I’m breaking one of my biggest rules..

[poochyena]

1 hour ago, Blademaster91 said:

Apple has a monopoly on their OS and hardware, you can't sideload apps, or repair your own device.

1 hour ago, tkitch said:

in terms of app stores you can use on the platform, it's a monopoly

3 hours ago, iLikeBananas said:

Apple has a monopoly on iOS devices.

That doesn't mean they have a monopoly. Android is their competitor, and any app on ios can be ported to android. Developers have the choice to develop for iphone and android. The term I think you all are looking for is "walled garden", not monopoly. They aren't the only company selling apps for smartphone devices. Its not a monopoly just because they are the only ones selling apps on their own device.

[Spotty]

1 hour ago, dragonkyng said:

Linus, charge for Floatplane through Apple and raise the price. Instead of 5, make it $6.50. I promise more people will sign up for it. 

Charging more through the Apple App store [to offset the 30% cut Apple takes] is against Apple's terms and they will block the app from being available on the app store. Since you can't sideload on Apple devices being blocked from the App store means you wouldn't be able to make your service available to Apple users.

 

To be able to have the app on the App store they would either need to raise the price for everybody or eat the 30% loss. Raising the price or eating the cost wouldn't help because Floatplane already has a revenue split they have to provide to creators. It isn't public what the creator cut on Floatplane is but based on the split creators get on other similar services we could probably assume it's likely somewhere between 50% and 70% to the creator. If the creator gets 70% and Apple gets 30% that leaves nothing for Floatplane. If you raise the price to $6.50 then the creator takes 70% of $6.50 and Apple takes 30% of $6.50 which still leaves Floatplane with nothing. Raising the price does not fix the problem. The only way it would be feasible is if you increase the price for everybody and reduce the revenue share that creators get. All for what? The personal convenience of clicking subscribe through the app store instead subscribing through a separate web page?

I'd rather my money go to the creators I want to support.

 

* Edit:To add I actually don't know how Floatplane's revenue split with creators work; if it's a percentage based cut or if there's a flat fee Floatplane takes (eg. $2 from every sub) and then it's up to the creator to set the subscription price above that to determine their cut.

Edited March 28, 2023 by Spotty

[mykeworthy]

4 minutes ago, Spotty said:

Charging more through the Apple App store [to offset the 30% cut Apple takes] is against Apple's terms and they will block the app from being available on the app store. Since you can't sideload on Apple devices being blocked from the App store means you wouldn't be able to make your service available to Apple users.

I didn’t know that. I’d have to check that myself. All I know is Spotify did it for years. Then they stopped.

 

5 minutes ago, Spotty said:

If the creator gets 70% and Apple gets 30% that leaves nothing for Floatplane.

No because that would go to Floatplane who would then pay the creator. 
 

6 minutes ago, Spotty said:

The personal convenience of clicking subscribe through the app store instead subscribing through a separate web page?

I'd rather my money go to the creators I want to support.

If they can increase the price and not be banned (again I’ll check that) then they are still getting the same support, and like I said, I guarantee there people like me who would be more likely to pay for it if it was offered through Apple. So the creators would get more support. And it’s the customer paying more for convenience. 
 

I just read through the applicable terms of service for app developers and it looks like there is no rule about not being able to charge different amounts vs what you offer off site. Not saying it’s not a rule just I can’t find it. Love a source so I can be assured one way or the other.

[Spotty]

9 minutes ago, dragonkyng said:

I just read through the applicable terms of service for app developers and it looks like there is no rule about not being able to charge different amounts vs what you offer off site. Not saying it’s not a rule just I can’t find it. Love a source so I can be assured one way or the other.

I just had a quick look through the guidelines and I can't see it mentioned either, so I may have been mistaken. I had anecdotally heard app developers say that they couldn't charge more for App store users to offset Apple's cut, but that may have been from the sense that it would be bad for business to do so rather than being strictly prohibited by Apple.

 

[crazzp]

34 minutes ago, Spotty said:

Charging more through the Apple App store [to offset the 30% cut Apple takes] is against Apple's terms and they will block the app from being available on the app store.

They have since changed this rule after the Epic saga.

 

It used to read:

 

Quote

"11.13 Apps can read or play approved content (magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video) that is sold outside of the app, for which Apple will not receive any portion of the revenues, provided that the same content is also offered in the app using IAP at the same price or less than it is offered outside the app. This applies to both purchased content and subscriptions."

