Saying they have taxi's in SF is a bit hyperbolic. I have an invite to that program and it's
- only after 10pm
- used such an odd slice of the city I not only can't get picked up, it doesn't GO any where I go.
I would love to use either of these programs both for the novelty and because I think Autonomous driving is great, but I literally can't use the program I do have access to.
I think the parent wasn't referring to it being perfect, but that open road real-life testing is something very few companies have, and was implying we shouldn't count out Cruise because they are at least at that stage.
> used such an odd slice of the city I not only can't get picked up, it doesn't GO any where I go.
It's been a month and a half since they've covered almost the entire city except FiDi/Union Square (and Twin Peaks)[1]. That's not a trivial omission, but do you really never take rides that start or end in any other area? In particular, that entire area is a fairly close walk from the only dense transit line in the city.
And to compound this after doing a half ass job of what OP has done, I recently moved my custom google apps free domain to have a second reception domain i use JUST for this with a `.email` TLD (side note: the amount of tools that don't see modern TLD's as valid is enraging)>
I made the (maybe poor) choice of donating to political campaigns before the last US election using these emails
- `Biden-campaign@`
- `democrats@`
- `<specific local race@`
All of those I've had to unsubscribe from about 2-3 dozen total OTHER email lists as those emails are literally sold/given out to other campaigns. the biden one being the worst.
Also if you have your own business you'll start getting solicitations, LOTS of solicitations. And god forbid your email is on an old resume, or somewhere else.
Now, is any of this "technically" spam? Maybe but not really. Do I consider it worthless? yes.
But to site your last specific one. I did a search for an address I know was on a compromised product. Specifically a game Heroes of Newerth. They were hacked in I believe 2015 and the list was sold. My email was my old method `name+hon@email.domain`. I get like 20~ emails to that a year and all of them go to spam or are flagged as spam automatically.
Yeah, HoN was the first of my catch-alls to receive spam. Idiots didn't even acknowledge that they have been compromised and insisted that obviously I did use hon@mail.mydomain.tld somewhere else. These days I'd use the opportunity to check how well GDPR works in practice.
It's more than that: it's the fact that all of the payment info is there. Every step, field entry, hurdle you put infront of a consumer is usually associated a significant increase in "cart abandonment". By apple allowing you to just apple pay straight in and avoid CC, and billing address etc, they are decreasing the hurdles and increasing the conversion.
Is it worth 30%? In 2013? Maybe In 2021? Definitely not. It should be closer to 5%.
That being said I do like using Apple subscriptions because they make it REALLY easy to cancel them, all in one place, something that can't be said for a lot of other services.
Yeah, one MAJOR issue I have with the folks complaining about apple. Many of them have HORRIBLE cancellation policies.
I had to fight NY Times like crazy (it was sign up online, call to cancel kind of thing).
Match is also in the "alliance" fighting apple with Facebook. They also have scummy practices (either tracking you or again duping you).
The other thing I like with Apple, the trial periods are REALLY clear. When you sign up with comcast it's like $29/month (and then in tiny tiny print 10 pages later you find out that after 6 months it's $69/month or whatever).
So until these folks clean things up where they ALREADY have full control (on the web) I'm willing to cut apple a ton of slack.
Apple will remind you to cancel a subscription when you delete a related app. It reminds you if a subscription will renew and you can cancel then. I willing spend money through the app store I'd not spend ANYWHERE else. For folks willing to spend money but who don't want to f'ed around with constantly apple is the place to be. And it is super easy these days. Double tap or touch and done.
I understand your view, but the hilarious (or sad?) thing here is we are applauding a multi-trillion dollar company for the most basic functionality. This is like saying “this restaurant sucks, but hey, I am glad that I got at least something to eat!”
The bar has been set so low, that allowing customers to cancel easily is worthy of praise! This is a shitty situation for ordinary people to be in.
Another thing to think about - if Apple were a bit more nicer to developers, they can have the developer loyalty for ever and ever. But they are so big and their competition is so bad that they don’t think developers have a choice. Short term profits is apparently more important than long term goodwill. Of course, they aren’t alone in this.
