5 ms·
They're selling a products to their users, sourcing those products from suppliers, and charging a markup for doing so. The problem is that, for whatever reason
by etchalon 6y ago
They're selling a products to their users, sourcing those products from suppliers, and charging a markup for doing so.
The problem is that, for whatever reason, people seem to believe they're entitled to access to Apple's users without any restrictions.
Which is like demanding Walmart stock your CD "because reasons!"
- grey-area 6y agoNo, it's like walmart demanding that suppliers of a house alarm which has an associated subscription (e.g. alert response service) also give them a cut of that subscription, or else.
- etchalon 6y agoI'm fairly certain they do that. In fact, I know they do.
- grey-area 6y agoGot any examples of that? Seems like it should be illegal to me, and it's also nothing like the original analogy.
- etchalon 6y agoI can't be too open, but I work with a firm that makes IoT products, sold at retail, and as part of the contract a retailer was granted a percentage stake in the attached subscription service since otherwise the margins weren't sufficient for them. There's no reason that should be illegal. A contract is a contract is a contract.
- grey-area 6y agoI disagree that any contract is valid - sometimes they're illegal because they abuse the near monopoly power of the retailer to force suppliers into contracts to their detriment - the choice is either accept the draconian terms or go out of business. Very much like Apple's message to hey - nice app you've got there, shame if something were to happen to it. This is why we have (or had) antitrust laws - not every contract is legal and left alone capitalism tends towards abusive monopolies.
- fbelzile 6y agoThey aren't just Apple users. They are people that paid good money for a device that is capable of running code. The person who bought the phone should naturally have the right to run whatever code they want to authorize on that device, regardless of where the code came from. Your Walmart analogy is broken. I think it's more like this: A band that I like released a CD. I buy a CD from one of their live shows. I should have the right to play the CD on my CD player without having to pay 30% of ALL CD sales to the maker of the CD player. I don't mind paying a 30% cut to a store which made it more convenient for me to buy the CD, but I shouldn't HAVE to go to that ONE CD store to buy my CD's.
- kalleboo 6y agoWe're getting into a net neutrality type argument here. Does Apple really own their users? Should they? Why does Netflix feel entitled to access AT&Ts customers? AT&T should get a cut of Netflix's subscription revenue as well!