 

The guideline now reads:

 

Quote

"11.14 Apps can read or play approved content (specifically magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, and video) that is subscribed to or purchased outside of the app, as long as there is no button or external link in the app to purchase the approved content. Apple will not receive any portion of the revenues for approved content that is subscribed to or purchased outside of the app."

 

Linus and Luke were pissed at Apple's way of forcing developers to use their in-app payment method (taking the 30% hit) without letting users know of other ways of payment. It was kind of a monopoly in this case as it's either in-app purchase through Apple or NO in-app purchasing. 

[VinLAURiA]

Discord took over because it was able to replace everything in a really cohesive way. I've used AIM. And Skype. And Mumble. And IRC. And Steam's built-in chat client. And even Trillian, the previous attempt to unify all those existing services into one thing. I remember what messaging services used to be like and they sucked. Even at the time there was a constant feeling of "are we sure there isn't a better way to do this...?" In the voice services camp especially, you either had had apps like Skype that looked nice and were easy to use but ran like dogwater, or ones like Ventrilo or Mumble that were more lightweight and powerful but their usability fell between the GoldSrc SDK and Richard Stallman's wet dreams (i.e. the more arcane and user-unfriendly it is, the more GNU+HiTechnicaaaal it is).

 

But Discord came along, had a clean break from everything prior while unifying their functionalities instead, and had a good UI while also running well. To borrow a cliché, it just worked, and at so many things that it just became a no-brainer. And yeah, there are other Discord-esque services like Matrix and Guilded now, but nothing's been the quantum leap that Discord was. Honestly, I think the only reason Zoom took off despite Discord's presence was because "Discord" was too hard to remember for the tech-unsavvy during COVID.

[mykeworthy]

5 minutes ago, Spotty said:

I just had a quick look through the guidelines and I can't see it mentioned either, so I may have been mistaken. I had anecdotally heard app developers say that they couldn't charge more for App store users to offset Apple's cut, but that may have been from the sense that it would be bad for business to do so rather than being strictly prohibited by Apple.

 

If it is bad for business, then I could understand that. YouTube still does (just checked) so I figured it must still be a viable option. And as I said, I’d be willing to pay extra as a consumer for the convenience and never felt like a company charging more on iOS was bad for doing so. 

[mykeworthy]

8 minutes ago, crazzp said:

They have since changed this rule after the Epic saga.

 

It used to read:

 

 

The guideline now reads:

 

 

Linus and Luke were pissed at Apple's way of forcing developers to use their in-app payment method (taking the 30% hit) without letting users know of other ways of payment. It was kind of a monopoly in this case as it's either in-app purchase through Apple or NO in-app purchasing. 

So it was but isn’t anymore. Okay, thanks.

 

(apparently quoted quotes disappear. Okay cool awesome.)

[HenrySalayne]

7 hours ago, Ubersonic said:

Gotta agree with the guy who said the EU were wrong to force USB-C on Apple.  I'm not a fan of Apple but people seem to have short memories, USB-C was not the high speed replacement for micro USB, that was Micro USB 3.0 (an enlarged micro USB port that was still single sided).  The only reason USB-C exists in the first place is because Apple brought out Lightning and embarrassed the USB Implementers Forum into creating a knee jerk reaction port to compete.  Forcing Apple to use USB-C is absolutely going to limit innovation as the only people allowed to innovate a replacement will be the consortium with a track record of **** poor innovation

Apple is not only a member of the USB-IF, they contributed to USB-C and they were among the first to widely adopt the connector. They did it without any external pressure on all their devices except the iPhone.

7 hours ago, Ubersonic said:

people seem to have short memories

And it's a good idea to not fill in the gaps with your imagination.

[Spotty]

23 minutes ago, crazzp said:

They have since changed this rule after the Epic saga.

 

It used to read:

 

 

The guideline now reads:

 

 

Linus and Luke were pissed at Apple's way of forcing developers to use their in-app payment method (taking the 30% hit) without letting users know of other ways of payment. It was kind of a monopoly in this case as it's either in-app purchase through Apple or NO in-app purchasing. 

