3 ms·

Emphasis on it being done via iOS, not on the "figuring out who drove this person to become a paying subscriber". Apple made the device and the operating system

by judge2020 5y ago

Emphasis on it being done via iOS, not on the "figuring out who drove this person to become a paying subscriber". Apple made the device and the operating system: their cut, both upon sale of the device AND via in-app purchases/subscriptions thereafter, is part of the profit model of that devices over the lifetime of the device (including devices introduced 6 years ago, which will arguably take more time optimizing for when developing the new OS version) and goes towards that development.

kbenson 5y ago
Funny how that 30% cut applying to subscriptions only rolled out years after the store was already present, and apps with subscriptions had already been for sale for years. If you want to make a case that the cut is needed to run the Apple Pay network (which IIRC when introduced is when they started charging for all purchases through it) and make sure that runs correctly, then fine. But the whole point here is that companies want to opt out of that network, or to clearly communicate that Apple's extra features cost them and they are passing that cost on to the consumer if they choose to pay it (either pay through linked Apple payment account with a higher cost subscription, or pay direct to the company in a different manner). What this is, very clearly, is Apple limiting information allowed to be displayed to customers at time of purchase if it's on an Apple device. Sine free markets only work as well as the information available to consumers, this is anti-free market, and anti-consumer. The only reason to not provide information to consumers about their choices is when you are trying to make them make a choice they wouldn't make if they had all the information. Any argument about doing it for their own good falls flat in the face of the fact you could just give them more information about why it's better for them. If they still choose not to use it, the only respectful way to treat that is that those people weighed their choices and decided what was best for them. Anything else is extremely anti-consumer, and when it's multiple companies colluding together to do so, we have very well known laws against it.
olau 5y ago
They are not optimizing for old devices. In fact the old devices get slower with each OS version, until Apple simply gives you the finger and there are no more updates. And you can't install another browser, so small websites with few developers (like Twitter) end up shutting you completely off.
- judge2020 5y ago
  A lot of the initial iOS "slowness" after updates is generally attributed to background indexing, and beyond that the phone likely becomes a victim of an aging battery which is fixable with a new one every 1-3 years - Androids are often stuck on old versions susceptible to malware.
yxhuvud 5y ago
That it's part of their profit model doesn't make it justified.

kbenson 5y ago

Funny how that 30% cut applying to subscriptions only rolled out years after the store was already present, and apps with subscriptions had already been for sale for years. If you want to make a case that the cut is needed to run the Apple Pay network (which IIRC when introduced is when they started charging for all purchases through it) and make sure that runs correctly, then fine. But the whole point here is that companies want to opt out of that network, or to clearly communicate that Apple's extra features cost them and they are passing that cost on to the consumer if they choose to pay it (either pay through linked Apple payment account with a higher cost subscription, or pay direct to the company in a different manner). What this is, very clearly, is Apple limiting information allowed to be displayed to customers at time of purchase if it's on an Apple device. Sine free markets only work as well as the information available to consumers, this is anti-free market, and anti-consumer. The only reason to not provide information to consumers about their choices is when you are trying to make them make a choice they wouldn't make if they had all the information. Any argument about doing it for their own good falls flat in the face of the fact you could just give them more information about why it's better for them. If they still choose not to use it, the only respectful way to treat that is that those people weighed their choices and decided what was best for them. Anything else is extremely anti-consumer, and when it's multiple companies colluding together to do so, we have very well known laws against it.

olau 5y ago

They are not optimizing for old devices. In fact the old devices get slower with each OS version, until Apple simply gives you the finger and there are no more updates. And you can't install another browser, so small websites with few developers (like Twitter) end up shutting you completely off.

judge2020 5y ago
A lot of the initial iOS "slowness" after updates is generally attributed to background indexing, and beyond that the phone likely becomes a victim of an aging battery which is fixable with a new one every 1-3 years - Androids are often stuck on old versions susceptible to malware.

yxhuvud 5y ago

That it's part of their profit model doesn't make it justified.