Except the MacBook Air isn't a tablet. That's the point here. In the Surface Pro, you have a crappy tablet (I.e., laptop level heat) and a crappy laptop (tablet form factor, limited specs, floppy hinge that isn't, you know, actually lap friendly).

If it goes through the iOS store, they pay 30%, if it doesn't, they don't. This is very straightforward.

All in app purchases go through the store. Do you even know how iOS works?

Correct. That doesn't change the fact that in app purchases go through the store, and out of app purchases don't.

So, are you saying you aren't anti-Apple? If that's true, my apologies. I'm glad you don't suffer from the derangement that so many here do.

Regardless, you still don't seem to understand how iOS App Store purchases work. There's nothing wrong with that per se, after all, if you don't use iOS, why should you be expected to? But please have the decency to accept correction.

Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, Spotify, Mog, Evernote... there are countless apps and services that iOS users pay to use without going through the App Store for their subscriptions, and Apple doesn't ask in any way for a cut of those sales. They don't make any requirement, these services aren't sneaking around Apple, Apple specifically allows for this very thing.

And if you want to sell from within the app itself, you have to use the App Store in app purchase system. This is primarily for consistency. As an iOS user, I can be confident that anything I purchase from within an app goes through Apple, whom I trust explicitly with my credit card and my purchases (just as I similarly trust Steam, Amazon, and a few other online services). What I *don't* want (and what Apple doesn't want) is every random app implementing their own storefronts inside of apps. All of a sudden I, as an iOS user, have less confidence in the safety and reliability of my purchases.

You might prefer more freedom. I'm not sure exactly how that will benefit you, but that's not for me to say. It's simply good enough that you (and others) have different preferences. Fair enough. Fortunately, Android is available and does exactly what you want.

So what's to complain about? Is anyone forcing you to use Apple's App Store? I've never heard of that happening.

That's absurd. Apple has provided numbers on how much they've paid out to developers. It's phenomenal.

As for how it is supposed to "suck for developers", that's insane. How exactly does it suck? They have access to the most lucrative mobile app market out there? They have access to sell their apps in more countries than Android? They don't have to rely on ads because people can and do buy their apps on iOS?

But, somehow, this sucks. Sure, if you say so!

That's absurd. Who pays out the most? Apple. There's no debate possible on that fact. iOS users spend more on apps.

This is tiresome. Google makes money on ads. They serve more ads to iOS users than Android users. End of.

What makes you think I'm getting shafted? I'm exceedingly happy with my iOS devices. I'm just reasonably happy with my Android devices. In both cases, I paid my money, and got exactly what I wanted and expected. What's wrong with that?

No, those things all go through the store. That's what in app purchases are. And both Netflix and Hulu allow sign up via iOS (though only on Apple TV right now) which bill through iTunes.

Yes, GameStop does, if you buy subscription cards from their store, just like Apple does if you buy things through their store.

And if you buy directly from Blizzard (or Hulu or Netflix, etc.), then Apple gets no money, just like GameStop doesn't.

Why some people act like Apple shouldn't be able to run their store as they wish, that businesses and consumers don't voluntarily use iOS and buy/sell apps and services on it, is beyond me. After all, I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I suspect most anti-Apple slashdotters do just fine avoiding Apple altogether.

So what's the problem? That other people are spending their own money (happily and voluntarily) in a way you don't approve of? How odd!

Apple doesn't sell houses either. What an inane analogy.

Target will happily sell you a printer, a Kindle, an iPad, etc., all of which lock you to a specific supplier.

Oh, the horror! you act like this is some awful thing.

And, no, Safeway and Target don't do that particular thing, but they have their own rules that they apply to the products they'll sell.

No, they don't. They allow apps that support third-party services. What rock have you been living under?

Hahahaha! You're cherry picking and grasping at straws. iOS is by far the most lucrative platform. You can make money on platforms, and if you can get a niche, you can make more on one platform than the average of another. But it takes a special kind of stupid to say iOS doesn't have, by far, the largest, most financially viable of all the mobile ecosystems.

Your ilk have been saying that for half a decade now, in the face of reality to the contrary. Sure, it may not last forever, but you should at least have e decency to accept the present and the past half-decade, instead of twisting reality to fit your prejudices.

That's demonstrably false. An abused monopoly is generally bad, but monopolies themselves aren't necessarily so. Copyright, for example, is a form of beneficial monopoly.

Developers and consumers are all, voluntarily, taking part in this, and reaping wonderful rewards. Developers make more money than anywhere else, and consumers have the widest array of quality apps and services to choose from.

What planet are you from?

Demonstrably false. Who's getting screwed?

Except they make more. Much, much more. Even Google makes more money from iOS than they make from Android!

Maybe that should clue you into the fact that what's happening is not what you think is happening?

