: Page 67,
| https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21060631/apple-
| epic-j...
|
| [2]: Page 150
| bredren wrote:
| Is it reasonable to suggest AWS's primitives and even
| finished cloud products for video delivery are largely
| commodities?
|
| Wheras, there is no such thing as the other App Store?
|
| IIRC, Apple customers spend more and don't quote me on this,
| but are more influential in the spending of others. If that's
| true, then I think this comment under-represents the utility
| of operating in the App Store.
|
| It doesn't necessarily mean that it should command the 15%
| tax, but it isn't "no value" either.
| garblegarble wrote:
| >AWS is streaming video, operating hundreds of edge location
| CDN locations, and everything else running on expensive
| server infrastructure. AWS has real serious costs with
| offering that service, to the point that Netflix has yet to
| determine that it is better to build it themselves.
|
| Somewhat off the core topic, but netflix run their own CDN (I
| also don't see any evidence for that 1.2 billion AWS bill
| figure, can you provide a link? Their latest SEC filing
| doesn't separate cloud service costs from the running of
| their Open Connect CDN)
| SSLy wrote:
| Obiously they've meant IX PoP's or stuff inside ISP
| networks.
| PoignardAzur wrote:
| I'm not sure Netflix Open Connect counts as a CDN? They
| might still use distributed servers from AWS.
| garblegarble wrote:
| Netflix themselves classify it as a content delivery
| network, and that seems pretty fair - how else would you
| classify a network they have built to optimise content
| delivery, by way of peering agreements and physical kit
| they deliver to ISPs on demand?
|
| They do use AWS for a lot of their internal compute and
| packaging, but it wouldn't be cost-effective to use AWS
| for content delivery, even with a deep discount to the
| highway robbery standard AWS egress prices.
| redis_mlc wrote:
| > AWS is streaming video, operating hundreds of edge location
| CDN locations, and everything else running on expensive
| server infrastructure. AWS has real serious costs with
| offering that service, to the point that Netflix has yet to
| determine that it is better to build it themselves.
|
| Not sure if you made some typos, but ...
|
| Netflix does not stream from AWS, and never has. It used to
| use outsourced CDNs, has now its own CDN.
|
| This seems to be a long-running misunderstanding on HN.
| Anybody who knows AWS' egress costs knows better.
| jiveturkey wrote:
| > Apple is wildly delusional on the value that they provide.
|
| I haven't studied it, so I'm speaking out of turn, but I'm
| thinking that it's cheap for smaller players and expensive
| for larger ones, and not as a smooth function. NFLX is well
| past the knee in the curve I guess.
|
| If you buy that, then it's unfair to say Apple is delusional
| about their value add. On average it's probably fair within
| reason.
| clusterfish wrote:
| > They continue to think Netflix as a physical product ( As
| they often like to compare Physical Software distribution
| before App Store )
|
| Framing the relationship this way gives Apple more power and
| control, so that's what they're doing, no surprise. They're too
| smart to be merely misunderstanding such things.
| croshan wrote:
| I love that quote. To get where you want to be, it may be
| helpful to build the skills you want, before you need them.
|
| At this point, an organization like Apple is too cemented to
| easily change. I think you can't learn _everything_ on the job,
| because some things you'll learn too late. Now, it's more than
| "a few decades later," and have they really learned how to
| partner?
| 5faulker wrote:
| If they do some major restructuring that is.
| jobu wrote:
| That's interesting. As a developer I've often felt outright
| hostility coming from Apple developer relations, and maybe it's
| this lack of a partnership mentality. They generally treat end
| users really well, but it's like they see external developers
| as some sort of parasite feeding on their products. In my
| experience it's difficult to get actual technical help unless
| you personally know someone internal to Apple.
| tornato7 wrote:
| From Apple's perspective, developers are either creating
| competing products or products that Apple will eventually
| compete with. Either way they would rather not help.
| asdff wrote:
| My tinfoil hat theory is they allow the jailbreaking scene
| to persist instead of shoring up holes within a second of
| each jailbreak's release because they poach tweak ideas.
| When looking at the overlap between popular early jailbreak
| tweaks and features that were added to iOS over the years,
| this really doesn't seem farfetched.
| mhh__ wrote:
| Don't forget products they just ban
| pornel wrote:
| And the arrogance and entitlement they've shown during Epic
| trial. Apple really believes that their OS and Store are
| godsend to developers, and this makes developers forever
| indebted to Apple for the 30% cut of everything happening
| through it.
