7 ms·
No? This is more like Apple telling a car company to allow any gas instead of only "apple approved gas" which is marked up by 30% in price. It doesn't mean that
by Anunayj 5y ago
No? This is more like Apple telling a car company to allow any gas instead of only "apple approved gas" which is marked up by 30% in price. It doesn't mean that any company can just copy that car and put their label on it.
- olliej 5y agoSo you think apple should charge for software updates then?
- polski-g 5y agoSamsung is charging for updates after N years by simply not releasing updates for older phones
- olliej 5y agoWhere N is frequently zero, if not out of date w/o updates at time of sale.
- simfree 5y agoApple and Microsoft charge for upgrades on computers, but not for security updates. Cross-subsidization is obscuring the true cost of a good and not permitting consumer choice, many people don't want UI revamps and feature rewrites bundled with basic security updates, with the cost hidden in the fees charged to App Store developers and never disclosed to the customer.
- olliej 5y agoWhat are you talking about? Apple doesn’t charge for OS updates, yet provides years of support for all its devices. The alternative is charging for updates, or going the android route and selling out users while while also not providing any updates. Google can give away android because Android is stalkerware that feeds their ad revenue.
- yywwbbn 5y agoYes they do it completely for free on macOS. How can they afford this without a 30% cut on all software sold by anyone?
- spacemanmatt 5y agoI think Apple should stop putting proprietary fuel adapters on their cars. It seems like you just get this all wrong on purpose.