5 ms·

As Milton Friedman said: "you cannot tax a company, you tax people". This is the result of a law trying to get some of the money the big Techs make in Europe...

by f1shy 4y ago

As Milton Friedman said: "you cannot tax a company, you tax people". This is the result of a law trying to get some of the money the big Techs make in Europe... They still take the same money, but we have to pay more, so that our government can spend more money on us... oh wait!...

sofixa 4y ago
Isn't this more attributable to the high inflation rates currently? A roughly 10% increase corresponds to the 9.1% annual inflation (as of August 2022), with some margin for some previous years. Not to mention the USD/EUR rate, which also probably impacts them a bit. Which tax are you talking about? Considering the amount of profits and cash reserves this company has, I don't see why some people are so opposed to taxing them. They're swimming in more money they can possibly use, what use is it? Close the loopholes and make them pay their fair share, they'll barely notice the difference anyway.
- TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago
  What loophole? The one where a business gets to decide what they charge? The free market loophole? The loophole where business pass costs on to customers? Do you propose governments should set prices?
  - cycomanic 4y ago
    So here I thought the free market always finds the lowest price based on supply and demand and costs had very little to do with it.
    - qeternity 4y ago
      Cost is the largest factor of the supply curve…
  - ReptileMan 4y ago
    Except app store is not free market but monopoly. So it should be treated like one. The moment sideloading/root or alternative appstores are allowed - then then can charge whatever they feel like. Vendor lock in is bad towards the customer so limiting it actually increases the free market. What you think of is Laissez-faire
    - qeternity 4y ago
      No, this is not even remotely close to a monopoly. Yes, Apple can dictate terms in its own store the same way that your local grocer can. When Android has 75% market share and multiple competing stores, we’re not even close to monopoly.
      - yelskcol 4y ago
        >Yes, Apple can dictate terms in its own store the same way that your local grocer can. Would be all well and awesome if you had any freedom of choice on Apple's platform and weren't forced into being locked into their ecosystem where you pay a 15% Apple tax on every purchase. Say what you like about mobile platforms but making ridiculous comparisons like this doesn't help your case.
        Someone 4y ago
        > Would be all well and awesome if you had any freedom of choice on Apple's platform I don’t see how that is an argument against ”Yes, Apple can dictate terms in its own store the same way that your local grocer can.”. You don’t have freedom of choice as to who to buy from at your local grocer, either. I think that, in principle, companies creating a market should be able to decide what gets sold there and demand any cut of sales they want. That also is what I think laws say in most countries. It’s fairly normal with game consoles, for example, and I expect you can’t sell merchandise from studios competing with Disney (if they still exist) in Disneyland or sell ice cream there without Disney taking a significant cut, or sell Shell products at an Exxon pump. The big question, though, is whether the market power of a few players in mobile apps is so undesirable that action is necessary, and if so, whether existing laws are sufficient to correct the issue, or whether the rules of the game should change and if so, how. I think law will be changed, but how, I’m not sure about. Any law saying “this applies only to companies Foo, Bar and Baz” will be shut down in courts, so arguments must be formulated as to what exactly is wrong with the current situation, and decisions will have to be made as to whether those rules also should apply to, for example, game consoles.
  - madsbuch 4y ago
    I love that this comment is a response to a pricing scheme where developers are forced into pricing brackets. Apple are effectively hindering developers selling their apps on a free market.
    - WHATDOESIT 4y ago
      But they also, you know, made the platform. Are you sure the platform would be there without their fees? Let's have a look at the Linux phone market...
      - whywhywhywhy 4y ago
        Ok, why do they not force fees on apps that run on their MacOS platform then? Or what about their WebKit platform?
        WHATDOESIT 4y ago
        Seems like they've chosen a different business model back then and since it didn't work out so well (compare Mac/macOS market penetration to iPhone/iOS) they changed it to something that allows them to capture more revenue and use the money to develop the platform much further. And they're not forcing it on Mac because that would cause outrage and people not upgrading the OS, and desktop/laptop computers are dying anyways. Also, App Store on Mac definitely has fees. Perfectly understandable IMHO. (Webkit might be a platform to Google but it's not from Apple's point of view, it's merely one part of their platform offerings)
        christophilus 4y ago
        TIL that producing MacBooks isn’t a good business.
        WHATDOESIT 4y ago
