6 ms·

Apple isn't forced to host anything. Console manufacturers shouldn't be allowed to extract those fees either.

by usea 3y ago

robertlagrant 3y ago
No one is forced to sell on Apple either, if that's your logic.
- NetOpWibby 3y ago
  Especially since they aren't the biggest mobile OS as Android fans like to point out. It's only a problem because iOS has most of the mobile profits.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    But that's the odd thing - it has most of the profits, despite the alternatives having the ability to add alternative app stores. Why is that? My guess is because the experience that produces is valuable to people, so they buy it if they can afford it.
    - NetOpWibby 3y ago
      Bingo. Yet another example of "bigger doesn't mean better," which is also why Google decided to step into the ring with their Pixel products.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  The point is obviously that the app developer should be able to host the app themselves, or have some other third party do it who charges lower fees, not that Apple should have to do it for free. "Use Apple's store or those customers can't buy your app" is forcing people to sell on Apple.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    No it's not. If Apple didn't exist, people wouldn't suddenly be freer. Developing for Apple, and the job of "mobile developer" they invented, are both choices.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      Everything is a choice. If a mugger has a knife on you, you can choose to let them stab you instead of giving them your money, but we still say they forced you to give them your money. Because the choice has to be a reasonable alternative. Which in this context is an alternate provider of the product or service that reasonably allows you to reach the same set of your customers.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        There's no point making bad analogies. Thinking mobile developers have the choice of "being stabbed or robbed" is not going to help us understand this economic situation better. Those instincts will definitely result in bad conclusions. > an alternate provider of the product or service that reasonably allows you to reach the same set of your customers If you target one company's customers, you can't complain about a lack of competition. If I only service BMWs, I need to do whatever certifications BMW say I need to do, and get a diagnostic tool that talks to BMWs. If I service cars in general, I don't. But then I won't make as big a profit from an easier to target set of potential customers.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > There's no point making bad analogies. The point is that "you have a choice" doesn't mean anything when the choice is between something you don't want and some impractical alternative which is even less of a solution than the thing you don't want. > If you target one company's customers, you can't complain about a lack of competition. But you're not -- you're doing the opposite. You want to sell your app to everyone no matter what platform they use. Which doesn't allow you to choose between Apple and Google or use them as leverage to get a better deal from the other, because you need both. > If I only service BMWs, I need to do whatever certifications BMW say I need to do, and get a diagnostic tool that talks to BMWs. If you want to make and sell brake pads for BMWs, you can just do it. You don't need BMW's permission, and shouldn't, and if they try to stop you, you have the right to complain about it. > If I service cars in general, I don't. How are you supposed to do that? If BMW is allowed to get away with it then so will Volkswagen and no matter what kind of car you want to work on, you're still getting held up by whoever made it. This is why Right to Repair is a thing, and it's weird that your analogy to something you think should happen is a thing widely regarded as deserving of scorn and opposition.

Apple isn't forced to host anything. Console manufacturers shouldn't be allowed to extract those fees either.

by usea 3y ago

Apple isn't forced to host anything. Console manufacturers shouldn't be allowed to extract those fees either.

robertlagrant 3y ago

No one is forced to sell on Apple either, if that's your logic.

NetOpWibby 3y ago
Especially since they aren't the biggest mobile OS as Android fans like to point out. It's only a problem because iOS has most of the mobile profits.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  But that's the odd thing - it has most of the profits, despite the alternatives having the ability to add alternative app stores. Why is that? My guess is because the experience that produces is valuable to people, so they buy it if they can afford it.
  - NetOpWibby 3y ago
    Bingo. Yet another example of "bigger doesn't mean better," which is also why Google decided to step into the ring with their Pixel products.
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
The point is obviously that the app developer should be able to host the app themselves, or have some other third party do it who charges lower fees, not that Apple should have to do it for free. "Use Apple's store or those customers can't buy your app" is forcing people to sell on Apple.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  No it's not. If Apple didn't exist, people wouldn't suddenly be freer. Developing for Apple, and the job of "mobile developer" they invented, are both choices.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    Everything is a choice. If a mugger has a knife on you, you can choose to let them stab you instead of giving them your money, but we still say they forced you to give them your money. Because the choice has to be a reasonable alternative. Which in this context is an alternate provider of the product or service that reasonably allows you to reach the same set of your customers.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      There's no point making bad analogies. Thinking mobile developers have the choice of "being stabbed or robbed" is not going to help us understand this economic situation better. Those instincts will definitely result in bad conclusions. > an alternate provider of the product or service that reasonably allows you to reach the same set of your customers If you target one company's customers, you can't complain about a lack of competition. If I only service BMWs, I need to do whatever certifications BMW say I need to do, and get a diagnostic tool that talks to BMWs. If I service cars in general, I don't. But then I won't make as big a profit from an easier to target set of potential customers.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > There's no point making bad analogies. The point is that "you have a choice" doesn't mean anything when the choice is between something you don't want and some impractical alternative which is even less of a solution than the thing you don't want. > If you target one company's customers, you can't complain about a lack of competition. But you're not -- you're doing the opposite. You want to sell your app to everyone no matter what platform they use. Which doesn't allow you to choose between Apple and Google or use them as leverage to get a better deal from the other, because you need both. > If I only service BMWs, I need to do whatever certifications BMW say I need to do, and get a diagnostic tool that talks to BMWs. If you want to make and sell brake pads for BMWs, you can just do it. You don't need BMW's permission, and shouldn't, and if they try to stop you, you have the right to complain about it. > If I service cars in general, I don't. How are you supposed to do that? If BMW is allowed to get away with it then so will Volkswagen and no matter what kind of car you want to work on, you're still getting held up by whoever made it. This is why Right to Repair is a thing, and it's weird that your analogy to something you think should happen is a thing widely regarded as deserving of scorn and opposition.