3 ms·
The IP argument seems a bit hollow to me, since Apple would've had to build probably upwards of 70% of the API surface for iOS just for their internal apps (and
by easton 5y ago
The IP argument seems a bit hollow to me, since Apple would've had to build probably upwards of 70% of the API surface for iOS just for their internal apps (and when they launched the iPhone SDK, they repeatedly pushed that developers were using the same tools they used to build the core apps). And even if that is true, the total cost of development of iOS is probably paid for by the sale of the devices. The phone is nothing without a way for someone to write software for it, whether it's Apple or a third-party.
I wonder how long until Apple finds the people who made the "you wouldn't steal a car" advertisement for the MPAA and gets them to make "you wouldn't offer your own payment method for digital goods".
- Despegar 5y ago>The IP argument seems a bit hollow to me, since Apple would've had to build probably upwards of 70% of the API surface for iOS just for their internal apps (and when they launched the iPhone SDK, they repeatedly pushed that developers were using the same tools they used to build the core apps). Does Amazon build separate warehouses for third-party goods? All you're saying is that software is a good business, which everyone already knows.
- enos_feedler 5y agoEven if it was 70%, it is hard to put a price on the additional 30%. As an example lets look at the Camera API. It is possible do full encoding at high resolution of two independent sensors recording simultaneously (front + back camera for instance). There is no 1st party functionality that uses this. This requires a combination of hardware (media + sensor chips), OS, API, testing, docs, etc, that is built for 3P. This is just 1 example. It is hard to argue that Apple is not investing a fair share of the 30% platform fees back into the platform itself (hardware, software and services).