But it is impossible to bypass the store for any normal person.
Think about it, you are a normal person who wants to continue to use an application and for some reason the dev has been kicked out of the store (this often happens and the devs often have no idea why or how). You would be frustrated no?
Not to mention the mental stress of the poor devs which are subject to inhuman automated responses, neglect, and abuse by Apple/Google. Apple/Google is essentially shutting down small businesses arbitrarily and remorselessly. The only way action happens is if the dev somehow gets enough attention on sites like this that Apple is forced to act.
These tech monopolies have MORE than enough money for a customer/creator/dev service department - they just don't care, or, perhaps, maliciously use the lack of one to control their platform: "Oops sorry, you have been talking to our super-smart infallible AI, we don't know why its acting this way, but we are sure its right! You have one week to fix the issues - have a nice day!"
So I’m not sure what point you are arguing but it’s either that consumers are stupid and don’t really want a secure phone and walled garden and would want to take that choice away from customers by law.
Or that Apple needs to charge less for access to the App Store while also spending more money (to stop the inhuman auto replies and actions)
Apple has more than enough money to both protect users and actually help developers - it doesn't need to squeeze them. For example, why isn't it a one-time fee for the initial scan? Why must they take a share of every purchase.
Without competition (like gasp competing app stores) Apple will continue to be negligent to devs and ban applications that compete with their services.
For example, the Apple watch without cellular cannot use Spotify in offline mode since that would compete with Apple music. My girlfriend and I had to find this out after the purchase and completely defeated the purpose of buying the product for her workouts.
You start off with Apple has enough money and supposing that you know better how to run a successful App Store than the company with the most successful App Store. Maybe the App Store is so successful because it’s customers are the people that own the phone not the devs. I know I absolutely don’t want competing app stores, that ends with fragmentation and having to deal with a pile of installed app stores to download a couple of apps. It also means that apps will go to the least restrictive stores that let them get away with the shadiest anti-consumer practices.
I’ve not run into the Spotify issue. I don’t listen to music from my watch, but I agree that is annoying. The alternative sounds so much worse and why I stay away from Android.
Lets replace "Apple" in your response with AT&T. "You think you know better how to run a successful phone service than a company with the most successful one?". No, I don't exactly, but I have enough common sense to see that they are doing wrong.
And sure they have the most successful (and only) app store compared to the only other app store.
But yea fragmentation/choice is just awful and without a doubt will lead to a less rich experience... totally
Your reply comes off as very authoritarian and controlling. If you like the app store then you should have the choice to use it. What you are saying is that devs shouldn't have access to other options because you dont understand why they wouldn't use the perfect one already there.
>Your reply comes off as very authoritarian and controlling. If you like the app store then you should have the choice to use it. What you are saying is that devs shouldn't have access to other options because you dont understand why they wouldn't use the perfect one already there.
Oh, I get that the App Store isn't perfect for developers. That's perfectly fine though. My concern is end users, not developers (software developers aren't benevolent actors).
Developers, such as Facebook, haven't exactly conducted themselves in a way to earn my trust. I'm happy to see them ensnared in the App Store's rules (at least the ones pertaining to privacy, security and general user experience). There's a reason you see users (even right here on HN) celebrating when Apple imposes an ever growing risk of privacy policies on developers. It's because users have learned we cannot trust developers.
> For example, the Apple watch without cellular cannot use Spotify in offline mode since that would compete with Apple music.
IIRC this is related to Spotify's music licensing agreements only permitting streaming and not copying of music and has nothing to do with Apple itself. I don't believe there are any technical restrictions preventing Spotify from implementing offline playback on the watch, they simply have chosen not to do so.
What's "reality"? P/E need not have anything to do with NPV, which is the key.
Suppose that I'll charge you $1000 today and next year and then give you $1000/year "forever". The P/E analog this year and next is horrible, but that's a great investment (for you - it's lousy deal for me).
My point is that P/E is only useful when a company is roughly stable now and into the future. If it isn't, P/E is a lousy predictor of NPV.
- 5 years of C/C++ programming experience.
- 3 years of experience in Linux native application development.
- Having experience in QT development is preferred.
I can't confirm what is the motivation behind Ada++, but actual Ada2012 standard and in particular the Ada SPARK (2014) subset is in many ways objectively superior to Rust with regards to memory safety.
One major issue with Ada is that commercial grade compilers are not cheap and for the most part the language was unable to get rid of the stereotype of being an Aerospace/Defense language only.
More importantly the previous discussion on Ada SPARK 2014 'safe pointers' may also be an interesting read for proponents of a Substructural Type System:
There is so little information on the page you linked that I doubt this project is production ready in any shape and form. Ada webdev is already though as it is, I doubt that project can compare to rust.
It is an Ada compiler with modified syntax. The GNAT Ada compiler is used by defense contractors, air traffic controllers, and NVIDIA for some of their internal research.
Think about it, you are a normal person who wants to continue to use an application and for some reason the dev has been kicked out of the store (this often happens and the devs often have no idea why or how). You would be frustrated no?
Not to mention the mental stress of the poor devs which are subject to inhuman automated responses, neglect, and abuse by Apple/Google. Apple/Google is essentially shutting down small businesses arbitrarily and remorselessly. The only way action happens is if the dev somehow gets enough attention on sites like this that Apple is forced to act.
These tech monopolies have MORE than enough money for a customer/creator/dev service department - they just don't care, or, perhaps, maliciously use the lack of one to control their platform: "Oops sorry, you have been talking to our super-smart infallible AI, we don't know why its acting this way, but we are sure its right! You have one week to fix the issues - have a nice day!"