5 ms·

Walled gardens are bad for consumers. Apple is the definitive walled garden on planet earth. They are litigious, anti-competitive, and use unethical supply chai

Walled gardens are bad for consumers. Apple is the definitive walled garden on planet earth. They are litigious, anti-competitive, and use unethical supply chains at great human cost, but their marketing/propaganda is superb. Apple is the primary reason we have unreplaceable batteries, for example. That by itself is massively anti-consumer, but it's one among hundreds of inherently user hostile behaviors that Apple inflicts on the world. Other players in the market are constrained by Apple's design choices, because those choices often single-handedly drive economies of scale for device components. Apple is not pro consumer. Apple is ruthlessly oriented toward absolute control of perceptions and behaviors of customers within their walled garden so they can extract the maximum amount of money from their customers. Apple hides the externalities within their own domain and imposes market expectations on the rest of the world. Their exploitation of software patent and ip laws stifle innovation and competition, and they set the standards of corporate behavior for all the major players. Unless by "traditionally" you mean exactly the period of Apple's history when they were plucky underdogs... Apple hasn't been pro-consumer for a couple or three decades.

musicale 5y ago
> Walled gardens are bad for consumers. Apple is the definitive walled garden on planet earth. And yet many people on HN love their iPhones, Kindle Paperwhites, Xboxes, PlayStations, and Switch consoles... (note: you can actually load PDFs onto your Paperwhite, or onto your iPhone/iPad for that matter)
tshaddox 5y ago
Do you honestly think that iPhone customers will be more satisfied with iPhones if iPhones are required to support third-party app stores and/or sideloading? I find it impossible to believe that this could make customers happier. It is almost certainly going to result in more malware and user tracking, more bugs, more fragmented processes for finding and paying for apps, more user-hostile in-app purchase and subscription behavior, etc.
- smoldesu 5y ago
  I think more people would be more satisfied with their iPhone if Apple introduced a form of "Enter your Pin number to install $APP_NAME from $APP_REPOSITORY" system. That way, users would know outright that they're not getting software directly from Apple, and are forced to authenticate in order to confirm they want it. Then both sides win: you get to have your perfectly secure iPhone, and I get to have a device that actually does the things I want it to.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    That is still very likely to result in a worse experience for iPhone users for all the reasons I listed. I don’t think Apple’s concern is whether they can use their UI to shift blame to its customers when they sideload software that makes them unhappy—they just want their customers to be happy.
    - cronix 5y ago
      Why are you allowed to install things on your mac from non-apple sources if this is the case? I didn't have to go to an Apple Mac App store to download VSC from MS. I did have to click a prompt informing me that this program was downloaded from the internet and could potentially be harmful to your device type message, do you really want to install it, though. Has the mac landscape gone to hell with worse experiences, more malware or "software that makes them unhappy" because people can and do install software from non official Apple sources? It's literally the same company. Why does one being a "phone" or "mobile device" change things?
      - tshaddox 5y ago
        Mac certainly has more malware than iPhones, yes!
        zakki 5y ago
        Does Mac OS customers experience worse than iPhone's customers?
_aavaa_ 5y ago
Apple does not inflict unreplaceable batteries, or lack of headphone jack, or no power brick withe their phone, or no headphones with phones, or fragile glass backs. They made their choice and the other companies followed along. I wish they hadn't done some of those choices myself, looking at you glass back. But Apple did not coerce Samsung to follow along, and I doubt that they made economies of scale issues for the rest of the phone market given their <20% market share. Samsung makes plenty of ads to take pot shots at Apple for these changes, and then a few months later they themselves follow suit. I just don't think enough people care about those features to vote with their wallet.
Bud 5y ago
> Apple is the primary reason we have unreplaceable batteries, for example. This is a goofy fantasy. Apple, which is a minority player in this market, is forcing everyone else to make battery replacements difficult? No it's not. That's false, and doesn't pass the laugh test. Can we engage with the truth, instead? Is that too difficult? There are no "economies of scale" here. Phone batteries aren't a standardized part; every iPhone has a customized battery that fits into the odd-shaped space Apple is able to create in the design. Your economies of scale argument is therefore total nonsense.
criddell 5y ago
> Apple is the definitive walled garden on planet earth. I think I would give that crown to Disney. Their parks are literally walled gardens where Disney controls every aspect and profits from every transaction.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
quitit 5y ago
Simple counter-example: There are two ways to subscribe to the New York Times: through an IAP, or by visiting the NYT website. If you then decide that you want to unsubscribe: Subscribed via the IAP? No problem, you click a button Subscribed via the website? You will need to call the NYT between business hours and have a chat with someone who will try their darnest to convince you to keep your subscription. This is the behaviour from a “reputable” company. Apple could charge 0% and these companies won’t be happy - they want the direct connection so they can find as many ways as possible to take your money. Things like IAP let people make purchases without having to make a trust evaluation of the developer. Frankly that is great for new, small or foreign developers, because consumers know that they can get their money back from Apple should things go poorly. Sure there’s downsides to this approach - but choice also exists, so why should we be forcing this particular choice in individuals or in this circumstance (why not on Nintendo, Sony, Amazon, Microsoft and more?) I dare say once this change is formalised worldwide and we have Premium-SMS style exploitation, there is going to be a lot more work needed to clean up the unintended consequences.

