205
Apollo dev released a youtube app for Vision Pro
(christianselig.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2024
205 points (91.2% liked)
Apple
17525 readers
7 users here now
Welcome
to the largest Apple community on Lemmy. This is the place where we talk about everything Apple, from iOS to the exciting upcoming Apple Vision Pro. Feel free to join the discussion!
Rules:
- No NSFW Content
- No Hate Speech or Personal Attacks
- No Ads / Spamming
Self promotion is only allowed in the pinned monthly thread
Communities of Interest:
Apple Hardware
Apple TV
Apple Watch
iPad
iPhone
Mac
Vintage Apple
Apple Software
iOS
iPadOS
macOS
tvOS
watchOS
Shortcuts
Xcode
Community banner courtesy of u/Antsomnia.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That's exactly the vocality I'm referring to.
Except your characterization of it is a lie.
He never said anything that could possibly be interpreted as being against paying for access to content, or as a subscription to an ongoing service being in any way inappropriate.
It's not a lie.
I'm asserting two things:
He formerly produced a free app that was very popular.
He openly discussed the the API pricing changes destroyed the model Apollo was operating on.
He did plenty of monetization on the app, and made good money with it with volume that doesn't exist on Vision Pro. He never said anything implying apps don't deserve to be paid for.
In literally every discussion he ever had about the API pricing change, he said that he entirely supported their need to monetize the API. His issues were not any sort of issue with the premise of the API changes. It was the specific nature of the API changes very obviously being for the sole purpose of making using the API to make an app impossible, when the app ecosystem was the entire reason Reddit was successful to begin with.
You said I lied and I didn't. Retract that.
My assertions are consistent from comment 1
Absolutely not. Your statement does not have anything in common with the truth.
Quote the exact words in my first comment that are untruthful
All of it. He was never an advocate for software being free or against the right of companies to monetize their API in any context. He was against a specific company using "monetizing" their API as an excuse to make it impossible for third party apps to exist.
His position has not changed in any way and there is nothing that is in any way consistent between any of his statements or behavior.
I never said he "advocated" anything.
You're arguing in bad faith. You are being toxic.
I asserted some very basic things about how people may be familiar with this person, and you abstracted a whole fight.
-He made a free app.
-He gained greater public visibility during the reddit API price changes.
Those are fucking facts, and those are quite clear in my original comment.
I never claimed he was a champion of "free".
No, you are.
Your presentation implied he owed someone something because he made an app that had a free version once.
It absolutely is not, and does not resemble, "fair" to complain that a guy followed the bare minimum rules for an app to be allowed to exist.
"no u"
Followed by an assumption.
Great stuff.
It's possibly fair you misunderstood me the first time, not everyone is a great reader, or ESL, or any other reason. .
But you persisted after clarification, after I called on you to cite my words, not continue to invent your own. (Ex: you claiming I said he "advocated" for certain practices.) That's toxic.
I'm done with you. I've made my position very clear, and you've don't nothing but bloviate your own issues and reality, rather than what's written.
Cya
Notice how all of the replies are calling out the exact same malicious horseshit I did?
But sure , it's because I can't read, not because you wrote something bashing someone for doing literally nothing wrong.
What replies? You're the only one speaking to me on this matter.
Holy shit, do you think I'm someone else?