5 ms·

What monopoly? Nobody is forcing you to buy Apple and enter into their rotten walled garden. If you "pay damn much and buy the phone", you are doing it of your

by pferde 6y ago

What monopoly? Nobody is forcing you to buy Apple and enter into their rotten walled garden. If you "pay damn much and buy the phone", you are doing it of your own volition. "Take the power back" by not continuing to give them your money.

grenoire 6y ago
The android ecosystem and OEM's lack of support for older phones (for one) is something that is 'forcing' me to enter their walled garden. I can't, also as a customer, ignore that Apple has done a lot of things very well, but that doesn't at all stop me from also complaining about their bad practices.
- gwd 6y ago
  Don't you think these things may have some relationship to each other? All the work Apple does has to be paid for somehow; and realistically, in a for-profit company like Apple, has to be paid for in a way that will generate not just barely enough to pay for itself, but has to be paid for in a way that will generate lots of profits. Google makes money off of advertising. Apple makes money, in part, off of taxing apps. If Apple can't tax apps, then suddenly their business model isn't nearly as appealing, and they start needing to make changes to keep things profitable -- things like maybe selling more of your data, or "encouraging" you to upgrade by not supporting older phones as well. This whole discussion always makes me angry because right now I have a choice: I can choose to buy a product supported by app taxes, or I can choose to buy a product supported by spying on me. If Apple is forced to allow other app stores, and thus forced to look for other business models to remain profitable, I may not have that choice any more. If Fortnite doesn't like it, why don't they just charge 50% more for the app on iOS? If people complain, just show them the math, so they know that it's the Apple Tax making things more expensive. I'm happy to pay 30% more for apps.
  - grenoire 6y ago
    I understand where your arguments come from, and I do agree to the fundamental economics of it. It all holds well too, until you realise, however, that Apple is sitting on 200 billion dollars in cash. Also: Epic did actually give an option to pay less for their microtransactions if you paid them directly, and were about to refund people for their transactions in the past month for the Apple tax itself. Their rebellion is the main reason Apple retaliated like this.
    - ghostwriter 6y ago
      > it all holds well too, until you realise, however, that Apple is sitting on 200 billion dollars in cash. how does that negate the given points? These 200b is an indicator of a healthy business that can survive major downturns for a long period of time, which should be much more appealing that an open credit line and piles of debt in accounting tables, so much prevalent in the industry nowadays.
      - grenoire 6y ago
        It wasn't supposed to negate his points, I said I agree to them too. The issue is that Apple would be still be comfortably profitable at a much lower and less predatory level of Apple-tax-rate. They are fundamentally not entitled to the profits of the companies who have to be on their market. The value they provide to the developers and customers collectively for simply hosting and reviewing these apps is not 30%. As other commenters have pointed out, they are willing to pay a portion of this extra 30% if and only if it goes to the people who build the applications. It's not a supply-demand mismatch issue, it's overreach and exploitation. On the other hand, I don't quite get what your point is about Apple being a healthy business or them not accumulating debt (which is arguably wrong, Apple has ~91,807,000,000 USD in long-term debt (out of 142B USD in non-current liabilities)). I don't think that is relevant here, let alone discounts my point about the excessive profits they've accumulated.
        ghostwriter 6y ago
        > They are fundamentally not entitled to the profits of the companies who have to be on their market. that's not how markets work. Apple is absolutely entitled to charge whatever amount of money they wish, firstly because other companies engage into trade with Apple voluntarily and no one is forcing companies into App Store, they enter it because they know they are going to make money there, and secondly because if Apple is not entitled to this money by their right of ownership of the platform that millions of customers find outstanding, everyone else is even less entitled to own and dispose of these earnings. It is also up to Apple shareholders to decide what is comfortably profitable. As for the debt that you mention, accounting doesn't work that way either. Their total long-term and current operational debt as of 2020 can be paid in full, by the half of their immediately available disposable cash. This IS a prime example of a healthy business.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    > All the work Apple does has to be paid for somehow How about the money they make selling iPhones?
hijklmno 6y ago
Take the money back and go where? Live in a hut? It's such enabling behaviors that embolden these elitists to lord over our lives. You can't let anyone be a gatekeeper to technology and progress. This applies to every major tech player. And this is the time that we need to make our voices heard.
- evbpcapfxy 6y ago
  Personally I think the best option if we could move away from iOS and Android to a pure Linux phone like Librem5. I don't think it's there yet though. Seems like Vavle have had some success in supporting gaming on Linux so having a better alternative seems possible.
- YarickR2 6y ago
  Found a company. Bring it to success. Build an ecosystem around it . Your voice will be heard, then.
  - eirini1 6y ago
    lol
  - jason0597 6y ago
    Easier said than done
- bzb4 6y ago
  Take the money back and go to Android.
- pferde 6y ago
  Yes, sure, make your voice heard, fight against the abuses, that can only help. But at the same time, do not pretend that there are not any alternatives. Yes, perhaps those alternatives are not as convenient, but choosing them over the "wrong" choice should be an equal part of the fight. And "Live in a hut"? Please do not be overly maudlin. We are talking consumer electronics here - something that is still considered luxury - not fundamental philosophies of life or economic models of society.
anilakar 6y ago
Uninformed consumers will normalize the abusive behavior and pricing by buying the product. Mocking and complaining about unacceptable business practices is everyone's right and responsibility.
- pferde 6y ago
  By all means, yes, mock away and raise awareness. That's good, it helps. But I know too many people who are very vocal about how Apple is bad and how they should be stopped, and yet these people keep buying a new iThing every year.
  - hijklmno 6y ago
    Do you think defending bad practices and stereotyping is going to change anything?
    - pferde 6y ago
      I am sorry if my post came across as defending Apple, I certainly did not mean to do that. I was merely trying to point out that people tend to put too much emphasis in being safely vocal (online, where you're sitting safely in your own home) against bad behavior, and not enough emphasis in actually not rewarding said bad behavior. For many, the latter option is not even present in their mind anymore.
  - mytherin 6y ago
    Mister Gotcha [1] is ever relevant. [1] https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/ https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/
    - pferde 6y ago
      I'm sorry, but that overrated comic strip is not relevant at all. It shows three situations, two of which depict normal progress ("there is this useful thing that has flaws because nobody has cared enough to fix those flaws, let's try"; Mr. Gotcha's burn is out of line), and one depicts standard corporate behavior ("a brand is willfully behaving in several ways that the society knows is abusive, and fans of that brand are willfully blind towards that)"; Mr. Gotcha's burn is very much deserved). In short, one of these things is not like the others.
takeda 6y ago
Back in the late 90s no one forced you to use Windows and Microsoft Office. You could just live without a PC.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  > Back in the late 90s no one forced you to use Windows and Microsoft Office. You could just live without a PC. This was not unusual in the late 90s.