The saddest part is - after all their shenanigans, they are still better than other companies:(
The issue is the policy makers / department of justices entire focus seems to be on fighting so that companies can make more money and/or scam users by getting outside of app store polices.
Why this level of DOJ involvement against apple (with very little CONSUMER harm) when your grandma is LITERALLY getting scammed by fake tech support etc and they do jake crap over any of that.
Millions of consumers get screwed over, in big ways and small, day in and day out. Crickets.
Apple creates a small ecosystem that is completely optional for consumers to use that does a few things right (little tracking, fights all these companies on everything from tracking to trial periods to cancellations and more). And now that is a crime. The App store is the LEAST of my consumer protection worries.
Most of the "alliance" of folks fighting apple run scammy business. Loot boxes for kids (Epic/Fornighte type folks) / Zynga / Facebook data exploiters / Match.com fake profile type players / NY Times impossible to cancel people.
The Apple ecosystem isn't "optional for consumers to use"; if you want iOS then you absolutely have to participate in the ecosystem. Same reason why the "buy an Android if you want to sideload" argument doesn't work for me: the platforms aren't interchangeable.
A lot of what you're describing here are things that absolutely should be illegal, and a properly-funded government should be investigating and prosecuting. What Apple has done is turn iOS into their own sovereign territory, written their own laws, and levied their own taxes. In other words, they are a digital warlord. If we are going to ban loot boxes or data exploitation, we should be passing actual laws in actual Congresses and Parliaments to ban loot boxes or data exploitation.
Yes, the consumer harm might be minimal, but the consumer is not the end-all, be-all of the economy[0]. Apple bossing developers around creates compliance costs and higher barriers to entry for smaller businesses. This is inherent to monopolies of any kind, pro-consumer or otherwise. Yes, I can absolutely point to scams that Apple has judiciously removed from the App Store; but for every one of those I can also find stories where Apple just absolutely dicked around with a smaller developer and held up their app for no reason. In contrast, large companies like Zynga, Facebook, or Match Group have dedicated staff for making the Apple warlords happy, and know exactly what they can get away with. This isn't an open and vibrant marketplace; it's a group of warlords negotiating who owns what.
[0] More generally, the "consumer welfare" standard that modern antitrust enforcement has adopted is effectively a tacit agreement to not prosecute antitrust violations.
+1 re: “”What Apple has done is turn iOS into their own sovereign territory, written their own laws, and levied their own taxes.””: a few of my friends think I am off the rails on this one, but I think a plausible future is similar to the cyber punk world of William Gibson novels that describe a future maintained and ruled by corporate interests that provide corporate enclaves for people to work and live - sort of replacing countries.
Yes, all the players you mentioned suck, and they suck more than Apple probably. But that doesn’t mean we should not call out Apple’s bad behavior.
Also - Apple has infinite resources. They can be nice to everyone if they want. They choose to be arrogant, just because they can.
None of the companies you listed have a cult following, Apple does. Nobody gives Facebook or Zynga a tenth of the respect they give Apple (I think it is justified, those companies suck real bad).
Is it unfair to expect Apple to behave better than others? In my opinion, no. Others might disagree.
CVS blocked apple pay forever. So did Walmart. They said Apple sucks for wanting control (and providing privacy etc). They launched their competitor CurrentC I think which was of course totally hacked:
The reality is that a lot of these startups have almost NO controls over user data relative to inside actor threats. So I'd much rather sign up and have all my details / home address etc on apple's servers. Is this walmart alliance designed with privacy in mind or to exploit my data? I'm serious?
Ny Times is a good example. My subscription let me use their app, but I couldn't cancel it inside the app. Instead its the phone call BS (maybe they've stopped that).
So as a user, I actually kind of want apple to have a ton of market power, because the folks like DOJ / SEC etc are toothless in these areas. The only thing these agencies seem good at is stupid cookie banners (which are pointless).