Thanks for the explanation. Good to know I wasn't just imagining it even if my info was outdated and no longer applicable. It's good to see they've changed that, though it's still not consumer friendly preventing apps from providing external payments as an option.

 

22 minutes ago, dragonkyng said:

No because that would go to Floatplane who would then pay the creator. 

Yeah, good point. I worked that out in an unrealistic way trying to preserve the revenue the creator would take.

Floatplane and the creator would still be taking a much smaller cut.

 

If the subscription is $5 and there's a 70/30 Creator/Floatplane split then the creator gets $3.50 and Floatplane gets $1.50.

With Apple's cut the $5 subscription leaves only $3.50 left for the Creator and Floatplane which would be a split of $2.45 and $1.05. Floatplane and the creator would have to eat the cost of Apple's tax. It's likely that wouldn't be sustainable for Floatplane or the creator.

 

To keep the same cut for creators and Floatplane the price to Apple customers would need to be increased to $7.15

Apple's 30% cut would be $2.15 leaving the $5 to split between Floatplane and the creator.

 

(*Again that's assuming it's a percentage based cut between Floatplane & Creator and not a flat fee)

 

You might see the value in paying Apple $2.15 a month to subscribe to Floatplane through the app but I don't think many others would see the value in it. I think most people willing to pay extra would rather that going to the creator.

 

It's also worth mentioning Google Play Store also takes a cut from purchases made through apps. It's not just an Apple problem. Though I believe Google is more open to allowing other payment methods plus Android allows sideloading so companies could do what Epic did if they didn't want to go through the Play store.

[mykeworthy]

5 minutes ago, Spotty said:

To keep the same cut for creators and Floatplane the price to Apple customers would need to be increased to $7.15

Apple's 30% cut would be $2.15 leaving the $5 to split between Floatplane and the creator.

Ahh you’re right, I did my math wrong. I worked the equation from the wrong end. 

 

6 minutes ago, Spotty said:

You might see the value in paying Apple $2.15 a month to subscribe to Floatplane through the app but I don't think many others would see the value in it.

I don’t think everyone would but I think enough to give people the option. But that’s my opinion. It’s worked for Google as YT Premium is still offered on Apple. 
 

7 minutes ago, Spotty said:

It's also worth mentioning Google Play Store also takes a cut from purchases made through apps. It's not just an Apple problem. Though I believe Google is more open to allowing other payment methods plus Android allows sideloading so companies could do what Epic did if they didn't want to go through the Play store.

They do allow alternate billing but so far it seems case by case basis. So a large and arguably essential app like Spotify gets to offer it, but a smaller creator might not. Again though this is just from my research I could be wrong. 

[HenrySalayne]

3 minutes ago, Spotty said:

It's also worth mentioning Google Play Store also takes a cut from purchases made through apps.

The outrages part was / is Apple's 30% cut on subscriptions (now only for 12 month, then it is reduced to 15%).

 

 

[mykeworthy]

16 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

The outrages part was / is Apple's 30% cut on subscriptions (now only for 12 month, then it is reduced to 15%).

 

 

Bonus hot take, you can’t get someone to stay on for a year, you didn’t offer a good enough service and probably should get out of the subscription game 

[HenrySalayne]

1 minute ago, dragonkyng said:

Bonus hot take, you can’t get someone to stay on for a year, you didn’t offer a good enough service and probably should get out of the subscription game 

How is this relevant?

[mykeworthy]

4 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

How is this relevant?

It’s a hot take 

[Senzelian]

Another justification for motion blur are racing games. Motion blur can increase the perceived speed of the car significantly.

[AndreiArgeanu]

14 hours ago, terroralpha said:

no one who actually has the option of using nvidia ever chooses to use an AMD GPU.

Nope. I got an RX 480, and now I have a 5700XT, bought with my own money.

[AndreiArgeanu]

11 hours ago, Ubersonic said:

The only reason USB-C exists in the first place is because Apple brought out Lightning and embarrassed the USB Implementers Forum into creating a knee jerk reaction port to compete.  Forcing Apple to use USB-C is absolutely going to limit innovation as the only people allowed to innovate a replacement will be the consortium with a track record of **** poor innovation

If USB C was a knee jerk reaction, it wouldn't have taken 2 whole years to even release to market, never mind be implemented. I see nothing wrong with USB C at the moment, even apple themselves uses it and it's good for high power and bandwidth applications with USB 4 and USB PD. The only thing that I could potentially see improving past this in the future is a wireless technology, not another port to add to the pile.

