3 ms·

So you're arguing that because apple makes a profit from the initial sale of the phone...they shouldn't also make a profit from the services they provide for th

So you're arguing that because apple makes a profit from the initial sale of the phone...they shouldn't also make a profit from the services they provide for that phone (such as maintaining an app store and the infrastructure for that app store)? That's a bold position to take. What makes you feel entitled to that? Did apple ever sell iPhones as a one-and-done purchase? I'm pretty confused about how you're justifying this argument. It seems to me that you think all developers have some kind of entitlement to make a profit off of Apple's ecosystem without Apple making a profit from an ecosystem they risked a lot to build, because Apple is already making a profit off the iPhone. Am I following that correctly?

aspenmayer 5y ago
> Did apple ever sell iPhones as a one-and-done purchase? Yes, the original iPhone 2G. It didn’t even have App Store on launch version of iOS. In fact, Cydia, the original jailbreak app store, existed on iOS before the official App Store. Saurik can speak to any fees for paid apps featured on Cydia. I remember an SMS app that allowed reply from notifications that I bought through Cydia, but I forget the name, maybe biteSMS? Most apps were entirely free, and Cydia supports adding arbitrary repositories. So, arguably, the original app purchasing experience on iOS was free and open source. Apple and their App Store couldn’t compete, and thus the war against right to compute and jailbreaks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cydia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cydia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App_Store_(iOS/iPadOS) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App_Store_(iOS/iPadOS)
- abletonlive 5y ago
  So you basically agree all phones since the original iPhone are not sold as one-and-done purchases? I just don't understand where developers are coming from. Let's say I build a wildly successful theme park. It's the best theme park in the world and only a couple other theme parks exist that is as fun as my theme park. Because I'm so good at building theme parks, do you have some kind of entitlement to put your ride in my theme park and charge people money to ride it?
  - aspenmayer 5y ago
    I don’t agree, because, as I said, the original iPhone didn’t even allow installing apps unless you jailbroke and sideloaded. Android has always let you sideload. Sideloading by the community is the natural state of affairs, imo. Insisting that users and developers only use an App Store that the vendors themselves run is untenable, and ahistorical. I don’t get your theme park example. Here’s my spin on your analogy: Apple built the theme park, and now they want to dictate that the independently-operated hotdog vendor may only purchase buns from Apple, and they further dictate that if they use the buns (totally optional), then Apple is entitled to 27% of the total hotdog purchase price.
    - abletonlive 5y ago
      > Apple built the theme park, and now they want to dictate that the independently-operated hotdog vendor may only purchase buns from Apple, and they further dictate that if they use the buns (totally optional), then Apple is entitled to 27% of the total hotdog purchase price. You basically just described McDonald's business model. And yes, that's fair. Because if you as a hotdog vendor want to sell in Apple's theme park, then you play by Apple theme park rules. You can sell your hotdogs on the street if you don't like Apple's terms. What's so hard to understand about that?
      - aspenmayer 5y ago
        > What's so hard to understand about that? It’s anticompetitive, and so folks are legislating against it. What’s so hard to understand about that?
        abletonlive 5y ago
        It's hard for me to understand how it's anticompetitive to charge a fee for a platform that you built, when there are many other platforms which a developer could use to sell their wares. It seems to me like the only folk legislating against it are European nations, who have historically very uncompetitive tech companies so this is their only way of getting a piece of the pie. Seems like everybody is motivated by money to me. Epic and co. can act like they are for the people, but in the end, they just want more money.

aspenmayer 5y ago

> Did apple ever sell iPhones as a one-and-done purchase? Yes, the original iPhone 2G. It didn’t even have App Store on launch version of iOS. In fact, Cydia, the original jailbreak app store, existed on iOS before the official App Store. Saurik can speak to any fees for paid apps featured on Cydia. I remember an SMS app that allowed reply from notifications that I bought through Cydia, but I forget the name, maybe biteSMS? Most apps were entirely free, and Cydia supports adding arbitrary repositories. So, arguably, the original app purchasing experience on iOS was free and open source. Apple and their App Store couldn’t compete, and thus the war against right to compute and jailbreaks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cydia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cydia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App_Store_(iOS/iPadOS) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App_Store_(iOS/iPadOS)

abletonlive 5y ago
So you basically agree all phones since the original iPhone are not sold as one-and-done purchases? I just don't understand where developers are coming from. Let's say I build a wildly successful theme park. It's the best theme park in the world and only a couple other theme parks exist that is as fun as my theme park. Because I'm so good at building theme parks, do you have some kind of entitlement to put your ride in my theme park and charge people money to ride it?
- aspenmayer 5y ago
  I don’t agree, because, as I said, the original iPhone didn’t even allow installing apps unless you jailbroke and sideloaded. Android has always let you sideload. Sideloading by the community is the natural state of affairs, imo. Insisting that users and developers only use an App Store that the vendors themselves run is untenable, and ahistorical. I don’t get your theme park example. Here’s my spin on your analogy: Apple built the theme park, and now they want to dictate that the independently-operated hotdog vendor may only purchase buns from Apple, and they further dictate that if they use the buns (totally optional), then Apple is entitled to 27% of the total hotdog purchase price.
  - abletonlive 5y ago
    > Apple built the theme park, and now they want to dictate that the independently-operated hotdog vendor may only purchase buns from Apple, and they further dictate that if they use the buns (totally optional), then Apple is entitled to 27% of the total hotdog purchase price. You basically just described McDonald's business model. And yes, that's fair. Because if you as a hotdog vendor want to sell in Apple's theme park, then you play by Apple theme park rules. You can sell your hotdogs on the street if you don't like Apple's terms. What's so hard to understand about that?
    - aspenmayer 5y ago
      > What's so hard to understand about that? It’s anticompetitive, and so folks are legislating against it. What’s so hard to understand about that?
      - abletonlive 5y ago
        It's hard for me to understand how it's anticompetitive to charge a fee for a platform that you built, when there are many other platforms which a developer could use to sell their wares. It seems to me like the only folk legislating against it are European nations, who have historically very uncompetitive tech companies so this is their only way of getting a piece of the pie. Seems like everybody is motivated by money to me. Epic and co. can act like they are for the people, but in the end, they just want more money.