Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[Mark Wieder via use-livecode]

On 8/14/20 12:06 PM, Lagi Pittas via use-livecode wrote:


Same as winning the lottery - you have to have a ticket.


Winning the lottery is cheaper if you don't buy a ticket.
And the odds are about the same.

--
 Mark Wieder
 ahsoftw...@gmail.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[Brian Milby via use-livecode]

“I'm just a citizen, like billions of others, looking at the 
ever-more-accelerated concentration of wealth, power, and control into the 
hands of just five people, and wondering if this is really in everyone's best 
interests...“

Probably not.  But anything considered must be done very carefully due to the 
law of unintended circumstances.  Some remedies could be worse for the consumer 
in the long run.

Sent from my iPhone

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[J. Landman Gay via use-livecode]

On 8/14/20 9:46 AM, Sean Cole (Pi) via use-livecode wrote:

It's all a pointless debate. Apple can do what it likes with THEIR
*platform*! if YOU_choose_  not to agree with their policies for use on
THEIR platform, YOU can_choose_  to go elsewhere.


We can't all choose.

Remember Mylan, the drug company that bought EpiPen, an emergency device that saved lives? It 
used to cost about $90 and after obtaining the patent the new company increased the price to 
$600 per unit. People who required it to save their life could no longer afford it. It was not 
available elsewhere. This was not illegal but it was highly unethical, and in this case, 
dangerous. (Mylan was charged with racketeering.)


Apple controls the only outlet for iOS apps. Some of us have no choice in which mobile platform 
we develop for, our clients demand that we build for both.


I built a mobile app that reads NFC tags for use in hospital equipment tracking and the Android 
app has been in use for almost 2 years. But Apple's rules prohibited us from releasing it for 
iOS because they did not allow apps to read the UUID of NFC tags (you could read the data 
partition but not the manufacturer's ID.) Hospitals could potentially have tens of thousands of 
tags with no data, just the manufacturer's IDs. I contacted Apple dev support and they advanced 
my inquiry up a couple of levels to a tech who seemed to sympathize but said we'd be out of 
compliance and would be immediately rejected. My client reluctantly purchased used Android 
phones for our test hospital because virtually all employees had iPhones. The client also did 
surveys of hospitals in the US and found that almost all employees used iPhones. Hospitals were 
very interested in the product but were demanding iOS apps for their workers. We couldn't 
accomodate them.


I like to think my discussion with Apple dev support had an impact because some months later 
the restriction was lifted.


There is often no choice to be made. Sometimes iOS users don't even know what they're missing. 
My Android runs several network analyzer apps that give me comprehensive info across a wide 
spectrum of network features. IOS has nothing like it; last time I looked, Apple doesn't allow 
apps to access more than just the most superficial wifi information.


--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[Richard Gaskin via use-livecode]

Brian Milby wrote:


 "Microsoft can do what it likes with THEIR *platform*! if YOU
   _choose_ not to agree with their policies for use on THEIR
   platform, YOU can _choose_ to go elsewhere."

Absolutely... on THEIR *XBox* platform.

Microsoft leveraged anti-competitive practices to squeeze out competition on the *PC* platform with MS DOS.  Therefore Microsoft gained a monopoly on the *PC* platform by unfair business practices.  Very different situation. 


True, all circumstances are ultimately different from others.  As 
Aristotle reminds us, this is why all metaphors ultimately break down.


I'm not an antitrust litigator, nor judge with expertise in that area, 
nor corporate ethicist, nor economist, nor sociologist.  I'm not even a 
philosopher until well into a second Mai Tai. :)


I'm just a business owner longing for the olden days when I could hang 
my shingle anywhere I feel is best for my business.


I'm just a computing enthusiast who enjoys open standards, open systems, 
and open communications for learning, sharing, and deploying.


I'm just a citizen, like billions of others, looking at the 
ever-more-accelerated concentration of wealth, power, and control into 
the hands of just five people, and wondering if this is really in 
everyone's best interests...



And in recognizing the limitations of my modest roles, I admit the 
limits of my relevance in this discussion on a developer's list.


Carry on where you feel it's relevant for us to make choices as 
developers. I don't believe I have anything more to contribute beyond 
the questions I've already presented.


--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World Systems
 Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
 
 ambassa...@fourthworld.comhttp://www.FourthWorld.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[Brian Milby via use-livecode]

 "Microsoft can do what it likes with THEIR *platform*! if YOU
   _choose_ not to agree with their policies for use on THEIR
   platform, YOU can _choose_ to go elsewhere."

Absolutely... on THEIR *XBox* platform.

Microsoft leveraged anti-competitive practices to squeeze out competition on 
the *PC* platform with MS DOS.  Therefore Microsoft gained a monopoly on the 
*PC* platform by unfair business practices.  Very different situation.  Had 
Microsoft started with the full stack like Apple did, the answer would have 
been different (and history too - I doubt they would have been as successful).

Sent from my iPhone
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[Richard Gaskin via use-livecode]

Lagi Pittas wrote:

> I didn't mean no marketing - it's like the folks that buy books about
> the law of attraction and sit on their fata arses visualizing a BMW.
>
> You can sit in your chair visualizing all you want but the BMW, and
>  bigger house won't come to you if you don't get off your ass and meet
> the universe halfway.

Yours and mine is apparently the minority view. ;)


> What I was saying is that the market on the Iphone is huge and in 1
> place, and if your program is any good it will make it big if Apple's
> editors pick it.
> or you at least try to JV with someone who is already there.
>
> But good luck if your program does not have something that
> differentiates from all the copycat wabnnabies.

I find nearly every conversation with you eventually winds up with you 
and I coming from the same place.


Business planning fundamentals used to be recognized as such, yet too 
often overlooked these days by starry-eyed aspirants hoping that getting 
a record in a database will be their ticket to success.


My only issue here, as with Andre and the EU, isn't that we're expected 
to hang our shingle if we want to be in business.  It's the vision of a 
world where we're prohibited from hanging our shingle in any property we 
may own, required to surrender an entire third of our company to have a 
cramped space in a massive shopping mall owned and controlled by a 
cartel of two of the wealthiest and most powerful companies on earth.


Just when the disintermediation inherent in the promise of the open web 
was beginning to make itself felt to publishers and consumers alike, we 
started seeing service aggregation reserving those benefits.


App store receipts are more than a third of Apple's services revenue.

My favorite period with Apple was when they made their money on their 
own work.


--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World Systems
 Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
 
 ambassa...@fourthworld.comhttp://www.FourthWorld.com


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[Lagi Pittas via use-livecode]

Hi Richard,

I didn't mean no marketing - it's like the folks that buy books about the
law of attraction and sit on their fata arses visualizing a BMW.

You can sit in your chair visualizing all you want but the BMW, and  bigger
house won't come to you if you don't get off your ass and meet the universe
halfway.

Same as winning the lottery - you have to have a ticket.

What I was saying is that the market on the Iphone is huge and in 1 place,
and if your program is any good it will make it big if Apple's editors pick
it.
or you at least try to JV with someone who is already there.

But good luck if your program does not have something that differentiates
from all the copycat wabnnabies.

Regards Lagi

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 19:47, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:

> Lagi Pittas wrote:
>
> > If you sell a $10,000  worth in the second year you get $8500 without
> > having to spend as much on advertising.
>
> Oh?
>
> The app store is a directory, not a substitute for marketing.
>
> Simply having one of a few million indistiguishably-uniform records in a
> database is insufficient to market a product.
>
> Relying on directly listing alone is the equivalent of any business
> choosing to do no marketing because they're in the phone book.
>
> I can't figure out where this notion that simply being in a directory is
> some sort of instant gold mine, but it may correlate with the number of
> answers provided here about anyone making more than $500 from ad revenue
> from apps, which was zero. ;)
>
> Mature businesses often have 2/3 to 3/4 of payroll in marketing and
> sales.  Startups can get by with half.  Less than that increases the
> odds of being one of the 60% of apps in the app store that never get
> downloaded at all.
>
> --
>   Richard Gaskin
>   Fourth World Systems
>   Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
>   
>   ambassa...@fourthworld.comhttp://www.FourthWorld.com
>
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>


-- 
KIndest Regards Lagi
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[Richard Gaskin via use-livecode]

Sean Cole wrote:

> It's all a pointless debate. Apple can do what it likes with THEIR
> *platform*! if YOU _choose_ not to agree with their policies for use
> on THEIR platform, YOU can _choose_ to go elsewhere.
>
> The same or similar issues come up with ALL brands! Google, Samsung,
> Nike, AT, Ford, Cadbury, so on and so on and so on.

Exactly. Let's try the same phrase with other company names we have less 
emotional attachment to:


"Microsoft can do what it likes with THEIR *platform*! if YOU
_choose_ not to agree with their policies for use on THEIR
platform, YOU can _choose_ to go elsewhere."

   "Bell Atlantic can do what it likes with THEIR *platform*! if YOU
_choose_ not to agree with their policies for use on THEIR
platform, YOU can _choose_ to go elsewhere."

   "Standard Oil can do what it likes with THEIR *platform*! if YOU
   _choose_ not to agree with their policies for use on THEIR
   platform, YOU can _choose_ to go elsewhere."

If the reader is sitting in a room filled with Apple logos, it may feel 
different to read that argument when applied to companies famously 
convicted of antitrust violations.


I agree it's not fair to target Apple with such inquiry, but neither 
should they get a free pass just because we may enjoy their products.


After all, the notion of Apple engaging in anti-competitive behavior is 
not merely theoretical - have we forgotten the ebook antitrust case of 
just a few years ago?:


   Apple’s liability for knowingly conspiring with book publishers
   to raise the prices of ebooks is settled once and for all,” said
   Bill Baer, head of the US Justice Department’s antitrust division.
   Baer called the price-fixing conspiracy “cynical misconduct”.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/07/apple-450-million-settlement-e-book-price-fixing-supreme-court


Your point about Google is well taken, raising a question of its own:

Ethically, what is the difference between a duopoly and a cartel?

--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World Systems
 Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
 
 ambassa...@fourthworld.comhttp://www.FourthWorld.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[Richard Gaskin via use-livecode]

Lagi Pittas wrote:


If you sell a $10,000  worth in the second year you get $8500 without
having to spend as much on advertising.


Oh?

The app store is a directory, not a substitute for marketing.

Simply having one of a few million indistiguishably-uniform records in a 
database is insufficient to market a product.


Relying on directly listing alone is the equivalent of any business 
choosing to do no marketing because they're in the phone book.


I can't figure out where this notion that simply being in a directory is 
some sort of instant gold mine, but it may correlate with the number of 
answers provided here about anyone making more than $500 from ad revenue 
from apps, which was zero. ;)


Mature businesses often have 2/3 to 3/4 of payroll in marketing and 
sales.  Startups can get by with half.  Less than that increases the 
odds of being one of the 60% of apps in the app store that never get 
downloaded at all.


--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World Systems
 Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
 
 ambassa...@fourthworld.comhttp://www.FourthWorld.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[Andre Garzia via use-livecode]

Also folks, EPIC didn't do that because "they thought they could get away
with it". These are all strategic attacks at Apple at the same time that
the EU is looking to maybe mount an antitrust case against them. So you
have multiple companies taking action that will either prompt a reaction
from Apple and make Apple look as bad as it actually is, or set a precedent
that can be explored later. Facebook note about App Stores, Protonmail,
EPIC, all that has a reason to be happening now. I believe soon other
companies will pull similar stunts and Apple will yield their banhammer.
Then these companies can use their cases as bullet points for the antitrust
case that is brewing.

This was not a "spur of the moment" thing for EPIC. Remember the size of
EPIC and how fast it came out with the "nineteen eighty fortnite" ad that
mimics Apple's 1984 ad against IBM. That Ad took a long time to be
produced, there is no reason to make it if you're not sure that Apple will
remove your app. This is a strategic attack to mount antitrust case, two
massive companies spitting at each other.

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 18:02, Lagi Pittas via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:

> Hi
>
> People are missing something here.
>
> Apple allows programs from Argos, Sams, Amazon (not books) , Free software
> access for the yearly fee of $99.
>
> They take 30% the FIRST years and subsequently 15% - that second figure to
> me is the important one.
>
> You have access to that market and IF you have a successful product you
> reap the ongoing benefits.
>
> If You sell 100 Apps in the first year and you are charging $5 I
> don't think it matters whether you get 70% or 100% your product has failed.
>
> If you sell a $10,000  worth in the second year you get $8500 without
> having to spend as much on advertising.
>
> The elephant in the room is Google - they charge 30% by just  copying
> Apple's charges and because Google hasn't budged in 12 years Apple has no
> reason to either.
>
> A bit of maths 100% of Zilch is still Zilch. (expletive deleted for the
> snowflakes/woke/offended crowd ;-) )
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceS_jkKjIgo
>
> As Sean said :-
>
> "If EPIC follow the rules they lose 30% income but gain millions of
> potential users. If they choose not to, they get kicked off and gain
> nothing! They're just being dumb while thinking they are winning some moral
> high-ground (which does not exist)"
>
> If I were a betting man i'd say EPIC will blink first.
>
> Lagi
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 15:45, Sean Cole (Pi) via use-livecode <
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > It's all a pointless debate. Apple can do what it likes with THEIR
> > *platform*! if YOU _choose_ not to agree with their policies for use on
> > THEIR platform, YOU can _choose_ to go elsewhere.
> >
> > The same or similar issues come up with ALL brands! Google, Samsung,
> Nike,
> > AT, Ford, Cadbury, so on and so on and so on.
> >
> > If EPIC follow the rules they lose 30% income but gain millions of
> > potential users. If they choose not to, they get kicked off and gain
> > nothing! They're just being dumb while thinking they are winning some
> moral
> > high-ground (which does not exist).
> >
> > Andre, What on earth are you talking about regards browsers? There is a
> > crapload of other browsers to choose from on ALL platforms, including
> iOS.
> > They all play happily by the rules. Which ones are you talking about that
> > can't get onto Apple because they choose not to follow the rules of that
> > one low market share platform? 'Brave' is a new one that offers in-app
> > purchase following the rules. All of the other 'top players' are there.
> I'm
> > sure any you are talking about are run by juveniles that have a pile of
> > rattles laying around their prams. ;)
> >
> > Myself, I'd be glad to see the back of ALL of them. But in this 'world
> > order' that won't happen. Someone else will just rise up in their place.
> > Better the 'devils' you know for now!
> >
> > Sean
> >
> > On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 15:04, Kee Nethery via use-livecode <
> > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Bypassing Apple in app purchasing is technically trivial, plenty of
> apps
> > > have done it for years and they have followed the App Store rules when
> > > doing so. Physical services (eg Plumbers) and physical products (eg
> > Amazon)
> > > they cannot use Apple IAP. Digital goods and services (eg Epic) are
> > > required to use IAP. Those are the terms of service. Of course Epic got
> > > booted. Nothing surprising about it other than that they thought they
> > would
> > > get away with it.
> > >
> > > Kee Nethery
> > >
> > > > On Aug 14, 2020, at 2:32 AM, JeeJeeStudio via use-livecode <
> > > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Waaah, now even EPIC with Fortnite has been kicked off the appstore,
> > > > because they found a way to sell things past the appstore. And then
> > Apple
> > > > don't get 

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[Lagi Pittas via use-livecode]

Hi

People are missing something here.

