4 ms·

Well to be specific, buying the iPhone comes with access to apps through the the App Store, not any software that you like. That's clear to almost everyone I w

Well to be specific, buying the iPhone comes with access to apps through the the App Store, not any software that you like. That's clear to almost everyone I would think. And it comes without any statement/guarantee about how Apple charges the developers or the agreements there. Most people have no idea, and don't care. Some apps choose to make their apps free, others choose to charge fees. Some want to have their in-app purchases charged 30%, others don't. Lots of products charge you an upfront fee, and then more fees for various things in addition. I don't think you've got much of a leg to stand on with that argument. That would be like saying, I paid for my cell phone, I don't think that cellular carriers should charge me again for the monthly service -- they should bundle it all one. It's a design and pricing choice. And you buy in or you don't.

belltaco 6y ago
>That would be like saying, I paid for my cell phone, I don't think that cellular carriers should charge me again for the monthly service -- they should bundle it all one. Bad analogy, it'd be like buying the cell tower and getting charged for using it.
- XMPPwocky 6y ago
  I bet this happens- I'm sure somebody will sell you, say, a 1-year license for software required to run an eNB or whatever. Don't pay? No working cell tower for you.
AsyncAwait 6y ago
> your buying the iPhone comes with access to apps through the the App Store, not any software that you like And that's a problem. I am buying an iPhone, per Apple, not renting it. Therefore I should be allowed to run whatever I please on my hardware.
- supernova87a 6y ago
  > Therefore I should be allowed to run whatever I please on my hardware. Well, that can definitely be your opinion. But whether that's fact or supported by our current laws is not at all certain. Let's at least be clear what's fact and what's desire.
  - ShroudedNight 6y ago
    Given your first post: > ...buying the iPhone comes with access to apps through the the App Store, not any software that you like. That's clear to almost everyone I would think.... > It's a design and pricing choice. And you buy in or you don't. This follow up: > ...whether that's fact or supported by our current laws is not at all certain Appears to at least be an explicit moving of the goal posts, if not claiming advantage from both sides of the argument. Is it clear that the relationship is a legally enforced 'take it or leave it', or isn't it?
    - supernova87a 6y ago
      I don't know what argument you're talking about. I'm trying to be charitable to the person above and not outright say that "no, you don't get to run whatever software he likes on a phone he bought". He's on the losing side, but maybe laws in the future will change. Right now, it's totally within a company's rights (and a consumer's rights) to review the terms of a sale of a product/service, and agree to them or not.
- simonh 6y ago
  I agree that once you own it, you have the right to do with it what you like. I have personally jail broken an iPod Touch and an iPhone to load Cydia on them back in the day and I believe I had the right to do so. On the other hand you and I don’t have the right to dictate to Apple what software they write and what features it has. That includes features for installing and managing software packages, software upgrades, security features, etc.
satyrnein 6y ago
I bought a Roku recently, figuring as a more popular platform than my previous Android TV box that I would get all the popular apps. I was surprised to later learn that I wasn't getting an HBO Max app seemingly because Roku and HBO hadn't agreed on commercial terms (that I hadn't realized even existed). I didn't care, but it ended up affecting me. The Apple/Epic fought reminds me of when sometimes content owners and cable networks are fighting over affiliate fees and it spills into PR campaigns targeting the public. Typical consumers don't want to think about it, but they can end up effective leverage in the negotiation occurring.
- supernova87a 6y ago
  Yes, it is totally like that. It's like MLB and ESPN, or Comcast and local channels, record labels and musicians, or any other favorite platform or product where co-sellers of something have to split up the shares of revenue and costs. Companies on one side of it will always try to frame it as a principled fight over consumer access, etc. etc. And the other company will frame it as a cost of doing business / business model. But it always boils down to dissatisfaction about the prices they're paying or receiving. Don't buy into the claimed principles. They're just dressing on the argument that is always about the $. Both sides.

belltaco 6y ago

>That would be like saying, I paid for my cell phone, I don't think that cellular carriers should charge me again for the monthly service -- they should bundle it all one. Bad analogy, it'd be like buying the cell tower and getting charged for using it.

XMPPwocky 6y ago
I bet this happens- I'm sure somebody will sell you, say, a 1-year license for software required to run an eNB or whatever. Don't pay? No working cell tower for you.

AsyncAwait 6y ago

> your buying the iPhone comes with access to apps through the the App Store, not any software that you like And that's a problem. I am buying an iPhone, per Apple, not renting it. Therefore I should be allowed to run whatever I please on my hardware.

supernova87a 6y ago
> Therefore I should be allowed to run whatever I please on my hardware. Well, that can definitely be your opinion. But whether that's fact or supported by our current laws is not at all certain. Let's at least be clear what's fact and what's desire.
- ShroudedNight 6y ago
  Given your first post: > ...buying the iPhone comes with access to apps through the the App Store, not any software that you like. That's clear to almost everyone I would think.... > It's a design and pricing choice. And you buy in or you don't. This follow up: > ...whether that's fact or supported by our current laws is not at all certain Appears to at least be an explicit moving of the goal posts, if not claiming advantage from both sides of the argument. Is it clear that the relationship is a legally enforced 'take it or leave it', or isn't it?
  - supernova87a 6y ago
    I don't know what argument you're talking about. I'm trying to be charitable to the person above and not outright say that "no, you don't get to run whatever software he likes on a phone he bought". He's on the losing side, but maybe laws in the future will change. Right now, it's totally within a company's rights (and a consumer's rights) to review the terms of a sale of a product/service, and agree to them or not.
simonh 6y ago
I agree that once you own it, you have the right to do with it what you like. I have personally jail broken an iPod Touch and an iPhone to load Cydia on them back in the day and I believe I had the right to do so. On the other hand you and I don’t have the right to dictate to Apple what software they write and what features it has. That includes features for installing and managing software packages, software upgrades, security features, etc.

satyrnein 6y ago

I bought a Roku recently, figuring as a more popular platform than my previous Android TV box that I would get all the popular apps. I was surprised to later learn that I wasn't getting an HBO Max app seemingly because Roku and HBO hadn't agreed on commercial terms (that I hadn't realized even existed). I didn't care, but it ended up affecting me. The Apple/Epic fought reminds me of when sometimes content owners and cable networks are fighting over affiliate fees and it spills into PR campaigns targeting the public. Typical consumers don't want to think about it, but they can end up effective leverage in the negotiation occurring.

supernova87a 6y ago
Yes, it is totally like that. It's like MLB and ESPN, or Comcast and local channels, record labels and musicians, or any other favorite platform or product where co-sellers of something have to split up the shares of revenue and costs. Companies on one side of it will always try to frame it as a principled fight over consumer access, etc. etc. And the other company will frame it as a cost of doing business / business model. But it always boils down to dissatisfaction about the prices they're paying or receiving. Don't buy into the claimed principles. They're just dressing on the argument that is always about the $. Both sides.