|
| I have to use mediocre Xcode, limited OS APIs, fight
| signing, sandboxing, lack of Vulcan, and capricious review.
| I need to keep rewriting churning APIs with "No Overview
| Available" instead of documentation. I'd rather not use any
| of this, but Apple keeps users hostage, because browser
| engines that would embarrass Safari are banned.
| musicale wrote:
| If you're lucky you can get a WWDC lab session.
|
| However, I suspect Apple developer relations has largely
| turned into a broadcast/funnel system since 1:1 support
| doesn't scale well to millions of developers.
| gowld wrote:
| Woz never seemed bad at teamwork. "Whole banana" was the
| results of jobs obession with dictatorial control, not the
| cause of it. Woz tried to add expansion ports to the Apple
| computer, but Jobs refused. Jobs seems to be throwing Woz under
| the bus (as usual) to deflect from his own flaws.
| musicale wrote:
| > Woz tried to add expansion ports to the Apple computer
|
| Like the expansion slots in the [Apple II, Apple ///, Mac II,
| IIgs, Power Mac, Mac Pro, etc.] or the [SCSI, ADB, USB,
| FireWire, PC/Express/SD card, Thunderbolt, etc.] expansion
| ports on various Apple computers?
| fsckboy wrote:
| yes. Here's wikipedia on the Apple II:
|
| "During the design stage, Jobs argued that the Apple II
| should have two expansion slots, while Wozniak wanted
| eight. After a heated argument, during which Wozniak
| threatened that Jobs should "go get himself another
| computer", they decided to go with eight slots."
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Wozniak
| tablespoon wrote:
| What does IAP stand for in this context?
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| in-app purchase, i believe
| 8ytecoder wrote:
| In-App Purchase
| jw1224 wrote:
| I wonder why Netflix don't want their content to be searchable in
| Apple's TV app:
|
| > "Since TV App is not going to happen right now, there's nothing
| else to get from Netflix at this time"
|
| The TV App is actually pretty great -- one of the few parts of
| the Apple ecosystem where the garden walls are very low.
|
| I can search for a TV show or film, and even when the iTunes
| Store has it available, TV still suggests I watch it for free
| (effectively) on Amazon Prime, or any other streaming services I
| have set up.
|
| It's a little surprising Apple seem happy to forego the revenue
| themselves -- but great for users like me.
|
| For whatever reason, Netflix is the only major streaming provider
| who don't integrate with the TV App -- which is a shame.
| drexlspivey wrote:
| Netflix doesn't want their content to show up in apple TV
| search because they don't want to give access to their user's
| data to Apple. It's a terrible anti-consumer decision and
| frankly it was one of the last straws that led me back to
| piracy after many years. All I wanted was a universal search
| for content instead of having to go into each provider's app.
|
| I am now using Plex/Sonarr/Radarr and it works flawlessly, a
| much better ecosystem with open APIs and tons of integrations
| with tvdb/discord/trakt/opensubtitles etc. Netflix had a good
| thing going on for a while but they managed to screw it up.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| Apple, refusing to share their user data with others: "Great.
| Pro privacy. Pro user."
|
| Netflix, refusing to share their user data with Apple:
| "Terrible. Anti-consumer. Last straw."
| 8ytecoder wrote:
| It's not sharing. It's just making it searchable - aka the
| catalog and link back. The second feature is the ability to
| continue/resume from the Home Screen. That requires sharing
| playback information. However, there's no indication that
| Apple mines this information. On the other hand, it's
| extremely useful to me as a user. This is the primary
| reason I don't use Netflix much these days and I have a
| premium subscription. It's so easy for me to reach to HBO
| Max or Hulu than Netflix.
| tornato7 wrote:
| I think it's more than that - if users are finding shows
| through the Apple TV search then Apple is able to promote
| their own shows and services in that search functionality.
| Netflix wants people to use their app so they can push their
| own content and features.
|
| Similar to why Amazon doesn't like it when you Google for
| products and end up at Amazon, they would rather you just
| visit amazon.com and search from there so they can show you
| ads.
| i_like_apis wrote:
| With the flood of medium quality content coming from Netflix in
| the past few years I'm almost happy with it not showing up.
