11 ms·

"Whining" is an overly prejudicial word choice for this title. These are legitimate issues people have with what Apple is doing, not mere whining. This echoes

"Whining" is an overly prejudicial word choice for this title. These are legitimate issues people have with what Apple is doing, not mere whining. This echoes the "if you don't like it so much then just leave instead of speaking up" dismissal that is so commonly used as a lampshade for suppressing dissent. Not sure if that's the intent here but that's what it comes off as. And this point from the article needs to be strongly rebutted: > I don’t know, it seems silly to me to cry about monopolies. The solution is obvious. Stop making apps for iOS. Sure, you’re going to take a huge hit without access to those consumers [...] This guy doesn't understand what monopolies are and how they work. The whole point is that there are no other alternatives, so you literally cannot "just stop using them". "Just stop patronizing the monopoly" is not a strategy that has ever been successful. The monopoly needs to be broken up.

Lammy 6y ago
The author changing "Hey" to "Yo" was also a poor choice considering: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yo_(app) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yo_(app)
- cryptoz 6y ago
  I thought this was actually about Yo again! Had me tricked out they were relevant again.
- rob74 6y ago
  Maybe he should have used "Let's go" instead...
- ilrwbwrkhv 6y ago
  It's fine, you did understand it was Hey didn't you?
  - Lammy 6y ago
    I understand it today with the knowledge of current events fresh in my mind, but it won't age well.
izzydata 6y ago
I'd imagine significant changes in the market is the best way to get Apple to do anything. If people keep buying and using all their products then they will keep doing what their doing.
lordleft 6y ago
Agreed. There's a false dichotomy here. You can use a product, and as a stakeholder demand change. Refraining from using the product entirely is one way to achieve that, but it's not the only way. Many products evolve because of user-feedback.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  > Many products evolve because of user-feedback. And regulation. See GDPR and CCPA.
  - pathseeker 6y ago
    Yes, but those two examples don't have a particularly great track record. Regulation tends to be a very blunt hammer that might only partially address the problem while introducing a bunch of others (e.g. cookie banners).
    - toomuchtodo 6y ago
      Support better regulation. More effective than complaining.
- diffctx99 6y ago
  You’re not a stakeholder for buying a computer. You seem to have a very confused view of the consumer role legally and historically. Giving them money for a product does not give you a real voice. Argue for that first. Otherwise you may as well argue you’re a stakeholder to a tree.
  - andyfleming 6y ago
    A customer is an external stakeholder. They do have a voice, but at a large scale / low % of revenue, it may be not be very loud. If no one enjoyed the shade of a tree, it wouldn’t cease to exist. If customers stopped paying a business, they likely would.
ryneandal 6y ago
Agreed. I feel as though it's akin to saying "if you don't like America, leave!" Voiced legitimate concern can bring positive change.
- pphysch 6y ago
  With that small caveat that "legitimate" is solely defined by the powerful.
  - ryneandal 6y ago
    Touche, but the truth of your point made me sad.
pathartl 6y ago
I agree. I also hate the sentiment "vote with your wallet". By all means, send them a message by not buying their products, that surely will do something. However, it's also important to give feedback in written form either directly or by publishing editorials.
diffctx99 6y ago
You fail to define what the legitimate issues are. They have no real hardware or store monopoly, Android still out numbers them in install base. Legally it’s undecided at all. This is essentially complaining Walmart and Target use different means of revenue generation for placing product. Maybe Microsoft can get a phone and store off the ground that has a bigger install base. Oh wait. Maybe app sellers should have heeded the warnings when app stores launched about this exact problem! Just because you and others don’t feel good about it doesn’t mean it’s legitimate. App sellers have a legitimate issue with Apple after choosing to go all in knowing how it works.
- colinmorelli 6y ago
  They choose to go "all in" because it is literally the only option to get an app on the devices of ~58% of smartphone owners in the United States. They don't have a choice, they literally have to accept it in this market. Even in other markets where they don't control the majority, it's still a massive portion of the market. It's hard to imagine how the precedent established by not forcing change here would be desired by anyone. We're not far from a world where basically all of the software you can consume, how you can consume it, and even the price of it, is effectively determined (or at least heavily influenced) by one of 3 companies. We're not talking about just the services those companies offer, we're talking about all of the software services that any company wants to offer. The cost of building a new operating system in the modern age is incredibly prohibitive, such that we're unlikely to see any meaningful competition in the form of alternatives here. Even if such a project were to happen, they'd have to overcome the incredible inertia secured from walled garden that the major players have built for their own ecosystems.
  - ghostwriter 6y ago
    They do have a choice, it's called a Web App.
  - jpttsn 6y ago
    If I want to be on “Survivor”, I don’t have much choice but to apply to CBS to be on “Survivor”. They control the whole show, I’m literally a pawn in their game. I wish I wasn’t born into this. Oh woe.
pjmlp 6y ago
Apple isn't a monopoly as per law, there are plenty of other device manufacturers to choose from, and in some markets iDevices aren't even available.
- jld 6y ago