Apple allows programs from Argos, Sams, Amazon (not books) , Free software
access for the yearly fee of $99.

They take 30% the FIRST years and subsequently 15% - that second figure to
me is the important one.

You have access to that market and IF you have a successful product you
reap the ongoing benefits.

If You sell 100 Apps in the first year and you are charging $5 I
don't think it matters whether you get 70% or 100% your product has failed.

If you sell a $10,000  worth in the second year you get $8500 without
having to spend as much on advertising.

The elephant in the room is Google - they charge 30% by just  copying
Apple's charges and because Google hasn't budged in 12 years Apple has no
reason to either.

A bit of maths 100% of Zilch is still Zilch. (expletive deleted for the
snowflakes/woke/offended crowd ;-) )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceS_jkKjIgo

As Sean said :-

"If EPIC follow the rules they lose 30% income but gain millions of
potential users. If they choose not to, they get kicked off and gain
nothing! They're just being dumb while thinking they are winning some moral
high-ground (which does not exist)"

If I were a betting man i'd say EPIC will blink first.

Lagi




On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 15:45, Sean Cole (Pi) via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> It's all a pointless debate. Apple can do what it likes with THEIR
> *platform*! if YOU _choose_ not to agree with their policies for use on
> THEIR platform, YOU can _choose_ to go elsewhere.
>
> The same or similar issues come up with ALL brands! Google, Samsung, Nike,
> AT, Ford, Cadbury, so on and so on and so on.
>
> If EPIC follow the rules they lose 30% income but gain millions of
> potential users. If they choose not to, they get kicked off and gain
> nothing! They're just being dumb while thinking they are winning some moral
> high-ground (which does not exist).
>
> Andre, What on earth are you talking about regards browsers? There is a
> crapload of other browsers to choose from on ALL platforms, including iOS.
> They all play happily by the rules. Which ones are you talking about that
> can't get onto Apple because they choose not to follow the rules of that
> one low market share platform? 'Brave' is a new one that offers in-app
> purchase following the rules. All of the other 'top players' are there. I'm
> sure any you are talking about are run by juveniles that have a pile of
> rattles laying around their prams. ;)
>
> Myself, I'd be glad to see the back of ALL of them. But in this 'world
> order' that won't happen. Someone else will just rise up in their place.
> Better the 'devils' you know for now!
>
> Sean
>
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 15:04, Kee Nethery via use-livecode <
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
>
> > Bypassing Apple in app purchasing is technically trivial, plenty of apps
> > have done it for years and they have followed the App Store rules when
> > doing so. Physical services (eg Plumbers) and physical products (eg
> Amazon)
> > they cannot use Apple IAP. Digital goods and services (eg Epic) are
> > required to use IAP. Those are the terms of service. Of course Epic got
> > booted. Nothing surprising about it other than that they thought they
> would
> > get away with it.
> >
> > Kee Nethery
> >
> > > On Aug 14, 2020, at 2:32 AM, JeeJeeStudio via use-livecode <
> > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Waaah, now even EPIC with Fortnite has been kicked off the appstore,
> > > because they found a way to sell things past the appstore. And then
> Apple
> > > don't get 30%
> >
>
>
> > >>> Do Apple's actions and policies monopolistically harm consumers?
> > >>
> > >> Yes it does. There is a ton of innovation that is user friendly that
> is
> > >> prevented from being present in iOS due to Apples practices. A simple
> > >> example is new browser engines, you can't have them. Which means you
> > can't
> > >> have more private engines than what Safari uses. This also makes it
> > harder
> > >> to bring lots of API innovation to iOS which would benefit users
> > because it
> > >> would allow for better and more powerful web apps.
> >
>
>
> > >> On Sat, 8 Aug 2020 at 22:16, Jim Lambert via use-livecode <
> > >> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> BrianM wrote:
> >  One thing that seems to be missing in this discussion is the point
> of
> > >>> view of the ?client?, the one who downloads the app and pays for it
> > >>>
> > >>> True.
> > >>> In the U.S. the laws against monopoly (the Sherman Act of 1890, the
> > >>> Clayton Act of 1914 and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914) are
> > >> there
> > >>> to promote competition amongst companies for the benefit of
> consumers.
> > >> Or
> > >>> our end users.
> > >>>
> > >>> Do Apple's actions and policies monopolistically harm consumers?
> > Consumer
> > >>> behavior itself argues against that. Quite the contrary, consumers
> are
> > >>> willing to 

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[Andre Garzia via use-livecode]

Sean,

> Andre, What on earth are you talking about regards browsers? There is a
> crapload of other browsers to choose from on ALL platforms, including iOS.
> They all play happily by the rules. Which ones are you talking about that
> can't get onto Apple because they choose not to follow the rules of that
> one low market share platform? 'Brave' is a new one that offers in-app
> purchase following the rules. All of the other 'top players' are there.
I'm
> sure any you are talking about are run by juveniles that have a pile of
> rattles laying around their prams. ;)


I am talking specifically about iOS and about the fact that every single
browser on iOS is running the same engine as Safari, even Firefox. Believe
me, I know browsers more than most people on this list. I know Brave
founders; we had beers together last year. I actually met and in some cases
even collaborated with engineers from every single major browser. Heck, a
feature I made for Firefox became so popular that Google adopted the same
feature and came to tell me that in person during the DWeb Summit 2018.

Apple doesn't allow any other engine on iOS, every single browser is
WebKit. Chrome, Brave, Firefox, they are all WebKit on iOS. You can add
features on top of it, but you can't replace the engine with your engine.
So Google can't ship Blink and Mozilla can't ship Gecko on iOS. We used to
joke that Firefox for iOS should be called MozSafari. The reason those
companies are shipping browsers on iOS even though they are prohibited from
shipping their own engines is because they want to:

1 - They have a presence in the platform. This is a marketing/strategic
reason to keep your brand awareness strong with that platform users.
2 - So they can add their own services on top such as bookmark
synchronizing. This is beneficial for the users and the vendor. The fear
vendors have that the users might migrate to full Safari on mobile and then
on Desktop as well is reason enough to compell them to work even with these
limitations.

It used to be worse. Not long ago Apple had an engine that you were allowed
to use for your apps and used a more modern one for Safari on iOS. That
caused every single other browser to perform worse than Safari on iOS. That
is no longer the case but it was true up to not a couple years ago. As for
engines, Apple took KHTML from the KDE project and created WebKit and
Safari. Google picked WebKit and had a divergence with Apple, so they
created Blink. With the exception of Firefox which uses Gecko, and Safari
that uses WebKit, most of the other browsers are all Blink based, that
means that Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Opera, Vivaldi, Samsung Internet, are
all running the same engine. I wrote about it in 2018:

  https://andregarzia.com/2018/12/while-we-blink-we-lose-the-web.html

This is a problem and it plays a role in the whole antitrust and fair play
conversation regarding iOS. Reading things like "It is their platform, you
can either agree or go somewhere else" is naive. The lives of millions are
passing through these devices, we need better legal tools to make companies
accountable. If Microsoft tried to pull such a stunt of not allowing any
other browser engine on Windows, the EU commission would wrath would be
upon them as fast as lightning, iOS shouldn't be different.

Best
Andre





On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 15:46, Sean Cole (Pi) via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> It's all a pointless debate. Apple can do what it likes with THEIR
> *platform*! if YOU _choose_ not to agree with their policies for use on
> THEIR platform, YOU can _choose_ to go elsewhere.
>
> The same or similar issues come up with ALL brands! Google, Samsung, Nike,
> AT, Ford, Cadbury, so on and so on and so on.
>
> If EPIC follow the rules they lose 30% income but gain millions of
> potential users. If they choose not to, they get kicked off and gain
> nothing! They're just being dumb while thinking they are winning some moral
> high-ground (which does not exist).
>
> Andre, What on earth are you talking about regards browsers? There is a
> crapload of other browsers to choose from on ALL platforms, including iOS.
> They all play happily by the rules. Which ones are you talking about that
> can't get onto Apple because they choose not to follow the rules of that
> one low market share platform? 'Brave' is a new one that offers in-app
> purchase following the rules. All of the other 'top players' are there. I'm
> sure any you are talking about are run by juveniles that have a pile of
> rattles laying around their prams. ;)
>
> Myself, I'd be glad to see the back of ALL of them. But in this 'world
> order' that won't happen. Someone else will just rise up in their place.
> Better the 'devils' you know for now!
>
> Sean
>
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 15:04, Kee Nethery via use-livecode <
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
>
> > Bypassing Apple in app purchasing is technically trivial, plenty of apps
> > have done it for 

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[Sean Cole (Pi) via use-livecode]

Hi all,

It's all a pointless debate. Apple can do what it likes with THEIR
*platform*! if YOU _choose_ not to agree with their policies for use on
THEIR platform, YOU can _choose_ to go elsewhere.

The same or similar issues come up with ALL brands! Google, Samsung, Nike,
AT, Ford, Cadbury, so on and so on and so on.

If EPIC follow the rules they lose 30% income but gain millions of
potential users. If they choose not to, they get kicked off and gain
nothing! They're just being dumb while thinking they are winning some moral
high-ground (which does not exist).

Andre, What on earth are you talking about regards browsers? There is a
crapload of other browsers to choose from on ALL platforms, including iOS.
They all play happily by the rules. Which ones are you talking about that
can't get onto Apple because they choose not to follow the rules of that
one low market share platform? 'Brave' is a new one that offers in-app
purchase following the rules. All of the other 'top players' are there. I'm
sure any you are talking about are run by juveniles that have a pile of
rattles laying around their prams. ;)

Myself, I'd be glad to see the back of ALL of them. But in this 'world
order' that won't happen. Someone else will just rise up in their place.
Better the 'devils' you know for now!

Sean

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 15:04, Kee Nethery via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:

> Bypassing Apple in app purchasing is technically trivial, plenty of apps
> have done it for years and they have followed the App Store rules when
> doing so. Physical services (eg Plumbers) and physical products (eg Amazon)
> they cannot use Apple IAP. Digital goods and services (eg Epic) are
> required to use IAP. Those are the terms of service. Of course Epic got
> booted. Nothing surprising about it other than that they thought they would
> get away with it.
>
> Kee Nethery
>
> > On Aug 14, 2020, at 2:32 AM, JeeJeeStudio via use-livecode <
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> >
> > Waaah, now even EPIC with Fortnite has been kicked off the appstore,
> > because they found a way to sell things past the appstore. And then Apple
> > don't get 30%
>


> >>> Do Apple's actions and policies monopolistically harm consumers?
> >>
> >> Yes it does. There is a ton of innovation that is user friendly that is
> >> prevented from being present in iOS due to Apples practices. A simple
> >> example is new browser engines, you can't have them. Which means you
> can't
> >> have more private engines than what Safari uses. This also makes it
> harder
> >> to bring lots of API innovation to iOS which would benefit users
> because it
> >> would allow for better and more powerful web apps.
>


> >> On Sat, 8 Aug 2020 at 22:16, Jim Lambert via use-livecode <
> >> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> BrianM wrote:
>  One thing that seems to be missing in this discussion is the point of
> >>> view of the ?client?, the one who downloads the app and pays for it
> >>>
> >>> True.
> >>> In the U.S. the laws against monopoly (the Sherman Act of 1890, the
> >>> Clayton Act of 1914 and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914) are
> >> there
> >>> to promote competition amongst companies for the benefit of consumers.
> >> Or
> >>> our end users.
> >>>
> >>> Do Apple's actions and policies monopolistically harm consumers?
> Consumer
> >>> behavior itself argues against that. Quite the contrary, consumers are
> >>> willing to pay a premium for Apple products and services.
> >>>
> >>> Andre notes that Apple exercises a monopoly WITHIN the iOS system. But
> >>> that is a misnomer. Apple has a proprietary system not a monopolistic
> >> one.
> >>> And they strictly control it. It's simply not true that "there is
> nothing
> >>> iOS users can do about that." Yes, there is. Consumers who don't want
> to
> >>> buy into Apple’s closed system are free to buy elsewhere. Consumers can
> >>> choose Android or any other alternative products. No one is forcing
> >>> consumers to buy and use Apple products, which is what would happen if
> >>> Apple had an actual monopoly. In fact, some consumers prefer Apple's
> >> strict
> >>> proprietary control and are willing to pay mucho dinero for it.
> >>>
> >>> Now look at it from the developers' point of view. Apple makes us jump
> >>> through many more hoops than Android developers do. Apple constantly
> >>> changes these hoops which can seem inexplicably capricious. But is it?
> Or
> >>> is it a constant effort to assure safe computing for their consumers?
> >>>
> >>> There seems to be an assumption that the 30% cut Apple takes is
> >>> outrageous. But what does a developer get for that Apple %? If you
> think
> >>> you can replace what Apple offers for less money, then just sell your
> app
> >>> on Android and rake in the extra bucks. What's stopping you?
> >>>
> >>> The reality is that the vast majority of smartphone apps make little or
> >> no
> >>> money, regardless of OS.
> >>> So is it 

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[Kee Nethery via use-livecode]

Bypassing Apple in app purchasing is technically trivial, plenty of apps have 
done it for years and they have followed the App Store rules when doing so. 
Physical services (eg Plumbers) and physical products (eg Amazon) they cannot 
use Apple IAP. Digital goods and services (eg Epic) are required to use IAP. 
Those are the terms of service. Of course Epic got booted. Nothing surprising 
about it other than that they thought they would get away with it.

