6 ms·

> Apple adds no value there Other than inventing the modern phone, writing the operating system and developer tools, running the store, manufacturing the phone

> Apple adds no value there Other than inventing the modern phone, writing the operating system and developer tools, running the store, manufacturing the phones people are consuming Amazon's product on and convincing people to buy them...you can argue about what's "fair," but Apple's certainly adding value.

gameswithgo 8y ago
Anything is fair, but I don't like things that only allow app stores as a first class way to get software on my machine. I have voted with my wallet. But it is getting harder to do so, soon only linux will be left.
- dkonofalski 8y ago
  That's fine but you're not really the intended market for the App Stores. App Stores are for the people that click "Yes" to everything and end up with Internet Explorer as a strip of their screen because they have 42 toolbars installed. Those people undoubtedly like app stores precisely for being the only way to get software on their machines.
  - voltagex_ 8y ago
    I dunno - I much prefer the Microsoft app store on Windows for simple applications that I don't need to customise much. It's quicker than finding the right exe and keeping it up to date myself.
earenndil 8y ago
All of those except 'running the store' are value paid for in the purchase of the phone, not the software on it.
- bovine3dom 8y ago
  Money is fungible. I would be very surprised if Apple didn't regard revenue from the App Store as partially due to their investment in the iPhone.
- Buge 8y ago
  Why? Is it wrong to sell a phone at low cost and charge more for apps? Video game consoles sometimes are sold at a loss in order to make money from games. It's similar to Fortnite's model: sell the game at a low cost (free actually), and then make money from inessential addons (skins).
  - jjeaff 8y ago
    If that were the case, no, nothing wrong... But apple is making a huge markup on their $1200 phones. They aren't making up a loss with their app store. They're just piling on the cash.
    - Buge 8y ago
      Would it be wrong of apple to make the app store fee 5% and then increase the phone price whatever percent is necessary to make up that loss? Would that be considered piling on the cash?
      - jjeaff 8y ago
        At least then, buyers get a more realistic view of total cost of ownership up front, rather than hiding the rest of the profits in the pricing of other people's apps.
  - earenndil 8y ago
    It's fine for a company to sell hardware/os at a loss and recoup the costs with apps, if they predict that they'll make more money that way. However, it's not reasonable for them to, say, refuse me service on the os because all I bought was a hardware+os, not any apps. Nor is it reasonable for them to make me, an app-maker, bear the brunt of the os, since I have nothing to do with the os, just the app store.
    - Buge 8y ago
      If I buy a smart fridge, even though it has a computer in it, I don't expect to be able to install arbitrary software on it in a supported manner. Apple doesn't advertise as a computing platform for everything, they advertise as having a whitelist of apps, and that's what they provide. I don't want a phone with a whitelist, so I don't buy iOS phones. But some people do want that type of product, and do buy them. You do have something to do with the os. Your app is running on the os.
dingaling 8y ago
> Other than inventing the modern phone IBM Simon, 1992. Applr popularised, they didn't invent. Ironically given the target of their 1984 ad.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- binomialxenon 8y ago
  The ridiculously tall screen was certainly ahead of its time.
FireBeyond 8y ago
> Other than inventing the modern phone Come on now. > writing the operating system Which OS, iOS, that the phone purchaser inherently paid for? Or macOS, that the computer purchaser inherently paid for? > developer tools Which you need to purchase a developer license for to be useful. Apple is adding value, AND double dipping. Most of your examples are things they've already been compensated for.
- CamperBob2 8y ago
  Come on now. They invented the app ecosystem, which is far more important than just inventing a phone. Without Apple, the application market would still be controlled by Sprint and AT&T and Verizon. Not defending Apple or attacking it, just pointing out the facts.
  - rohit2412 8y ago
    And how is Apple's walled app store any better than the alternative of at&t controlled app store? They can keep their 30% cut if they allow me to sideload apps from external sources.
    - orbitur 8y ago
      > And how is Apple's walled app store any better than the alternative of at&t controlled app store? I don't know if you've used an iPhone, but do you really think AT&T's walled garden would have anything approaching the quality of the best apps on the App Store?
      - CamperBob2 8y ago
        He or she is probably just young. No one who was there would ask a question like that, even rhetorically. Sadly, people have forgotten how much life sucked for mobile developers before the iPhone. Apple's contribution is reflected in various peoples' prejudices and agendas, but not in history books. Only Nixon could go to China, and only Jobs could have stared down AT&T from a position of weakness. I'm not an Apple partisan, and I'm definitely not going to defend the concept of locking a general-purpose computing platform away from its own users, but I'll always give him credit for that.
kartan 8y ago
> but Apple's certainly adding value. Do roads add value? Should trucks pay a 30% of their cargo retail price in road tolls? I agree with your point that Apple adds value. I just do not see that as a justification to take a 30% share of all apps that run on their devices.
- greedo 8y ago
  Trucks pay fees based on the load they're carrying...
  - fjsolwmv 8y ago
    The weight, not the price.
- 1123581321 8y ago
  Comparing distribution of physical goods is a poor analogy as the variable costs are high, and low or zero for App Store developers. We know from tariffs that a 30% fee on mining or manufacturing increases costs and reduces trade, but despite Apple’s 30%, the cost of an app has been driven down. This suggests that a high revenue share of a software sale is viable in a way that a high revenue share of a truck load is not.
  - kartan 8y ago
    > This suggests that a high revenue share of a software sale is viable in a way that a high revenue share of a truck load is not. This is a good point. But I would rather see this apps more highly taxed than to allow monopolistic empires to grow.
    - 1123581321 8y ago
      Sorry, are you saying you’d like App Store software taxed enough that sales are low and it’s not viable for Apple to make money, forcing them to allow an unregulated open market if they want a meaningful number of apps on their phones? It’s an interesting idea, but I think the opportunity cost early on would have been that entire software market. And the opportunity cost now would be killing a large percentage of businesses that sell software to that market that can’t afford to handle distribution themselves. This quickly gets into the debate about whether it’s better to have large and many small companies or no large and few small companies.

