6 ms·

They didn't block it, they just wanted a 30% cut. Yes it is abhorrent to rent seek 30% of every transaction when you literally contributed nothing whatsoever to

They didn't block it, they just wanted a 30% cut. Yes it is abhorrent to rent seek 30% of every transaction when you literally contributed nothing whatsoever to that product.

shadowgovt 4y ago
> contributed nothing whatsoever The hardware it's running on? I don't see an issue. If users have a concern, they can use another platform. ETA: it does seem to be the kind of thing that the market will sort out... If apple is going to build a reputation for being hostile to use as a crypto transaction platform, then Android is just a quick trip to the nearest Best Buy away.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  They didn't contribute that, the user already payed for it (and Apple pocketed ~40% of the MSRP). The hardware is paid for, same as the software it comes pre-installed with. > If users have a concern, they can use another platform. They can't. Apple locks the bootloader even after purchasing/unlocking the device. It would be nice if we could though! > it does seem to be the kind of thing that the market will sort out... No, I think the arbitrary limitation of what you can execute on hardware you purchased will be a bit more of a sticking point than that. At least when we're addressing the single largest corporation in modern American history, Europe seems to agree with me.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    Another hardware platform, these days Apple functionally sells computing appliances, not general purpose computers. It's why I recommend Apple to all my relatives who don't want to think about the guts of the machine and I recommend windows or Linux to everyone I know who wants to write their own software.
    - smoldesu 4y ago
      That's great! Giving me bootloader access has nothing to do with how your grandma uses her iPhone though, at least if I'm understanding your grandma right.
      - shadowgovt 4y ago
        It requires more than zero engineering effort on their part so they won't. It is also, technically, an attack vector... A sufficiently sophisticated phisher might be able to convince somebody to replace their bootloader, but we both know that's not why Apple does it. They do it because it allows them to capture the revenue for use of their computing appliances and it saves them every headache of having to provide customer support for hardware they sell that isn't running an operating system they wrote. Serving your use case isn't what they make computers for. Google does though. I recommend switching platforms.
        smoldesu 4y ago
        Serving my use case is what computers are. If Apple doesn't make those devices, then why are their devices capable of doing everything I described? They already wrote the bootloader. They already wrote the sideloading code, app sandboxing model, filesystem isolation APIs and even the packaging standard needed to distribute iOS applications. What's the major engineering hurdle they're struggling with, relative to everything they've already done?
        shadowgovt 4y ago
        I don't follow. They don't let you replace the bootloader; I thought that was your concern. So they can't do everything you want them to. I can run Doom on a refrigerator but it's still a refrigerator. Apple makes computing appliances.
        smoldesu 4y ago
        I don't follow either. If this refrigerator got an update that started showing you advertisements, you'd want the manufacturer to have some form of accountability that they don't further degrade the experience. Having multiple choices benefits everyone and forces the OEM to not make bone-headed moves. You're arguing that Apple shouldn't do good things because... Apple doesn't care? I already know that. I own many of their devices and experience it first-hand.
  - WJW 4y ago
    > They can't. Apple locks the bootloader... There are other hardware manufacturers than Apple?
    - smoldesu 4y ago
      Nope. Choosing your software platform on iPhone isn't an option though, if it was then we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.
      - martimarkov 4y ago
        I mean yes they are - there are so many manufacturers. With the same argument you can say - open access to every device which will diminish a lot of the security by increasing the attack vector. Why isn't my TV open or my Xbox or my PS? Why can't I edit the code of Windows is not such a stretch based on your arguments? Also why should companies be forced to open stuff? They market it as a closed system - maybe respect the consumers who like closed systems. There are options for you - it's other vendors. So you have a choice. But even if you didn't there is no reason or expectation you should have a choice if the market doesn't want to cater. One possible solution is for apple and other manufacturers to be forced to sell developer devices where the restrictions are minimal or non-existent. That I think will solve your quarrel.
zaphirplane 4y ago
I get why people have a negative reaction and it makes sense. Then I look at retail where there are several wholeseller adding a %, stores adding a %, drop ship sellers adding a percent There was a documentary that showed the price of a chicken sold in a store and how much the chicken farmer makes vs the retail price and I can’t say the situation is wildly out of tune with retail or the big SAP/ERP consulting
- smoldesu 4y ago
  This might be a relevant comparison if the App Store had any businesses it competes with, like the ones grocery stores contend with.
  - relativ575 4y ago
    I know we've debated this to death, but Android's market share is bigger than iPhone's.
    - saurik 4y ago
      The consumer owns one phone or the other, and the switching costs are ridiculously high (in no small part because of other properties of these anti-competitive store licensing models). The average consumer happily can shop at multiple grocery stores, even on the same day as part of the same trip... if isn't even uncommon. The segmentation of users into the ones that own an iPhone vs. the ones that own an Android device should be looked at as creating two separate markets, similar to how if you have a monopoly on groceries only in Wisconsin you somehow aren't considered a monopoly just because your national marketshare is small.
    - croach6642 4y ago
      Yes, Android's share is much bigger, but the statement is too generalized to make a relative comparison. While Android has 70+% of global market share, it's important to understand how the users LTV of any consumer business varies based on geo dispersion, hardware price tier, user sophistication and sales distribution model. Apple delivers users that are quantifiably more valuable in every geo. That said, Apple's monopolistic practices create a ripe oppty for Android to own web3's watershed moment
dools 4y ago
That’s not what rent seeking is. Apple has a very strong distribution channel, in part because of how trustworthy it is, that costs money to run, so it’s fair they take a cut of sales.

