4 ms·

> So for example, if you had a dominant market position for a particular category of phone operating systems, and you wanted to advance your interest in the mar

> So for example, if you had a dominant market position for a particular category of phone operating systems, and you wanted to advance your interest in the market for app distribution... Except the App Store was added to the iPhone before it reached its current level of ubiquity. I believe Apple views the App Store as a feature of the iPhone that contributes to its value - the huge variety of apps available definitely contributed to the iPhone’s success; see the Windows phone for an example of a phone without a good App Store.

bryanrasmussen 3y ago
definitely they view it that way, as well as viewing the app review process as something that adds customer value. I mean they were quite clear on all that from day 1, that they thought they were solving customer problems. And of course when you think you have solved customer problems you expect to get rewarded, and then some years down the road your solution isn't that great anymore but you just don't want to let go of any of that sweet, sweet reward.
enragedcacti 3y ago
> the huge variety of apps available definitely contributed to the iPhone’s success fwiw I completely agree, but isn't this the inverse of the argument people make for why Apple deserves 30% of app revenue? Do app devs deserve a huge chunk of iPhone revenue since they contributed to its success?
- danaris 3y ago
  Both those things can be true at the same time: it's a mutually beneficial arrangement.
  - enragedcacti 3y ago
    I agree, which is why I think its a silly moral justification for the 30% split.
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> Except the App Store was added to the iPhone before it reached its current level of ubiquity. Why should that matter? > I believe Apple views the App Store as a feature of the iPhone that contributes to its value If people prefer to install apps from Apple's store they're free to do so. That doesn't require them to prohibit other stores -- let the customer choose. > the huge variety of apps available definitely contributed to the iPhone’s success; see the Windows phone for an example of a phone without a good App Store. You're referring to the platform's selection of available apps. That is something different than the method of distributing them or whether it has competitors.
- grok25 3y ago
  [dead]

bryanrasmussen 3y ago

definitely they view it that way, as well as viewing the app review process as something that adds customer value. I mean they were quite clear on all that from day 1, that they thought they were solving customer problems. And of course when you think you have solved customer problems you expect to get rewarded, and then some years down the road your solution isn't that great anymore but you just don't want to let go of any of that sweet, sweet reward.

enragedcacti 3y ago

> the huge variety of apps available definitely contributed to the iPhone’s success fwiw I completely agree, but isn't this the inverse of the argument people make for why Apple deserves 30% of app revenue? Do app devs deserve a huge chunk of iPhone revenue since they contributed to its success?

danaris 3y ago
Both those things can be true at the same time: it's a mutually beneficial arrangement.
- enragedcacti 3y ago
  I agree, which is why I think its a silly moral justification for the 30% split.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> Except the App Store was added to the iPhone before it reached its current level of ubiquity. Why should that matter? > I believe Apple views the App Store as a feature of the iPhone that contributes to its value If people prefer to install apps from Apple's store they're free to do so. That doesn't require them to prohibit other stores -- let the customer choose. > the huge variety of apps available definitely contributed to the iPhone’s success; see the Windows phone for an example of a phone without a good App Store. You're referring to the platform's selection of available apps. That is something different than the method of distributing them or whether it has competitors.

grok25 3y ago
[dead]