gameswithgo 8y ago

Anything is fair, but I don't like things that only allow app stores as a first class way to get software on my machine. I have voted with my wallet. But it is getting harder to do so, soon only linux will be left.

dkonofalski 8y ago
That's fine but you're not really the intended market for the App Stores. App Stores are for the people that click "Yes" to everything and end up with Internet Explorer as a strip of their screen because they have 42 toolbars installed. Those people undoubtedly like app stores precisely for being the only way to get software on their machines.
- voltagex_ 8y ago
  I dunno - I much prefer the Microsoft app store on Windows for simple applications that I don't need to customise much. It's quicker than finding the right exe and keeping it up to date myself.

earenndil 8y ago

All of those except 'running the store' are value paid for in the purchase of the phone, not the software on it.

bovine3dom 8y ago
Money is fungible. I would be very surprised if Apple didn't regard revenue from the App Store as partially due to their investment in the iPhone.
Buge 8y ago
Why? Is it wrong to sell a phone at low cost and charge more for apps? Video game consoles sometimes are sold at a loss in order to make money from games. It's similar to Fortnite's model: sell the game at a low cost (free actually), and then make money from inessential addons (skins).
- jjeaff 8y ago
  If that were the case, no, nothing wrong... But apple is making a huge markup on their $1200 phones. They aren't making up a loss with their app store. They're just piling on the cash.
  - Buge 8y ago
    Would it be wrong of apple to make the app store fee 5% and then increase the phone price whatever percent is necessary to make up that loss? Would that be considered piling on the cash?
    - jjeaff 8y ago
      At least then, buyers get a more realistic view of total cost of ownership up front, rather than hiding the rest of the profits in the pricing of other people's apps.
- earenndil 8y ago
  It's fine for a company to sell hardware/os at a loss and recoup the costs with apps, if they predict that they'll make more money that way. However, it's not reasonable for them to, say, refuse me service on the os because all I bought was a hardware+os, not any apps. Nor is it reasonable for them to make me, an app-maker, bear the brunt of the os, since I have nothing to do with the os, just the app store.
  - Buge 8y ago
    If I buy a smart fridge, even though it has a computer in it, I don't expect to be able to install arbitrary software on it in a supported manner. Apple doesn't advertise as a computing platform for everything, they advertise as having a whitelist of apps, and that's what they provide. I don't want a phone with a whitelist, so I don't buy iOS phones. But some people do want that type of product, and do buy them. You do have something to do with the os. Your app is running on the os.