musicale 5y ago

> Walled gardens are bad for consumers. Apple is the definitive walled garden on planet earth. And yet many people on HN love their iPhones, Kindle Paperwhites, Xboxes, PlayStations, and Switch consoles... (note: you can actually load PDFs onto your Paperwhite, or onto your iPhone/iPad for that matter)

tshaddox 5y ago

Do you honestly think that iPhone customers will be more satisfied with iPhones if iPhones are required to support third-party app stores and/or sideloading? I find it impossible to believe that this could make customers happier. It is almost certainly going to result in more malware and user tracking, more bugs, more fragmented processes for finding and paying for apps, more user-hostile in-app purchase and subscription behavior, etc.

smoldesu 5y ago
I think more people would be more satisfied with their iPhone if Apple introduced a form of "Enter your Pin number to install $APP_NAME from $APP_REPOSITORY" system. That way, users would know outright that they're not getting software directly from Apple, and are forced to authenticate in order to confirm they want it. Then both sides win: you get to have your perfectly secure iPhone, and I get to have a device that actually does the things I want it to.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  That is still very likely to result in a worse experience for iPhone users for all the reasons I listed. I don’t think Apple’s concern is whether they can use their UI to shift blame to its customers when they sideload software that makes them unhappy—they just want their customers to be happy.
  - cronix 5y ago
    Why are you allowed to install things on your mac from non-apple sources if this is the case? I didn't have to go to an Apple Mac App store to download VSC from MS. I did have to click a prompt informing me that this program was downloaded from the internet and could potentially be harmful to your device type message, do you really want to install it, though. Has the mac landscape gone to hell with worse experiences, more malware or "software that makes them unhappy" because people can and do install software from non official Apple sources? It's literally the same company. Why does one being a "phone" or "mobile device" change things?
    - tshaddox 5y ago
      Mac certainly has more malware than iPhones, yes!
      - zakki 5y ago
        Does Mac OS customers experience worse than iPhone's customers?

_aavaa_ 5y ago

Apple does not inflict unreplaceable batteries, or lack of headphone jack, or no power brick withe their phone, or no headphones with phones, or fragile glass backs. They made their choice and the other companies followed along. I wish they hadn't done some of those choices myself, looking at you glass back. But Apple did not coerce Samsung to follow along, and I doubt that they made economies of scale issues for the rest of the phone market given their <20% market share. Samsung makes plenty of ads to take pot shots at Apple for these changes, and then a few months later they themselves follow suit. I just don't think enough people care about those features to vote with their wallet.

Bud 5y ago

> Apple is the primary reason we have unreplaceable batteries, for example. This is a goofy fantasy. Apple, which is a minority player in this market, is forcing everyone else to make battery replacements difficult? No it's not. That's false, and doesn't pass the laugh test. Can we engage with the truth, instead? Is that too difficult? There are no "economies of scale" here. Phone batteries aren't a standardized part; every iPhone has a customized battery that fits into the odd-shaped space Apple is able to create in the design. Your economies of scale argument is therefore total nonsense.

criddell 5y ago

> Apple is the definitive walled garden on planet earth. I think I would give that crown to Disney. Their parks are literally walled gardens where Disney controls every aspect and profits from every transaction.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

quitit 5y ago

Simple counter-example: There are two ways to subscribe to the New York Times: through an IAP, or by visiting the NYT website. If you then decide that you want to unsubscribe: Subscribed via the IAP? No problem, you click a button Subscribed via the website? You will need to call the NYT between business hours and have a chat with someone who will try their darnest to convince you to keep your subscription. This is the behaviour from a “reputable” company. Apple could charge 0% and these companies won’t be happy - they want the direct connection so they can find as many ways as possible to take your money. Things like IAP let people make purchases without having to make a trust evaluation of the developer. Frankly that is great for new, small or foreign developers, because consumers know that they can get their money back from Apple should things go poorly. Sure there’s downsides to this approach - but choice also exists, so why should we be forcing this particular choice in individuals or in this circumstance (why not on Nintendo, Sony, Amazon, Microsoft and more?) I dare say once this change is formalised worldwide and we have Premium-SMS style exploitation, there is going to be a lot more work needed to clean up the unintended consequences.