4 ms·
I'm tired of seeing Zach's comment reposted as if it's some sort of inspired gospel. Apple is positioning itself as _both_ a platform for applications and serv
by jaaron 16y ago
I'm tired of seeing Zach's comment reposted as if it's some sort of inspired gospel.
Apple is positioning itself as _both_ a platform for applications and services _and_ as a consumer service. The services offered by Netflix, Hulu, Rhapsody, Rdio and so on offer value consumers have time and time shown they are willing to pay for. These are services the content owners (artists), studios and labels do not provide or provide poorly. Claiming they simply "repackage ... artist's content" is misleading.
These services are increasingly cross platform, available on the web, mobile devices, internet connected consumer electronics, game consoles, etc. They add value to those platforms and can complete when the platform is suitably independent. Those platforms provide only a portion of the necessary infrastructure to run a consumer service. Purchasing, bandwidth, hosting, encoding, transcoding, metadata, social networking features, inventory and so forth are typically still maintained by the consumer service itself. They already have these services due to their web presence.
Apple tries to play the game both ways in an increasingly monopolistic fashion. Before you go on and start harping about Android, recall that Microsoft was convicted not because it was the only operating system (it wasn't) but because it used it's market advantage in the OS to restrict competitors in other markets (browsers). Apple is doing the same thing.
It's one thing for Apple to provide competing consumer services. It's another when they intentional block competition on their supposedly independent platform. Keep in mind, as a platform provider, Apple doesn't provide as many services as Zach suggests. They are little more than a payment services provider, though their rates and restrictions are completely out of line with the rest of that market.
Consider for a moment if Apple were to do provide the same APIs and restrictions on all of Mac OS. Applications can only be made available in the Mac App Store. Applications must use Apple's subscription and purchasing API and no other API for purchases. And so on. They have their own browser? Why not offer an API for web apps as well. It would be secure and user friendly.
"Apple takes the place of publishing, distribution, inventory, sales, payments and shipping... Seems reasonable to me." I'm sure it does.
- lotusleaf1987 16y agoMonopolistic? Apple is in no way a monopoly. They have 4% of phone market share. Do you know what a monopoly is? Because based off your comment I don't think you do. "In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / μονος (alone or single) + polein / πωλειν (to sell)) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly So what product does Apple have a monopoly on? Laptops? No. Cell phones? No. Mp3 players? No. App store? No: https://market.android.com/ https://market.android.com/ There are alternatives to Apple, you just don't like them. Apple is a middle man, just like Wal-Mart, eBay, or Amazon who all charge for their service (selling your products). If you don't like it, sell it somewhere else, but calling Apple monopolistic is factually inaccurate and intellectually dishonest. Oh, and the reason I cited Zach's comment, is because the topic whether it's Rhapsody/Spotify/Last.fm/Pandora/Netflix still applies and credit is due to Zach for his spot on comment/analysis of the situation.
- akashs 16y agoActually, before you go putting others down, you should read about how this stuff works. It's highly dependent on what the market ends up being defined as. If you're talking smartphones, Apple certainly has more than 4%. MP3 players, again more than 4%. Tablets, again more than 4%. And if you don't like the app store, Apple prevents you from selling it to customers through other means. So you can't exactly go somewhere else. Customers also just can't pick up and move to Android because of all the money they've spent on apps and content on an iPad. Also, there's plenty of points that have been made as to why Zach's comment isn't necessarily "spot on" across the many times it has been posted. Many of them haven't really been addressed.
- lotusleaf1987 16y agoThere are more Android phones sold than iOS devices every month. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on anything, however they do control/own their app store and they can refuse to sell whatever they want in it. If you don't like it then don't support Apple by buying Apple products, sell your apps on Android. Actions speak louder than words. Also, Jaaron was much more condescending that I was: I'm tired of seeing Zach's comment reposted as if it's some sort of inspired gospel.
- akashs 16y agoKindly explain to me where above I made any mention of Apple having a monopoly. But if you must push me: http://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=apple+mp3+market+share http://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=apple+mp... and http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=apple+tablet+market+share http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8... Now when you're trying to sell apps on those devices, and Apple wants to 30% of anything that is sold for those devices and intentionally blocks out perfectly reasonable businesses, that becomes anti-competitive Edit: Btw, I have stopped. I just bought a DroidX instead of the Verizon iPhone. But that won't get me my $600 back for my iPad or the money for my iTouch. Or the money for the apps I've paid for.
- 16y ago