Kee Nethery

> On Aug 14, 2020, at 2:32 AM, JeeJeeStudio via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Waaah, now even EPIC with Fortnite has been kicked off the appstore,
> because they found a way to sell things past the appstore. And then Apple
> don't get 30%
> 
> https://tweakers.net/nieuws/170916/apple-verwijdert-fortnite-uit-app-store.html
> It's in dutch but you get the message.
> or this one
> https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21366438/apple-fortnite-ios-app-store-violations-epic-payments
> 
> Op zo 9 aug. 2020 om 16:52 schreef Andre Garzia via use-livecode <
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com>:
> 
>>> Do Apple's actions and policies monopolistically harm consumers?
>> 
>> Yes it does. There is a ton of innovation that is user friendly that is
>> prevented from being present in iOS due to Apples practices. A simple
>> example is new browser engines, you can't have them. Which means you can't
>> have more private engines than what Safari uses. This also makes it harder
>> to bring lots of API innovation to iOS which would benefit users because it
>> would allow for better and more powerful web apps.
>> 
>> Since you can't sideload apps, you as a user need to have Apple permission
>> before installing software on the device you purchased and should own. You
>> as a developer are allowed to sell software outside of Apple's blessing,
>> even if you have customers interested in the software you make. Apple is a
>> gatekeeper and a very picky one.
>> 
>> Gatekeepers are harmful to consumers and sellers. Since you as a developer
>> can't simply compile software and sell it own your own page without Apple
>> double blessing, you're not really in control of your platform and Apple
>> may exercise the right to cut you out of the platform at any time. This is
>> harmful.
>> 
>>> Consumer behavior itself argues against that. Quite the contrary,
>> consumers are willing to pay a premium for Apple products and services
>> 
>> That is totally not true because you can't measure it. You can't measure
>> "iOS with a more open ecosystem" vs "iOS with its current draconian
>> ecosystem" because that you don't have the more open version to match it
>> against the current one. The choice here is not between Apple and Android.
>> Apple could still offer the same software, services, and hardware, and be
>> more open. People would still choose them. No one chooses the option with
>> less options and gatekeepers if they have an alternative. The tight
>> integration between iOS and macOS devices is wonderful and people are happy
>> to pay a premium for such quality. If you ask any Apple user why they buy
>> Apple, no one will answer: "Because I like the way they don't allow
>> developers to compete with Apple itself" which is why the EU and other
>> companies are crying wolf in the direction of one infinite loop. People
>> will say they choose Apple because of the attention to detail, the quality
>> of service, hardware, and software, none of which would be gone if Apple
>> was more open.
>> 
>> The key to understand this is that all that you like about Apple can still
>> be there, including the App store. If you want to stay in an environment
>> like what we have today, it should be possible to do so. But you should
>> also have options for when you want to step outside. There should be
>> alternative stores or alternative ways to distribute software.
>> 
>> I'm not saying "burn iOS and Apple". I'm saying the current practices
>> benefit no one but Apple and are harmful to a healthy ecosystem. They could
>> still be Apple and not be a bully. For example, the need of notarizing apps
>> is going to make distributing FOSS on macOS a bit harder. Once Apple moves
>> to its own ARM CPUs, it will be harder for every third-party vendor to
>> compete with Apple solutions as they'll be able to cram custom silicon like
>> T2 and lock down the machine in a way that has not been done in ages.
>> 
>> If I was LC I'd be throwing some more people into making sure LC runs
>> really well under Linux and Windows, both of which are second class
>> citizens when compared to macOS. Heck the IDE under windows is horribly
>> slow, I have no idea how it performs under Linux. When dealing with Apple
>> you always need a plan b.
>> 
>> On Sat, 8 Aug 2020 at 22:16, Jim Lambert via use-livecode <
>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> BrianM wrote:
 One thing that seems to be missing in this discussion is the point of
>>> view of the ?client?, the one who downloads the app and pays for it
>>> 

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[JeeJeeStudio via use-livecode]

Waaah, now even EPIC with Fortnite has been kicked off the appstore,
because they found a way to sell things past the appstore. And then Apple
don't get 30%

https://tweakers.net/nieuws/170916/apple-verwijdert-fortnite-uit-app-store.html
It's in dutch but you get the message.
or this one
https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21366438/apple-fortnite-ios-app-store-violations-epic-payments

Op zo 9 aug. 2020 om 16:52 schreef Andre Garzia via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com>:

> > Do Apple's actions and policies monopolistically harm consumers?
>
> Yes it does. There is a ton of innovation that is user friendly that is
> prevented from being present in iOS due to Apples practices. A simple
> example is new browser engines, you can't have them. Which means you can't
> have more private engines than what Safari uses. This also makes it harder
> to bring lots of API innovation to iOS which would benefit users because it
> would allow for better and more powerful web apps.
>
> Since you can't sideload apps, you as a user need to have Apple permission
> before installing software on the device you purchased and should own. You
> as a developer are allowed to sell software outside of Apple's blessing,
> even if you have customers interested in the software you make. Apple is a
> gatekeeper and a very picky one.
>
> Gatekeepers are harmful to consumers and sellers. Since you as a developer
> can't simply compile software and sell it own your own page without Apple
> double blessing, you're not really in control of your platform and Apple
> may exercise the right to cut you out of the platform at any time. This is
> harmful.
>
> > Consumer behavior itself argues against that. Quite the contrary,
> consumers are willing to pay a premium for Apple products and services
>
> That is totally not true because you can't measure it. You can't measure
> "iOS with a more open ecosystem" vs "iOS with its current draconian
> ecosystem" because that you don't have the more open version to match it
> against the current one. The choice here is not between Apple and Android.
> Apple could still offer the same software, services, and hardware, and be
> more open. People would still choose them. No one chooses the option with
> less options and gatekeepers if they have an alternative. The tight
> integration between iOS and macOS devices is wonderful and people are happy
> to pay a premium for such quality. If you ask any Apple user why they buy
> Apple, no one will answer: "Because I like the way they don't allow
> developers to compete with Apple itself" which is why the EU and other
> companies are crying wolf in the direction of one infinite loop. People
> will say they choose Apple because of the attention to detail, the quality
> of service, hardware, and software, none of which would be gone if Apple
> was more open.
>
> The key to understand this is that all that you like about Apple can still
> be there, including the App store. If you want to stay in an environment
> like what we have today, it should be possible to do so. But you should
> also have options for when you want to step outside. There should be
> alternative stores or alternative ways to distribute software.
>
> I'm not saying "burn iOS and Apple". I'm saying the current practices
> benefit no one but Apple and are harmful to a healthy ecosystem. They could
> still be Apple and not be a bully. For example, the need of notarizing apps
> is going to make distributing FOSS on macOS a bit harder. Once Apple moves
> to its own ARM CPUs, it will be harder for every third-party vendor to
> compete with Apple solutions as they'll be able to cram custom silicon like
> T2 and lock down the machine in a way that has not been done in ages.
>
> If I was LC I'd be throwing some more people into making sure LC runs
> really well under Linux and Windows, both of which are second class
> citizens when compared to macOS. Heck the IDE under windows is horribly
> slow, I have no idea how it performs under Linux. When dealing with Apple
> you always need a plan b.
>
> On Sat, 8 Aug 2020 at 22:16, Jim Lambert via use-livecode <
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
>
> > BrianM wrote:
> > > One thing that seems to be missing in this discussion is the point of
> > view of the ?client?, the one who downloads the app and pays for it
> >
> > True.
> > In the U.S. the laws against monopoly (the Sherman Act of 1890, the
> > Clayton Act of 1914 and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914) are
> there
> > to promote competition amongst companies for the benefit of consumers.
>  Or
> > our end users.
> >
> > Do Apple's actions and policies monopolistically harm consumers? Consumer
> > behavior itself argues against that. Quite the contrary, consumers are
> > willing to pay a premium for Apple products and services.
> >
> > Andre notes that Apple exercises a monopoly WITHIN the iOS system. But
> > that is a misnomer. Apple has a proprietary system not a monopolistic
> one.
> 

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[J. Landman Gay via use-livecode]

Auto-complete made me do it.

--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
On August 10, 2020 5:35:40 PM Mark Wieder via use-livecode 
 wrote:



On 8/10/20 2:43 PM, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode wrote:

I forgot we had a lawyer in our midst. So is Apple a monopoly in the
legal sense?


Ha! You used "legal" and "sense" in the same sentence!

--
 Mark Wieder
 ahsoftw...@gmail.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
subscription preferences:

http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode





___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[Jerry Jensen via use-livecode]

Feeling old. I should have bought the program to know the players.
Good thing I’m not named Terry!

> On Aug 10, 2020, at 1:45 PM, doc hawk via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> Jerry jesticulated,
> 
> 
>> Are you sure? The W12 used in some Bentleys is made by VW, and many years of 
>> Phantoms used a V12 of the proper displacement. Of course they don’t talk 
>> about mundane stuff like that! 
> 
> But VW now makes “Bentley", while “Rolls” is now a BMW brand.
> 
> In either case, you don’t get the real thing, and the Rolls Royce 8 cylinder 
> engine is now a bit of history . . .
> 
> (And for another odd quirk, Rolls once licensed the GM Turbo 400 transmission 
> for use n both, but made “improvements” in it.  That worked "so well” that 
> within a couple of years they instead just bought them from GM . . .)
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[JB via use-livecode]

Maybe she has never been to court.

JB

> On Aug 10, 2020, at 3:35 PM, Mark Wieder via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> On 8/10/20 2:43 PM, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode wrote:
>> I forgot we had a lawyer in our midst. So is Apple a monopoly in the legal 
>> sense?
> 
> Ha! You used "legal" and "sense" in the same sentence!
> 
> -- 
> Mark Wieder
> ahsoftw...@gmail.com
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> 


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[Mark Wieder via use-livecode]

On 8/10/20 2:43 PM, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode wrote:
I forgot we had a lawyer in our midst. So is Apple a monopoly in the 
legal sense?


Ha! You used "legal" and "sense" in the same sentence!

--
 Mark Wieder
 ahsoftw...@gmail.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[JB via use-livecode]

If you sell chocolate chip cookies and the majority of the people buy your
cookies, does that make you a monopoly?

If Ford designs a new car should they be forced to make companies like
Chevy be able to use Chevy parts on the Ford car?

Anyone can make cookies, cars, computers and mobile devices if they have
the desire and money.  Apple does not prevent you or others from making
software or computers.

My personal thought about the 30% fee Apple charges to sell your software
is that it’s a really good deal.  Apple list your product allowing many millions
of people to see and buy it.  They handle all the global sales and taxes plus
provide a way to download it.  If your software is making a lot of money part
of the money you are paying Apple would have been added in taxes due to
you making more profit.  If you have an app that many schools or other types
of business want to buy Apple can make that deal better than most small
developers.  To me that seems cheap compared to the increased sales that
Apple can make with large companies.  But each developer has their own
reasons for using Apple or not.

JB


> On Aug 10, 2020, at 2:45 PM, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> I forgot we had a lawyer in our midst. So is Apple a monopoly in the legal 
> sense?
> 
> 
>> On 8/10/20 3:45 PM, doc hawk via use-livecode wrote:
>> Jerry jesticulated,
>>> Are you sure? The W12 used in some Bentleys is made by VW, and many years 
>>> of Phantoms used a V12 of the proper displacement. Of course they don’t 
>>> talk about mundane stuff like that! 
>> But VW now makes “Bentley", while “Rolls” is now a BMW brand.
>> In either case, you don’t get the real thing, and the Rolls Royce 8 cylinder 
>> engine is now a bit of history . . .
>> (And for another odd quirk, Rolls once licensed the GM Turbo 400 
>> transmission for use n both, but made “improvements” in it.  That worked "so 
>> well” that within a couple of years they instead just bought them from GM . 
>> . .)
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
> HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
> 
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[J. Landman Gay via use-livecode]

I forgot we had a lawyer in our midst. So is Apple a monopoly in the legal 
sense?


On 8/10/20 3:45 PM, doc hawk via use-livecode wrote:


Jerry jesticulated,



Are you sure? The W12 used in some Bentleys is made by VW, and many years of Phantoms 
used a V12 of the proper displacement. Of course they don’t talk about mundane stuff 
like that! 


But VW now makes “Bentley", while “Rolls” is now a BMW brand.

In either case, you don’t get the real thing, and the Rolls Royce 8 cylinder 
engine is now a bit of history . . .

(And for another odd quirk, Rolls once licensed the GM Turbo 400 transmission for 
use n both, but made “improvements” in it.  That worked "so well” that within a 
couple of years they instead just bought them from GM . . .)