  The traditional understanding of monopolies does not seem so useful in this case. We live a world where there are two walled gardens that control everything you do. They are both lovely and nice, and you can choose which you pick, but in both, everything you do owned by the landlord. Even how we communicate is controlled, and talking to people in the other garden is degraded. (iMessage and FaceTime). Even if both walled gardens have 50% marketshare, there is no monopoly, but is that really the world we want to live in? Taking your business to the other walled garden is not an incentive to either company to build shorter walls. It seems we need to be talking about regulating vertical integration and walled gardens, not monopolies.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Seems to work quite alright on game consoles.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    Maybe it’s not the “traditional understanding” that’s the problem. Maybe it’s HN users understanding that’s flawed.
msla 6y ago
"Whining" is always prejudicial. You can define it as "Complaining about something you refuse to take steps to remedy" but that doesn't make it any less prejudicial. It's like "reasons" versus "excuses": Do you have a reason or are you trying to give me excuses? I know that I always have reasons even if the same words coming from you would be excuses. > This echoes the "if you don't like it so much then just leave instead of speaking up" dismissal that is so commonly used as a lampshade for suppressing dissent. Apple is suppressing dissent by not caring what their users and developers are saying. There is no path forwards from speaking up other than a boycott, because Apple isn't going to listen to you. > This guy doesn't understand what monopolies are and how they work. The whole point is that there are no other alternatives, so you literally cannot "just stop using them". "Just stop patronizing the monopoly" is not a strategy that has ever been successful. The monopoly needs to be broken up. Apple has a monopoly on iOS. Google has a monopoly on Android. Neither has a monopoly on PostmarketOS. I doubt you'll be successful in convincing the DOJ that Apple needs to be broken up on that basis.
mamon 6y ago
Apple sells you hardware, but then tries to upsell, by offering apps through AppStore. The solution here seems to be: Jailbreak your iPhone and start installing applications from other sources. If Apple tries to stop that then you can sue them that they deny you rights to use something that you legally own (the iPhone). The only downside here is: I would have a hard time trusting an app from outside the AppStore.
codemac 6y ago
Apple is not a monopoly! They have a majority (not monopoly) on a very specific US-based market. They aren't the only US market, and they are a small international market. Apple isn't even the #1 handset manufacturer (they are #3 or #4 depending on who you ask), and far and away isn't the #1 laptop manufacturer. The attitude that it is a monopoly is exactly the disconnect between this article and your comment. The article thinks your market will just move without different revenue models. That is difficult, it's probably better to find a different market and revenue model. Your comment is saying that it's worth trying to get Apple to change. That is difficult, near impossible, where they have no incentive to change unless you threaten change yourself with a different market/revenue model. It seems like your hand is forced - you must do both. You must have a compelling market outside of Apple somehow, and you must petition Apple to change so you can keep access to their market. I have strong feelings about Apple & Google making "markets" that are not fair/regulated the way I would like - but this idea that it's a monopoly to be "broken up" is not representative of reality.
- blattimwind 6y ago
  I think that's exactly the point and it even applies to Macbooks: Apple just makes some pretty average laptops with poor price-performance ratio (even in the allegedly-high-end segment) and they clearly don't have a monopoly or even significant market share [1] in that category. Apple is just somewhat unique in that there is a very vocal minority of people who have decided that they only ever want to use Apple laptops (some Thinkpad users are similar), and of course Apple has a 100 % monopoly on Apple laptops, obviously. Viewed through this lens a lot of the coverage of Mac hardware makes a lot more sense; it never was about rational decision making. [1] Apple owns less than 10 % of the laptop market.
  - thebruce87m 6y ago
    I don’t buy Apple laptops or any laptops Any more but it’s interesting that you cite poor price-performance. 15 years ago when I did they had great cost-performance, i.e. they held their value relative to the competition, remained usable for longer for a number of reasons and when sold actually yielded better value over the full lifecycle. Has this changed?
andrewmutz 6y ago
I disagree that Apple has a monopoly. The iPhone doesn't even have 50% marketshare in the US, and globally it's significantly less. https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-share/ https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh... Not only are there alternatives, the alternatives are extremely similar to the iPhone. Another interpretation for users who complain loudly but never switch: it just doesn't bother them that much. It bothers them enough to tweet and blog about it, but not enough to actually inconvenience themselves by switching phone platforms. Apple knows this, and that's why it doesn't change. And it won't change until people actually act instead of just talk.
- Krasnol 6y ago
  I assume it refers to this: https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/how-antifragile-apple-inc-really-2017-03-24 https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/how-antifragile-apple-inc-re... Basically: Apples competitors marketshare concentrates on the lower cost market part while sharing the infrastructure. Apple has it's users locked in to their environment and controls the upper part of the market. Making it not only hard to switch the infrastructure but also keeping the price always as up as necessary/possible to dominate the upper price region of the market. Edit: why am I getting downvotes?
  - scarface74 6y ago