        Yes, it's much much smaller than the iPhone business. Of course, it'd be a huge company by itself, but Apple got to $1T thanks to iPhone, not Mac - by far.
  - hoppyhoppy2 4y ago
    By "loopholes" I think they were referring to stuff like >Apple relied on a “complex web of offshore entities” and U.S. tax loopholes to avoid paying billions of dollars in U.S. taxes on $44 billion in offshore income over the past four years, according to excerpts from a Senate subcommittee report to be released tomorrow as Apple CEO Tim Cook testifies on the company’s overseas operations. >The maker of iPhones and iPads used at least three foreign subsidiaries that it claims are not “tax resident in any nation” to help it avoid paying billions in “otherwise taxable offshore income,” the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations said in a statement today. https://www.forbes.com/sites/connieguglielmo/2013/05/20/apple-used-loopholes-to-skip-paying-44-billion-in-u-s-taxes-senate-committee-claims/?sh=6143aa5a5075 https://www.forbes.com/sites/connieguglielmo/2013/05/20/appl...
- zx85wes 4y ago
  I don't get why Apple should pay for the disastrous policies of the EU?
  - vkou 4y ago
    Apple doesn't have to pay anything, nobody is holding a gun to it's head, or forcing it to participate in the European market.
    - zx85wes 4y ago
      I was replying to "Considering the amount of profits and cash reserves this company has, I don't see why some people are so opposed to taxing them..."
    - f1shy 4y ago
      The EU market will suffer this. Not apple. EU people will have to pay more for the apps. Apple will still make same many, just as before. If you say: "yeah, but now less people is going to buy" I say: I do not think so, the increment is small enough, that if you need or want the app or game, you still pay it. The theory behind this is, that the EU will give back that money for the EU people, invested in Internet infrastructure or whatever... The problem is that in the middle that money will have to pay for TONS of bureaucrats...
- qeternity 4y ago
  AppStore fees are percentage based, so they are index-linked by definition. If prices go up due to inflation, so do Apple’s fees.
colinjoy 4y ago
> They still take the same money, but we have to pay more, so that ... … smaller businesses who cannot evade taxes quite as easily may compete on a more level playing field.
- YetAnotherNick 4y ago
  You argue that it is harder for smaller business to evade tax and easier for big business. So the playing field will be levelled by decreasing tax not increasing it.
  - rickdeckard 4y ago
    > "It's easier for a big corporation to break rules, so the playing field will be leveled by reducing the rules" You're tackling tax-evasion by closing loopholes and increasing consequences for tax-evasion. Decreasing taxes has no meaningful impact on the practice of tax-evasion, it doesn't "level" any playing field.
    - qeternity 4y ago
      > Decreasing taxes has no meaningful impact on the practice of tax-evasion, it doesn't "level" any playing field. Is there anything that backs this up? Ceteris paribus, I would be far more willing to dodge a 99% tax than I would be to dodge a 1% tax.
      - rickdeckard 4y ago
        I understand what you mean, but even in a thought-experiment it means you would have to lower the tax to the point that it's less economic for companies to maintain an already-existing tax-evasion scheme than just paying the tax. Those companies would then still not play by the rules and contribute to society accordingly, you would have adjusted YOUR rules to match THEIR sole interest (which might be based on a completely different motivation). The question is then: Is your (dramatically) lowered tax-income then still enough to serve its intended purpose (maintaining public goods etc)? I think it's logical that if you define a set of rules for a society to live in and some of its members are so powerful that they can circumvent the rules, abandoning the rules is not addressing your actual problem. I reckon it is better to make the game fair for all by closing holes and punishing rule-breakers, instead of allowing the powerful players to set the beneficial rules for themselves. But again, I think that's more of an interesting general exchange than a discussion about this parent-topic ;)
vkou 4y ago
One purpose of taxes is to raise the prices of some products relative to others, encouraging consumption of some over others.
cycomanic 4y ago
My googling doesn't show any quote that resembles that, can you give a source?
- colinjoy 4y ago
  Quick google as a service (I do not subscribe to Friedman's opinion) - Who Really Pays Business Taxes? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDqVDw9qfH4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDqVDw9qfH4 > The elementary fact is that “business” does not and cannot pay taxes. Only people can pay taxes. Corporate officials may sign the check, but the money that they forward to Internal Revenue comes from the corporation’s employees, customers or stockholders. A corporation is a pure intermediary through which its employees, customers and stockholders cooperate for their mutual benefit. Newsweek column from 1971-11-29 according to https://www.americanexperiment.org/milton-friedman-on-corporate-taxes/ https://www.americanexperiment.org/milton-friedman-on-corpor...
