6 ms·

Are we really comparing these two? Apple has nowhere near market dominance, in fact, they are currently in second place. IE had a much larger control of the ma

Are we really comparing these two? Apple has nowhere near market dominance, in fact, they are currently in second place. IE had a much larger control of the market.

jonny_eh 6y ago
Apple may own a smaller share of the pie, but it's still significant enough that lacking iOS support can kill a business.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  Lots of things can kill a business. Anti-competitive practices are made for the goal of reducing competition. But the reality is Apple's App Store provides a ton of value to many developers and end users alike. Just because your business model failed doesn't mean the system is broken or monopolistic.
  - jonny_eh 6y ago
    > But the reality is Apple's App Store provides a ton of value to many developers and end users alike. No one's advocating ending the App Store. Just changing the rules to allow for more competition.
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      Changing the rules hurts all developers who already abide by them. There's no problem with the rules. people are just entitled and think the only reason their adtech shovelware is failing is because of Apple, who is an easy target. A big baddie.
      - jonny_eh 6y ago
        > Changing the rules hurts all developers who already abide by them. I don't follow the logic here. > people are just entitled and think the only reason their adtech shovelware is failing is because of Apple If Hey was funded by shovelware ads it would have been approved by Apple. Instead it's funded by a $99 subscription, which the developer refused to give $32 of to Apple, so it was rejected.
        ntsplnkv2 6y ago
        > I don't follow the logic here. Developers who followed the guidelines and accepted the terms will lose if the terms are changed to benefit those who aren't in it. Apps have paid the 30% fee for years - now everyone gets a free pass? Very unfair. > If Hey was funded by shovelware ads it would have been approved by Apple. Instead it's funded by a $99 subscription, which the developer refused to give $32 of to Apple, so it was rejected. If you want to be listed on Amazon, you sell, you pay a fee. This is true of any storefront. You don't want to pay fees you can use CraigsList, and Hey can do some SEO and market in other ways. It's unfair that Hey tries to work around the system that other apps have had to go through. The entitlement is absolutely insane.
        heavyset_go 6y ago
        > Developers who followed the guidelines and accepted the terms will lose if the terms are changed to benefit those who aren't in it. Apps have paid the 30% fee for years - now everyone gets a free pass? Very unfair. Following this logic, cures for cancer are "very unfair", as countless people died before a cure was invented. Not very fair to all of those people that fought cancer on their own or died.
        jonny_eh 6y ago
        > If you want to be listed on Amazon, you sell, you pay a fee > You don't want to pay fees you can use CraigsList That's great, Amazon's not the only option. On the iPhone, Apple's the only one allowed to sell apps, that sucks for consumers.
robert_foss 6y ago
I'd rather say they have complete market dominance. People don't buy phones based on which apps are available for them. And since no alternative stores are available for Apple devices, you have no choice but to pay the Apple tax.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  There is an alternative - Android. You aren't forced to pay the Apple tax, there is a far, far more popular alternative there. If we took this argument and extended it, no business would survive. This is like saying Toyota has a monopoly on it's car transmissions. of course it does - it decides what transmission goes in. Your idea would force it to accept all manufacturers of transmissions.
  - learc83 6y ago
    >If we took this argument and extended it, no business would survive. You can "extend" any argument to an absurd extreme. >This is like saying Toyota has a monopoly on it's car transmissions. of course it does - it decides what transmission goes in. Your idea would force it to accept all manufacturers of transmissions. It's more like if Toyota installed a radio that blocked transmission of all radio shows that didn't pay a percent of advertising revenue to Toyota. If they did that did that, people would complain and regulation would be an entirely possible, even likely outcome.
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      > You can "extend" any argument to an absurd extreme. It isn't absurd - it's unfair to transmission manufacturers that they have to follow Toyota's rules! The horror! Everything should be allowed for everyone! Otherwise it's oppression! It's not my crappy business model, no, I can't take responsibility. > It's more like if Toyota installed a radio that blocked transmission of all radio shows that didn't pay a percent of advertising revenue to Toyota. If they did that did that, people would complain and regulation would be an entirely possible, even likely outcome. Perfect example to prove my point. The radio is already regulated by the FCC - if it wasn't, and anyone could stream garbage however they please, like the play store, it would be a feature in automobiles to block that out. Absolutely. And people would pay big money to get it.
learc83 6y ago
If your market segment is customers who are willing to pay for a high end email service, Apple's share of that customer segment is probably much greater than 50%. Large enough that not offering an iOS app will cripple your business.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  Sounds like a bad business model to me. That market segment exists because of the walled garden - remove it, and it no longer exists.
  - learc83 6y ago
    That makes no sense. Apple didn't create the market segment, but because those people choose to use iPhone, you can't sell them an email service that doesn't work on iPhone. If 80% of people making more than $100k a year use iPhones and Apple disappeared, the market segment of people making more than $100k a year wouldn't disappear.
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      > That makes no sense. Apple didn't create the market segment, but because those people choose to use iPhone, you can't sell them an email service that doesn't work on iPhone. Make the email service work on iPhone. There are more than 2,000,000 apps in the App Store. There's no reason to think they're being unfair with that many in there. If you can't make an app and follow the rules there, tough luck. It's not fair to the developers that don't make shovelware otherwise. > If 80% of people making more than $100k a year use iPhones and Apple disappeared, the market segment of people making more than $100k a year wouldn't disappear. Someone would step in and provide another walled garden with the same effect - because the consumer will want a better experience. Apple offers that experience. And if that means Shovelware 2.0 doesn't make it, well, let's be honest. It wasn't all that revolutionary. In any case, crap apps would flood the market - consumers would get worse experiences, and be less likely to buy apps. Free apps will decimate quality applications. And you'll get the playstore or android, a malware infested UI nightmare. Apple is the "big bad" now, make a crappy app that doesn't follow easy rules, it's Apple's fault. Yea, not buying it. 2,000,000 made it. It's not that restrictive.