| tsuujin wrote:
| Since picking up an Apple TV, my Netflix consumption is down to
| zero. Everything else is right there in the main UI, and it
| provides zero incentive for me to open their app.
|
| At least from my perspective, Netflix really dropped the ball
| on this decision.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| The article says the Apple/Netflix agreement DID follow older
| rules, before current App Store rules?
| bduerst wrote:
| It's about extending the agreement despite the rules being
| different now. It's also not good that they mention the Apple
| TV app in the same email, because it acknowledges they know
| they're competing with Netflix and it has bearing on their
| special treatment with a competitor.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I just wish the damn AppleTV apps worked better together.
|
| I use AppleTV for all my viewing (which isn't really that much),
| and one thing that _really_ annoys me, is the crap quality of the
| apps; even marqee-brand apps.
|
| I'm constantly having to reboot the unit to get out of "lockups."
|
| Wouldn't be surprised if a big reason that Netflix and Apple
| don't play well with each other, is that they can't code it (as
| opposed to nefarious motives -Hanlon's Razor).
| asdff wrote:
| I have the same issues on xbox with an order of magnitude more
| powerful hardware. Don't think its apples fault. When you think
| about it these companies don't have any incentive not to offer
| crapware software, since they compete with eachother on
| catalogue rather than ux which is 'good enough.'
| mikestew wrote:
| The Netflix app is especially bad about this. At least on my
| prior-gen 4K ATV, do a search in the Netflix app and you'll
| never get out of the search menu. _Menu_ button does nothing,
| select one of the items in search does nothing because as soon
| as you _Menu_ out of it, you 're back to the unescapable search
| screen. The only way out is to kill the Netflix app. (This
| might have been fixed, haven't watched anything on Netflix in a
| while. Definitely repro'ed a month ago.)
|
| And, BTW, you might not need to reboot to escape a lockup. I
| don't have an ATV on and accessible, but I'm pretty sure you
| double-tap the TV/Home button that brings up an Alt-Tab-like
| view of your running apps. Swipe or arrow left or right to the
| problem app, swipe up to kill it. It's what I do with the
| Netflix app way too often, like when I used the search
| functionality. :-)
| zerohp wrote:
| I've never rebooted my AppleTV aside from updates. Double click
| the home button on the remote and swipe up to kill an app.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Thanks for the tip!
|
| Yeah, apps hang all the time. They don't crash, _per se_ ,
| but you can't break out of the screen they are presenting.
| kristjansson wrote:
| Borrow a million dollars from the bank, you have a problem.
| Borrow a billion dollars from the bank, you and the bank have a
| problem.
|
| Why should it be a surprise that a partner in a stronger
| negotiating position negotiates a better deal than is offered at
| the door?
| bikeshaving wrote:
| It's amusing that this quote has inflated like most things
| today. Original quote was ("If you owe the bank $100 that's
| your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that's the
| bank's problem.")
| throwawy8233qo wrote:
| I know HBO Inc had the same 15% deal, at least back in 2018. I
| was on an email chain where some HBO execs mentioned this, and it
| was a revelation. As a vendor of iOS apps we hinted to other
| customers that the 30% cut is negotiable for providers strategic
| to Apple, without giving away HBO's deal.
| mikeryan wrote:
| The Video Partner Program which takes 15% went into effect in
| 2016.
| djyaz1200 wrote:
| Tech companies that reach monopoly scale (like Apple, Facebook,
| Amazon) should have to disclose all their agreements and honor a
| "Most Favored Nation" clause giving all companies the same
| pricing and access as the best negotiated agreement with any one
| company. This is the most reasonable way I can think of without
| breaking them up to prevent them picking winners and losers as
| new opportunities emerge. If you have a better plan I'd be glad
| to hear it.
| CPLX wrote:
| We could also just put a tax of 100% on any revenue in excess
| of $10bn a year and nip this entire society-destroying problem
| in the bud.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| So what happens to the company spending 10.5bn to earn 11 bn?
| They just get a net loss of 0.5 bn?
|
| edit: Or lets pick a real example and see how that works out.
| ArcelorMittal is a major steel provider. They sold $53B last
| year. They had a tough year though, so their final net loss
| was actually about half a billion.
|
| Under your proposal, they would have lost 43 billion dollars.
| Uh oh, you just collapsed the steel industry.
| jacurtis wrote:
| While I would definitely entertain extreme tax tiers at high
| revenue limits (like $10B/yr), it is important to note that
| there is value in Apple making money.