by pferde 6y ago

grenoire 6y ago

The android ecosystem and OEM's lack of support for older phones (for one) is something that is 'forcing' me to enter their walled garden. I can't, also as a customer, ignore that Apple has done a lot of things very well, but that doesn't at all stop me from also complaining about their bad practices.

gwd 6y ago
Don't you think these things may have some relationship to each other? All the work Apple does has to be paid for somehow; and realistically, in a for-profit company like Apple, has to be paid for in a way that will generate not just barely enough to pay for itself, but has to be paid for in a way that will generate lots of profits. Google makes money off of advertising. Apple makes money, in part, off of taxing apps. If Apple can't tax apps, then suddenly their business model isn't nearly as appealing, and they start needing to make changes to keep things profitable -- things like maybe selling more of your data, or "encouraging" you to upgrade by not supporting older phones as well. This whole discussion always makes me angry because right now I have a choice: I can choose to buy a product supported by app taxes, or I can choose to buy a product supported by spying on me. If Apple is forced to allow other app stores, and thus forced to look for other business models to remain profitable, I may not have that choice any more. If Fortnite doesn't like it, why don't they just charge 50% more for the app on iOS? If people complain, just show them the math, so they know that it's the Apple Tax making things more expensive. I'm happy to pay 30% more for apps.
- grenoire 6y ago
  I understand where your arguments come from, and I do agree to the fundamental economics of it. It all holds well too, until you realise, however, that Apple is sitting on 200 billion dollars in cash. Also: Epic did actually give an option to pay less for their microtransactions if you paid them directly, and were about to refund people for their transactions in the past month for the Apple tax itself. Their rebellion is the main reason Apple retaliated like this.
  - ghostwriter 6y ago
    > it all holds well too, until you realise, however, that Apple is sitting on 200 billion dollars in cash. how does that negate the given points? These 200b is an indicator of a healthy business that can survive major downturns for a long period of time, which should be much more appealing that an open credit line and piles of debt in accounting tables, so much prevalent in the industry nowadays.
    - grenoire 6y ago
      It wasn't supposed to negate his points, I said I agree to them too. The issue is that Apple would be still be comfortably profitable at a much lower and less predatory level of Apple-tax-rate. They are fundamentally not entitled to the profits of the companies who have to be on their market. The value they provide to the developers and customers collectively for simply hosting and reviewing these apps is not 30%. As other commenters have pointed out, they are willing to pay a portion of this extra 30% if and only if it goes to the people who build the applications. It's not a supply-demand mismatch issue, it's overreach and exploitation. On the other hand, I don't quite get what your point is about Apple being a healthy business or them not accumulating debt (which is arguably wrong, Apple has ~91,807,000,000 USD in long-term debt (out of 142B USD in non-current liabilities)). I don't think that is relevant here, let alone discounts my point about the excessive profits they've accumulated.
      - ghostwriter 6y ago
        > They are fundamentally not entitled to the profits of the companies who have to be on their market. that's not how markets work. Apple is absolutely entitled to charge whatever amount of money they wish, firstly because other companies engage into trade with Apple voluntarily and no one is forcing companies into App Store, they enter it because they know they are going to make money there, and secondly because if Apple is not entitled to this money by their right of ownership of the platform that millions of customers find outstanding, everyone else is even less entitled to own and dispose of these earnings. It is also up to Apple shareholders to decide what is comfortably profitable. As for the debt that you mention, accounting doesn't work that way either. Their total long-term and current operational debt as of 2020 can be paid in full, by the half of their immediately available disposable cash. This IS a prime example of a healthy business.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  > All the work Apple does has to be paid for somehow How about the money they make selling iPhones?