dingaling 8y ago

> Other than inventing the modern phone IBM Simon, 1992. Applr popularised, they didn't invent. Ironically given the target of their 1984 ad.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
binomialxenon 8y ago
The ridiculously tall screen was certainly ahead of its time.

FireBeyond 8y ago

> Other than inventing the modern phone Come on now. > writing the operating system Which OS, iOS, that the phone purchaser inherently paid for? Or macOS, that the computer purchaser inherently paid for? > developer tools Which you need to purchase a developer license for to be useful. Apple is adding value, AND double dipping. Most of your examples are things they've already been compensated for.

CamperBob2 8y ago
Come on now. They invented the app ecosystem, which is far more important than just inventing a phone. Without Apple, the application market would still be controlled by Sprint and AT&T and Verizon. Not defending Apple or attacking it, just pointing out the facts.
- rohit2412 8y ago
  And how is Apple's walled app store any better than the alternative of at&t controlled app store? They can keep their 30% cut if they allow me to sideload apps from external sources.
  - orbitur 8y ago
    > And how is Apple's walled app store any better than the alternative of at&t controlled app store? I don't know if you've used an iPhone, but do you really think AT&T's walled garden would have anything approaching the quality of the best apps on the App Store?
    - CamperBob2 8y ago
      He or she is probably just young. No one who was there would ask a question like that, even rhetorically. Sadly, people have forgotten how much life sucked for mobile developers before the iPhone. Apple's contribution is reflected in various peoples' prejudices and agendas, but not in history books. Only Nixon could go to China, and only Jobs could have stared down AT&T from a position of weakness. I'm not an Apple partisan, and I'm definitely not going to defend the concept of locking a general-purpose computing platform away from its own users, but I'll always give him credit for that.

kartan 8y ago

> but Apple's certainly adding value. Do roads add value? Should trucks pay a 30% of their cargo retail price in road tolls? I agree with your point that Apple adds value. I just do not see that as a justification to take a 30% share of all apps that run on their devices.

greedo 8y ago
Trucks pay fees based on the load they're carrying...
- fjsolwmv 8y ago
  The weight, not the price.
1123581321 8y ago
Comparing distribution of physical goods is a poor analogy as the variable costs are high, and low or zero for App Store developers. We know from tariffs that a 30% fee on mining or manufacturing increases costs and reduces trade, but despite Apple’s 30%, the cost of an app has been driven down. This suggests that a high revenue share of a software sale is viable in a way that a high revenue share of a truck load is not.
- kartan 8y ago
  > This suggests that a high revenue share of a software sale is viable in a way that a high revenue share of a truck load is not. This is a good point. But I would rather see this apps more highly taxed than to allow monopolistic empires to grow.
  - 1123581321 8y ago
    Sorry, are you saying you’d like App Store software taxed enough that sales are low and it’s not viable for Apple to make money, forcing them to allow an unregulated open market if they want a meaningful number of apps on their phones? It’s an interesting idea, but I think the opportunity cost early on would have been that entire software market. And the opportunity cost now would be killing a large percentage of businesses that sell software to that market that can’t afford to handle distribution themselves. This quickly gets into the debate about whether it’s better to have large and many small companies or no large and few small companies.