  - cycomanic 4y ago
    Ok thanks, seems like I just suck and googling. I would point out though that including stockholders into that quote makes it very different. I mean to me that is equivalent to the company paying the taxes.
    - Cederfjard 4y ago
      I think the idea is that at the end of the day, the money always come from individuals - that companies aren’t some nebulous, ethereal entities with no connection to real people, and so you should keep those individuals in mind when levying taxes. (I’m personally pro taxes in general, including for corporations).
    - f1shy 4y ago
      The thing is, sometimes the company can get away with transferring the cost of taxes 1:1 to the consumer. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. In the case of apps, the increment in price will be small (the prices are normally low anyway) so transferring the tax to the buyer is trivial.
PinguTS 4y ago
There is nothing with "the result of a law trying to get some of the money the big Techs make in Europe". There is nothing new here in Europe. It is what it is for 5 years now. What is different than before is the inflation and the massive devaluation of the EUR against the USD over the last year. That is the reason why the new iPhone 14 prices sharply increased in EUR. The change with the tax only applies to Vietnam. To my knowledge as a European citizen, Vietnam is far far away from Europe and not anywhere near. I know, that US people have problems with Geography.
rickdeckard 4y ago
The statement is correct, but I reckon the interpretation is not. If a company has reached the dominance of being taxed above average (or fined) due to their market behavior, them continuing to take the same money from the consumer SHOULD create room for other entrants in the same market-segment to balance the competition. If a company has reached such a state in a major market-segment that it can simply forward all additive costs for anti-competitive or market-dominating behavior to the consumer without consequences in sales, it probably means that the company is already way too big and should have been regulated much earlier... However, I doubt that anything like this is at play here.
- YetAnotherNick 4y ago
  You can't tax a company you hate higher unless you make the market closed, and it has much more of country defining change than just being anti Apple. Fining a company also has a negative consequence as it makes less rewarding for small company to grow, which is directly evident by startup funding in US vs Europe.
  - InsomniacL 4y ago
    > You can't tax a company you hate higher unless you make the market closed, so it's okay to substantutivaly reduce their tax burden as done today but not to increase it because that would mean a closed market? > Fining a company also has a negative consequence as it makes less rewarding for small company to grow There's so many more differences than just 'fines', I don't think you can draw that simple a conclusion.
  - rickdeckard 4y ago
    Don't know where "hate" and "Anti-Apple" is coming from. For sure, everything can have positive and negative consequences, it's rarely clear-cut. It's also not about taxing a specific company, taxes are used to discourage/incentivize certain movement in a market. If you (an individual) pay higher tax for using fossil fuels than renewable energy, you are incentivized to use renewable energy., If you have the option to tax-deduct your retirement plan, you are incentivized to invest in a retirement plan. In a just system, a FINE is ordered for breaking rules. I doubt that fining a company for i.e. anti-competitive behavior makes it "less rewarding" for small companies in the same space to grow. Moreover, those small companies were likely affected by those anti-competitive behaviors, as they were competitors.
fomine3 4y ago
This is off topic for this change. I don't like app store duopoly but this is just applying real forex for their rate. Still it could be said that it's pain that we can't price for each currency, for who want to price like Steam (make it cheap for Turkey). It seems that Google Play supports it?
baud147258 4y ago
I'd say that the people our (European) governments are spending most of the tax money on aren't necessarily the biggest users of Apple hardware...
Gigachad 4y ago
Not entirely true because this assumes people continue to consume the same amount. The provided value of the service is unchanged, so you would expect some drop in purchase as the price goes up.
- RNAlfons 4y ago
  Luckily for Apple the choice for alternatives is small as long as you're trapped within the Apple Ecosystem. And changing the ecosystem is hard for most so now it's just the exercise to find out how much you can rise the price before people jump ship. I'm quite sure there is much room left for people who are ready to pay $1000 for a phone.
  - Gigachad 4y ago
    It seems to me that almost all app spend is optional. Sure, there is no other App Store to buy from on the iphone, but just buying less apps overall is an option that people will take.
    - f1shy 4y ago
      Yes, optional, but I do not think this increment will deter people from buying apps...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by f1shy 4y ago