--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[doc hawk via use-livecode]

Jerry jesticulated,


> Are you sure? The W12 used in some Bentleys is made by VW, and many years of 
> Phantoms used a V12 of the proper displacement. Of course they don’t talk 
> about mundane stuff like that! 

But VW now makes “Bentley", while “Rolls” is now a BMW brand.

In either case, you don’t get the real thing, and the Rolls Royce 8 cylinder 
engine is now a bit of history . . .

(And for another odd quirk, Rolls once licensed the GM Turbo 400 transmission 
for use n both, but made “improvements” in it.  That worked "so well” that 
within a couple of years they instead just bought them from GM . . .)
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[Jerry Jensen via use-livecode]

Are you sure? The W12 used in some Bentleys is made by VW, and many years of 
Phantoms used a V12 of the proper displacement. Of course they don’t talk about 
mundane stuff like that! 
.Jerry

> On Aug 10, 2020, at 12:19 PM, Jim Lambert via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> I like my Rolls Royce Phantom, but it's so unfair of Rolls Royce not to offer 
> a Phantom with an engine from Volkswagen! ;)


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[Jim Lambert via use-livecode]

Yes, Apple's approach is very proprietary. But it is simply not monopolistic. 
Apple does not have a monopoly on smartphones or smartphone OSes.
What they do have is a very strict proprietary control of their products. Some 
argue an overly strict control of their products.

I like my Rolls Royce Phantom, but it's so unfair of Rolls Royce not to offer a 
Phantom with an engine from Volkswagen! ;)

As a consumer or developer if one doesn't like Apple's products and policies 
simply choose to buy and develop elsewhere. If enough folks do likewise, Apple 
will soon change as sales plummet. They did this back in the 90s when they were 
hanging by the thinnest thread and allowed other vendors to sell Mac-compatible 
hardware.

And yes, our laws may indeed need to be adapted for 21st century realities.

I'm going to stop now and this is recursion! ;)

Jim Lambert
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[Andre Garzia via use-livecode]

> Do Apple's actions and policies monopolistically harm consumers?

Yes it does. There is a ton of innovation that is user friendly that is
prevented from being present in iOS due to Apples practices. A simple
example is new browser engines, you can't have them. Which means you can't
have more private engines than what Safari uses. This also makes it harder
to bring lots of API innovation to iOS which would benefit users because it
would allow for better and more powerful web apps.

Since you can't sideload apps, you as a user need to have Apple permission
before installing software on the device you purchased and should own. You
as a developer are allowed to sell software outside of Apple's blessing,
even if you have customers interested in the software you make. Apple is a
gatekeeper and a very picky one.

Gatekeepers are harmful to consumers and sellers. Since you as a developer
can't simply compile software and sell it own your own page without Apple
double blessing, you're not really in control of your platform and Apple
may exercise the right to cut you out of the platform at any time. This is
harmful.

> Consumer behavior itself argues against that. Quite the contrary,
consumers are willing to pay a premium for Apple products and services

That is totally not true because you can't measure it. You can't measure
"iOS with a more open ecosystem" vs "iOS with its current draconian
ecosystem" because that you don't have the more open version to match it
against the current one. The choice here is not between Apple and Android.
Apple could still offer the same software, services, and hardware, and be
more open. People would still choose them. No one chooses the option with
less options and gatekeepers if they have an alternative. The tight
integration between iOS and macOS devices is wonderful and people are happy
to pay a premium for such quality. If you ask any Apple user why they buy
Apple, no one will answer: "Because I like the way they don't allow
developers to compete with Apple itself" which is why the EU and other
companies are crying wolf in the direction of one infinite loop. People
will say they choose Apple because of the attention to detail, the quality
of service, hardware, and software, none of which would be gone if Apple
was more open.

The key to understand this is that all that you like about Apple can still
be there, including the App store. If you want to stay in an environment
like what we have today, it should be possible to do so. But you should
also have options for when you want to step outside. There should be
alternative stores or alternative ways to distribute software.

I'm not saying "burn iOS and Apple". I'm saying the current practices
benefit no one but Apple and are harmful to a healthy ecosystem. They could
still be Apple and not be a bully. For example, the need of notarizing apps
is going to make distributing FOSS on macOS a bit harder. Once Apple moves
to its own ARM CPUs, it will be harder for every third-party vendor to
compete with Apple solutions as they'll be able to cram custom silicon like
T2 and lock down the machine in a way that has not been done in ages.

If I was LC I'd be throwing some more people into making sure LC runs
really well under Linux and Windows, both of which are second class
citizens when compared to macOS. Heck the IDE under windows is horribly
slow, I have no idea how it performs under Linux. When dealing with Apple
you always need a plan b.

On Sat, 8 Aug 2020 at 22:16, Jim Lambert via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:

> BrianM wrote:
> > One thing that seems to be missing in this discussion is the point of
> view of the ?client?, the one who downloads the app and pays for it
>
> True.
> In the U.S. the laws against monopoly (the Sherman Act of 1890, the
> Clayton Act of 1914 and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914) are there
> to promote competition amongst companies for the benefit of consumers.   Or
> our end users.
>
> Do Apple's actions and policies monopolistically harm consumers? Consumer
> behavior itself argues against that. Quite the contrary, consumers are
> willing to pay a premium for Apple products and services.
>
> Andre notes that Apple exercises a monopoly WITHIN the iOS system. But
> that is a misnomer. Apple has a proprietary system not a monopolistic one.
> And they strictly control it. It's simply not true that "there is nothing
> iOS users can do about that." Yes, there is. Consumers who don't want to
> buy into Apple’s closed system are free to buy elsewhere. Consumers can
> choose Android or any other alternative products. No one is forcing
> consumers to buy and use Apple products, which is what would happen if
> Apple had an actual monopoly. In fact, some consumers prefer Apple's strict
> proprietary control and are willing to pay mucho dinero for it.
>
> Now look at it from the developers' point of view. Apple makes us jump
> through many more hoops than Android developers do. Apple 

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[Andre Garzia via use-livecode]

People saying that there are Apple competitors in the App Store are missing
some crucial details. First, since Apple takes 30% cut of all ecommerce
that passes through it, it basically means that competitors can't really
compete with Apple owns offers that don't need to go through that fee.
Imagine if you sold a product and all your direct competitors also gave you
30% of their earnings. They can't really compete.

Another problem is that Apple will change/tweak iOS APIs to benefit their
own services, that is expected but it is not fair. If you control the
device, the operating system, the programming languages, and the
marketplace, and a lot of services, you can make them move together and
competition be damned. This was the case with browsers, Apple allowed its
own Safari browser to use a more modern and powerful webengine and forced
every single other browser to use an outdated webview. This is no longer
the case but this was the case for years.

You can't compete when Apple can pull the rug from under your feet for
their benefit. They can cite whatever reason they want since there is no
oversight and they are not really accountable to any agency or standard
body. This affects LiveCode and every single other third party app creation
toolkit. Apple can simply create a boatload of new API changes in tandem
with their services and only tell third-party vendors when it is to late to
ship a competitor in time. While you're busy patching your software to
please the App Store Gods, Apple is there poaching your users to their
service. The only time they failed to do that was with the dumpster fire
that was Apple Maps.

As Richard said, our current wording and practices regarding monopolies,
and other unhealthful industry practices, is outdated and was not meant to
serve the 21st Century. They were created when factories and physical goods
and in-person services were the most advanced stuff out there. They were
never meant to cope with the advances of the information age. Even with the
little bells splitting and other similar cases, current day monopolies and
unhealthful companies don't exactly match what we have been told a monopoly
should look like while still benefiting from monopoly-like advantages.

There is no such thing as a good company. Companies exist for their own
benefit and the benefit of those who own shares in it. Apple PR machine
makes it sound like a fantastic thing, it is not, it is just a company. For
example the whole privacy angle that Apple is exploring now is just an
attack on Google because no way that Google can counter any of that since
it is an ad revenue company, it can't play the privacy card. You might like
the products, you might make a living out of them, that is OK, but don't
believe that Apple is nothing but another ruthless and aggressive SV
company that will bring its "attention" to you if you try to make it
relinquish even an ounce of control over its monopoly.

A lot of your life passes through these devices. Developers and users need
more agency over them.

On Sun, 9 Aug 2020 at 06:53, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:

> This:
> "PC and Mac users have assumed for decades that they could choose whatever
> they wanted to see, hear, and play on their own computers. But with iOS,
> Apple tried to avoid surrendering that level of openness, at least for
> content viewed through native apps."
>
> --
> Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
> HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
> On August 8, 2020 9:20:32 PM Richard Gaskin via use-livecode
>  wrote:
>
> > "Apple’s antitrust woes stem from its obsessions with control and money"
> >
> https://venturebeat.com/2020/08/07/apples-antitrust-woes-stem-from-its-obsessions-with-control-and-money/
>
>
>
>
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>


-- 
https://www.andregarzia.com 
Want to support me? Buy me a coffee at https://ko-fi.com/andregarzia
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[J. Landman Gay via use-livecode]

This:
"PC and Mac users have assumed for decades that they could choose whatever 
they wanted to see, hear, and play on their own computers. But with iOS, 
Apple tried to avoid surrendering that level of openness, at least for 
content viewed through native apps."


--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
On August 8, 2020 9:20:32 PM Richard Gaskin via use-livecode 
 wrote:



"Apple’s antitrust woes stem from its obsessions with control and money"
https://venturebeat.com/2020/08/07/apples-antitrust-woes-stem-from-its-obsessions-with-control-and-money/





___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[Richard Gaskin via use-livecode]

Two thoughts on this, possibly worth pondering:


1. The definition of "antitrust" may be outdated.

Antitrust regs kick in when one company has undue control over an industry.

What exactly is "undue"?

What exactly is an "industry"?

In a world where "products" and "industries" and "platforms" are 
increasingly virtual, overlapping, and interconnected, the defining 
frame of reference for those terms is in flux, almost continuously.


If I control all automobile production, customers appear "happy" because 
they're choosing my product rather than other choices in the 
transportation industry like motorcycles, trucks, bicycles, trains, 
buses, scooters, etc.


As long as there is a single bookstore anywhere on the Internet, can 
Bezos say Amazon's practices are not predatory?


And why do duopolies get a free pass altogether?

I don't have the answers to these questions.  But these - and many 
others - seem worth asking.



A small subset of these questions are being asked of Apple by antitrust 
regulators as we speak:


"Apple’s antitrust woes stem from its obsessions with control and money"
https://venturebeat.com/2020/08/07/apples-antitrust-woes-stem-from-its-obsessions-with-control-and-money/



2. The definition of "trust" may be outdated.

Consider this brief list:

- Tim Cook
- Satya Nadella
- Sundar Pichai
- Mark Zuckerberg
- Jeff Bezos

Five men. Five.

Together they shape, and to some degree control, most communications 
throughout humanity's infosphere.


Five. Just five men.

As just one small corner, consider:

Modern media is largely supported by advertising. 70% of all online ad 
money goes to two companies, Google and Facebook. Two. Just Two.


Literally EVERYTHING else in the online world supported by ads has to 
survive by subdividing the remaining 30%.  Everything. Thousands of news 
and media orgs, millions of blogs and apps, billions of pages.


And that's just commerce. How many times do we need to read in the 
papers about yet another of the Big Five either supporting despotic 
regimes, or partnering with middlemen whose despot clients seek to 
undermine democracies? The list of those affected is long, and growing 
right now even as I type this: Georgia, Ukraine, US, Brexit, France, and 
 dozens more across every continent on the planet but Antarctica, using 
digital media to disseminate disinformation.


Do you trust that five men can enjoy unprecedented power over the flow 
of commerce and ideas and somehow keep your best interests in mind, or 
the interests of the other 7.8 billion people?



This week four out of those five were invited to answer questions about 
commerce and control by a thankfully-for-them-largely-out-of-touch Congress:


"What a Trove of Emails From Facebook, Amazon, Apple and Google Could 
Mean for Potential Antitrust Cases"

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/what-a-trove-of-emails-from-facebook-amazon-apple-and-google-could-mean-for-potential-antitrust-cases/2554850/


Maybe this is all just how it's supposed to be.  Maybe this is what the 
dream of success is supposed to be about, and it's just whiny 
malcontents who don't get it.


Or maybe it's time for new thinking in response to new circumstances.

How long was it between the dawn of the petroleum era and the antitrust 
moves against Standard Oil?  Sometimes it takes a while for regulatory 
ideas to catch up with trends...


--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World Systems
 Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
 
 ambassa...@fourthworld.comhttp://www.FourthWorld.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[Jim Lambert via use-livecode]

BrianM wrote:
> One thing that seems to be missing in this discussion is the point of view of 
> the ?client?, the one who downloads the app and pays for it

True. 
In the U.S. the laws against monopoly (the Sherman Act of 1890, the Clayton Act 
of 1914 and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914) are there to promote 
competition amongst companies for the benefit of consumers.   Or our end users.

Do Apple's actions and policies monopolistically harm consumers? Consumer 
behavior itself argues against that. Quite the contrary, consumers are willing 
to pay a premium for Apple products and services. 

Andre notes that Apple exercises a monopoly WITHIN the iOS system. But that is 
a misnomer. Apple has a proprietary system not a monopolistic one. And they 
strictly control it. It's simply not true that "there is nothing iOS users can 
do about that." Yes, there is. Consumers who don't want to buy into Apple’s 
closed system are free to buy elsewhere. Consumers can choose Android or any 
other alternative products. No one is forcing consumers to buy and use Apple 
products, which is what would happen if Apple had an actual monopoly. In fact, 
some consumers prefer Apple's strict proprietary control and are willing to pay 
mucho dinero for it. 