|
| There are a lot of jobs created between the $10B and $1T
| levels. And as citizens of Apple's home nation, it greatly
| benefits us that those high-quality jobs are available.
|
| A 100% tax (or even 80%) tax would discourage a lot of
| products from existing. Apple would probably move down to
| simply offering just phones and apps only and removing
| everything else. I know that sounds good in theory, but there
| are indirect benefits for these other services that they
| offer, in addition to jobs. It also bolster's California's
| economy all the way down to bodegas, bars, restaurants, and
| hobby shops.
|
| So an alternative tax like 60% on revenues above $50B that
| can not be deducted against might be a more reasonable
| alternative.
| moreira wrote:
| That -sounds- simple, but it isn't, and in reality any
| company would easily bypass that by simply creating other
| companies to take some of the revenue. They already do that
| to avoid international taxes. As an example, the US charges
| tax on all income coming to a US company so companies have
| entities in countries like Ireland and Luxembourg to keep
| that money out of the US government's reach.
|
| So Apple might have $100B stuck in Ireland, unable to bring
| it to the US, but it doesn't matter, that money still counts
| for their shareholders.
|
| And it's the same thing here. If you try to tax $10B they'll
| just have 100 companies all making $9.9B/yr, in a variety of
| different countries, completely separate from each other, and
| you're back where you started.
|
| And while this would be extremely complicated/expensive for
| them to manage, it'd be profitable because the alternative is
| to get a 100% tax on those profits.
|
| Taxes aren't easy. And calling a company that sells phones a
| "society-destroying problem" is a bit hyperbolic, don't you
| think?
| CPLX wrote:
| There's nothing simple about it. It would require pages of
| statute as well as regulatory guidance, and some of the
| most wealthy and capable forces in our modern world would
| be arrayed against it trying to avoid and evade the rules.
|
| None of those things make the proposal impossible however.
|
| It would be a dismal society indeed if we unilaterally
| surrendered to every instance of centralized malevolent
| power without a fight.
| smallerfish wrote:
| It's an interesting thought experiment at least. What would
| the hidden incentives of something like that be?
|
| For example, if a company wanted to keep growing, it would
| have to split organically into separate corporate entities.
| What would stop them establishing "favored" relationships
| with each other? Say for example Facebook splits out
| "Zuckerburg data centers inc" - what's to stop them pricing
| themselves above market to avoid taking on other customers,
| and then giving FB a hefty discount? You could mandate that
| there be no board overlap, but shareholders would probably
| receive a split.
| amelius wrote:
| If Zuckerberg data centers wants to keep growing, then at
| some point they will have to find external customers.
| CPLX wrote:
| You'd need to actually draft a law rather than write it on
| a napkin and there would be armies of very well paid
| lawyers trying to avoid it, but that's common to any
| attempt to break up concentrated power.
|
| In that context it wouldn't be all that hard. You'd need to
| figure out some definitions for common ownership, joint
| enterprise, and so on. A lot of those laws and definitions
| already exist. It's only really in the last few decades
| that we've abandoned antitrust law but we have successfully
| done things like this in the past.
| ameister14 wrote:
| When have we capped the potential revenue of companies
| successfully in the past? I've never heard of it
| newsbinator wrote:
| Why not $9bn a year?
| EastOfTruth wrote:
| You got to start the discussion somewhere.... For me, I t
| think that it should be related to the number of employees.
| loktarogar wrote:
| A cap on employees would probably be a negative thing,
| but a cap on revenue per employee would incentivise
| hiring people
| EastOfTruth wrote:
| that's the solution
| EastOfTruth wrote:
| Talking about monopolies, why does Facebook and HN have
| network issues at the same time.
| bigthymer wrote:
| Maybe people visit other sites when the ones they would
| have used go down? I don't know for sure but it is a
| plausible explanation for me.
| EastOfTruth wrote:
| makes sense but at the same time it surprises me
| ric2b wrote:
| Too easy to get around, as soon as company A starts making
| $11B they make a new company B that charges $1B for some
| random service, probably "consulting".
| samstave wrote:
| Thats actually what a lot of firms do, and what was really
| prominant in the Cannabis industry;
|
| Cannabis companies couldnt do "real banking" do to federal
| shenanigans.
