3 ms·

> Epic did not design their own hardware, their own silicon, build entire global supply chains, design UX, etc. Apple and Google did. Do they not deserve a cut?

> Epic did not design their own hardware, their own silicon, build entire global supply chains, design UX, etc. Apple and Google did. Do they not deserve a cut? Where did the $1k I spent on my phone go?

Ductapemaster 6y ago
Fair point. From the way I see it, Apple is not a traditional hardware company, persay. It’s not like buying a PC from Dell. Dell sells hardware, and just that. The difference is Apple sells a user experience. Sure, you have to purcahase a physical thing to access that experience, but that is the nature of what you have purchased when you buy an iPhone. I think this boils down to a mismatched set of perspectives on the business Apple has created. Apple breaks the typical “buy hardware from X, install software from Y” flow and instead turned their iPhones into a portal into their own user experience universe. They did this because it provides a fundamentally unique experience when compared to other platforms. It’s a differentiating factor for them. Again, I would argue that Apple doesn’t want to be a hardware company. They want to be an experience company. In order to do that, they have to develop and sell cutting-edge hardware to you and me. Don’t get me wrong, not trying to say this is good or bad — just observing a sublety that I think gets missed when passionately arguing about hardware ownership and the rights that come with it.
yazaddaruvala 6y ago
$1k is what I'm willing to pay for that hardware knowing it is "locked down". I prefer the convenience of the "walled garden". If you or any customer feels like the hardware's capabilities (i.e. no side-loading) was miss-advertised, I would highly urge them to return the hardware to Apple, sell it, or at the least not re-buy an iPhone next time.
- Panini_Jones 6y ago
  I'm responding to the argument that the service fees pay for the hardware. No, my $1k paid for the hardware.
  - zepto 6y ago
    The service fees pay for the service, but part of that is in the OS which you received with the hardware, but which continues to be updated.

Ductapemaster 6y ago

Fair point. From the way I see it, Apple is not a traditional hardware company, persay. It’s not like buying a PC from Dell. Dell sells hardware, and just that. The difference is Apple sells a user experience. Sure, you have to purcahase a physical thing to access that experience, but that is the nature of what you have purchased when you buy an iPhone. I think this boils down to a mismatched set of perspectives on the business Apple has created. Apple breaks the typical “buy hardware from X, install software from Y” flow and instead turned their iPhones into a portal into their own user experience universe. They did this because it provides a fundamentally unique experience when compared to other platforms. It’s a differentiating factor for them. Again, I would argue that Apple doesn’t want to be a hardware company. They want to be an experience company. In order to do that, they have to develop and sell cutting-edge hardware to you and me. Don’t get me wrong, not trying to say this is good or bad — just observing a sublety that I think gets missed when passionately arguing about hardware ownership and the rights that come with it.

yazaddaruvala 6y ago

$1k is what I'm willing to pay for that hardware knowing it is "locked down". I prefer the convenience of the "walled garden". If you or any customer feels like the hardware's capabilities (i.e. no side-loading) was miss-advertised, I would highly urge them to return the hardware to Apple, sell it, or at the least not re-buy an iPhone next time.

Panini_Jones 6y ago
I'm responding to the argument that the service fees pay for the hardware. No, my $1k paid for the hardware.
- zepto 6y ago
  The service fees pay for the service, but part of that is in the OS which you received with the hardware, but which continues to be updated.