sofixa 4y ago

Isn't this more attributable to the high inflation rates currently? A roughly 10% increase corresponds to the 9.1% annual inflation (as of August 2022), with some margin for some previous years. Not to mention the USD/EUR rate, which also probably impacts them a bit. Which tax are you talking about? Considering the amount of profits and cash reserves this company has, I don't see why some people are so opposed to taxing them. They're swimming in more money they can possibly use, what use is it? Close the loopholes and make them pay their fair share, they'll barely notice the difference anyway.

TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago
What loophole? The one where a business gets to decide what they charge? The free market loophole? The loophole where business pass costs on to customers? Do you propose governments should set prices?
- cycomanic 4y ago
  So here I thought the free market always finds the lowest price based on supply and demand and costs had very little to do with it.
  - qeternity 4y ago
    Cost is the largest factor of the supply curve…
- ReptileMan 4y ago
  Except app store is not free market but monopoly. So it should be treated like one. The moment sideloading/root or alternative appstores are allowed - then then can charge whatever they feel like. Vendor lock in is bad towards the customer so limiting it actually increases the free market. What you think of is Laissez-faire
  - qeternity 4y ago
    No, this is not even remotely close to a monopoly. Yes, Apple can dictate terms in its own store the same way that your local grocer can. When Android has 75% market share and multiple competing stores, we’re not even close to monopoly.
    - yelskcol 4y ago
      >Yes, Apple can dictate terms in its own store the same way that your local grocer can. Would be all well and awesome if you had any freedom of choice on Apple's platform and weren't forced into being locked into their ecosystem where you pay a 15% Apple tax on every purchase. Say what you like about mobile platforms but making ridiculous comparisons like this doesn't help your case.
      - Someone 4y ago
        > Would be all well and awesome if you had any freedom of choice on Apple's platform I don’t see how that is an argument against ”Yes, Apple can dictate terms in its own store the same way that your local grocer can.”. You don’t have freedom of choice as to who to buy from at your local grocer, either. I think that, in principle, companies creating a market should be able to decide what gets sold there and demand any cut of sales they want. That also is what I think laws say in most countries. It’s fairly normal with game consoles, for example, and I expect you can’t sell merchandise from studios competing with Disney (if they still exist) in Disneyland or sell ice cream there without Disney taking a significant cut, or sell Shell products at an Exxon pump. The big question, though, is whether the market power of a few players in mobile apps is so undesirable that action is necessary, and if so, whether existing laws are sufficient to correct the issue, or whether the rules of the game should change and if so, how. I think law will be changed, but how, I’m not sure about. Any law saying “this applies only to companies Foo, Bar and Baz” will be shut down in courts, so arguments must be formulated as to what exactly is wrong with the current situation, and decisions will have to be made as to whether those rules also should apply to, for example, game consoles.
- madsbuch 4y ago
  I love that this comment is a response to a pricing scheme where developers are forced into pricing brackets. Apple are effectively hindering developers selling their apps on a free market.
  - WHATDOESIT 4y ago
    But they also, you know, made the platform. Are you sure the platform would be there without their fees? Let's have a look at the Linux phone market...
    - whywhywhywhy 4y ago
      Ok, why do they not force fees on apps that run on their MacOS platform then? Or what about their WebKit platform?
      - WHATDOESIT 4y ago
        Seems like they've chosen a different business model back then and since it didn't work out so well (compare Mac/macOS market penetration to iPhone/iOS) they changed it to something that allows them to capture more revenue and use the money to develop the platform much further. And they're not forcing it on Mac because that would cause outrage and people not upgrading the OS, and desktop/laptop computers are dying anyways. Also, App Store on Mac definitely has fees. Perfectly understandable IMHO. (Webkit might be a platform to Google but it's not from Apple's point of view, it's merely one part of their platform offerings)
        christophilus 4y ago
        TIL that producing MacBooks isn’t a good business.
        WHATDOESIT 4y ago
        Yes, it's much much smaller than the iPhone business. Of course, it'd be a huge company by itself, but Apple got to $1T thanks to iPhone, not Mac - by far.
- hoppyhoppy2 4y ago
  By "loopholes" I think they were referring to stuff like >Apple relied on a “complex web of offshore entities” and U.S. tax loopholes to avoid paying billions of dollars in U.S. taxes on $44 billion in offshore income over the past four years, according to excerpts from a Senate subcommittee report to be released tomorrow as Apple CEO Tim Cook testifies on the company’s overseas operations. >The maker of iPhones and iPads used at least three foreign subsidiaries that it claims are not “tax resident in any nation” to help it avoid paying billions in “otherwise taxable offshore income,” the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations said in a statement today. https://www.forbes.com/sites/connieguglielmo/2013/05/20/apple-used-loopholes-to-skip-paying-44-billion-in-u-s-taxes-senate-committee-claims/?sh=6143aa5a5075 https://www.forbes.com/sites/connieguglielmo/2013/05/20/appl...
zx85wes 4y ago
I don't get why Apple should pay for the disastrous policies of the EU?
- vkou 4y ago
  Apple doesn't have to pay anything, nobody is holding a gun to it's head, or forcing it to participate in the European market.
  - zx85wes 4y ago
    I was replying to "Considering the amount of profits and cash reserves this company has, I don't see why some people are so opposed to taxing them..."
  - f1shy 4y ago
    The EU market will suffer this. Not apple. EU people will have to pay more for the apps. Apple will still make same many, just as before. If you say: "yeah, but now less people is going to buy" I say: I do not think so, the increment is small enough, that if you need or want the app or game, you still pay it. The theory behind this is, that the EU will give back that money for the EU people, invested in Internet infrastructure or whatever... The problem is that in the middle that money will have to pay for TONS of bureaucrats...
qeternity 4y ago
AppStore fees are percentage based, so they are index-linked by definition. If prices go up due to inflation, so do Apple’s fees.

colinjoy 4y ago

> They still take the same money, but we have to pay more, so that ... … smaller businesses who cannot evade taxes quite as easily may compete on a more level playing field.

YetAnotherNick 4y ago
You argue that it is harder for smaller business to evade tax and easier for big business. So the playing field will be levelled by decreasing tax not increasing it.
- rickdeckard 4y ago
  > "It's easier for a big corporation to break rules, so the playing field will be leveled by reducing the rules" You're tackling tax-evasion by closing loopholes and increasing consequences for tax-evasion. Decreasing taxes has no meaningful impact on the practice of tax-evasion, it doesn't "level" any playing field.
  - qeternity 4y ago
    > Decreasing taxes has no meaningful impact on the practice of tax-evasion, it doesn't "level" any playing field. Is there anything that backs this up? Ceteris paribus, I would be far more willing to dodge a 99% tax than I would be to dodge a 1% tax.
    - rickdeckard 4y ago
      I understand what you mean, but even in a thought-experiment it means you would have to lower the tax to the point that it's less economic for companies to maintain an already-existing tax-evasion scheme than just paying the tax. Those companies would then still not play by the rules and contribute to society accordingly, you would have adjusted YOUR rules to match THEIR sole interest (which might be based on a completely different motivation). The question is then: Is your (dramatically) lowered tax-income then still enough to serve its intended purpose (maintaining public goods etc)? I think it's logical that if you define a set of rules for a society to live in and some of its members are so powerful that they can circumvent the rules, abandoning the rules is not addressing your actual problem. I reckon it is better to make the game fair for all by closing holes and punishing rule-breakers, instead of allowing the powerful players to set the beneficial rules for themselves. But again, I think that's more of an interesting general exchange than a discussion about this parent-topic ;)

vkou 4y ago

One purpose of taxes is to raise the prices of some products relative to others, encouraging consumption of some over others.

cycomanic 4y ago

My googling doesn't show any quote that resembles that, can you give a source?

colinjoy 4y ago
Quick google as a service (I do not subscribe to Friedman's opinion) - Who Really Pays Business Taxes? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDqVDw9qfH4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDqVDw9qfH4 > The elementary fact is that “business” does not and cannot pay taxes. Only people can pay taxes. Corporate officials may sign the check, but the money that they forward to Internal Revenue comes from the corporation’s employees, customers or stockholders. A corporation is a pure intermediary through which its employees, customers and stockholders cooperate for their mutual benefit. Newsweek column from 1971-11-29 according to https://www.americanexperiment.org/milton-friedman-on-corporate-taxes/ https://www.americanexperiment.org/milton-friedman-on-corpor...
- cycomanic 4y ago
  Ok thanks, seems like I just suck and googling. I would point out though that including stockholders into that quote makes it very different. I mean to me that is equivalent to the company paying the taxes.
  - Cederfjard 4y ago
    I think the idea is that at the end of the day, the money always come from individuals - that companies aren’t some nebulous, ethereal entities with no connection to real people, and so you should keep those individuals in mind when levying taxes. (I’m personally pro taxes in general, including for corporations).
  - f1shy 4y ago
    The thing is, sometimes the company can get away with transferring the cost of taxes 1:1 to the consumer. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. In the case of apps, the increment in price will be small (the prices are normally low anyway) so transferring the tax to the buyer is trivial.

PinguTS 4y ago

There is nothing with "the result of a law trying to get some of the money the big Techs make in Europe". There is nothing new here in Europe. It is what it is for 5 years now. What is different than before is the inflation and the massive devaluation of the EUR against the USD over the last year. That is the reason why the new iPhone 14 prices sharply increased in EUR. The change with the tax only applies to Vietnam. To my knowledge as a European citizen, Vietnam is far far away from Europe and not anywhere near. I know, that US people have problems with Geography.

rickdeckard 4y ago

The statement is correct, but I reckon the interpretation is not. If a company has reached the dominance of being taxed above average (or fined) due to their market behavior, them continuing to take the same money from the consumer SHOULD create room for other entrants in the same market-segment to balance the competition. If a company has reached such a state in a major market-segment that it can simply forward all additive costs for anti-competitive or market-dominating behavior to the consumer without consequences in sales, it probably means that the company is already way too big and should have been regulated much earlier... However, I doubt that anything like this is at play here.

YetAnotherNick 4y ago
You can't tax a company you hate higher unless you make the market closed, and it has much more of country defining change than just being anti Apple. Fining a company also has a negative consequence as it makes less rewarding for small company to grow, which is directly evident by startup funding in US vs Europe.
- InsomniacL 4y ago
  > You can't tax a company you hate higher unless you make the market closed, so it's okay to substantutivaly reduce their tax burden as done today but not to increase it because that would mean a closed market? > Fining a company also has a negative consequence as it makes less rewarding for small company to grow There's so many more differences than just 'fines', I don't think you can draw that simple a conclusion.
- rickdeckard 4y ago
  Don't know where "hate" and "Anti-Apple" is coming from. For sure, everything can have positive and negative consequences, it's rarely clear-cut. It's also not about taxing a specific company, taxes are used to discourage/incentivize certain movement in a market. If you (an individual) pay higher tax for using fossil fuels than renewable energy, you are incentivized to use renewable energy., If you have the option to tax-deduct your retirement plan, you are incentivized to invest in a retirement plan. In a just system, a FINE is ordered for breaking rules. I doubt that fining a company for i.e. anti-competitive behavior makes it "less rewarding" for small companies in the same space to grow. Moreover, those small companies were likely affected by those anti-competitive behaviors, as they were competitors.

fomine3 4y ago

This is off topic for this change. I don't like app store duopoly but this is just applying real forex for their rate. Still it could be said that it's pain that we can't price for each currency, for who want to price like Steam (make it cheap for Turkey). It seems that Google Play supports it?

baud147258 4y ago

I'd say that the people our (European) governments are spending most of the tax money on aren't necessarily the biggest users of Apple hardware...

Gigachad 4y ago

Not entirely true because this assumes people continue to consume the same amount. The provided value of the service is unchanged, so you would expect some drop in purchase as the price goes up.

RNAlfons 4y ago
Luckily for Apple the choice for alternatives is small as long as you're trapped within the Apple Ecosystem. And changing the ecosystem is hard for most so now it's just the exercise to find out how much you can rise the price before people jump ship. I'm quite sure there is much room left for people who are ready to pay $1000 for a phone.
- Gigachad 4y ago
  It seems to me that almost all app spend is optional. Sure, there is no other App Store to buy from on the iphone, but just buying less apps overall is an option that people will take.
  - f1shy 4y ago
    Yes, optional, but I do not think this increment will deter people from buying apps...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]