|
| So instead why dispensaries would do, is make another LLC
| who buys the building and all the building permits that are
| municipally regulated - then as the municipality zoned and
| approved locations and projects for dispensaries and
| distribution licenses (which had a multitude of their own
| specific restrictions)
|
| They would then rent the facilities for ridiculous rental
| amounts which the rental company would legally be able to
| put into any regular bank - then make loans to the cannabis
| companies and dispensaries for whatever operating expenses
| were needed.
|
| This got really ugly when Med Men, based out of LA, was
| made really public because of douchebaggery happening in
| the company revealing how they had been gaming their own
| investors etc...
| vkou wrote:
| Sure, but why limit this to tech companies? Let's also apply
| this to banks, landlords, governments, grocery chains, and
| employers in general.
|
| Why should I not get the best wages, negotiated employment
| agreement, interest rates, lease terms, and deal with the IRS
| on taxes that I really don't want to pay as my most successful
| peer?
|
| Banks bend over backwards for their VIP customers, why
| shouldn't they do the same for me?
|
| My neighbours didn't get a rent increase this month because my
| landlord likes them, why should I have to negotiate for getting
| the same thing?
|
| Bill on my team got a 30% bonus this year, I also want a 30%
| bonus... And would love to see this sort of thing codified in
| law.
| ashtonkem wrote:
| You snark, but legally preventing banks from offering better
| rates to favored clients would probably be a good thing for
| society and the banks themselves. After all, plenty of
| charming and well liked clients have turned out to be
| terrible credit risks.
| vkou wrote:
| Favored clients in this case aren't slick guys in a suit,
| I'm talking about people who want the bank to manage
| billions of dollars for them, as compared to me and my
| shitty savings account that may or may not have any money
| in it.
| FormerBandmate wrote:
| Credit scores are a very good thing. Someone who pays their
| bills on time shouldn't have to pay the same rate as
| someone who always skips the bill, and without them, every
| loan would have 10% interest at least, even for mortgages
| jen20 wrote:
| The concept is fine. The implementation is garbage (in
| the US), and insufficiently transparent.
| djyaz1200 wrote:
| Having this requirement when dealing with tech monopolies is
| uniquely helpful because in some cases there is no
| alternative. We can always rent, shop or bank other places.
| I'd argue where there isn't a thriving marketplace of choice
| monopolies should have to have the same rules with all their
| partners.
| trowapplea12132 wrote:
| You can always use other software as well. The only reason
| HN believe Apple to be a monopoly is because the product
| they purchased does what it was advertised to do - security
| through chain of trust via an good-but-imperfect
| organization. It's only a legal monopoly if the courts say
| so, and the judge in Epic v Apple defined the market in a
| way that actually made sense - they aren't a monopoly on
| mobile game purchases, but they did took anticompetitive
| actions in that market to stifle competition.
|
| > I'd argue where there isn't a thriving marketplace of
| choice monopolies should have to have the same rules with
| all their partners.
|
| They can't have a monopoly on iPhones because the iPhone
| isn't a market - it's a device where the App Store is the
| killer feature. There are other products you can buy that
| compete with the iPhone and its app store.
| [deleted]
| djyaz1200 wrote:
| Apple as of years ago was capturing over 90% of all the
| margin in smartphones
| (https://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/23/apple-captures-
| record-91-per...). I'd argue that represents a monopoly
| in paid smartphones. Our option as users is either buy a
| phone from Apple or accept what is essentially a free
| service from Google (you have to buy the hardware)... who
| are giving that away to solidify their search monopoly.
| This to me doesn't represent a thriving marketplace of
| user choice.
| Dracophoenix wrote:
| 90% of global smartphone profits does not mean 90% of
| devices in the market. It's been demonstrated for years
| that iPhone users are much more likely to pay for apps.
| It's possible to be extremely profitable and not have a
| monopoly on the market because the iPhone isn't just an
| appliance but a Veblen good as well.
| zopa wrote:
| It does however mean Apple has significant market power.
| Almost by definition: in a very counterfactual perfectly
| competitive smartphone market, everyone sells at cost and
| there aren't any profits. Reducing it to monopoly vs.
| not-a-monopoly is drawing too bright a line.
|
| And I don't really think iPhones are a Veblen good
| exactly. Targeted at higher-income buyers? Yes. Valued as
| much for design as aesthetics? Absolutely. But pretty
| sure a $500 iPhone would outsell an otherwise-identical
| $800 iPhone, nevertheless.
