8 ms·

You are the one who tried to introduce an extremely general argument, which I guess you are no longer interested in defending? > Yes, a company has the right t

by saurik 4y ago

You are the one who tried to introduce an extremely general argument, which I guess you are no longer interested in defending? > Yes, a company has the right to do whatever they want with their products. > It is up for the customers to validate their business decisions. So, to verify: you do agree that your argument at least does not apply to the iPhone?

pjmlp 4y ago
I wasn't the one moving the goalpost into iOS app store. Still the point stands.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  I'm the one who pushed the discussion onto the tangentially-related Apple mobile platform, guilty as charged. Do you want to defend Apple's absolute control over the iPhone in front of God, Saurik and everyone, or admit that the world's richest company operates out of greed sometimes?
  - sbuk 4y ago
    Greed? No. Profit motivated. Of course. They are a business. Businesses generally exist to make a profit. The more profit they make, the stronger and more resilient they become. Apple, having been very close to bankruptcy a couple of times means that they have a strong motivation to make a profit. Nothing is without reason, whether or not you like the reason. I guess corporate greed is a thing, but then so are the very real costs of operating services. Ranting about a business being successful or being the wealthiest just smacks of petty anti-capitalist jealousy. I get it, Apple were supposed to fail and they didn’t. Are Apple’s fees worth 15%[1] of the vendors revenue? Possibly not, though as a provider, they are entitled to make a profit. [1] Yes, yes; 30% if the vendor make > $1,000,000. Let get real, the significant majority of the app that you are arguing about are likely to be grossing less than that. And of course 15% of $0 is $0, so the argument is completely moot for freely distributed apps.
    - smoldesu 4y ago
      > Possibly not, though as a provider, they are entitled to make a profit. The big thing people seem to disagree with is Apple forcing themselves to be a provider (and thereby forcing their entitlement to a profit). Apple is certainly entitled to compensation when people use their service, but no computer should force it's services on the user. Regulators seem to really hate that bit, and it will be interesting to see how Apple responds to the Digital Markets act.

by saurik 4y ago

pjmlp 4y ago

I wasn't the one moving the goalpost into iOS app store. Still the point stands.

smoldesu 4y ago
I'm the one who pushed the discussion onto the tangentially-related Apple mobile platform, guilty as charged. Do you want to defend Apple's absolute control over the iPhone in front of God, Saurik and everyone, or admit that the world's richest company operates out of greed sometimes?
- sbuk 4y ago
  Greed? No. Profit motivated. Of course. They are a business. Businesses generally exist to make a profit. The more profit they make, the stronger and more resilient they become. Apple, having been very close to bankruptcy a couple of times means that they have a strong motivation to make a profit. Nothing is without reason, whether or not you like the reason. I guess corporate greed is a thing, but then so are the very real costs of operating services. Ranting about a business being successful or being the wealthiest just smacks of petty anti-capitalist jealousy. I get it, Apple were supposed to fail and they didn’t. Are Apple’s fees worth 15%[1] of the vendors revenue? Possibly not, though as a provider, they are entitled to make a profit. [1] Yes, yes; 30% if the vendor make > $1,000,000. Let get real, the significant majority of the app that you are arguing about are likely to be grossing less than that. And of course 15% of $0 is $0, so the argument is completely moot for freely distributed apps.
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    > Possibly not, though as a provider, they are entitled to make a profit. The big thing people seem to disagree with is Apple forcing themselves to be a provider (and thereby forcing their entitlement to a profit). Apple is certainly entitled to compensation when people use their service, but no computer should force it's services on the user. Regulators seem to really hate that bit, and it will be interesting to see how Apple responds to the Digital Markets act.