hijklmno 6y ago

Take the money back and go where? Live in a hut? It's such enabling behaviors that embolden these elitists to lord over our lives. You can't let anyone be a gatekeeper to technology and progress. This applies to every major tech player. And this is the time that we need to make our voices heard.

evbpcapfxy 6y ago
Personally I think the best option if we could move away from iOS and Android to a pure Linux phone like Librem5. I don't think it's there yet though. Seems like Vavle have had some success in supporting gaming on Linux so having a better alternative seems possible.
YarickR2 6y ago
Found a company. Bring it to success. Build an ecosystem around it . Your voice will be heard, then.
- eirini1 6y ago
  lol
- jason0597 6y ago
  Easier said than done
bzb4 6y ago
Take the money back and go to Android.
pferde 6y ago
Yes, sure, make your voice heard, fight against the abuses, that can only help. But at the same time, do not pretend that there are not any alternatives. Yes, perhaps those alternatives are not as convenient, but choosing them over the "wrong" choice should be an equal part of the fight. And "Live in a hut"? Please do not be overly maudlin. We are talking consumer electronics here - something that is still considered luxury - not fundamental philosophies of life or economic models of society.

anilakar 6y ago

Uninformed consumers will normalize the abusive behavior and pricing by buying the product. Mocking and complaining about unacceptable business practices is everyone's right and responsibility.

pferde 6y ago
By all means, yes, mock away and raise awareness. That's good, it helps. But I know too many people who are very vocal about how Apple is bad and how they should be stopped, and yet these people keep buying a new iThing every year.
- hijklmno 6y ago
  Do you think defending bad practices and stereotyping is going to change anything?
  - pferde 6y ago
    I am sorry if my post came across as defending Apple, I certainly did not mean to do that. I was merely trying to point out that people tend to put too much emphasis in being safely vocal (online, where you're sitting safely in your own home) against bad behavior, and not enough emphasis in actually not rewarding said bad behavior. For many, the latter option is not even present in their mind anymore.
- mytherin 6y ago
  Mister Gotcha [1] is ever relevant. [1] https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/ https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/
  - pferde 6y ago
    I'm sorry, but that overrated comic strip is not relevant at all. It shows three situations, two of which depict normal progress ("there is this useful thing that has flaws because nobody has cared enough to fix those flaws, let's try"; Mr. Gotcha's burn is out of line), and one depicts standard corporate behavior ("a brand is willfully behaving in several ways that the society knows is abusive, and fans of that brand are willfully blind towards that)"; Mr. Gotcha's burn is very much deserved). In short, one of these things is not like the others.

takeda 6y ago

Back in the late 90s no one forced you to use Windows and Microsoft Office. You could just live without a PC.

thaumasiotes 6y ago
> Back in the late 90s no one forced you to use Windows and Microsoft Office. You could just live without a PC. This was not unusual in the late 90s.