Are we really comparing these two? Apple has nowhere near market dominance, in fact, they are currently in second place. IE had a much larger control of the market.

jonny_eh 6y ago

Apple may own a smaller share of the pie, but it's still significant enough that lacking iOS support can kill a business.

ntsplnkv2 6y ago
Lots of things can kill a business. Anti-competitive practices are made for the goal of reducing competition. But the reality is Apple's App Store provides a ton of value to many developers and end users alike. Just because your business model failed doesn't mean the system is broken or monopolistic.
- jonny_eh 6y ago
  > But the reality is Apple's App Store provides a ton of value to many developers and end users alike. No one's advocating ending the App Store. Just changing the rules to allow for more competition.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    Changing the rules hurts all developers who already abide by them. There's no problem with the rules. people are just entitled and think the only reason their adtech shovelware is failing is because of Apple, who is an easy target. A big baddie.
    - jonny_eh 6y ago
      > Changing the rules hurts all developers who already abide by them. I don't follow the logic here. > people are just entitled and think the only reason their adtech shovelware is failing is because of Apple If Hey was funded by shovelware ads it would have been approved by Apple. Instead it's funded by a $99 subscription, which the developer refused to give $32 of to Apple, so it was rejected.
      - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
        > I don't follow the logic here. Developers who followed the guidelines and accepted the terms will lose if the terms are changed to benefit those who aren't in it. Apps have paid the 30% fee for years - now everyone gets a free pass? Very unfair. > If Hey was funded by shovelware ads it would have been approved by Apple. Instead it's funded by a $99 subscription, which the developer refused to give $32 of to Apple, so it was rejected. If you want to be listed on Amazon, you sell, you pay a fee. This is true of any storefront. You don't want to pay fees you can use CraigsList, and Hey can do some SEO and market in other ways. It's unfair that Hey tries to work around the system that other apps have had to go through. The entitlement is absolutely insane.
        heavyset_go 6y ago
        > Developers who followed the guidelines and accepted the terms will lose if the terms are changed to benefit those who aren't in it. Apps have paid the 30% fee for years - now everyone gets a free pass? Very unfair. Following this logic, cures for cancer are "very unfair", as countless people died before a cure was invented. Not very fair to all of those people that fought cancer on their own or died.
        jonny_eh 6y ago
        > If you want to be listed on Amazon, you sell, you pay a fee > You don't want to pay fees you can use CraigsList That's great, Amazon's not the only option. On the iPhone, Apple's the only one allowed to sell apps, that sucks for consumers.