    How does Apple “control” the market? Is Apple forcing users to pay an average of three times more for an iPhone than an Android device? Is it Apple’s fault that Android manufactures+Google can’t come up with a device that people are willing to pay more for?
    - Krasnol 6y ago
      No, they are creating an locked in environment where switching is hard while switching is easy on Android. So you end up with 2 different groups/(markets?). One ready to pay more but locked in and another group wanting to pay less for more with a variety of hardware choices and companies betting against each other for a lower price on same hardware/specifications. Apple therefore controls the price for their locked in environment. Rising prices for hardware, fees, accesoirs, repairs,... At least this is how I understand this theory but since I'll probably get downvotes again, this will be my last comment on this. Sorry.
wnevets 6y ago
Stop whining, just stop buying from the company store.
aantix 6y ago
Could you make some sort of generic app for push notifications, kind of like the old school Growl for the Mac? Then web apps could be bookmarked within iOS, and push notifications routed through the mini-Growl app?
designium 6y ago
Not just about this title for this particular subject but dismissing people by telling them to just stop using or go elsewhere is also bad for almost everything else in life. Applying the same logic for: - "Whining" customers: just go use someone else product; you are going to miss new ideas and paint points that you can solve - "Whining" about country or politics - imagine the phrase "if you don't like your leaders of your country, just leave the country and go somewhere else"; it's absurd. - "Whining" about family and friends: just stop hanging out with them; most people have no choice to change who they are with... - "Whining" about social media fake news: just stop using it. ... We don't need to go to all variations but this is not the right mindset. That logic is usually used by monopolies, dictators and so on to shut up people. Don't fall into that argument trap.
smnrchrds 6y ago
> This echoes the "if you don't like it so much then just leave instead of speaking up" dismissal It's even worse than that. Even if you leave Apple ecosystem, you are still subject to it. Consumers don't like paying different prices based on the platform they are using. They will feel cheated. For this reason, app and service developers almost always price their products the same across all platforms. If a service developer estimates that 50% of the service's customers end up signing up through Apple Pay and pay the Apple tax, which one of these scenarios do you think will happen: 1) The developer will just eat the loss and will not take Apple's cut into their calculations of what the pricing should be at all; 2) They charge users who sign up through Apple 30% more; 3) They charge everyone the same. In order to negate the effect of Apple tax, their prices end up being higher than they otherwise would have been. Everyone, Apple user or not, ends up paying 15% higher. I would wager that number 3 is what happens in almost all instances. You cannot not pay the Apple tax, even if you never use Apple. On a side note, I am so surprised that so many people see this as a fight between Apple and developers. They view the Apple tax as something developers pay and thus is developers' problem, not theirs. Like any tax, ultimately, we the consumers end up paying it. It may be indirect, but it is coming out of our pocket. And it leaves a bad taste in my mouth that I would have to pay more than $1000 to buy a device, and then get nickel-and-dimes by Apple to actually use the said device.
- Invictus0 6y ago
  Then don't buy the device. Bad taste in your mouth is not going to accomplish anything.
  - smnrchrds 6y ago
    I don't have an Apple device. I put my money where my mouth is. But I am sure that some of the services I am buying are more expensive because of the Apple tax and I am paying Apple tax anyway. Bad taste in my mouth is not going to accomplish anything. Simply not buying an Apple device does not accomplish anything either. Speaking out, raising awareness, asking for regulations, etc. is the only way to accomplish anything.
shadowgovt 6y ago
But people have been speaking up for years. At what point do the people speaking up just stop using the thing that they dislike so much?
JeremyNT 6y ago
> This guy doesn't understand what monopolies are and how they work. The whole point is that there are no other alternatives, so you literally cannot "just stop using them". "Just stop patronizing the monopoly" is not a strategy that has ever been successful. The monopoly needs to be broken up. I'm all for breaking up Apple for being a bunch of abusive jerks, but they really aren't a "Monopoly" in any useful definition of the term. Android is a drop-in replacement and it has a massive amount of marketshare (sure it sucks too in different ways, and sure more competition would be better, but you certainly don't have to buy any Apple products). The point of this article, as I read it, is that people have bought into the Apple ecosystem so hard (due to that carefully manicured Apple reputation) they fail to even consider switching to anything else or dropping support for Apple. Even developers! When I see the 1000th blog post about how crappy Macs are and how garbage Apple's walled garden is on the front page of HN, I know that countless people here will toss it an upvote and comment in agreement, but many will still tune in breathlessly for the next WDC and go purchase the next Apple device to hit the shelves. You don't need Apple. Nobody needs Apple anything. Complaining about their practice while buying their products... well, that's basically the definition of "whining." Switch to Linux (or Windows, if you really prefer locked down / closed source solutions). Switch to Android. Stop paying if you don't like the terms.
scarface74 6y ago
There is another alternative - Android. The same alternative that 80%+ of the market chooses. Yes. Why would I complain about an option when I have another option? I think the entire Android ecosystem is janky. So I don’t buy Android devices.

