4 ms·
I have no idea who’s less wrong, Google or Epic, but I’m not sure I like your idea. Smartphones and PDAs existed for couple decades now, I’ve got a first PDA i
by Const-me 6y ago
I have no idea who’s less wrong, Google or Epic, but I’m not sure I like your idea.
Smartphones and PDAs existed for couple decades now, I’ve got a first PDA in 2000 or so. For many years before iPhone they were very niche products
I’m not sure we had the explosion in popularity (followed by technical improvements of both hardware and software) had it not be the financial incentive from paid content, initially music, apps followed a year later. Hardware design, software development, and marketing are all very expensive, someone had to pay for them or the smartphones would stay being niche products for geeks and corporations.
If what you wrote in the comment would become a law, this would remove motivation to do investments like that.
Would be especially bad for game consoles. The hardware is often sold below the costs in the start of each lifecycle, then technical progress catches up bringing costs down, and vendors are getting their profits. Stores help as well. The strategy ain’t gonna work if the app.store is not linked to the hardware, as soon as the HW costs are down other people would offer compatible hardware for less money. Hardware compatibility within generation is another hard problem to solve.
About Linux, when Torvalds made it, PCs were expensive tools for business and engineers. If you’re a businessperson or engineer, you have access to comparable tools with smartphone hardware. Search the web for “qualcomm snapdragon single board computer” and you’ll find many. There’re even affordable options now, I have 2 single-board computers on my desk next to a bunch of other hardware, both were under $100.
- jojobas 6y ago>If what you wrote in the comment would become a law, this would remove motivation to do investments like that. IPhone sales are profitable as they are, and always were. Of course not having iOS walled would lower their profits, but that's the whole point, as this profit comes from a detriment for everyone else. Android allows sideloading, yet making those phones is still reasonably profitable. PCs were expensive tools way before Linux, and it would stay that way if not for IBM were able to protect their walled garden.
- Const-me 6y ago> IPhone sales are profitable as they are The numbers don’t add up. Apple sold 6 million of iPhone 1 in 2007-2008 season before app.store launch. Assuming the average price was $550 that generated $3.3B turnover. According to rumors spread by Bloomberg and other sources, Apple spent $2.6B on R&D of iPhone 1 from the moment the initial research began. Not a good business at all, this means Apple paid most of manufacturing and marketing out of their pocket. After the app.store, apple was able to sell 100 million of iPhone 4 over 2010-2011 season. That’s more than order of magnitude difference. That increase in volume is what allowed Apple recuperate initial R&D costs, earn good profits, and increase their spending on R&D of new products by more than an order of magnitude since 2007. I’m not sure people would have bought 100 million of iPhones 4 if you could run same apps on equally performing hardware that’s twice cheaper.
- jojobas 6y agoBy "before" I mean "before you account for royalties from the app store. Of course you wouldn't expect R&D to pay for itself in the first year. Apple doesn't rely on the royalty revenue to make iPhones profitable (and shouldn't be allowed to).
- Const-me 6y agoApp store being exclusive to Apple is the main reason why people are buying these devices. Without that lock, Apple wouldn’t be able to sell $500 worth of hardware for $1500, in huge quantities: https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/how-much-does-it-cost-to-make-iphone/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/how-much-does-it-cost-t...