Come on, Apple, just let people sideload. 99.9% of people won’t bother at all, and if you put the opt in switch 3 levels deep in Settings 99.99% won’t even know it’s there.
Feels like Tim Apple needs to go soon, Craig Apple looked to be more open to things from the court emails that were shown.
I'm not sure about this. Piracy is rampant on Android. "Cracked" versions of Spotify which enable premium for unpaid users are very common. Given developers often prioritise iOS due to the fact users are more willing to pay opening the platform up to piracy could have wide ranging effects on the marketplace as a whole.
AFAIK this is pretty common on iOS too. People use AltStore or similar to auto-sideload Spotify++ or similar every week.
I'm not convinced that the reason people on Apple devices are more willing to pay is because it's harder to pirate. Piracy on Mac is just as easy on Windows, but the typical view is that, like with iPhone vs. Android, Mac users are more willing to pay than Windows users.
I think the real explanation is that there are a lot of cheap Android devices throughout the world, and people who are trying to save money on devices also try to save money on apps. I suspect that if you look at the piracy rates for just the $1000+ Android devices, they won't be that much different than for the $1000+ iPhones.
We need to clarify the terms we use, then. I'm not "buying" a phone, I'm leasing one, with Apple being able to choose what I can and can't do on it.
The other day my car got an update that decided to not let sideloaded apps access the internet. The infotainment system went from amazing to useless in one tiny update, just because BYD doesn't want me to have useful apps. I can't even open my garage door without fumbling for my phone any more.
In an era where big tech commits copyright violations on a massive, automated scale to train their AI models, maybe it's time to rethink "piracy" as an offense? Why should only big corpos get to break copyright law?
Sorry, meant Phil Schiller, the only one to question whether a 27% commission is wise.
> Prior to the June 20 meeting, there were individuals within Apple who were advocating for a commission, and others advocating for no commission. Those advocating for a commission included Mr. Maestri and Mr. Roman. Mr. Schiller disagreed. In an email, Mr. Schiller relayed that, with respect to the proposal for “a 27% commission for 24 hours,” “I have already explained my many issues with the commission concept,” and that “clearly I am not on team commission/fee.” Mr. Schiller testified that, at the time, he “had a question of whether we would be able to charge a commission” under the Injunction, a concern which he communicated.
Schiller is now a semi-retired "Apple Fellow", so it seems unlikely that he would be the next CEO. Not to mention that Steve Jobs could have but didn't select Schiller as his successor.
I've tended to calling him Smaug. It's a fitting name in that the roots of Apple's success were software development (the "dwarves"), and for a long time developers had a great standing (internally and externally). But then Tim "Smaug" Cook took over the Iron Mountain of Apple (the hoards of Gold). And boy does Tim like money. And anyone who dares wanting any of his money are thieves. Hence software developers are thieves for wanting to maybe pay a bit less than 30%.
Feels like Tim Apple needs to go soon, Craig Apple looked to be more open to things from the court emails that were shown.