> I understand your view, but the hilarious (or sad?) thing here is we are applauding a multi-trillion dollar company for the most basic functionality. This is like saying “this restaurant sucks, but hey, I am glad that I got at least something to eat!”
It's not so much as applauding Apple for providing basic features to their users, but as saying that unlike a lot of other companies, they do provide those features.
If things were _okay_ elsewhere, we wouldn't need Apple's ecosystem and they couldn't make billions with it.
Yes, they take as much advantage as possible of their position, but if they're where they are, its partly because nobody is providing what they do.
>So until these folks clean things up where they ALREADY have full control (on the web) I'm willing to cut apple a ton of slack.
Sorry, but its easy to say that if they're not grabbing 30% of sales from YOUR small business. If you think this fight is about Facebook or Match or NY, you're missing the whole point. Those big guys can take care of themselves just fine.
> its easy to say that if they're not grabbing 30% of sales from YOUR small business.
They're not grabbing 30% of the sales from ANY small business. They lowered their fees to 15% for the first million dollars (I think both per year and per app).
There are plenty of small businesses that have $1 million in yearly revenue or more. A single restaurant can easily make that or more a year.
If you go with SBA definitions, they use a $1 million to about $40 million range for revenue, and a maximum of 100 to 1,500 employees depending on the industry[1].
I mean, I would imagine a single restaurant would have to make more revenue in a single year to no longer be a small business - their costs of goods are far higher.
Meanwhile, when someone says "small businesses" cannot afford something, and that small business is a 1,500 person software company with $40 million in revenue, I think more "that is no longer a small business" than "poor small business". And if it turns out I'm technically wrong about a legal definition of small business, that's not going to change how concerned I am about that 1,500 person company - it's going to make me specify my concern is around supersmall businesses or whatever. That is, me being wrong about terminology is primarily going to make me change the terms I use.
They did not do this out of generosity or good will to small businesses. They did this for the PR, knowing that they're still rolling in the cash like Scrooge McDuck from all the years they've been milking it, and will continue to milk it, whilst looking like they're giving a handout. And it honestly looked like it worked from the comments of people defending their stance.
> They did not do this out of generosity or good will to small businesses. They did this for the PR
I doubt they did it for generosity or for PR. I do think there was some amount of goodwill. I think it's Apple's way of ensuring that more apps get made. That is, they are "subsidizing(ish)" the creation of many small apps they make almost no money off of anyway in the hopes more small apps will be created which might contain a breakout success. If lowering the revenue on all small apps leads someone to try to make an app and fall into viral like Candy Crush, well Apple is probably going to make more on that one app than they "lost" on all the small apps they charged 15% on combined.
It's actually worse than that. The vast majority of IAP revenue comes from the bigger mobile game publishers.
Not only do Apple take 30% of this, they screwed over all those developers by removing their (ad platforms mostly) ability to track users, thus breaking the developers monetisation model.
I honestly find it hard to believe that they didn't realise that this was going to hit them hard with IAP revenue, but then I've always been surprised at the lack of joined up thinking in large companies.
Yeah, but this one actually hits their revenues. It's disguised for now because their ad platform is way up, but over the longer term this will absolutely crater their app store revenue.
Therefore, I suspect that this will be substantially weakened/rolled back over the next few years (this process has already started, btw).
> I had to fight NY Times like crazy (it was sign up online, call to cancel kind of thing).
I had that issue several years ago with Sonic (the broadband provider).
However, if you're in California, it should be possible to cancel a subscription by the same means that one subscribed to the service in the first place. For example, if one signed up online for a newspaper, they should be able to cancel online as well. This has been in place since July of 2018 I believe.
New restrictions coming into effect in July 2022 require having a link or button to cancel a subscription as part of a customer's profile page, as well as notifying customers of an impending renewal for trials that have an extended free trial period.
Don't get me wrong, I hate all that, but it's not worth a 30% tax on every recurring purchase to me. As Apple admits in the linked emails, this is a cost passed on to the customers.
The idea that these companies can't make 30% more per user on the app store is what is insane to me. On the app store customers have trust. My app store spend is many multiples of what I would spend otherwise.