Lammy 6y ago

The author changing "Hey" to "Yo" was also a poor choice considering: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yo_(app) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yo_(app)

cryptoz 6y ago
I thought this was actually about Yo again! Had me tricked out they were relevant again.
rob74 6y ago
Maybe he should have used "Let's go" instead...
ilrwbwrkhv 6y ago
It's fine, you did understand it was Hey didn't you?
- Lammy 6y ago
  I understand it today with the knowledge of current events fresh in my mind, but it won't age well.

izzydata 6y ago

I'd imagine significant changes in the market is the best way to get Apple to do anything. If people keep buying and using all their products then they will keep doing what their doing.

lordleft 6y ago

Agreed. There's a false dichotomy here. You can use a product, and as a stakeholder demand change. Refraining from using the product entirely is one way to achieve that, but it's not the only way. Many products evolve because of user-feedback.

toomuchtodo 6y ago
> Many products evolve because of user-feedback. And regulation. See GDPR and CCPA.
- pathseeker 6y ago
  Yes, but those two examples don't have a particularly great track record. Regulation tends to be a very blunt hammer that might only partially address the problem while introducing a bunch of others (e.g. cookie banners).
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    Support better regulation. More effective than complaining.
diffctx99 6y ago
You’re not a stakeholder for buying a computer. You seem to have a very confused view of the consumer role legally and historically. Giving them money for a product does not give you a real voice. Argue for that first. Otherwise you may as well argue you’re a stakeholder to a tree.
- andyfleming 6y ago
  A customer is an external stakeholder. They do have a voice, but at a large scale / low % of revenue, it may be not be very loud. If no one enjoyed the shade of a tree, it wouldn’t cease to exist. If customers stopped paying a business, they likely would.