They didn't block it, they just wanted a 30% cut. Yes it is abhorrent to rent seek 30% of every transaction when you literally contributed nothing whatsoever to that product.

shadowgovt 4y ago

> contributed nothing whatsoever The hardware it's running on? I don't see an issue. If users have a concern, they can use another platform. ETA: it does seem to be the kind of thing that the market will sort out... If apple is going to build a reputation for being hostile to use as a crypto transaction platform, then Android is just a quick trip to the nearest Best Buy away.

smoldesu 4y ago
They didn't contribute that, the user already payed for it (and Apple pocketed ~40% of the MSRP). The hardware is paid for, same as the software it comes pre-installed with. > If users have a concern, they can use another platform. They can't. Apple locks the bootloader even after purchasing/unlocking the device. It would be nice if we could though! > it does seem to be the kind of thing that the market will sort out... No, I think the arbitrary limitation of what you can execute on hardware you purchased will be a bit more of a sticking point than that. At least when we're addressing the single largest corporation in modern American history, Europe seems to agree with me.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  Another hardware platform, these days Apple functionally sells computing appliances, not general purpose computers. It's why I recommend Apple to all my relatives who don't want to think about the guts of the machine and I recommend windows or Linux to everyone I know who wants to write their own software.
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    That's great! Giving me bootloader access has nothing to do with how your grandma uses her iPhone though, at least if I'm understanding your grandma right.
    - shadowgovt 4y ago
      It requires more than zero engineering effort on their part so they won't. It is also, technically, an attack vector... A sufficiently sophisticated phisher might be able to convince somebody to replace their bootloader, but we both know that's not why Apple does it. They do it because it allows them to capture the revenue for use of their computing appliances and it saves them every headache of having to provide customer support for hardware they sell that isn't running an operating system they wrote. Serving your use case isn't what they make computers for. Google does though. I recommend switching platforms.
      - smoldesu 4y ago
        Serving my use case is what computers are. If Apple doesn't make those devices, then why are their devices capable of doing everything I described? They already wrote the bootloader. They already wrote the sideloading code, app sandboxing model, filesystem isolation APIs and even the packaging standard needed to distribute iOS applications. What's the major engineering hurdle they're struggling with, relative to everything they've already done?
        shadowgovt 4y ago
        I don't follow. They don't let you replace the bootloader; I thought that was your concern. So they can't do everything you want them to. I can run Doom on a refrigerator but it's still a refrigerator. Apple makes computing appliances.
        smoldesu 4y ago
        I don't follow either. If this refrigerator got an update that started showing you advertisements, you'd want the manufacturer to have some form of accountability that they don't further degrade the experience. Having multiple choices benefits everyone and forces the OEM to not make bone-headed moves. You're arguing that Apple shouldn't do good things because... Apple doesn't care? I already know that. I own many of their devices and experience it first-hand.
- WJW 4y ago
  > They can't. Apple locks the bootloader... There are other hardware manufacturers than Apple?
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    Nope. Choosing your software platform on iPhone isn't an option though, if it was then we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.
    - martimarkov 4y ago
      I mean yes they are - there are so many manufacturers. With the same argument you can say - open access to every device which will diminish a lot of the security by increasing the attack vector. Why isn't my TV open or my Xbox or my PS? Why can't I edit the code of Windows is not such a stretch based on your arguments? Also why should companies be forced to open stuff? They market it as a closed system - maybe respect the consumers who like closed systems. There are options for you - it's other vendors. So you have a choice. But even if you didn't there is no reason or expectation you should have a choice if the market doesn't want to cater. One possible solution is for apple and other manufacturers to be forced to sell developer devices where the restrictions are minimal or non-existent. That I think will solve your quarrel.

zaphirplane 4y ago

I get why people have a negative reaction and it makes sense. Then I look at retail where there are several wholeseller adding a %, stores adding a %, drop ship sellers adding a percent There was a documentary that showed the price of a chicken sold in a store and how much the chicken farmer makes vs the retail price and I can’t say the situation is wildly out of tune with retail or the big SAP/ERP consulting

smoldesu 4y ago
This might be a relevant comparison if the App Store had any businesses it competes with, like the ones grocery stores contend with.
- relativ575 4y ago
  I know we've debated this to death, but Android's market share is bigger than iPhone's.
  - saurik 4y ago
    The consumer owns one phone or the other, and the switching costs are ridiculously high (in no small part because of other properties of these anti-competitive store licensing models). The average consumer happily can shop at multiple grocery stores, even on the same day as part of the same trip... if isn't even uncommon. The segmentation of users into the ones that own an iPhone vs. the ones that own an Android device should be looked at as creating two separate markets, similar to how if you have a monopoly on groceries only in Wisconsin you somehow aren't considered a monopoly just because your national marketshare is small.
  - croach6642 4y ago
    Yes, Android's share is much bigger, but the statement is too generalized to make a relative comparison. While Android has 70+% of global market share, it's important to understand how the users LTV of any consumer business varies based on geo dispersion, hardware price tier, user sophistication and sales distribution model. Apple delivers users that are quantifiably more valuable in every geo. That said, Apple's monopolistic practices create a ripe oppty for Android to own web3's watershed moment

dools 4y ago

That’s not what rent seeking is. Apple has a very strong distribution channel, in part because of how trustworthy it is, that costs money to run, so it’s fair they take a cut of sales.