[GodAtum]

Wireless earbuds are stupid. I've lost a pair down the drain when I sneezed! Also my friend was happy slapped and his fell out and broke.

 

Regarding gaming on the go, yes when I was a kid I loved my gameboy. But as an adult who spends 4 hours commuting each day I'm not interested in any of the mobile games. I prefer to read a book or watch a show.

[kumicota]

A hot take. People when defending apple agains the EU rule against type C, often says things like, that a country shouldn't mess with a company or that my company, my rules, if you don't like, go to Android.

 

Without taking in consideration that every country messes with companies, that's why you have a dozen of safety rules printed on your charger and on the device. Why does the argument "My company, my rule" applies but "My country, my rules" doesn't?

 

If one of the arguments of Apple defenders is that "People have a choice, they can go to Android", then Apple has a choice, leave EU

[dogwitch]

14 hours ago, mononymous said:

How useful raytracing can be would highly depend on the types of games you play. Therefore I would disagree with your absolutist argument. For example in the game The Finals, other technologies (eg. HDR) and game mechanics (eg. destructible levels) which makes ray traced global illumination a useful asset for developers and makes the gameplay more immersive for the player. 

hdr has already been talk about on ltt and another channel. most display cant  hit the spec req for it. also its a chain from display to gpu, software etc.

[mononymous]

19 minutes ago, dogwitch said:

hdr has already been talk about on ltt and another channel. most display cant  hit the spec req for it. also its a chain from display to gpu, software etc.

Miswrote the sentence. I meant the combining the raytracing tech with other "new" methods should grant useful immersion techniques. Although I seemed to have imagined the part where The Finals has HDR which it doesn't, regardless I was meant to say:

 

How useful raytracing can be would highly depend on the types of games you play. Therefore I would disagree with your absolutist argument. For example in the game The Finals, combining with other technologies (eg. HDR) and game mechanics (eg. destructible levels) which makes ray traced global illumination a useful asset for developers and makes the gameplay more immersive for the player. 

 

Your point on how most displays can't hit HDR spec may be moot as the original poster I was referring to owns an RTX 4090. I don't think it's too farfetched to assume that the person also owns an HDR display. I do want some clarification on why having it within the chain of processes "from display to gpu, software etc." makes HDR irrelevant to the implementation of raytracing.

 

[dogwitch]

1 hour ago, mononymous said:

Miswrote the sentence. I meant the combining the raytracing tech with other "new" methods should grant useful immersion techniques. Although I seemed to have imagined the part where The Finals has HDR which it doesn't, regardless I was meant to say:

 

How useful raytracing can be would highly depend on the types of games you play. Therefore I would disagree with your absolutist argument. For example in the game The Finals, combining with other technologies (eg. HDR) and game mechanics (eg. destructible levels) which makes ray traced global illumination a useful asset for developers and makes the gameplay more immersive for the player. 

 

Your point on how most displays can't hit HDR spec may be moot as the original poster I was referring to owns an RTX 4090. I don't think it's too farfetched to assume that the person also owns an HDR display. I do want some clarification on why having it within the chain of processes "from display to gpu, software etc." makes HDR irrelevant to the implementation of raytracing.

 

that why i did not mention the rt part. on chain for hdr.

nowt atm rt tech still not their. when we have to use dlss as a crutch for the tech to hit passable fram rates

 

[EricX2]

As far as the USB Type C being mandatory for the EU, that's for charging, any coincidence with it leading to better data transfer is completely irrelevant. If Apple wanted to put a Type C charging port with a charger in the box but wired it only to charge the phone and still left the lightning port on or removed any data ports completely, they would be perfectly legal.

 

Quote

USB-C will become the standard in the EU. The law to make USB-C the universal charging cable for phones in the European Union starting in 2024

In other words, the argument about how much better at DATA transfer is just a happy accident.

[flameout]

Oh dear... missed the point on the Linux thing. Many office printers run on a version of Android, but that's not what people mean when they talk about Android devices. Obvious the point was about people running it on laptops and desktops with a popular consumer distro like Ubuntu. And yes, that will never catch on.

 

Missing micro-USB though... you sick, sick man.