ryneandal 6y ago

Agreed. I feel as though it's akin to saying "if you don't like America, leave!" Voiced legitimate concern can bring positive change.

pphysch 6y ago
With that small caveat that "legitimate" is solely defined by the powerful.
- ryneandal 6y ago
  Touche, but the truth of your point made me sad.

pathartl 6y ago

I agree. I also hate the sentiment "vote with your wallet". By all means, send them a message by not buying their products, that surely will do something. However, it's also important to give feedback in written form either directly or by publishing editorials.

diffctx99 6y ago

You fail to define what the legitimate issues are. They have no real hardware or store monopoly, Android still out numbers them in install base. Legally it’s undecided at all. This is essentially complaining Walmart and Target use different means of revenue generation for placing product. Maybe Microsoft can get a phone and store off the ground that has a bigger install base. Oh wait. Maybe app sellers should have heeded the warnings when app stores launched about this exact problem! Just because you and others don’t feel good about it doesn’t mean it’s legitimate. App sellers have a legitimate issue with Apple after choosing to go all in knowing how it works.

colinmorelli 6y ago
They choose to go "all in" because it is literally the only option to get an app on the devices of ~58% of smartphone owners in the United States. They don't have a choice, they literally have to accept it in this market. Even in other markets where they don't control the majority, it's still a massive portion of the market. It's hard to imagine how the precedent established by not forcing change here would be desired by anyone. We're not far from a world where basically all of the software you can consume, how you can consume it, and even the price of it, is effectively determined (or at least heavily influenced) by one of 3 companies. We're not talking about just the services those companies offer, we're talking about all of the software services that any company wants to offer. The cost of building a new operating system in the modern age is incredibly prohibitive, such that we're unlikely to see any meaningful competition in the form of alternatives here. Even if such a project were to happen, they'd have to overcome the incredible inertia secured from walled garden that the major players have built for their own ecosystems.
- ghostwriter 6y ago
  They do have a choice, it's called a Web App.
- jpttsn 6y ago
  If I want to be on “Survivor”, I don’t have much choice but to apply to CBS to be on “Survivor”. They control the whole show, I’m literally a pawn in their game. I wish I wasn’t born into this. Oh woe.

pjmlp 6y ago

Apple isn't a monopoly as per law, there are plenty of other device manufacturers to choose from, and in some markets iDevices aren't even available.

jld 6y ago
The traditional understanding of monopolies does not seem so useful in this case. We live a world where there are two walled gardens that control everything you do. They are both lovely and nice, and you can choose which you pick, but in both, everything you do owned by the landlord. Even how we communicate is controlled, and talking to people in the other garden is degraded. (iMessage and FaceTime). Even if both walled gardens have 50% marketshare, there is no monopoly, but is that really the world we want to live in? Taking your business to the other walled garden is not an incentive to either company to build shorter walls. It seems we need to be talking about regulating vertical integration and walled gardens, not monopolies.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  Seems to work quite alright on game consoles.
- scarface74 6y ago
  Maybe it’s not the “traditional understanding” that’s the problem. Maybe it’s HN users understanding that’s flawed.

msla 6y ago

"Whining" is always prejudicial. You can define it as "Complaining about something you refuse to take steps to remedy" but that doesn't make it any less prejudicial. It's like "reasons" versus "excuses": Do you have a reason or are you trying to give me excuses? I know that I always have reasons even if the same words coming from you would be excuses. > This echoes the "if you don't like it so much then just leave instead of speaking up" dismissal that is so commonly used as a lampshade for suppressing dissent. Apple is suppressing dissent by not caring what their users and developers are saying. There is no path forwards from speaking up other than a boycott, because Apple isn't going to listen to you. > This guy doesn't understand what monopolies are and how they work. The whole point is that there are no other alternatives, so you literally cannot "just stop using them". "Just stop patronizing the monopoly" is not a strategy that has ever been successful. The monopoly needs to be broken up. Apple has a monopoly on iOS. Google has a monopoly on Android. Neither has a monopoly on PostmarketOS. I doubt you'll be successful in convincing the DOJ that Apple needs to be broken up on that basis.