For most business if you said, hey, I'll take 30% for marketing but get you 100% more revenue they would do that right away. Are Apple app store customers really that cheap relative to android? Androids marketshare is FAR FAR bigger, but apple has just sorted out the give us money safely story.
My own glance is that iOS users spend easily 4x as much as google play users AND are much less likely to steal apps. If that's not worth it to devs apple should be able to unlock and really give users freedom (including to download from anywhere online and install). I wonder if android has a bigger app piracy problem then iOS (which devs apparently don't care about).
Not in the US. Apple has 60% of the mobile market compared to Google's 40%[1], and Apple's App Store is responsible for 100% more revenue than the Play Store.
I used to pay 7.50 then 8 bucks for the Times. But each year I had to call and threaten to cancel. One year they charged me 15-16 and I was pissed off and their phone guy not very helpful so instead of the retention route I just told him cancel no deal. Nothing.
Next day or week after expiry they offered me 4 bucks. I was happily paying 8 but they made me figure 4 was possible so now that's my bar.
> So until these folks clean things up where they ALREADY have full control (on the web) I'm willing to cut apple a ton of slack.
I spent years working at a place where apple wouldn't allow us to even link to a website to manage your account if the signup wasn't sourced by apple, so I feel like any marketing they have around being customer focused is really just window dressing.
This is a "class gets punished because of a few bad students" kinda thing. Without this rule everyone would and did just play the game of using their iOS app to drive people to their website to sign up to avoid paying Apple.
Apple, who charges for exposure and access to their users, I think is reasonably annoyed that people are trying to get that for free.
No one who has an app on the App Store is getting free publicity. There's a $99 fee per year per developer. For that much money, if someone uses their app to drive people to their websites, so what? Don't you think it's hypocritical of Apple to use iTunes as a gateway to Apple Music and iCloud without paying Microsoft a cut?
It's one thing to say Apple has the right to do what it wants with its own platform, but it's another thing entirely to set up a straw man in order to justify those rights.
Exposure in this context means “the right to set up your stall in Apple’s market and sell to their customers.”
It might have been more precise to say “reach” but at the end it’s semantics.
You not paying for “publicity” in a marketing sense you’re paying for high-value shelf space in a store that brings in a lot of customers — iOS devices.
If MS wants to charge publishers 30% for all sales done on Windows then power to them.
No one is trying to get it for free. They are trying to get it for [significantly] less than 30%.
If it's so great to use Apple Pay (one click, easy to revoke payment -- sounds great!), why would a customer not use it over browsing to a random page, entering CC details, and worrying if it will be hard to cancel?
I'd guess the convenience is not worth 10%, much less 30%, to most users.
> They are trying to get it for [significantly] less than 30%.
So what is the right fee for access to iOS users, and in turn, paying for iOS development itself? This isn't just a transactional payment system, it's an end-to-end payment platform designed to take high-value customers and turn them into sales with minimal friction. iOS is that system, not just IAP.
> No one is trying to get it for free. They are trying to get it for [significantly] less than 30%.
And Apple charges 30% for sales of digital goods on their platform. You're trying to get what Apple is selling without paying for it. Don't sell on their platform them -- do what Amazon does with Audible or what Netflix does.
> If it's so great to use Apple Pay (one click, easy to revoke payment -- sounds great!)
Because that isn't what Apple is charging for, users don't pay this fee -- publishers do. They're charging publishers for the privilege to sell to Apple customers. I'm sure users like the convenience, I do, but the fee isn't for me. You're absolutely right that it's not worth 30% to me. But it's absolutely worth 30% to you when the alternative is not being able to sell on iOS and Apple knows it.
It's nuts that in threads like this that people begrudgingly pay Apple's 30% fee while in the same breath saying that they're overcharging. Well clearly not since you're paying it. If they were actually overcharging then you wouldn't be complaining because you just wouldn't have an iOS app.