Now look at it from the developers' point of view. Apple makes us jump through 
many more hoops than Android developers do. Apple constantly changes these 
hoops which can seem inexplicably capricious. But is it? Or is it a constant 
effort to assure safe computing for their consumers?

There seems to be an assumption that the 30% cut Apple takes is outrageous. But 
what does a developer get for that Apple %? If you think you can replace what 
Apple offers for less money, then just sell your app on Android and rake in the 
extra bucks. What's stopping you?

The reality is that the vast majority of smartphone apps make little or no 
money, regardless of OS. 
So is it painful to surrender 30% of nothing? ;)

But back to the purpose of this list, aren't we lucky to have LiveCode, a 
development platform that gives us the power to develop for whatever platforms 
make sense for us?

Jim Lambert
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[prothero--- via use-livecode]

Folks:
One thing that seems to be missing in this discussion is the point of view of 
the “client”, the one who downloads the app and pays for it. I agree that the 
hoops one has to go through to get an app in the Apple store are a big pain, 
and that it seems unfair for Apple to get a cut of online advertising. But, 
does the end user care? 

I code in Livecode and always curse and struggle to get an app to load onto my 
phone. I also sympathize with the seemingly constant changes to Apple's 
requirements. But, as a user of iPhone apps, I really appreciate Apple’s 
attention to privacy and security. Would I sacrifice the user oriented 
qualities for the developer hassles? Probably not, at least with out a lot of 
other info about how Apple’s hoops for developers impact the user side for me. 
But I would find it unacceptable to sacrifice security and privacy.

Best,
Bill

William A. Prothero
Santa Barbara, CA. 93105
http://earthlearningsolutions.org/

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[Brian Milby via use-livecode]

Apple created a closed platform with their own store and rules.  Now that they 
are successful to say that they must change seems incorrect.  For whatever 
reason people like the product and I think a big part IS the store and model.  
I don’t think another store is the answer and rather think it would be a 
detriment.

Comparing Apple to Google is at the core different.  One started as an open 
platform and one started closed.  There really aren’t any other platforms that 
are viable in the smart phone space.

When your bring up competition, there are other remedies that could be 
implemented.  Allowing direct competition to their own apps could possibly be 
required.  Pandora and Amazon Music are a couple of direct competitors that are 
available.  Same thing goes for video.

There are other closed platforms.  A good example is the video game market.  
Can you download a game from another store than the one the maker provides?  
What is their cut on games?  Can anyone submit free games that anyone can 
download?

Brian

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 7, 2020, at 3:36 PM, Andre Garzia via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Brian,
> 
> It is not about Apple allowing clones. It is about Apple opening iOS for
> other stores. Every other platform has multiple app stores, for example, on
> my Samsung Galaxy Note 8 I have Play Store, Galaxy Store, F-Droid, and some
> apps that were sideloaded after being purchased/downloaded from the web.
> 
> Apple with its monopoly of what can run on iOS has been preventing not only
> any app that would compete with their own apps (such as alternative web
> engines) but also using double standards to enforce their ruling, favouring
> rich clients and hurting small ISVs, such as the case of protonmail and
> others. If Apple decides iOS is not a place for your software, you're dead.
> If Google decides you can't be on Play Store, you can still place your app
> on other stores and ship them from your website yourself.
> 
>> On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 19:28, Brian Milby via use-livecode <
>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Not sure the question is relevant.  You chose to buy the iHouse over the
>> droidHouse for some reason.  Maybe you wanted to live in the neighborhood
>> with the lowest crime rate.
>> 
>> Also, until Apple is forced to allow other companies to make compatible
>> phones, I don’t see how the logic works.  Google doesn’t make the only
>> Android phone.
>> 
>> When I read Apple’s guidelines I don’t see anything about price parity.
>> You can’t point out that it is cheaper elsewhere, but are you required to
>> charge the same?
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Aug 7, 2020, at 2:16 PM, Andre Garzia via use-livecode <
>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Jim,
>>> 
 Even with 58% of the US smartphone market Apple does not actually have a
>>> monopoly.
 Now there may be plenty of good reasons to object to Apple’s app store
>>> policies but let’s not misuse the term monopoly.
>>> 
>>> There is another way to approach this. Apple has the monopoly of the iOS
>>> market, they can dictate and abuse their authority in that market and
>> there
>>> is nothing iOS users can do about that. There is no other app store to
>> buy
>>> apps from. Now contrast that with Android. Google doesn't have the
>> monopoly
>>> on Android. You have other app stores besides Google Play, other device
>>> makers, and as a developer you can ship apps on your own and on all or
>> any
>>> of the stores.
>>> 
>>> If you allow me an analogy, imagine that you bought an iHouse, it is a
>>> pleasant house, very elegant. Still, all the furniture, all the food,
>>> everything you might ever want to put inside your iHouse needs to come
>> from
>>> Apple Store. Is that still your house? Does Apple have a monopoly?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 18:20, Jim Lambert via use-livecode <
 use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
 
 "A monopoly refers to when a company and its product offerings dominate
>> a
 sector or industry. Monopolies can be considered an extreme result of
 free-market capitalism <
 https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/freemarket.asp> in that absent any
 restriction or restraints, a single company or group becomes large
>> enough
 to own all or nearly all of the market (goods, supplies, commodities,
 infrastructure, and assets) for a particular type of product or service.
 The term monopoly is often used to describe an entity that has total or
 near-total control of a market.”
 https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopoly.asp
 
 Even with 58% of the US smartphone market Apple does not actually have a
 monopoly.
 Now there may be plenty of good reasons to object to Apple’s app store
 policies but let’s not misuse the term monopoly.
 
 Jim Lambert
 ___
 use-livecode mailing list
 use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
 Please visit 

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[Andre Garzia via use-livecode]

Brian,

It is not about Apple allowing clones. It is about Apple opening iOS for
other stores. Every other platform has multiple app stores, for example, on
my Samsung Galaxy Note 8 I have Play Store, Galaxy Store, F-Droid, and some
apps that were sideloaded after being purchased/downloaded from the web.

Apple with its monopoly of what can run on iOS has been preventing not only
any app that would compete with their own apps (such as alternative web
engines) but also using double standards to enforce their ruling, favouring
rich clients and hurting small ISVs, such as the case of protonmail and
others. If Apple decides iOS is not a place for your software, you're dead.
If Google decides you can't be on Play Store, you can still place your app
on other stores and ship them from your website yourself.

On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 19:28, Brian Milby via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:

> Not sure the question is relevant.  You chose to buy the iHouse over the
> droidHouse for some reason.  Maybe you wanted to live in the neighborhood
> with the lowest crime rate.
>
> Also, until Apple is forced to allow other companies to make compatible
> phones, I don’t see how the logic works.  Google doesn’t make the only
> Android phone.
>
> When I read Apple’s guidelines I don’t see anything about price parity.
> You can’t point out that it is cheaper elsewhere, but are you required to
> charge the same?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Aug 7, 2020, at 2:16 PM, Andre Garzia via use-livecode <
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> >
> > Jim,
> >
> >> Even with 58% of the US smartphone market Apple does not actually have a
> > monopoly.
> >> Now there may be plenty of good reasons to object to Apple’s app store
> > policies but let’s not misuse the term monopoly.
> >
> > There is another way to approach this. Apple has the monopoly of the iOS
> > market, they can dictate and abuse their authority in that market and
> there
> > is nothing iOS users can do about that. There is no other app store to
> buy
> > apps from. Now contrast that with Android. Google doesn't have the
> monopoly
> > on Android. You have other app stores besides Google Play, other device
> > makers, and as a developer you can ship apps on your own and on all or
> any
> > of the stores.
> >
> > If you allow me an analogy, imagine that you bought an iHouse, it is a
> > pleasant house, very elegant. Still, all the furniture, all the food,
> > everything you might ever want to put inside your iHouse needs to come
> from
> > Apple Store. Is that still your house? Does Apple have a monopoly?
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 18:20, Jim Lambert via use-livecode <
> >> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> "A monopoly refers to when a company and its product offerings dominate
> a
> >> sector or industry. Monopolies can be considered an extreme result of
> >> free-market capitalism <
> >> https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/freemarket.asp> in that absent any
> >> restriction or restraints, a single company or group becomes large
> enough
> >> to own all or nearly all of the market (goods, supplies, commodities,
> >> infrastructure, and assets) for a particular type of product or service.
> >> The term monopoly is often used to describe an entity that has total or
> >> near-total control of a market.”
> >> https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopoly.asp
> >>
> >> Even with 58% of the US smartphone market Apple does not actually have a
> >> monopoly.
> >> Now there may be plenty of good reasons to object to Apple’s app store
> >> policies but let’s not misuse the term monopoly.
> >>
> >> Jim Lambert
> >> ___
> >> use-livecode mailing list
> >> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> >> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> >> subscription preferences:
> >> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > https://www.andregarzia.com 
> > Want to support me? Buy me a coffee at https://ko-fi.com/andregarzia
> > ___
> > use-livecode mailing list
> > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>


-- 
https://www.andregarzia.com 
Want to support me? Buy me a coffee at https://ko-fi.com/andregarzia
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[Andre Garzia via use-livecode]

Stephen,

Web Apps don't level the playing field because Apple controls the web
engine on iOS. They don't allow any other web engine on the platform, so if
they don't implement an API that would hurt their monopoly for whatever
reason their PR machine uses as justification, we end up with a weaker web
platform.

Apple has done some superb stuff recently with their browser. Their
adoption of the webextensions API alone is a major victory for me. Still
hold all the keys and without competition it becomes hard to advance
something.




On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 19:50, Stephen Barncard via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:

> I thought "web apps" were going to level the playing field, and they could
> be made to look just like iPhone apps on an iPhone, one just rigs the css
> and graphics.  How did that work out?   I do love Livecode
> serverbrilliant.
>
> (full disclosure,  I hate using phones for stuff I can do on a desktop, a
> big reason why I gave up development except for desktop apps I make to
> support my other activities )
>
> ( I make video too, and will not do 'portrait' mode under any circumstances
> )
>
> (I'm watching Lewis Black as I type this, pardon my tone)
> --
> Stephen Barncard - Sebastopol Ca. USA -
> mixstream.org
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 11:27 AM Brian Milby via use-livecode <
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
>
> > Not sure the question is relevant.  You chose to buy the iHouse over the
> > droidHouse for some reason.  Maybe you wanted to live in the neighborhood
> > with the lowest crime rate.
> >
> > Also, until Apple is forced to allow other companies to make compatible
> > phones, I don’t see how the logic works.  Google doesn’t make the only
> > Android phone.
> >
> > When I read Apple’s guidelines I don’t see anything about price parity.
> > You can’t point out that it is cheaper elsewhere, but are you required to
> > charge the same?
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On Aug 7, 2020, at 2:16 PM, Andre Garzia via use-livecode <
> > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Jim,
> > >
> > >> Even with 58% of the US smartphone market Apple does not actually
> have a
> > > monopoly.
> > >> Now there may be plenty of good reasons to object to Apple’s app store
> > > policies but let’s not misuse the term monopoly.
> > >
> > > There is another way to approach this. Apple has the monopoly of the
> iOS
> > > market, they can dictate and abuse their authority in that market and
> > there
> > > is nothing iOS users can do about that. There is no other app store to
> > buy
> > > apps from. Now contrast that with Android. Google doesn't have the
> > monopoly
> > > on Android. You have other app stores besides Google Play, other device
> > > makers, and as a developer you can ship apps on your own and on all or
> > any
> > > of the stores.
> > >
> > > If you allow me an analogy, imagine that you bought an iHouse, it is a
> > > pleasant house, very elegant. Still, all the furniture, all the food,
> > > everything you might ever want to put inside your iHouse needs to come
> > from
> > > Apple Store. Is that still your house? Does Apple have a monopoly?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 18:20, Jim Lambert via use-livecode <
> > >> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> "A monopoly refers to when a company and its product offerings
> dominate
> > a
> > >> sector or industry. Monopolies can be considered an extreme result of
> > >> free-market capitalism <
> > >> https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/freemarket.asp> in that absent
> any
> > >> restriction or restraints, a single company or group becomes large
> > enough
> > >> to own all or nearly all of the market (goods, supplies, commodities,
> > >> infrastructure, and assets) for a particular type of product or
> service.
> > >> The term monopoly is often used to describe an entity that has total
> or
> > >> near-total control of a market.”
> > >> https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopoly.asp
> > >>
> > >> Even with 58% of the US smartphone market Apple does not actually
> have a
> > >> monopoly.
> > >> Now there may be plenty of good reasons to object to Apple’s app store
> > >> policies but let’s not misuse the term monopoly.
> > >>
> > >> Jim Lambert
> > >> ___
> > >> use-livecode mailing list
> > >> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> > >> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> > >> subscription preferences:
> > >> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > https://www.andregarzia.com 
> > > Want to support me? Buy me a coffee at https://ko-fi.com/andregarzia
> > > ___
> > > use-livecode mailing list
> > > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> > > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> > subscription preferences:
> > > 

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[Stephen Barncard via use-livecode]

I thought "web apps" were going to level the playing field, and they could
be made to look just like iPhone apps on an iPhone, one just rigs the css
and graphics.  How did that work out?   I do love Livecode
serverbrilliant.