mamon 6y ago

Apple sells you hardware, but then tries to upsell, by offering apps through AppStore. The solution here seems to be: Jailbreak your iPhone and start installing applications from other sources. If Apple tries to stop that then you can sue them that they deny you rights to use something that you legally own (the iPhone). The only downside here is: I would have a hard time trusting an app from outside the AppStore.

codemac 6y ago

Apple is not a monopoly! They have a majority (not monopoly) on a very specific US-based market. They aren't the only US market, and they are a small international market. Apple isn't even the #1 handset manufacturer (they are #3 or #4 depending on who you ask), and far and away isn't the #1 laptop manufacturer. The attitude that it is a monopoly is exactly the disconnect between this article and your comment. The article thinks your market will just move without different revenue models. That is difficult, it's probably better to find a different market and revenue model. Your comment is saying that it's worth trying to get Apple to change. That is difficult, near impossible, where they have no incentive to change unless you threaten change yourself with a different market/revenue model. It seems like your hand is forced - you must do both. You must have a compelling market outside of Apple somehow, and you must petition Apple to change so you can keep access to their market. I have strong feelings about Apple & Google making "markets" that are not fair/regulated the way I would like - but this idea that it's a monopoly to be "broken up" is not representative of reality.

blattimwind 6y ago
I think that's exactly the point and it even applies to Macbooks: Apple just makes some pretty average laptops with poor price-performance ratio (even in the allegedly-high-end segment) and they clearly don't have a monopoly or even significant market share [1] in that category. Apple is just somewhat unique in that there is a very vocal minority of people who have decided that they only ever want to use Apple laptops (some Thinkpad users are similar), and of course Apple has a 100 % monopoly on Apple laptops, obviously. Viewed through this lens a lot of the coverage of Mac hardware makes a lot more sense; it never was about rational decision making. [1] Apple owns less than 10 % of the laptop market.
- thebruce87m 6y ago
  I don’t buy Apple laptops or any laptops Any more but it’s interesting that you cite poor price-performance. 15 years ago when I did they had great cost-performance, i.e. they held their value relative to the competition, remained usable for longer for a number of reasons and when sold actually yielded better value over the full lifecycle. Has this changed?

andrewmutz 6y ago

I disagree that Apple has a monopoly. The iPhone doesn't even have 50% marketshare in the US, and globally it's significantly less. https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-share/ https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh... Not only are there alternatives, the alternatives are extremely similar to the iPhone. Another interpretation for users who complain loudly but never switch: it just doesn't bother them that much. It bothers them enough to tweet and blog about it, but not enough to actually inconvenience themselves by switching phone platforms. Apple knows this, and that's why it doesn't change. And it won't change until people actually act instead of just talk.

Krasnol 6y ago
I assume it refers to this: https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/how-antifragile-apple-inc-really-2017-03-24 https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/how-antifragile-apple-inc-re... Basically: Apples competitors marketshare concentrates on the lower cost market part while sharing the infrastructure. Apple has it's users locked in to their environment and controls the upper part of the market. Making it not only hard to switch the infrastructure but also keeping the price always as up as necessary/possible to dominate the upper price region of the market. Edit: why am I getting downvotes?
- scarface74 6y ago
  How does Apple “control” the market? Is Apple forcing users to pay an average of three times more for an iPhone than an Android device? Is it Apple’s fault that Android manufactures+Google can’t come up with a device that people are willing to pay more for?
  - Krasnol 6y ago
    No, they are creating an locked in environment where switching is hard while switching is easy on Android. So you end up with 2 different groups/(markets?). One ready to pay more but locked in and another group wanting to pay less for more with a variety of hardware choices and companies betting against each other for a lower price on same hardware/specifications. Apple therefore controls the price for their locked in environment. Rising prices for hardware, fees, accesoirs, repairs,... At least this is how I understand this theory but since I'll probably get downvotes again, this will be my last comment on this. Sorry.

wnevets 6y ago

Stop whining, just stop buying from the company store.

