3 ms·

Apple is not like Tesla; iPhones are often touted as a “luxury brand” but the truth is that they offer products of quality that are roughly in proportion to the

by p49k 7y ago

Apple is not like Tesla; iPhones are often touted as a “luxury brand” but the truth is that they offer products of quality that are roughly in proportion to their pricing, and their high margins are due to better/more efficient operations than their competitors. A phone is such an essential tool in one’s life and priced low enough that it makes sense to invest in a product that is of good quality. Most people can afford iPhones and even poor people can afford used ones. Not many people can afford a Tesla. Unlike a Tesla, you don’t lose a lifetime of app purchases, movies, songs and books when switching products; you don’t lose a major set of functionality between other Tesla owners which would hamper your ability to use your product. I think the “monopsony” is an excellent way to frame the problem. There should be regulation requiring companies like Apple to allow users to sell the apps and other digital content they’ve purchased to others, to allow people to set their own default apps on their own devices and to not hamper the efforts of others to provide interoperability with other devices. These should be common sense consumer rights issues, although at present the only consumer rights-focused entity strong enough to make any of this actually happen is the EU, and I hope they manage to do so.

ubermonkey 7y ago
>you don’t lose a lifetime of app purchases, movies, songs and books when switching products That's a really alarmist (and counterfactual) way of framing this. Yes, if you change computing platforms, you generally need to replace software. OH NO. I don't see a need for regulatory intervention based on that. Deciding to ditch the iPhone for an Android has utterly no bearing on your ability to watch TV or movies purchased from the iTunes store. You can still watch those on an AppleTV, on a Samsung TV, or on your laptop. And obviously on your iPad if you have one of those. Tracks purchased from the iTunes Music Store are yours, period. There's no DRM, so anything that can play AAC will play them fine. You don't lose those if you ditch the iPhone. However, Apple Music is a distinct thing. It's a subscription service like Spotify. If you stop paying for it, you stop getting access to the music you acquired with it. This is neither nefarious nor exploitative. You need a device supported by Apple Music, but it works on Windows, so not seeing the problem here, either. (Though I should note that I wouldn't see a problem even if Apple Music worked only on Apple devices.) Apple is a rounding error in digital books, and I know nothing about it (mostly a Kindle guy). However, if I decide to banish Amazon from my life, I'll lose access to Kindle books I "bought" from Amazon. That was part of the bargain at the time. >There should be regulation requiring companies like Apple to allow users to sell the apps and other digital content they’ve purchased to others, to allow people to set their own default apps on their own devices and to not hamper the efforts of others to provide interoperability with other devices. How far does that go? Would you insist on the right to do the same to any computer-controlled device you purchase from any vendor? Because that seems bananas.
- selectodude 7y ago
  Apple Music even works on Android and the app is pretty darn good.
scarface74 7y ago
Movies - if you buy a music on iTunes from most of the major studios, you can sync your purchases with Amazon Video, Google Play Movies and Vudu using Movies Anywhere. Blame the studios that refuse to cooperate for the ones you can’t. Music - any music you buy from iTunes has been DRM free for over a decade. Books - if that’s a concern, buy ebooks from Amazon - like everyone else dies. As far as buying apps, most money people spend on the App Store is either in app consumables for games or subscriptions that work cross platform. Do you also feel that Nintendo, Microsoft (XBox) and Sony should be equally regulated for controlling distribution over their digital stores? Yes you can but physical discs but even they are digitally signed and have to be approved.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  > Do you also feel that Nintendo, Microsoft (XBox) and Sony should be equally regulated for controlling distribution over their digital stores? It's not about what they put in their own store. It's about not allowing competing stores. And game consoles shouldn't be allowed to do it either.
  - riversflow 7y ago
    I don’t understand the argument for why consumers shouldn’t be allowed to purchase a closed platform. I specifically like Apple products because of the controlled software distribution that’s a huge value add for me. I purchase their products for my parents and know that they can’t mess it up, and I won’t have to troubleshoot their product. Apple isn’t just selling a product but an experience—an experience many people like I might add.
- henryfjordan 7y ago
  With all monopoly/monopsony discussions, it all comes down to the degree to which the monopolist leverages their position. It's not illegal to have a monopoly, only to abuse it. Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony each compete rather vigorously to attract studios to produce games for their platforms. Nintendo classically has ups-and-downs in this arena, given their unconventional hardware choices. The Switch is attracting a lot more devs than the Wii U ever did, for instance. This breaks the theory of monopsony, as there is clearly competition between platforms to acquire games. Contrast that with the App Stores on phones where everything feels incredibly static. Apple and Google are clearly coasting on the fact that there's only 2 phone OSes and you have to use one of them. Besides first-party apple stuff, there are hardly any exclusives. And you never hear about app devs changing platforms. So I would conclude that no, Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony don't need to be regulated because they aren't engaging in anti-consumer behavior. They should be subject to the same standards, of course, but they aren't currently in violation of them like Apple.