(full disclosure,  I hate using phones for stuff I can do on a desktop, a
big reason why I gave up development except for desktop apps I make to
support my other activities )

( I make video too, and will not do 'portrait' mode under any circumstances
)

(I'm watching Lewis Black as I type this, pardon my tone)
--
Stephen Barncard - Sebastopol Ca. USA -
mixstream.org


On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 11:27 AM Brian Milby via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:

> Not sure the question is relevant.  You chose to buy the iHouse over the
> droidHouse for some reason.  Maybe you wanted to live in the neighborhood
> with the lowest crime rate.
>
> Also, until Apple is forced to allow other companies to make compatible
> phones, I don’t see how the logic works.  Google doesn’t make the only
> Android phone.
>
> When I read Apple’s guidelines I don’t see anything about price parity.
> You can’t point out that it is cheaper elsewhere, but are you required to
> charge the same?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Aug 7, 2020, at 2:16 PM, Andre Garzia via use-livecode <
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> >
> > Jim,
> >
> >> Even with 58% of the US smartphone market Apple does not actually have a
> > monopoly.
> >> Now there may be plenty of good reasons to object to Apple’s app store
> > policies but let’s not misuse the term monopoly.
> >
> > There is another way to approach this. Apple has the monopoly of the iOS
> > market, they can dictate and abuse their authority in that market and
> there
> > is nothing iOS users can do about that. There is no other app store to
> buy
> > apps from. Now contrast that with Android. Google doesn't have the
> monopoly
> > on Android. You have other app stores besides Google Play, other device
> > makers, and as a developer you can ship apps on your own and on all or
> any
> > of the stores.
> >
> > If you allow me an analogy, imagine that you bought an iHouse, it is a
> > pleasant house, very elegant. Still, all the furniture, all the food,
> > everything you might ever want to put inside your iHouse needs to come
> from
> > Apple Store. Is that still your house? Does Apple have a monopoly?
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 18:20, Jim Lambert via use-livecode <
> >> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> "A monopoly refers to when a company and its product offerings dominate
> a
> >> sector or industry. Monopolies can be considered an extreme result of
> >> free-market capitalism <
> >> https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/freemarket.asp> in that absent any
> >> restriction or restraints, a single company or group becomes large
> enough
> >> to own all or nearly all of the market (goods, supplies, commodities,
> >> infrastructure, and assets) for a particular type of product or service.
> >> The term monopoly is often used to describe an entity that has total or
> >> near-total control of a market.”
> >> https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopoly.asp
> >>
> >> Even with 58% of the US smartphone market Apple does not actually have a
> >> monopoly.
> >> Now there may be plenty of good reasons to object to Apple’s app store
> >> policies but let’s not misuse the term monopoly.
> >>
> >> Jim Lambert
> >> ___
> >> use-livecode mailing list
> >> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> >> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> >> subscription preferences:
> >> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > https://www.andregarzia.com 
> > Want to support me? Buy me a coffee at https://ko-fi.com/andregarzia
> > ___
> > use-livecode mailing list
> > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[Brian Milby via use-livecode]

Not sure the question is relevant.  You chose to buy the iHouse over the 
droidHouse for some reason.  Maybe you wanted to live in the neighborhood with 
the lowest crime rate.

Also, until Apple is forced to allow other companies to make compatible phones, 
I don’t see how the logic works.  Google doesn’t make the only Android phone.

When I read Apple’s guidelines I don’t see anything about price parity.  You 
can’t point out that it is cheaper elsewhere, but are you required to charge 
the same?

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 7, 2020, at 2:16 PM, Andre Garzia via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Jim,
> 
>> Even with 58% of the US smartphone market Apple does not actually have a
> monopoly.
>> Now there may be plenty of good reasons to object to Apple’s app store
> policies but let’s not misuse the term monopoly.
> 
> There is another way to approach this. Apple has the monopoly of the iOS
> market, they can dictate and abuse their authority in that market and there
> is nothing iOS users can do about that. There is no other app store to buy
> apps from. Now contrast that with Android. Google doesn't have the monopoly
> on Android. You have other app stores besides Google Play, other device
> makers, and as a developer you can ship apps on your own and on all or any
> of the stores.
> 
> If you allow me an analogy, imagine that you bought an iHouse, it is a
> pleasant house, very elegant. Still, all the furniture, all the food,
> everything you might ever want to put inside your iHouse needs to come from
> Apple Store. Is that still your house? Does Apple have a monopoly?
> 
> 
> 
>> On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 18:20, Jim Lambert via use-livecode <
>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
>> 
>> "A monopoly refers to when a company and its product offerings dominate a
>> sector or industry. Monopolies can be considered an extreme result of
>> free-market capitalism <
>> https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/freemarket.asp> in that absent any
>> restriction or restraints, a single company or group becomes large enough
>> to own all or nearly all of the market (goods, supplies, commodities,
>> infrastructure, and assets) for a particular type of product or service.
>> The term monopoly is often used to describe an entity that has total or
>> near-total control of a market.”
>> https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopoly.asp
>> 
>> Even with 58% of the US smartphone market Apple does not actually have a
>> monopoly.
>> Now there may be plenty of good reasons to object to Apple’s app store
>> policies but let’s not misuse the term monopoly.
>> 
>> Jim Lambert
>> ___
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
>> subscription preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> https://www.andregarzia.com 
> Want to support me? Buy me a coffee at https://ko-fi.com/andregarzia
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[Andre Garzia via use-livecode]

Jim,

> Even with 58% of the US smartphone market Apple does not actually have a
monopoly.
> Now there may be plenty of good reasons to object to Apple’s app store
policies but let’s not misuse the term monopoly.

There is another way to approach this. Apple has the monopoly of the iOS
market, they can dictate and abuse their authority in that market and there
is nothing iOS users can do about that. There is no other app store to buy
apps from. Now contrast that with Android. Google doesn't have the monopoly
on Android. You have other app stores besides Google Play, other device
makers, and as a developer you can ship apps on your own and on all or any
of the stores.

If you allow me an analogy, imagine that you bought an iHouse, it is a
pleasant house, very elegant. Still, all the furniture, all the food,
everything you might ever want to put inside your iHouse needs to come from
Apple Store. Is that still your house? Does Apple have a monopoly?



On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 18:20, Jim Lambert via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:

> "A monopoly refers to when a company and its product offerings dominate a
> sector or industry. Monopolies can be considered an extreme result of
> free-market capitalism <
> https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/freemarket.asp> in that absent any
> restriction or restraints, a single company or group becomes large enough
> to own all or nearly all of the market (goods, supplies, commodities,
> infrastructure, and assets) for a particular type of product or service.
> The term monopoly is often used to describe an entity that has total or
> near-total control of a market.”
> https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopoly.asp
>
> Even with 58% of the US smartphone market Apple does not actually have a
> monopoly.
> Now there may be plenty of good reasons to object to Apple’s app store
> policies but let’s not misuse the term monopoly.
>
> Jim Lambert
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>


-- 
https://www.andregarzia.com 
Want to support me? Buy me a coffee at https://ko-fi.com/andregarzia
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[Stephen Barncard via use-livecode]

And Apple knows it.
--
Stephen Barncard - Sebastopol Ca. USA -
mixstream.org


On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 9:08 AM J. Landman Gay via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:

> My primary reason is that my clients always want their mobile app released
> for both platforms.
> --
> Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
> HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
> On August 7, 2020 6:34:45 AM Andre Garzia via use-livecode
>  wrote:
>
> > Antti,
> >
> > Android has 85% of the world market, it all depends on which country
> you're
> > selling and which metrics you're using. In the U.S. iOS has 58% of the
> > smartphone market and 63% of the tablet market. Another important factor
> is
> > that iOS users spend more money on apps than their Android peers. So for
> > those selling mobile apps whose primary market is the U.S. it makes sense
> > to ship to iOS.
> >
> > On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 08:50, Antti Ilola via use-livecode <
> > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> >
> >> If Apple is so horrible, why do you do software to them and I think that
> >> Apple has no monopoly, since Android shares 85% of the phone market.
> >>
> >> Antti
> >>
> >> to 6. elok. 2020 klo 22.23 JeeJeeStudio via use-livecode (
> >> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com) kirjoitti:
> >>
> >> > Wow, that's heavy Jacque.
> >> > I'm not at all against Apple products, although it may seem like it
> >> > sometimes. I'm against how they work, making it more and more
> difficult.
> >> > I'm for a safe store too. But this is grabbing money from wherever
> they
> >> > can.
> >> >
> >> > Op do 6 aug. 2020 om 20:53 schreef J. Landman Gay via use-livecode <
> >> > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com>:
> >> >
> >> > > I've been working on mobile apps for a non-profit publishing house.
> >> Their
> >> > > customers are large
> >> > > organizations that buy products in bulk and then resell to their own
> >> > > customers. Thus, the app
> >> > > does not sell to users at all, nor does our client.
> >> > >
> >> > > I made a minor mistake in one of my progress spinners; the
> >> > > briefly-displayed prompt (less than
> >> > > 1 second) said "Checking your purchases..." and Apple glommed onto
> that
> >> > > and wouldn't let go. My
> >> > > client and I spent 3 weeks and innumerable emails to Apple to
> convince
> >> > > them that users were not
> >> > > purchasing any products from the company who sponsored the software,
> >> nor
> >> > > could they buy
> >> > > products from any web site related to the company. We had to answer
> two
> >> > > different
> >> > > purchasing-related questionaires in great detail. They finally
> relented
> >> > > when we convinced them;
> >> > > I changed the prompt to "Checking your library..." and it didn't
> hurt
> >> > that
> >> > > we got a different
> >> > > reviewer.
> >> > >
> >> > > Google, who has some similar but less-stringent rules in the Play
> >> Store,
> >> > > accepted the app the
> >> > > first time without any objections.
> >> > >
> >> > > Word to the wise: if your app doesn't deal with sales, even
> indirectly,
> >> > > don't use money-related
> >> > > words anywhere. I hope the EU nails them; I consider App Store
> policies
> >> > > equivalent to
> >> > > extortion. Apple holds the majority of mobile users in the U.S. and
> the
> >> > > App Store is the only
> >> > > available outlet for apps. That sounds like a monopoly to me.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On 8/6/20 11:46 AM, JeeJeeStudio via use-livecode wrote:
> >> > > > Hmpff i just read in the news that even Microsoft can't bring out
> an
> >> > > xcloud
> >> > > > application due to the apple store rules. What a mess. Only
> Android
> >> > users
> >> > > > will be able to stream games as mentioned on dutch tweakers.net
> >> > > website. I
> >> > > > think it's going to cost MS to much money to pay Apple ifvthey
> would
> >> > > bring
> >> > > > out the app on Apple's store.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Op wo 5 aug. 2020 02:10 schreef Richard Gaskin via use-livecode <
> >> > > > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com>:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> JeeJeeStudio wrote:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>   > 1 positive thing then on a thing we don't have in LC and now
> >> also
> >> > is
> >> > > >>   > removed...the possibility to put ads in your LC created
> mobile
> >> > > app...
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> "Possible" is a big word. It covers nearly everything.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> It's possible to use LC Build to support ad network APIs.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> It's also possible to find saner ad networks that offer REST
> APIs in
> >> > > >> addition to binary, so devs don't need to commit as much
> development
> >> > > >> time for one vendor.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> It's possible but less likely that an app not worth monetizing
> >> through
> >> > > >> freemiums, direct payment, or other model will earn enough to
> bring
> >> a
> >> > > >> positive ROI for the effort of implementing ads.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> It's less likely that you'll be able to shoe-horn 

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[Jim Lambert via use-livecode]

"A monopoly refers to when a company and its product offerings dominate a 
sector or industry. Monopolies can be considered an extreme result of 
free-market capitalism  in 
that absent any restriction or restraints, a single company or group becomes 
large enough to own all or nearly all of the market (goods, supplies, 
commodities, infrastructure, and assets) for a particular type of product or 
service. The term monopoly is often used to describe an entity that has total 
or near-total control of a market.”
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopoly.asp

Even with 58% of the US smartphone market Apple does not actually have a 
monopoly.
Now there may be plenty of good reasons to object to Apple’s app store policies 
but let’s not misuse the term monopoly.

Jim Lambert
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[J. Landman Gay via use-livecode]

My primary reason is that my clients always want their mobile app released 
for both platforms.

--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
On August 7, 2020 6:34:45 AM Andre Garzia via use-livecode 
 wrote:



Antti,

Android has 85% of the world market, it all depends on which country you're
selling and which metrics you're using. In the U.S. iOS has 58% of the
smartphone market and 63% of the tablet market. Another important factor is
that iOS users spend more money on apps than their Android peers. So for
those selling mobile apps whose primary market is the U.S. it makes sense
to ship to iOS.

On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 08:50, Antti Ilola via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:


If Apple is so horrible, why do you do software to them and I think that
Apple has no monopoly, since Android shares 85% of the phone market.