| [deleted]
| passivate wrote:
| "but why limit.. " assumes we do things in an absolute
| manner. But we don't. All rules and regulations are arbitrary
| to an extent. We have different rules depending on the
| situation, the entity, etc. We get to pick and choose the
| rules that we think will benefit society the most.
| oauea wrote:
| Any of those a monopoly?
| notyourwork wrote:
| Technically or reasonably speaking?
| only_as_i_fall wrote:
| Might be too broad. Especially as the scale gets smaller I
| think that non-quantitative aspects can reasonably affect who
| you want to do business with. For example, if I'm annoying
| and rude to my local mechanic and he starts charging me extra
| to deal with my bullshit I don't really see a problem with
| that.
|
| There does start to be a problem however if he's the only
| mechanic in town or if he charges more or less based on race
| or some other protected class.
|
| I think it's a very hard in general to find the balance on
| problems like this one, and I don't expect you can come up
| with a one size fits all rule.
| munificent wrote:
| Better plan? How about we stop letting tech companies reach
| "monopoly scale"?
| liquidify wrote:
| The market is globally competitive. How would expect tech
| companies to compete if you have policies that continuously
| place them at a disadvantage against global competitors.
|
| Tariffs don't solve these problems either. OP's suggestion is
| pretty decent idea relative to playing wack a mole with price
| fixing while trying to make sure your country's corps can
| compete on the global market.
| modo_mario wrote:
| >How would expect tech companies to compete if you have
| policies that continuously place them at a disadvantage
| against global competitors.
|
| We can look at a map of most popular messaging apps per
| country in the light of todays downtime and see that they
| don't or they compete with themselves.
|
| It also shows the only places where competition can grow to
| a scale where it can even hope to start competing and
| survive is where there's first a protectionist policy in
| place favoring domestic players.
| georgeecollins wrote:
| I agree, but there may be certain things like electric power
| grids, sewer systems, messaging systems, high bandwidth ISPs,
| where it may not make a lot of sense to have two (or not two
| in a particular geographic location). In that sense you may
| need some regulation.
| abvdasker wrote:
| This is a solved problem. Just do what most American cities do
| with other natural monopolies like utilities: use careful price
| controls to cap margins and slow rate increases. You don't need
| to invent some esoteric market-based solution, _especially_ for
| a service where marginal costs are near zero and supply is
| almost infinite.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| My city recently forced every resident into an esoteric
| market-based solution for electricity (sold with a pack of
| lies about renewable energy and reduced rates) that required
| explicit opt-out to avoid and stay with the provider who
| actually generates power and services the people on its
| infrastructure.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Which city?
| liquidify wrote:
| It is not a 'solved problem'. Price controls are not easy for
| anyone to manage. Companies can easily find ways around them
| in many cases.
|
| Enabling companies to categorize themselves as 'platforms' or
| otherwise and then stipulating both benefits and requirements
| based on those labels makes a lot of sense comparatively. The
| general problem though is that the government isn't typically
| using regulations to improve freedom and competition. The
| government looks at regulation as a way to extract money, so
| solutions that encourage competition on a level playing field
| through market forces (like OP's) aren't given fair
| consideration.
| jdhzzz wrote:
| Make them a (common
| carrier)[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier] just
| like was done for WAN access in the USA. Hahahahahaha.
| kortilla wrote:
| Absolutely not a solved problem. The utilities have no reason
| to innovate at that point.
|
| In my local municipality I have no way to choose renewable
| energy apart from building my own power plant on my roof.
| That's a complete failure of these government granted
| monopolies.
| 8note wrote:
| What incentive does the app store have to innovate now?
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| There's no such thing as choosing renewable energy on a
| grid. Energy is fungible. If you get on one of those
| "choose green" schemes, you're just getting the same energy
| but also buying some credits from somewhere else.
| enjo wrote:
| The regulating bodies of those utilities work hard to
| create incentives for them to innovate. I spent four years
| of my career working on energy programs with major
| utilities around the country in which they tried to
| incentive reductions in energy usage.
|
| Which is a curious statement: why would a electrical
| utility want people to use _less_ electricity?
|
| The reason is because the regulatory agencies created
| incentives within the regulatory framework to encourage
| them to do it. Basically the regulators start with an
| outcome, bake that outcome into how utilities get paid, and
| then let the utility innovate to figure out how to do it.