Who are you to tell me what I should like or not? It's none of your fucking business. If you have any evidence I'm being harmed in some way, I'm open to some factual evidence, and not a bunch of twisted logic and subjective preferences which is up for each person to decide for themselves, and are not universal.

Until then, please learn to let people like what they like, while you like what you like.

First off, it's a non sequitur. No government went bankrupt for calling internet access a human right.

Also, how can you say that it's the cause of European bankruptcy, then (incorrectly, as it turns out) that the US is also bankrupt, when it doesn't do the same thing that you are claiming (falsely, again) has bankrupt European nations?

"A bird is not a creature with a beak, a bird is a creature with wings." Both are rights. You're just parroting the silly anti-human nonsense of the conservatives.

No, entitlements, in governance, refers to whether the money apportioned must be spent in a specific way or not.

You first.

You make Orwell proud! Taxes are legal, and cannot be theft. Theft is only a valid term when something is illegal. And discrimination doesn't play into it. Who is being discriminated against?

Things you have to have in order to do something. You need gasoline to drive a (combustion engine) car. You need cheese to make a philly cheesesteak. You need internet access to participate in society. See how that works?

Have to have to live is just one type of need.

Yes, you need those things, to not die (and clothing isn't universally necessary, which is interesting, as neither is the internet).

Man hasn't needed the internet for thousands of years. But many of us now do need it.

There's is absolutely zero chance that Apple would pull Office for iOS simply due to it competing with Pages, Number, and Keynote. Zero

You just restated what he said, you pay on the developer's site, and sign in inside of the app.

Also, you're wrong. You can sign up right inside of Netflix.

This really isn't much of a problem, and it completely bypasses Apple's 30% cut, and is exactly in line with both the letter and intent of Apple's TOS. It's one of the exact ways Apple wants it to work.

I, personally, prefer services that let you sign up inside of the app, like Netflix, though I've never been stopped by having to sign up outside of the app. I just prefer keeping my billing as simple as possible.

It's even funnier that you don't seem to realize that something that has an upside can also have a downside. In fact, that's the norm.

Yes, they do. They can not sell on iOS, they can simply put the app out for free and sell the services outside of the App Store from their own website.

Amazon does this very thing with their Kindle app.

And the user is better off for it! That simplicity is part of the appeal of iOS. One login, one store to keep track of all purchases. No fear in buying an in app purchase from some random game, no having to sign up for each and every developer's personal web storefront just to use their app.

And by doing so, Apple has created the most successful app store ever. Adobe and MS are silly to balk at 30%, when they likely lose more than that selling software discs through third-party stores as it is, and the App Store (and especially, the Mac App Store, for Adobe and MS particularly) has the potential to sell more units
than they sell presently, resulting in greater revenue and profits!

MS has already said the next version of Office will be available through the Mac App Store (though with Office 365, it remains to be seen if this will actually happen), and Adobe sells software through the Mac App Store as well. The only real reason for them to not increase their App Store offerings is if they intend to make their own stores that people have to go through. At which point the user is back where they started, with various annoying stores to have to go through.

It's like Steam, which is great. Then there's GoG and Desura, but that's not too bad, and they offer value that Steam can't match (DRM-free, no central manager you have to use). Now EA's Origin is in the game, with all the annoyance of Steam, but worst in virtually every way.

Man, I absolutely love the peace of mind the App Store gives. And same with Steam. Keep it simple, and users will be far more comfortable and eager to part with their money.

Only for purchases that go through Apple's system. The main difference is that Apple requires all purchases from within the app to use Apple's system. But you can subscribe (for example) to Office 365 through MS's web site, and Apple is perfectly fine with that.

Clearly there's money to be made by Apple, but at its most fundamental level, the impetus of this is to keep things as simple as possible. On iOS, you only ever need enter your credit card once, to someone you trust, and you use one login and password for everything. And you can rest assured that your purchases are safe and from a reliable source, and operate in the same way every time.

Now, certainly, something like Amazon's Kindle app would be a reasonable exception. I do think Apple should allow book purchases inside the app using Amazon's service, not requiring it go through Apple's, if they can do so while avoiding the mess that I'll describe below. Still, it doesn't complicate things for the user, but if all it was was that one app, I think the tradeoff would benefit the users.

But what happens when it's not just Amazon? After all, doesn't it then make sense that Hulu and Netflix can do the same? And next thing you know, it's back to the chaos Apple is trying to avoid. Now to make use of many high-end apps, you have to sign up with Wolfram, with Adobe, with Amazon, with MS, etc. And it's a mess that I, for one, am glad to do away with, and that's one of the major appeals of the App Store and the whole iOS ecosystem.

Some people want different, and what's great is that OS's like Android is there for them. I don't begrudge people or developers for preferring the Android way. Let them have what they prefer, just as they should let me have what I prefer. Using Android, the whole thing is a mess, sure, but perhaps it's the sort of mess some people prefer. Just not me.