Antti

to 6. elok. 2020 klo 22.23 JeeJeeStudio via use-livecode (
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com) kirjoitti:

> Wow, that's heavy Jacque.
> I'm not at all against Apple products, although it may seem like it
> sometimes. I'm against how they work, making it more and more difficult.
> I'm for a safe store too. But this is grabbing money from wherever they
> can.
>
> Op do 6 aug. 2020 om 20:53 schreef J. Landman Gay via use-livecode <
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com>:
>
> > I've been working on mobile apps for a non-profit publishing house.
Their
> > customers are large
> > organizations that buy products in bulk and then resell to their own
> > customers. Thus, the app
> > does not sell to users at all, nor does our client.
> >
> > I made a minor mistake in one of my progress spinners; the
> > briefly-displayed prompt (less than
> > 1 second) said "Checking your purchases..." and Apple glommed onto that
> > and wouldn't let go. My
> > client and I spent 3 weeks and innumerable emails to Apple to convince
> > them that users were not
> > purchasing any products from the company who sponsored the software,
nor
> > could they buy
> > products from any web site related to the company. We had to answer two
> > different
> > purchasing-related questionaires in great detail. They finally relented
> > when we convinced them;
> > I changed the prompt to "Checking your library..." and it didn't hurt
> that
> > we got a different
> > reviewer.
> >
> > Google, who has some similar but less-stringent rules in the Play
Store,
> > accepted the app the
> > first time without any objections.
> >
> > Word to the wise: if your app doesn't deal with sales, even indirectly,
> > don't use money-related
> > words anywhere. I hope the EU nails them; I consider App Store policies
> > equivalent to
> > extortion. Apple holds the majority of mobile users in the U.S. and the
> > App Store is the only
> > available outlet for apps. That sounds like a monopoly to me.
> >
> >
> > On 8/6/20 11:46 AM, JeeJeeStudio via use-livecode wrote:
> > > Hmpff i just read in the news that even Microsoft can't bring out an
> > xcloud
> > > application due to the apple store rules. What a mess. Only Android
> users
> > > will be able to stream games as mentioned on dutch tweakers.net
> > website. I
> > > think it's going to cost MS to much money to pay Apple ifvthey would
> > bring
> > > out the app on Apple's store.
> > >
> > > Op wo 5 aug. 2020 02:10 schreef Richard Gaskin via use-livecode <
> > > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com>:
> > >
> > >> JeeJeeStudio wrote:
> > >>
> > >>   > 1 positive thing then on a thing we don't have in LC and now
also
> is
> > >>   > removed...the possibility to put ads in your LC created mobile
> > app...
> > >>
> > >> "Possible" is a big word. It covers nearly everything.
> > >>
> > >> It's possible to use LC Build to support ad network APIs.
> > >>
> > >> It's also possible to find saner ad networks that offer REST APIs in
> > >> addition to binary, so devs don't need to commit as much development
> > >> time for one vendor.
> > >>
> > >> It's possible but less likely that an app not worth monetizing
through
> > >> freemiums, direct payment, or other model will earn enough to bring
a
> > >> positive ROI for the effort of implementing ads.
> > >>
> > >> It's less likely that you'll be able to shoe-horn someone else's ads
> > >> into your app design without impairing the user experience.
> > >>
> > >> Lots of things are possible.  Fewer things are likely.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >>Richard Gaskin
> > >>Fourth World Systems
> > >>Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the
> Web
> > >>
> 
> > >>ambassa...@fourthworld.com
> http://www.FourthWorld.com
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ___
> > >> use-livecode mailing list
> > >> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> > >> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> > >> subscription preferences:
> > >> 

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[Andre Garzia via use-livecode]

Antti,

Android has 85% of the world market, it all depends on which country you're
selling and which metrics you're using. In the U.S. iOS has 58% of the
smartphone market and 63% of the tablet market. Another important factor is
that iOS users spend more money on apps than their Android peers. So for
those selling mobile apps whose primary market is the U.S. it makes sense
to ship to iOS.

On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 08:50, Antti Ilola via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:

> If Apple is so horrible, why do you do software to them and I think that
> Apple has no monopoly, since Android shares 85% of the phone market.
>
> Antti
>
> to 6. elok. 2020 klo 22.23 JeeJeeStudio via use-livecode (
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com) kirjoitti:
>
> > Wow, that's heavy Jacque.
> > I'm not at all against Apple products, although it may seem like it
> > sometimes. I'm against how they work, making it more and more difficult.
> > I'm for a safe store too. But this is grabbing money from wherever they
> > can.
> >
> > Op do 6 aug. 2020 om 20:53 schreef J. Landman Gay via use-livecode <
> > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com>:
> >
> > > I've been working on mobile apps for a non-profit publishing house.
> Their
> > > customers are large
> > > organizations that buy products in bulk and then resell to their own
> > > customers. Thus, the app
> > > does not sell to users at all, nor does our client.
> > >
> > > I made a minor mistake in one of my progress spinners; the
> > > briefly-displayed prompt (less than
> > > 1 second) said "Checking your purchases..." and Apple glommed onto that
> > > and wouldn't let go. My
> > > client and I spent 3 weeks and innumerable emails to Apple to convince
> > > them that users were not
> > > purchasing any products from the company who sponsored the software,
> nor
> > > could they buy
> > > products from any web site related to the company. We had to answer two
> > > different
> > > purchasing-related questionaires in great detail. They finally relented
> > > when we convinced them;
> > > I changed the prompt to "Checking your library..." and it didn't hurt
> > that
> > > we got a different
> > > reviewer.
> > >
> > > Google, who has some similar but less-stringent rules in the Play
> Store,
> > > accepted the app the
> > > first time without any objections.
> > >
> > > Word to the wise: if your app doesn't deal with sales, even indirectly,
> > > don't use money-related
> > > words anywhere. I hope the EU nails them; I consider App Store policies
> > > equivalent to
> > > extortion. Apple holds the majority of mobile users in the U.S. and the
> > > App Store is the only
> > > available outlet for apps. That sounds like a monopoly to me.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 8/6/20 11:46 AM, JeeJeeStudio via use-livecode wrote:
> > > > Hmpff i just read in the news that even Microsoft can't bring out an
> > > xcloud
> > > > application due to the apple store rules. What a mess. Only Android
> > users
> > > > will be able to stream games as mentioned on dutch tweakers.net
> > > website. I
> > > > think it's going to cost MS to much money to pay Apple ifvthey would
> > > bring
> > > > out the app on Apple's store.
> > > >
> > > > Op wo 5 aug. 2020 02:10 schreef Richard Gaskin via use-livecode <
> > > > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com>:
> > > >
> > > >> JeeJeeStudio wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>   > 1 positive thing then on a thing we don't have in LC and now
> also
> > is
> > > >>   > removed...the possibility to put ads in your LC created mobile
> > > app...
> > > >>
> > > >> "Possible" is a big word. It covers nearly everything.
> > > >>
> > > >> It's possible to use LC Build to support ad network APIs.
> > > >>
> > > >> It's also possible to find saner ad networks that offer REST APIs in
> > > >> addition to binary, so devs don't need to commit as much development
> > > >> time for one vendor.
> > > >>
> > > >> It's possible but less likely that an app not worth monetizing
> through
> > > >> freemiums, direct payment, or other model will earn enough to bring
> a
> > > >> positive ROI for the effort of implementing ads.
> > > >>
> > > >> It's less likely that you'll be able to shoe-horn someone else's ads
> > > >> into your app design without impairing the user experience.
> > > >>
> > > >> Lots of things are possible.  Fewer things are likely.
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >>Richard Gaskin
> > > >>Fourth World Systems
> > > >>Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the
> > Web
> > > >>
> > 
> > > >>ambassa...@fourthworld.com
> > http://www.FourthWorld.com
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> ___
> > > >> use-livecode mailing list
> > > >> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> > > >> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> > > >> subscription preferences:
> > > >> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> > > >>
> > > > 

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[Antti Ilola via use-livecode]

If Apple is so horrible, why do you do software to them and I think that
Apple has no monopoly, since Android shares 85% of the phone market.

Antti

to 6. elok. 2020 klo 22.23 JeeJeeStudio via use-livecode (
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com) kirjoitti:

> Wow, that's heavy Jacque.
> I'm not at all against Apple products, although it may seem like it
> sometimes. I'm against how they work, making it more and more difficult.
> I'm for a safe store too. But this is grabbing money from wherever they
> can.
>
> Op do 6 aug. 2020 om 20:53 schreef J. Landman Gay via use-livecode <
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com>:
>
> > I've been working on mobile apps for a non-profit publishing house. Their
> > customers are large
> > organizations that buy products in bulk and then resell to their own
> > customers. Thus, the app
> > does not sell to users at all, nor does our client.
> >
> > I made a minor mistake in one of my progress spinners; the
> > briefly-displayed prompt (less than
> > 1 second) said "Checking your purchases..." and Apple glommed onto that
> > and wouldn't let go. My
> > client and I spent 3 weeks and innumerable emails to Apple to convince
> > them that users were not
> > purchasing any products from the company who sponsored the software, nor
> > could they buy
> > products from any web site related to the company. We had to answer two
> > different
> > purchasing-related questionaires in great detail. They finally relented
> > when we convinced them;
> > I changed the prompt to "Checking your library..." and it didn't hurt
> that
> > we got a different
> > reviewer.
> >
> > Google, who has some similar but less-stringent rules in the Play Store,
> > accepted the app the
> > first time without any objections.
> >
> > Word to the wise: if your app doesn't deal with sales, even indirectly,
> > don't use money-related
> > words anywhere. I hope the EU nails them; I consider App Store policies
> > equivalent to
> > extortion. Apple holds the majority of mobile users in the U.S. and the
> > App Store is the only
> > available outlet for apps. That sounds like a monopoly to me.
> >
> >
> > On 8/6/20 11:46 AM, JeeJeeStudio via use-livecode wrote:
> > > Hmpff i just read in the news that even Microsoft can't bring out an
> > xcloud
> > > application due to the apple store rules. What a mess. Only Android
> users
> > > will be able to stream games as mentioned on dutch tweakers.net
> > website. I
> > > think it's going to cost MS to much money to pay Apple ifvthey would
> > bring
> > > out the app on Apple's store.
> > >
> > > Op wo 5 aug. 2020 02:10 schreef Richard Gaskin via use-livecode <
> > > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com>:
> > >
> > >> JeeJeeStudio wrote:
> > >>
> > >>   > 1 positive thing then on a thing we don't have in LC and now also
> is
> > >>   > removed...the possibility to put ads in your LC created mobile
> > app...
> > >>
> > >> "Possible" is a big word. It covers nearly everything.
> > >>
> > >> It's possible to use LC Build to support ad network APIs.
> > >>
> > >> It's also possible to find saner ad networks that offer REST APIs in
> > >> addition to binary, so devs don't need to commit as much development
> > >> time for one vendor.
> > >>
> > >> It's possible but less likely that an app not worth monetizing through
> > >> freemiums, direct payment, or other model will earn enough to bring a
> > >> positive ROI for the effort of implementing ads.
> > >>
> > >> It's less likely that you'll be able to shoe-horn someone else's ads
> > >> into your app design without impairing the user experience.
> > >>
> > >> Lots of things are possible.  Fewer things are likely.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >>Richard Gaskin
> > >>Fourth World Systems
> > >>Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the
> Web
> > >>
> 
> > >>ambassa...@fourthworld.com
> http://www.FourthWorld.com
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ___
> > >> use-livecode mailing list
> > >> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> > >> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> > >> subscription preferences:
> > >> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> > >>
> > > ___
> > > use-livecode mailing list
> > > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> > > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> > subscription preferences:
> > > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
> > HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
> >
> > ___
> > use-livecode mailing list
> > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> > subscription preferences:
> > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> >
> 

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[JeeJeeStudio via use-livecode]

Wow, that's heavy Jacque.
I'm not at all against Apple products, although it may seem like it
sometimes. I'm against how they work, making it more and more difficult.
I'm for a safe store too. But this is grabbing money from wherever they can.

Op do 6 aug. 2020 om 20:53 schreef J. Landman Gay via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com>:

> I've been working on mobile apps for a non-profit publishing house. Their
> customers are large
> organizations that buy products in bulk and then resell to their own
> customers. Thus, the app
> does not sell to users at all, nor does our client.
>
> I made a minor mistake in one of my progress spinners; the
> briefly-displayed prompt (less than
> 1 second) said "Checking your purchases..." and Apple glommed onto that
> and wouldn't let go. My
> client and I spent 3 weeks and innumerable emails to Apple to convince
> them that users were not
> purchasing any products from the company who sponsored the software, nor
> could they buy
> products from any web site related to the company. We had to answer two
> different
> purchasing-related questionaires in great detail. They finally relented
> when we convinced them;
> I changed the prompt to "Checking your library..." and it didn't hurt that
> we got a different
> reviewer.
>
> Google, who has some similar but less-stringent rules in the Play Store,
> accepted the app the
> first time without any objections.
>
> Word to the wise: if your app doesn't deal with sales, even indirectly,
> don't use money-related
> words anywhere. I hope the EU nails them; I consider App Store policies
> equivalent to
> extortion. Apple holds the majority of mobile users in the U.S. and the
> App Store is the only
> available outlet for apps. That sounds like a monopoly to me.
>
>
> On 8/6/20 11:46 AM, JeeJeeStudio via use-livecode wrote:
> > Hmpff i just read in the news that even Microsoft can't bring out an
> xcloud
> > application due to the apple store rules. What a mess. Only Android users
> > will be able to stream games as mentioned on dutch tweakers.net
> website. I
> > think it's going to cost MS to much money to pay Apple ifvthey would
> bring
> > out the app on Apple's store.
> >
> > Op wo 5 aug. 2020 02:10 schreef Richard Gaskin via use-livecode <
> > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com>:
> >
> >> JeeJeeStudio wrote:
> >>
> >>   > 1 positive thing then on a thing we don't have in LC and now also is
> >>   > removed...the possibility to put ads in your LC created mobile
> app...
> >>
> >> "Possible" is a big word. It covers nearly everything.
> >>
> >> It's possible to use LC Build to support ad network APIs.
> >>
> >> It's also possible to find saner ad networks that offer REST APIs in
> >> addition to binary, so devs don't need to commit as much development
> >> time for one vendor.
> >>
> >> It's possible but less likely that an app not worth monetizing through
> >> freemiums, direct payment, or other model will earn enough to bring a
> >> positive ROI for the effort of implementing ads.
> >>
> >> It's less likely that you'll be able to shoe-horn someone else's ads
> >> into your app design without impairing the user experience.
> >>
> >> Lots of things are possible.  Fewer things are likely.
> >>
> >> --
> >>Richard Gaskin
> >>Fourth World Systems
> >>Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
> >>
> >>ambassa...@fourthworld.comhttp://www.FourthWorld.com
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> use-livecode mailing list
> >> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> >> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> >> subscription preferences:
> >> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> >>
> > ___
> > use-livecode mailing list
> > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> >
>
>
> --
> Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
> HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
>
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

RE: ProtonMail vs Apple

[Ralph DiMola via use-livecode]

I have an OTA data update for one of my apps. I had to re-word that
"waiting" message a few times until it was approved. The first time it was
"App update is processing, Please wait". Apple's head exploded. Then you
enter into the gauntlet of scrutiny. I agree a different approver helped me
get approved once. Moral: be careful how you word your messages with Apple.