| This led to meaningful reduction in energy usage across
| many markets.
| verdagon wrote:
| I'd love to hear more, what kinds of incentives? Is it
| something like, "if you get X efficiency, you get N more
| dollars"?
| tehjoker wrote:
| It's not something that should be a choice. The government
| should move as much power to renewable as fast as possible
| and you should just keep getting power. This idea of
| "choice" for a commodity based on how it was produced not
| based on any features is crazy and will never work.
| oauea wrote:
| It's been obvious for years that Apple gives absolutely no fucks
| about destroying small businesses with their inane review
| processes (which change on a whim and seem to depend on the mood
| of the reviewer) and fees. Of course larger corporations are
| exempt.
| throwaway78981 wrote:
| Not just destroy, destroy and steal too. Because why not.
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/16/22676706/apple-watch-swip...
| arthurofbabylon wrote:
| Of note, it appears that Netflix's gripe wasn't so much about the
| 70/30 split as colloquially observed, but that Apple's IAP saw
| more "voluntary churn" than Netflix's direct purchase.
|
| Am I reading that right? Would this churn discrepancy apply to
| other services besides Netflix (like developer tools, access to
| smaller content libraries, etc)? Finally, what did Apple do to
| address their "voluntary churn" problem?
| shkkmo wrote:
| There were a number of issues. My understanding is that Netflix
| was not paying 30% but rather was paying 15% due to their
| special agreement with Apple. According to the emails, it was
| Apple's refusal to go below 15% that triggered Netflix to begin
| testing not allowing payment via IAP. The "voluntary churn",
| "promotion coordination" and "revenue sharing" offers are from
| Apple trying to sweeten the pot to keep Netlfix from dumping
| IAP completely.
| Terretta wrote:
| In other words, Netflix is harder to cancel directly than
| through Apple's subscription UI.
|
| As is the case for virtually every dark pattern subscription
| (most of them) when not through Apple.
|
| This isn't a problem, it's a benefit -- from customer point of
| view.
|
| Apple makes a customer-friendly rather than seller friendly
| subscription UI, the reason I won't subscribe to things any
| more except through Apple.
|
| It's genuinely surprising to me the proportion of customer
| hostile rhetoric on this topic.
| asdfasgasdgasdg wrote:
| Netflix is very easy to cancel, though? There's a big honking
| "cancel membership" button on the top level account settings
| page. It's actually more prominent than other entries on the
| page.
|
| http://imgur.com/a/09XZ9jb
|
| Also very easy to change your plan level up or down.
| caylus wrote:
| Yeah, I would guess that the important difference is that
| Apple emails a receipt for all subscriptions every month,
| making it much less likely that someone forgets about their
| subscription when they no longer regularly use it.
| yibg wrote:
| It's way easier to cancel Netflix via Netflix than the App
| Store though.
| a_large_rat00 wrote:
| Apple is pretty dark-patterny about the subscriptions too. On
| Android the refund/uninstall button is right next to the open
| button in the Play store. You buy an app, don't like it,
| click a button and return it.
|
| I just bought an iPad app the other day (my first), it didn't
| meet my needs, but I still can't figure out where to go to
| refund it. And Apple's subscriptions expire immediately if
| you cancel during a free trial, whereas the Google ones will
| still let you finish the term of your trial.
|
| Apple's not really the good guy either. They're just the
| powerful ones.
| jumhyn wrote:
| > And Apple's subscriptions expire immediately if you
| cancel during a free trial, whereas the Google ones will
| still let you finish the term of your trial.
|
| Amusingly, this is only the case for Apple's first-party
| subscriptions. Third-party IAP subscriptions for which you
| are in the free trial when you cancel will continue to
| provide "access" until the trial period concludes.
| ramshanker wrote:
| I am of the opinion that the whole "Reader apps" concept itself
| was brought in to selectively please big and important players.
| The ones whose absence would diminish the value of iPhone. Indie
| developer's can't be expected to get same treatment.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| Luke LaFreniere has publicly stated that App Review basically
| refused to even entertain a Floatplane "reader app" for months,
| until they were able to appeal to someone who actually
| understood Apple's rules. They were getting absolutely
| nonsensical rejections that either didn't make sense or didn't
| account for the whole "reader app" thing.
| Ambroisie wrote:
| What's a "reader app"?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-04 23:00 UTC)