> Because that isn't what Apple is charging for, users don't pay this fee -- publishers do. They're charging publishers for the privilege to sell to Apple customers. I'm sure users like the convenience, I do, but the fee isn't for me.
Do you seriously believe you're not, in the end, paying that?
I find it hard to believe that you do. Seems far more likey you're gaslighting for your idol, as Apple fanbois so often do.
You can opt-out though. Just don't sell digital goods on your app and don't use your app as a funnel to direct people to your website where you sell them. Audible takes this approach and it seems to work fine enough for them. Boom! Apple will take 0% of your revenue.
That's a useful workaround when Apple allows it, which they haven't done consistently.
But that's not at all what I meant by opting out. I meant "If this is the price for 'exposure', just stop giving me 'exposure' and let me sell digital goods in my app."
Also it's not just 'digital goods', it applies to services too. You can currently manage a netflix subscription in the app, I think, but it's been unavailable a lot and netflix seems to have a special exception that doesn't apply to video services in general.
Audible and Netflix have exceptions given they are “reader” apps. For something like Roblox, they must have in app payments if they accept payment via the web, so the publisher would have to opt out of the platform completely to avoid the 30% surcharge for one of these types of apps.
Do virtualized credit card numbers address this problem? I have a free browser extension from my credit card company that generates virtual account numbers and when I pay for a service I create a new number for it. If it’s difficult to cancel the service I just delete the number instead.
Apple allows you to block the company from doing tracking of you and connecting that to other info. These things are hard to block technically sometimes.
I had a company threaten collections action over an unpaid subscription because they continued to provide the service (that I didn't want) and I hadn't paid. It doesn't matter that I had an email saying please cancel. You have to dial XXX.
On the business side we are seeing more deals where you have to provide written notice 60 days BEFORE the end of the 5 year term but not more than 90 days (check your copier lease agreements). All these are essentially tricks to force renewals in my view (and are totally allowed).
It addresses the problem in the same way that shoplifting addresses the problem of not having enough money for what you want. Technically, you're in the wrong. You're failing to pay a bill you signed up to pay. And no one will go after you for $4 (unless they really want to lose money, I guess.) But if you try the same thing on tens of thousands of dollars of subscriptions (say, as a business you make a decision to do that) you'll probably get sued.
This shouldn't be on-the-right-side-of-the-law. You should be able to have your credit card send a "cancel" signal and that should be it. Further charges are theft.
Legally it doesn't, but for practical purposes most recurring subscriptions probably won't pursue you over a declined payment and will just suspend your account. I don't advocate this, but I've heard that it works.
And yet subscription scams abound on the App Store. Apple makes it INSANELY easy to start subscribing to a $7.99 per week subscription that there is a load of scummy apps that try to trick you into starting one and people would be a lot more cautious if they had to manually enter their billing info.
I find a lot of their content quite good and am more than happy to pay for it.
And a quick googlin' indicates it wasn't a marketing department that came up with "the paper of record" but librarians.
But to be Fair and Balanced, you're right to be shocked that a company would use marketing slogans to sell their product. Especially a news organization.
Apple Pay isn't the only payment processor that's convenient like this. But of course, Apple has created a market where their processor is the only one allowed.
I mean I pay for shit on my iPhone with PayPal, "Shop Pay", "Amazon Pay", or direct CC entry -- not digital goods obviously but still it's a frame of reference. None are half as good as Apple Pay's "hit button, double click, FaceID, done" flow. Like I will actually switch to using my phone to make purchases because I don't want to enter my CC info on some random site.
Your experience with other payment processors on an iPhone are indeed not as good simply because they aren't allowed to be as good. Every single one of your experiences with these alternative payment processors was forced through a Safari browser.
Nothing is stopping the 'Shop' app or Amazon app from being used for any and all third-party (or fourth party, in this case) payments, as long as they're not selling purely digital goods.
I also wish Apple would make it easier to switch to a different credit card for a one-off purchase. And stop forcing everyone in a Family Sharing group to use the same credit card for all purchases
Argh, every day I consider going back to my iPhone 8 Plus purely because FaceID is so terrible. The point about switching cards easily is also absolutely right, plenty of places don’t accept American Express which is my default card.