aantix 6y ago

Could you make some sort of generic app for push notifications, kind of like the old school Growl for the Mac? Then web apps could be bookmarked within iOS, and push notifications routed through the mini-Growl app?

designium 6y ago

Not just about this title for this particular subject but dismissing people by telling them to just stop using or go elsewhere is also bad for almost everything else in life. Applying the same logic for: - "Whining" customers: just go use someone else product; you are going to miss new ideas and paint points that you can solve - "Whining" about country or politics - imagine the phrase "if you don't like your leaders of your country, just leave the country and go somewhere else"; it's absurd. - "Whining" about family and friends: just stop hanging out with them; most people have no choice to change who they are with... - "Whining" about social media fake news: just stop using it. ... We don't need to go to all variations but this is not the right mindset. That logic is usually used by monopolies, dictators and so on to shut up people. Don't fall into that argument trap.

smnrchrds 6y ago

> This echoes the "if you don't like it so much then just leave instead of speaking up" dismissal It's even worse than that. Even if you leave Apple ecosystem, you are still subject to it. Consumers don't like paying different prices based on the platform they are using. They will feel cheated. For this reason, app and service developers almost always price their products the same across all platforms. If a service developer estimates that 50% of the service's customers end up signing up through Apple Pay and pay the Apple tax, which one of these scenarios do you think will happen: 1) The developer will just eat the loss and will not take Apple's cut into their calculations of what the pricing should be at all; 2) They charge users who sign up through Apple 30% more; 3) They charge everyone the same. In order to negate the effect of Apple tax, their prices end up being higher than they otherwise would have been. Everyone, Apple user or not, ends up paying 15% higher. I would wager that number 3 is what happens in almost all instances. You cannot not pay the Apple tax, even if you never use Apple. On a side note, I am so surprised that so many people see this as a fight between Apple and developers. They view the Apple tax as something developers pay and thus is developers' problem, not theirs. Like any tax, ultimately, we the consumers end up paying it. It may be indirect, but it is coming out of our pocket. And it leaves a bad taste in my mouth that I would have to pay more than $1000 to buy a device, and then get nickel-and-dimes by Apple to actually use the said device.

Invictus0 6y ago
Then don't buy the device. Bad taste in your mouth is not going to accomplish anything.
- smnrchrds 6y ago
  I don't have an Apple device. I put my money where my mouth is. But I am sure that some of the services I am buying are more expensive because of the Apple tax and I am paying Apple tax anyway. Bad taste in my mouth is not going to accomplish anything. Simply not buying an Apple device does not accomplish anything either. Speaking out, raising awareness, asking for regulations, etc. is the only way to accomplish anything.

shadowgovt 6y ago

But people have been speaking up for years. At what point do the people speaking up just stop using the thing that they dislike so much?

JeremyNT 6y ago

> This guy doesn't understand what monopolies are and how they work. The whole point is that there are no other alternatives, so you literally cannot "just stop using them". "Just stop patronizing the monopoly" is not a strategy that has ever been successful. The monopoly needs to be broken up. I'm all for breaking up Apple for being a bunch of abusive jerks, but they really aren't a "Monopoly" in any useful definition of the term. Android is a drop-in replacement and it has a massive amount of marketshare (sure it sucks too in different ways, and sure more competition would be better, but you certainly don't have to buy any Apple products). The point of this article, as I read it, is that people have bought into the Apple ecosystem so hard (due to that carefully manicured Apple reputation) they fail to even consider switching to anything else or dropping support for Apple. Even developers! When I see the 1000th blog post about how crappy Macs are and how garbage Apple's walled garden is on the front page of HN, I know that countless people here will toss it an upvote and comment in agreement, but many will still tune in breathlessly for the next WDC and go purchase the next Apple device to hit the shelves. You don't need Apple. Nobody needs Apple anything. Complaining about their practice while buying their products... well, that's basically the definition of "whining." Switch to Linux (or Windows, if you really prefer locked down / closed source solutions). Switch to Android. Stop paying if you don't like the terms.

scarface74 6y ago

There is another alternative - Android. The same alternative that 80%+ of the market chooses. Yes. Why would I complain about an option when I have another option? I think the entire Android ecosystem is janky. So I don’t buy Android devices.