by p49k 7y ago

ubermonkey 7y ago

>you don’t lose a lifetime of app purchases, movies, songs and books when switching products That's a really alarmist (and counterfactual) way of framing this. Yes, if you change computing platforms, you generally need to replace software. OH NO. I don't see a need for regulatory intervention based on that. Deciding to ditch the iPhone for an Android has utterly no bearing on your ability to watch TV or movies purchased from the iTunes store. You can still watch those on an AppleTV, on a Samsung TV, or on your laptop. And obviously on your iPad if you have one of those. Tracks purchased from the iTunes Music Store are yours, period. There's no DRM, so anything that can play AAC will play them fine. You don't lose those if you ditch the iPhone. However, Apple Music is a distinct thing. It's a subscription service like Spotify. If you stop paying for it, you stop getting access to the music you acquired with it. This is neither nefarious nor exploitative. You need a device supported by Apple Music, but it works on Windows, so not seeing the problem here, either. (Though I should note that I wouldn't see a problem even if Apple Music worked only on Apple devices.) Apple is a rounding error in digital books, and I know nothing about it (mostly a Kindle guy). However, if I decide to banish Amazon from my life, I'll lose access to Kindle books I "bought" from Amazon. That was part of the bargain at the time. >There should be regulation requiring companies like Apple to allow users to sell the apps and other digital content they’ve purchased to others, to allow people to set their own default apps on their own devices and to not hamper the efforts of others to provide interoperability with other devices. How far does that go? Would you insist on the right to do the same to any computer-controlled device you purchase from any vendor? Because that seems bananas.

selectodude 7y ago
Apple Music even works on Android and the app is pretty darn good.

scarface74 7y ago

Movies - if you buy a music on iTunes from most of the major studios, you can sync your purchases with Amazon Video, Google Play Movies and Vudu using Movies Anywhere. Blame the studios that refuse to cooperate for the ones you can’t. Music - any music you buy from iTunes has been DRM free for over a decade. Books - if that’s a concern, buy ebooks from Amazon - like everyone else dies. As far as buying apps, most money people spend on the App Store is either in app consumables for games or subscriptions that work cross platform. Do you also feel that Nintendo, Microsoft (XBox) and Sony should be equally regulated for controlling distribution over their digital stores? Yes you can but physical discs but even they are digitally signed and have to be approved.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> Do you also feel that Nintendo, Microsoft (XBox) and Sony should be equally regulated for controlling distribution over their digital stores? It's not about what they put in their own store. It's about not allowing competing stores. And game consoles shouldn't be allowed to do it either.
- riversflow 7y ago
  I don’t understand the argument for why consumers shouldn’t be allowed to purchase a closed platform. I specifically like Apple products because of the controlled software distribution that’s a huge value add for me. I purchase their products for my parents and know that they can’t mess it up, and I won’t have to troubleshoot their product. Apple isn’t just selling a product but an experience—an experience many people like I might add.
henryfjordan 7y ago
With all monopoly/monopsony discussions, it all comes down to the degree to which the monopolist leverages their position. It's not illegal to have a monopoly, only to abuse it. Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony each compete rather vigorously to attract studios to produce games for their platforms. Nintendo classically has ups-and-downs in this arena, given their unconventional hardware choices. The Switch is attracting a lot more devs than the Wii U ever did, for instance. This breaks the theory of monopsony, as there is clearly competition between platforms to acquire games. Contrast that with the App Stores on phones where everything feels incredibly static. Apple and Google are clearly coasting on the fact that there's only 2 phone OSes and you have to use one of them. Besides first-party apple stuff, there are hardly any exclusives. And you never hear about app devs changing platforms. So I would conclude that no, Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony don't need to be regulated because they aren't engaging in anti-consumer behavior. They should be subject to the same standards, of course, but they aren't currently in violation of them like Apple.