4 ms·

Would I be free to choose to pay for your App through Apple? Or would the developer have the choice, and I end up having to call them to end the subscription th

Would I be free to choose to pay for your App through Apple? Or would the developer have the choice, and I end up having to call them to end the subscription the way so many news papers require you to?

tsimionescu 5y ago
Can you currently pay for gas through Apple? Or for your Netflix account? Or for installing Mentor Graphics on your Mac? Why would a business transaction between you and a third party necessarily involve Apple being a payment option?
- HatchedLake721 5y ago
  Because Apple given the third party access to you via a marketplace. And you are a participant of this marketplace, because Apple spent billions on R&D and ended up being so good, that developers and consumers abandoned other platforms in droves. Apple also smoked previous multibillion competitors (BlackBerry and Nokia) into shame, and they’re now part of history and MBA lectures on how a young and innovative player can kill your slow and boring business in a short time. That’s why Apple is a market leader, with the best vertically integrated hardware and software devices, as well as a marketplace with billion people that both devs and consumers eagerly want to be part of. The same marketplace developers agreed to join by paying up 30% of revenue 10+ years ago, while abandoning Windows Phone and others, and playing part in the shaping the market where it is today. And suddenly developers cry wolf that it’s a basic human right to have access to a marketplace with 1 billion people for free, which they played active part in building.
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    Apple forces me to use their marketplace to do business with any third party selling software for my phone. It is not "giving access" to third parties, it is restricting them from accessing my phone unless they use Apple's preferred software distribution method. The fact that they were in the right place at the right time with the right fashion and right look and feel to capture this market does not entitle them to perpetually profit from it. And I do say "happened to", because the iPhone had nothing other than chance going for it, and it was simply an idea whose time had come. Several others were developing smartphones at the same time, such as Nokia, LG, and Google's Android. Apple had better and faster execution, much better marketing, and luck.
    - bredren 5y ago
      These are fair points, I am curious how you perceive the existing wireless industry in the United States. It seems to me that Verizon and others are in a state of perpetually profiting their consolidation of companies that were in the "right place at the right time." Would you agree with this? If so, do you think these companies are making outsized profits given lack of entitlement? How would you craft policy that would cover not just the Apple but other companies like wireless carriers? Separately, you mention Mentor Graphics above. Did you mean to refer to chip-level design tool software?
      - tsimionescu 5y ago
        I'm not sure how the US wireless market works, as I don't live there. Still, centralization and consolidation of service providers is always a bad thing, and ideally anti-trust legislation should reflect this. This problem exists in my own country as well. Still, this seems like a separate problem to me - one is consolidation of different service providers into fewer ones; the other is extending your market position in one space (smartphones as hardware) into another (smartphone software). I doubt the exact same legislation could cover both, as acquiring/merging with competitors is different from creating your own market monopoly. I don't know enough about how these things can exactly be regulated to propose actual legislation. I can only say that the current situation is bad and getting worse, and that allowing huge mergers, and allowing companies to control all activity on the hardware they sell, are both negatives that need to be legislated somehow. > Separately, you mention Mentor Graphics above. Did you mean to refer to chip-level design tool software? Yes, it was the first thing that came to my mind as Unix-based commercial software. Honestly, I have no idea if it actually runs on a Mac, but the exact software was immaterial to my point, so I didn't do too much research.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - baxtr 5y ago
      Just don’t an Apple phone. It’s that easy.

tsimionescu 5y ago

Can you currently pay for gas through Apple? Or for your Netflix account? Or for installing Mentor Graphics on your Mac? Why would a business transaction between you and a third party necessarily involve Apple being a payment option?

HatchedLake721 5y ago
Because Apple given the third party access to you via a marketplace. And you are a participant of this marketplace, because Apple spent billions on R&D and ended up being so good, that developers and consumers abandoned other platforms in droves. Apple also smoked previous multibillion competitors (BlackBerry and Nokia) into shame, and they’re now part of history and MBA lectures on how a young and innovative player can kill your slow and boring business in a short time. That’s why Apple is a market leader, with the best vertically integrated hardware and software devices, as well as a marketplace with billion people that both devs and consumers eagerly want to be part of. The same marketplace developers agreed to join by paying up 30% of revenue 10+ years ago, while abandoning Windows Phone and others, and playing part in the shaping the market where it is today. And suddenly developers cry wolf that it’s a basic human right to have access to a marketplace with 1 billion people for free, which they played active part in building.
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  Apple forces me to use their marketplace to do business with any third party selling software for my phone. It is not "giving access" to third parties, it is restricting them from accessing my phone unless they use Apple's preferred software distribution method. The fact that they were in the right place at the right time with the right fashion and right look and feel to capture this market does not entitle them to perpetually profit from it. And I do say "happened to", because the iPhone had nothing other than chance going for it, and it was simply an idea whose time had come. Several others were developing smartphones at the same time, such as Nokia, LG, and Google's Android. Apple had better and faster execution, much better marketing, and luck.
  - bredren 5y ago
    These are fair points, I am curious how you perceive the existing wireless industry in the United States. It seems to me that Verizon and others are in a state of perpetually profiting their consolidation of companies that were in the "right place at the right time." Would you agree with this? If so, do you think these companies are making outsized profits given lack of entitlement? How would you craft policy that would cover not just the Apple but other companies like wireless carriers? Separately, you mention Mentor Graphics above. Did you mean to refer to chip-level design tool software?
    - tsimionescu 5y ago
      I'm not sure how the US wireless market works, as I don't live there. Still, centralization and consolidation of service providers is always a bad thing, and ideally anti-trust legislation should reflect this. This problem exists in my own country as well. Still, this seems like a separate problem to me - one is consolidation of different service providers into fewer ones; the other is extending your market position in one space (smartphones as hardware) into another (smartphone software). I doubt the exact same legislation could cover both, as acquiring/merging with competitors is different from creating your own market monopoly. I don't know enough about how these things can exactly be regulated to propose actual legislation. I can only say that the current situation is bad and getting worse, and that allowing huge mergers, and allowing companies to control all activity on the hardware they sell, are both negatives that need to be legislated somehow. > Separately, you mention Mentor Graphics above. Did you mean to refer to chip-level design tool software? Yes, it was the first thing that came to my mind as Unix-based commercial software. Honestly, I have no idea if it actually runs on a Mac, but the exact software was immaterial to my point, so I didn't do too much research.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - baxtr 5y ago
    Just don’t an Apple phone. It’s that easy.