robert_foss 6y ago

I'd rather say they have complete market dominance. People don't buy phones based on which apps are available for them. And since no alternative stores are available for Apple devices, you have no choice but to pay the Apple tax.

ntsplnkv2 6y ago
There is an alternative - Android. You aren't forced to pay the Apple tax, there is a far, far more popular alternative there. If we took this argument and extended it, no business would survive. This is like saying Toyota has a monopoly on it's car transmissions. of course it does - it decides what transmission goes in. Your idea would force it to accept all manufacturers of transmissions.
- learc83 6y ago
  >If we took this argument and extended it, no business would survive. You can "extend" any argument to an absurd extreme. >This is like saying Toyota has a monopoly on it's car transmissions. of course it does - it decides what transmission goes in. Your idea would force it to accept all manufacturers of transmissions. It's more like if Toyota installed a radio that blocked transmission of all radio shows that didn't pay a percent of advertising revenue to Toyota. If they did that did that, people would complain and regulation would be an entirely possible, even likely outcome.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    > You can "extend" any argument to an absurd extreme. It isn't absurd - it's unfair to transmission manufacturers that they have to follow Toyota's rules! The horror! Everything should be allowed for everyone! Otherwise it's oppression! It's not my crappy business model, no, I can't take responsibility. > It's more like if Toyota installed a radio that blocked transmission of all radio shows that didn't pay a percent of advertising revenue to Toyota. If they did that did that, people would complain and regulation would be an entirely possible, even likely outcome. Perfect example to prove my point. The radio is already regulated by the FCC - if it wasn't, and anyone could stream garbage however they please, like the play store, it would be a feature in automobiles to block that out. Absolutely. And people would pay big money to get it.

learc83 6y ago

If your market segment is customers who are willing to pay for a high end email service, Apple's share of that customer segment is probably much greater than 50%. Large enough that not offering an iOS app will cripple your business.

ntsplnkv2 6y ago
Sounds like a bad business model to me. That market segment exists because of the walled garden - remove it, and it no longer exists.
- learc83 6y ago
  That makes no sense. Apple didn't create the market segment, but because those people choose to use iPhone, you can't sell them an email service that doesn't work on iPhone. If 80% of people making more than $100k a year use iPhones and Apple disappeared, the market segment of people making more than $100k a year wouldn't disappear.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    > That makes no sense. Apple didn't create the market segment, but because those people choose to use iPhone, you can't sell them an email service that doesn't work on iPhone. Make the email service work on iPhone. There are more than 2,000,000 apps in the App Store. There's no reason to think they're being unfair with that many in there. If you can't make an app and follow the rules there, tough luck. It's not fair to the developers that don't make shovelware otherwise. > If 80% of people making more than $100k a year use iPhones and Apple disappeared, the market segment of people making more than $100k a year wouldn't disappear. Someone would step in and provide another walled garden with the same effect - because the consumer will want a better experience. Apple offers that experience. And if that means Shovelware 2.0 doesn't make it, well, let's be honest. It wasn't all that revolutionary. In any case, crap apps would flood the market - consumers would get worse experiences, and be less likely to buy apps. Free apps will decimate quality applications. And you'll get the playstore or android, a malware infested UI nightmare. Apple is the "big bad" now, make a crappy app that doesn't follow easy rules, it's Apple's fault. Yea, not buying it. 2,000,000 made it. It's not that restrictive.