It is a monopoly, no question about it.

Ralph DiMola
IT Director
Evergreen Information Services
rdim...@evergreeninfo.net

-Original Message-
From: use-livecode [mailto:use-livecode-boun...@lists.runrev.com] On Behalf
Of J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2020 2:52 PM
To: How to use LiveCode
Cc: J. Landman Gay
Subject: Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

I've been working on mobile apps for a non-profit publishing house. Their
customers are large organizations that buy products in bulk and then resell
to their own customers. Thus, the app does not sell to users at all, nor
does our client.

I made a minor mistake in one of my progress spinners; the briefly-displayed
prompt (less than
1 second) said "Checking your purchases..." and Apple glommed onto that and
wouldn't let go. My client and I spent 3 weeks and innumerable emails to
Apple to convince them that users were not purchasing any products from the
company who sponsored the software, nor could they buy products from any web
site related to the company. We had to answer two different
purchasing-related questionaires in great detail. They finally relented when
we convinced them; I changed the prompt to "Checking your library..." and it
didn't hurt that we got a different reviewer.

Google, who has some similar but less-stringent rules in the Play Store,
accepted the app the first time without any objections.

Word to the wise: if your app doesn't deal with sales, even indirectly,
don't use money-related words anywhere. I hope the EU nails them; I consider
App Store policies equivalent to extortion. Apple holds the majority of
mobile users in the U.S. and the App Store is the only available outlet for
apps. That sounds like a monopoly to me.


On 8/6/20 11:46 AM, JeeJeeStudio via use-livecode wrote:
> Hmpff i just read in the news that even Microsoft can't bring out an 
> xcloud application due to the apple store rules. What a mess. Only 
> Android users will be able to stream games as mentioned on dutch 
> tweakers.net website. I think it's going to cost MS to much money to 
> pay Apple ifvthey would bring out the app on Apple's store.
> 
> Op wo 5 aug. 2020 02:10 schreef Richard Gaskin via use-livecode <
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com>:
> 
>> JeeJeeStudio wrote:
>>
>>   > 1 positive thing then on a thing we don't have in LC and now also is
>>   > removed...the possibility to put ads in your LC created mobile app...
>>
>> "Possible" is a big word. It covers nearly everything.
>>
>> It's possible to use LC Build to support ad network APIs.
>>
>> It's also possible to find saner ad networks that offer REST APIs in 
>> addition to binary, so devs don't need to commit as much development 
>> time for one vendor.
>>
>> It's possible but less likely that an app not worth monetizing 
>> through freemiums, direct payment, or other model will earn enough to 
>> bring a positive ROI for the effort of implementing ads.
>>
>> It's less likely that you'll be able to shoe-horn someone else's ads 
>> into your app design without impairing the user experience.
>>
>> Lots of things are possible.  Fewer things are likely.
>>
>> --
>>Richard Gaskin
>>Fourth World Systems
>>Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
>>
>>ambassa...@fourthworld.comhttp://www.FourthWorld.com
>>
>>
>> ___
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
>> subscription preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>>
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
> 


-- 
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[J. Landman Gay via use-livecode]

I've been working on mobile apps for a non-profit publishing house. Their customers are large 
organizations that buy products in bulk and then resell to their own customers. Thus, the app 
does not sell to users at all, nor does our client.


I made a minor mistake in one of my progress spinners; the briefly-displayed prompt (less than 
1 second) said "Checking your purchases..." and Apple glommed onto that and wouldn't let go. My 
client and I spent 3 weeks and innumerable emails to Apple to convince them that users were not 
purchasing any products from the company who sponsored the software, nor could they buy 
products from any web site related to the company. We had to answer two different 
purchasing-related questionaires in great detail. They finally relented when we convinced them; 
I changed the prompt to "Checking your library..." and it didn't hurt that we got a different 
reviewer.


Google, who has some similar but less-stringent rules in the Play Store, accepted the app the 
first time without any objections.


Word to the wise: if your app doesn't deal with sales, even indirectly, don't use money-related 
words anywhere. I hope the EU nails them; I consider App Store policies equivalent to 
extortion. Apple holds the majority of mobile users in the U.S. and the App Store is the only 
available outlet for apps. That sounds like a monopoly to me.



On 8/6/20 11:46 AM, JeeJeeStudio via use-livecode wrote:

Hmpff i just read in the news that even Microsoft can't bring out an xcloud
application due to the apple store rules. What a mess. Only Android users
will be able to stream games as mentioned on dutch tweakers.net website. I
think it's going to cost MS to much money to pay Apple ifvthey would bring
out the app on Apple's store.

Op wo 5 aug. 2020 02:10 schreef Richard Gaskin via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com>:


JeeJeeStudio wrote:

  > 1 positive thing then on a thing we don't have in LC and now also is
  > removed...the possibility to put ads in your LC created mobile app...

"Possible" is a big word. It covers nearly everything.

It's possible to use LC Build to support ad network APIs.

It's also possible to find saner ad networks that offer REST APIs in
addition to binary, so devs don't need to commit as much development
time for one vendor.

It's possible but less likely that an app not worth monetizing through
freemiums, direct payment, or other model will earn enough to bring a
positive ROI for the effort of implementing ads.

It's less likely that you'll be able to shoe-horn someone else's ads
into your app design without impairing the user experience.

Lots of things are possible.  Fewer things are likely.

--
   Richard Gaskin
   Fourth World Systems
   Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
   
   ambassa...@fourthworld.comhttp://www.FourthWorld.com


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode




--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software   | http://www.hyperactivesw.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[JeeJeeStudio via use-livecode]

Hmpff i just read in the news that even Microsoft can't bring out an xcloud
application due to the apple store rules. What a mess. Only Android users
will be able to stream games as mentioned on dutch tweakers.net website. I
think it's going to cost MS to much money to pay Apple ifvthey would bring
out the app on Apple's store.

Op wo 5 aug. 2020 02:10 schreef Richard Gaskin via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com>:

> JeeJeeStudio wrote:
>
>  > 1 positive thing then on a thing we don't have in LC and now also is
>  > removed...the possibility to put ads in your LC created mobile app...
>
> "Possible" is a big word. It covers nearly everything.
>
> It's possible to use LC Build to support ad network APIs.
>
> It's also possible to find saner ad networks that offer REST APIs in
> addition to binary, so devs don't need to commit as much development
> time for one vendor.
>
> It's possible but less likely that an app not worth monetizing through
> freemiums, direct payment, or other model will earn enough to bring a
> positive ROI for the effort of implementing ads.
>
> It's less likely that you'll be able to shoe-horn someone else's ads
> into your app design without impairing the user experience.
>
> Lots of things are possible.  Fewer things are likely.
>
> --
>   Richard Gaskin
>   Fourth World Systems
>   Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
>   
>   ambassa...@fourthworld.comhttp://www.FourthWorld.com
>
>
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[Richard Gaskin via use-livecode]

JeeJeeStudio wrote:

> 1 positive thing then on a thing we don't have in LC and now also is
> removed...the possibility to put ads in your LC created mobile app...

"Possible" is a big word. It covers nearly everything.

It's possible to use LC Build to support ad network APIs.

It's also possible to find saner ad networks that offer REST APIs in 
addition to binary, so devs don't need to commit as much development 
time for one vendor.


It's possible but less likely that an app not worth monetizing through 
freemiums, direct payment, or other model will earn enough to bring a 
positive ROI for the effort of implementing ads.


It's less likely that you'll be able to shoe-horn someone else's ads 
into your app design without impairing the user experience.


Lots of things are possible.  Fewer things are likely.

--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World Systems
 Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
 
 ambassa...@fourthworld.comhttp://www.FourthWorld.com


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

RE: ProtonMail vs Apple

[Ralph DiMola via use-livecode]

Or a trailer for sale or rent. Also... you slowly give up your rights and
individuality with every bit of "cradle to grave" security you embrace, be
it in big tech or government.

Ralph DiMola
IT Director
Evergreen Information Services
rdim...@evergreeninfo.net

-Original Message-
From: use-livecode [mailto:use-livecode-boun...@lists.runrev.com] On Behalf
Of Mark Wieder via use-livecode
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2020 3:38 PM
To: Dev via use-livecode
Cc: Mark Wieder
Subject: Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

On 8/4/20 11:39 AM, Dev via use-livecode wrote:

 > I think that the changes being made are actually done from a
protectionist perspective in an increasingly hostile digital world.

The point here, though, is that Apple is now demanding that anything sold
through mobile ads requires a 30% tribute, whether it's sold online or
elsewhere in the real world. This is a different thing from the security
arguments and gets us back to where you can owe your soul to the Company
Store.

-- 
  Mark Wieder
  ahsoftw...@gmail.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[JeeJeeStudio via use-livecode]

1 positive thing then on a thing we don't have in LC and now also is
removed...the possibility to put ads in your LC created mobile app...

Op di 4 aug. 2020 21:38 schreef Mark Wieder via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com>:

> On 8/4/20 11:39 AM, Dev via use-livecode wrote:
>
>  > I think that the changes being made are actually done from a
> protectionist perspective in an increasingly hostile digital world.
>
> The point here, though, is that Apple is now demanding that anything
> sold through mobile ads requires a 30% tribute, whether it's sold online
> or elsewhere in the real world. This is a different thing from the
> security arguments and gets us back to where you can owe your soul to
> the Company Store.
>
> --
>   Mark Wieder
>   ahsoftw...@gmail.com
>
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[Mark Wieder via use-livecode]

On 8/4/20 11:39 AM, Dev via use-livecode wrote:

> I think that the changes being made are actually done from a 
protectionist perspective in an increasingly hostile digital world.


The point here, though, is that Apple is now demanding that anything 
sold through mobile ads requires a 30% tribute, whether it's sold online 
or elsewhere in the real world. This is a different thing from the 
security arguments and gets us back to where you can owe your soul to 
the Company Store.


--
 Mark Wieder
 ahsoftw...@gmail.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[Dev via use-livecode]

It may feel like a monopoly because Apple takes 80% of the profits in the 
overall field of mobile apps. Generally, Android users don’t pay for apps, iOS 
users will. So a choice to NOT develop for iOS has some severe economic 
consequences that a developer has to think about.

There are many complaints about the Apple process when dealing with the App 
Store. I am not a fanboy although I do use Apple products of all kinds, but I 
think that the changes being made are actually done from a protectionist 
perspective in an increasingly hostile digital world. You may complain about 
the walled garden and the ‘Mummy knows best’ perspective that Apple projects, 
but you are the elite of the computing world because you are developers and 
programmers. For the Moms & Pops & Grandparents out there that have no idea how 
this magical device connects them with their grandkids, the safety net is 
essential and required. It might be nice to have a ‘Dev mode’ on the phone 
where you can mess about - but like backdoors in encryption - can it be done 
safely with out the bad guys doing exactly the same to Granny’s phone?

Yes, I’m frustrated by the moving target aspects of developing - especially 
with LiveCode where we always seem to be a version or two behind and playing 
catch up. But on the other hand I feel a whole lot better pointing my parents 
at the Apple App Store and knowing that they will be relatively safe with 
anything in there and that their hardware is also as safe as possible as well. 
If I want to run Linux and do whatever I want with my hardware, that is my 
choice. But I am part of the 1% in wanting to do this, and I can make my own 
choices. I DO NOT want my parents (or grandchildren) to be doing that though. 

Like the TV shows and websites say - Don’t try this at home- leave it to the 
professionals.


> On 4Aug, 2020, at 12:19 PM, Jim Lambert via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> That article is an interesting read.
> 
> Still these two sentences:
> 
> Apple is using its monopoly to hold all of us hostage
> Apple’s iOS controls 25% of the global smartphone market (the other 75%, is 
> largely controlled by Google’s Android).
> 
> are self contradictory. By definition a company with 25% of the market is not 
> a monopoly.
> 
> Jim Lambert
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[JeeJeeStudio via use-livecode]

It's not a contradictory, Apple has Worldwide Monopoly of iOs and the Apple
store.
I don't know any other store for Apple iOs software. (are there?)
As for Android there are multiple stores (yes Google hold the monopoly of
the OS itself)

Op di 4 aug. 2020 om 20:20 schreef Jim Lambert via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com>:

> That article is an interesting read.
>
> Still these two sentences:
>
> Apple is using its monopoly to hold all of us hostage
> Apple’s iOS controls 25% of the global smartphone market (the other 75%,
> is largely controlled by Google’s Android).
>
> are self contradictory. By definition a company with 25% of the market is
> not a monopoly.
>
> Jim Lambert
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[Jim Lambert via use-livecode]

That article is an interesting read.

Still these two sentences:

Apple is using its monopoly to hold all of us hostage
Apple’s iOS controls 25% of the global smartphone market (the other 75%, is 
largely controlled by Google’s Android).

are self contradictory. By definition a company with 25% of the market is not a 
monopoly.

Jim Lambert
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: ProtonMail vs Apple

[JeeJeeStudio via use-livecode]

1 solution :Ban apple and their appstore. Your users use Apple, aah, to 
bad for them.


First they bought overprized hardware...and the rest you know


Op 3-8-2020 om 23:33 schreef Mark Wieder via use-livecode:
...catching up on some reading here. One of my email providers 
(ahsoftw...@protonmail.com) has gone public with some of the 
heavy-handed tactics Apple uses on developers. For example:


"Apple has now even gone so far as to ban apps from the App Store if 
they refuse to offer in-app purchases for paid features that are 
available for purchase elsewhere. In other words, Apple wants a nearly 
one-third cut of your sales, regardless of whether you want to sell on 
their platform or not. This was precisely what happened with Proton."


https://protonmail.com/blog/apple-app-store-antitrust



___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode