5 ms·

This is essentially just the typical corporate aversion to taxation. They want to benefit from the infrastructure, but don't want to pay for it. Nothing new he

This is essentially just the typical corporate aversion to taxation. They want to benefit from the infrastructure, but don't want to pay for it. Nothing new here, other than the weird tech bros leaping to defend the behaviour...

starik36 4y ago
The situation where you can purchase a service for 30% less elsewhere but not on the iPhone is pretty insane. And on top of that, you are not allowed to tell your users how to get a better deal. Regardless of his reasoning, Apple and some others have too much power.
- juve1996 4y ago
  How can Apple have "too much power" here, when there is a clear alternative where it is cheaper?
  - wbkang 4y ago
    It's not a "clear alternative" when Apple doesn't even allow you to mention that. There are other reasonable alternatives such as letting developers mention the alternative payment methods as long as they explain what the benefits of Apple payment ecosystem. I read a lot of people writing comments like "I prefer to go through Apple because of the ease of unsubscription." If the benefits are so clear, why are developers not even allowed to mention the alternative?
    - juve1996 4y ago
      Android is a very real and clear alternative. Android dominates market share. How you can say there isn't a clear alternative, I don't know.
      - starik36 4y ago
        Given the vendor lock-in and Apple's 50% market share, it's not much of an alternative.
        juve1996 4y ago
        That doesn't justify your argument. 50% is not a dominant position.
hamandcheese 4y ago
> They want to benefit from the infrastructure, but don't want to pay for it. The infrastructure is already paid for. I paid for it when I bought my $1000 iPhone.
- mullingitover 4y ago
  That would be a valid point if the phone wasn't vertically integrated with cloud services and ongoing support from the manufacturer. The terms for access to the app store are based on licensing for the software that's part of the device. I could see a reasonable compromise where you can wipe the iPhone and start from scratch with your own OS/drivers/etc, waive your warranty, and then be free to go nuts installing anything you want from any app store. I just can't imagine anyone being happy spending the thousand bucks purely for the hardware.
  - hamandcheese 4y ago
    My last iPhone before this one was also $1000. Oh, also, I pay for iCloud storage. I think I’ve covered the ongoing support and cloud costs as well.
piva00 4y ago
Why should Apple be allowed to have a competitor in the same space without paying the 30% Apple tax on top then? That's anti-trust 101.
- scarface74 4y ago
  So should we also stop console makers from having first party games? Stop stores from selling store brands?
  - piva00 4y ago
    I'd say yes if console makers would force all 3rd parties to not directly advertise how to create an account with them and pay through their own means for a subscription when needed instead of the console game store. I'd say yes if stores with their own store brands would force producers of 3rd party products to always pay a 30% cut and disallow the consumers from being able to purchase the product at a different place of their choosing.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      Consoles have forced third party game makers to pay a license fee for every physical game sold since the 80s no matter where you sold the game.
      - piva00 4y ago
        My example was about subscriptions, no console maker takes a cut of a subscription to a game done through the game publisher's own servers/service. No console maker takes a cut from sales of digital items done through the game's platform. You are moving the goalposts, licencing is a well established practice and only interferes with the sale of the initial product: the game, not subsequent upsales where the console maker has absolutely no interaction with, just like royalties for IP and so on, it's another broken analogy...
        scarface74 4y ago

starik36 4y ago

The situation where you can purchase a service for 30% less elsewhere but not on the iPhone is pretty insane. And on top of that, you are not allowed to tell your users how to get a better deal. Regardless of his reasoning, Apple and some others have too much power.

juve1996 4y ago
How can Apple have "too much power" here, when there is a clear alternative where it is cheaper?
- wbkang 4y ago
  It's not a "clear alternative" when Apple doesn't even allow you to mention that. There are other reasonable alternatives such as letting developers mention the alternative payment methods as long as they explain what the benefits of Apple payment ecosystem. I read a lot of people writing comments like "I prefer to go through Apple because of the ease of unsubscription." If the benefits are so clear, why are developers not even allowed to mention the alternative?
  - juve1996 4y ago
    Android is a very real and clear alternative. Android dominates market share. How you can say there isn't a clear alternative, I don't know.
    - starik36 4y ago
      Given the vendor lock-in and Apple's 50% market share, it's not much of an alternative.
      - juve1996 4y ago
        That doesn't justify your argument. 50% is not a dominant position.

hamandcheese 4y ago

> They want to benefit from the infrastructure, but don't want to pay for it. The infrastructure is already paid for. I paid for it when I bought my $1000 iPhone.

mullingitover 4y ago
That would be a valid point if the phone wasn't vertically integrated with cloud services and ongoing support from the manufacturer. The terms for access to the app store are based on licensing for the software that's part of the device. I could see a reasonable compromise where you can wipe the iPhone and start from scratch with your own OS/drivers/etc, waive your warranty, and then be free to go nuts installing anything you want from any app store. I just can't imagine anyone being happy spending the thousand bucks purely for the hardware.
- hamandcheese 4y ago
  My last iPhone before this one was also $1000. Oh, also, I pay for iCloud storage. I think I’ve covered the ongoing support and cloud costs as well.

piva00 4y ago

Why should Apple be allowed to have a competitor in the same space without paying the 30% Apple tax on top then? That's anti-trust 101.

scarface74 4y ago
So should we also stop console makers from having first party games? Stop stores from selling store brands?
- piva00 4y ago
  I'd say yes if console makers would force all 3rd parties to not directly advertise how to create an account with them and pay through their own means for a subscription when needed instead of the console game store. I'd say yes if stores with their own store brands would force producers of 3rd party products to always pay a 30% cut and disallow the consumers from being able to purchase the product at a different place of their choosing.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    Consoles have forced third party game makers to pay a license fee for every physical game sold since the 80s no matter where you sold the game.
    - piva00 4y ago
      My example was about subscriptions, no console maker takes a cut of a subscription to a game done through the game publisher's own servers/service. No console maker takes a cut from sales of digital items done through the game's platform. You are moving the goalposts, licencing is a well established practice and only interferes with the sale of the initial product: the game, not subsequent upsales where the console maker has absolutely no interaction with, just like royalties for IP and so on, it's another broken analogy...
      - scarface74 4y ago