If it's anything like Google Subscriptions, there's the danger of disputing charges leading to your Apple account being banned, so it's probably in the users' interests to avoid it.
But of course, when you've just come off of a plane at 2 AM and want to get a ride to your hotel so you can get a few hours of sleep before checkout time, this is probably not something users will think about.
> It's more than that: it's the fact that all of the payment info is there.
Haven't Lyft and Uber already collected that payment information to charge per ride today? Is there even any friction savings here? What justifies the 30% cut when these companies seem to have done just fine not using the Apple Payment infrastructure?
Apple Pay is different from App Store fees. Apple Pay is a payment process where the store doesn’t get your credit card number. Apple Store fees are a matter of business agreements between software companies and Apple.
Using PayPal won’t help an app company escape its agreements with Apple.
Apple should be forced to allow other payment processors store a platform wide login like you can with a Google account. So none of the payments run through Apples infrastructure, but there is no extra friction over their provider.
Eventually they will be in every sizeable market outside the US starting with Korea. With all that 30% cut money leaving the domestic economy and multi trillion valuation, Apple has made itself too juicy a target
You can't see the calculator, but you can see most of the inputs - for this discussion, the factors that weigh on the location-based adjustments are here:
Often, it's not the simple. Some times it takes months of trust building. Sometimes the person is part of a community, a community they may have been part of for months or years. Yes their life isn't easy, but putting them in housing might remove them from that support network. Often times people are terrified to move away from the only group of people they've known.
Ideally everyone would see the benefits and realize this is better, but these people have a lifetime of other issues and being houseless is only part of it.
Certainly I think the first priority of any homelessness agenda should be to keep people from falling into it and treat existing issues before they ruin someone's life and sidestep many of those problems in the first place.
But I am deeply skeptical of arguments that, having gone that far down an unsuccessful path, you now should gain extra rights and freedoms that override the wishes of the rest of the people in the city you're in. Though I could see this be on a scale - for instance, I think Seattle owes less to people who move to Seattle without housing than they do to people who had housing in Seattle who got priced out.
This frames the issues in terms of rights and freedoms. Left alone the homeless tend to cause property damage, commit small crimes, and generate calls to emergency services because of their behavior. On average these emergency responses alone cost around $100k/year. Given that money matters it can make sense to give out some free benefits in order to reduce other negative impacts. This frames the situation in terms of costs and benefits for different alternatives.
Agree with all you are saying. The thing that baffles me is how the homeless can just take over a public space and it's just supposed to be, ok?
It's like some strange eminent domain situation. Seems obvious that I should not be able to just claim a public space for myself.
It also seems obvious to me that people don't have some kind of right to live wherever they want (like the heart of Brentwood in LA has been transformed from a beautiful fun place to a sad wasteland).
My solution to homelessness is basically reducing housing costs by dropping minimum parking requirements, height restrictions, min sizes units, etc.
SCOTUS interpreted[0] the right of free movement to make "owes less to people who move to Seattle without housing" illegal.
We can't fix chronic homelessness because the remedies are either illegal at a federal level (privileging locals, asylums) or against the sensibilities of voters in the regions where it is concentrated (prosecuting illegal drug use).
[0] I can't remember the ruling now, was a city in the NE IIRC
While you're correct, Amazon is so large that this single center being nuked from their org chart would have been an inconvenience. I think it's very easy for us to say "this would help you" but the reality is, it might have drawn a line in the sand, at the cost of every single employee's job.
This is exactly why the vote was probably the most pragmatic decision. A vote for unionization would have been brave and symbolic. But why should blue collar people in Alabama have to sabotage their livelihoods to make a point?
When is the last time busting a union brought any additional scrutiny from the US government, in a material sense?
While there are some stories lately about how much tax Amazon pays, the government is very much in the business of keeping Amazon (and all major US-based corporations and firms) happy... by contrast, the US government almost certainly cares very little for a warehouse worker in Alabama.
