4 ms·

I don't understand why it is wrong for Apple to profit from the platform they created and maintain. What is there to complain about other than things being expe

I don't understand why it is wrong for Apple to profit from the platform they created and maintain. What is there to complain about other than things being expensive? If you create a platform, are you somehow obligated to let people make money off of the platform on their own terms for free? Apple is not a monopoly. Any competitor can compete with them on price / fees and win if Apple really does not provide enough value to people to justify their prices. I genuinely hope that it happens. I just don't agree with the common heuristic of "hey you have a good thing going there, you shouldn't be allowed to have anything that good!" Why is Apple not taking 99% of the revenue and takes 30%? Because if they took 99% nobody would develop for their platform. So there is a sweet spot between 99% and 0% where the services and market they provide is good enough that the fee is worth it. Currently it works for everyone as Apple's and developers' business is still booming after all those years. Developers want more, Apple also wants more, everyone wants more, all is natural. Wanting to optimize your gains is natural for everyone. It is not illegal, and should not be.

josephcsible 3y ago
> I don't understand why it is wrong for Apple to profit from the platform they created and maintain. Part of it is the double-dipping. Consider why you'd be opposed to Toyota claiming 30% of the revenue of all gas that you buy for your Camry, or why you don't like ads in things you pay for. > Apple is not a monopoly. Until they allow third-party app stores and sideloading worldwide, and without any of the malicious compliance like intentionally breaking PWAs along with it, they are.
- dkarras 3y ago
  If the value I get from Toyota is not worth the hassle, I would not buy it under those terms! That is the point. If Toyota is the only car I was allowed to buy, or if Toyota bought out all its competitors, that would be a different issue. >Until they allow third-party app stores and sideloading worldwide, and without any of the malicious compliance like intentionally breaking PWAs along with it, they are. How? Do you know what monopoly is? You being upset at how you can use a device you are in no way have to buy and use does not make the brand a monopoly.
  - Serenacula 3y ago
    One of the problems that plagues phones is that, if apple makes a change everyone else follows. See it like this: Toyota arbitrarily declares that they'll disable any car without "Toyota" approved 30% taxed fuel. Then all the other car companies immediately copycat, seeing a new way to make money. This is the case with iPhone and android. They do not have meaningful competition when they can just work together as a pseudo monopoly.
  - lenkite 3y ago
    Considering that Apple is now >61% of the U.S. smartphone market-share, I would like to know at what magic number you would consider them a monopoly.
supermatt 3y ago
The App Store has a monopoly on iOS app distribution. It’s becoming tiring listening to people stating “that’s not THE market so it can’t be a monopoly” when legislation already disagrees with you.
- lolinder 3y ago
  The current situation is that legislation in the EU disagrees with that claim, but a court ruling in the US agrees that defining the market as "iOS app distribution" is too narrow [0]. Until something changes, which definition of the market is accurate depends on your jurisdiction. [0] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/21-16506/21-16506-2023-04-24.html https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/21...
- Turing_Machine 3y ago
  McDonalds is the only company that can distribute Big Macs. You can't buy a Big Mac anywhere but McDonalds. That doesn't make McDonalds a "monopoly".
  - gkbrk 3y ago
    But that's not quite the same situation with Apple. It's more like if your Big Mac didn't support being eaten with non-McDonalds-approved Ketchup or Mayo.
    - paulmd 3y ago
      Do restaurants not have the “no outside food/drink allowed” stickers on the doors where you live?
      - gkbrk 3y ago
        After I leave the McDonalds "store" with a Big Mac, I can have their food with outside food/drinks. After I leave the Apple Store with an iPhone, I cannot use my phone with outside apps.
    - 3y ago
moooo99 3y ago
> It is not illegal, and should not be. It is when you’re essentially in a market dominating position, which Apple is. Imagine if Automotive OEMs (a great example for another industry with questionable tactics) would get a 30% licensing fee for for each independent after market accessory somebody sells for one of their cars.
- dkarras 3y ago
  Describe "market domination". They are the leading brand in the US, not anywhere near domination. Again, with Automotive, as long as you have other options, it is fine.

josephcsible 3y ago

> I don't understand why it is wrong for Apple to profit from the platform they created and maintain. Part of it is the double-dipping. Consider why you'd be opposed to Toyota claiming 30% of the revenue of all gas that you buy for your Camry, or why you don't like ads in things you pay for. > Apple is not a monopoly. Until they allow third-party app stores and sideloading worldwide, and without any of the malicious compliance like intentionally breaking PWAs along with it, they are.

dkarras 3y ago
If the value I get from Toyota is not worth the hassle, I would not buy it under those terms! That is the point. If Toyota is the only car I was allowed to buy, or if Toyota bought out all its competitors, that would be a different issue. >Until they allow third-party app stores and sideloading worldwide, and without any of the malicious compliance like intentionally breaking PWAs along with it, they are. How? Do you know what monopoly is? You being upset at how you can use a device you are in no way have to buy and use does not make the brand a monopoly.
- Serenacula 3y ago
  One of the problems that plagues phones is that, if apple makes a change everyone else follows. See it like this: Toyota arbitrarily declares that they'll disable any car without "Toyota" approved 30% taxed fuel. Then all the other car companies immediately copycat, seeing a new way to make money. This is the case with iPhone and android. They do not have meaningful competition when they can just work together as a pseudo monopoly.
- lenkite 3y ago
  Considering that Apple is now >61% of the U.S. smartphone market-share, I would like to know at what magic number you would consider them a monopoly.

supermatt 3y ago

The App Store has a monopoly on iOS app distribution. It’s becoming tiring listening to people stating “that’s not THE market so it can’t be a monopoly” when legislation already disagrees with you.

lolinder 3y ago
The current situation is that legislation in the EU disagrees with that claim, but a court ruling in the US agrees that defining the market as "iOS app distribution" is too narrow [0]. Until something changes, which definition of the market is accurate depends on your jurisdiction. [0] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/21-16506/21-16506-2023-04-24.html https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/21...
Turing_Machine 3y ago
McDonalds is the only company that can distribute Big Macs. You can't buy a Big Mac anywhere but McDonalds. That doesn't make McDonalds a "monopoly".
- gkbrk 3y ago
  But that's not quite the same situation with Apple. It's more like if your Big Mac didn't support being eaten with non-McDonalds-approved Ketchup or Mayo.
  - paulmd 3y ago
    Do restaurants not have the “no outside food/drink allowed” stickers on the doors where you live?
    - gkbrk 3y ago
      After I leave the McDonalds "store" with a Big Mac, I can have their food with outside food/drinks. After I leave the Apple Store with an iPhone, I cannot use my phone with outside apps.
  - 3y ago

moooo99 3y ago

> It is not illegal, and should not be. It is when you’re essentially in a market dominating position, which Apple is. Imagine if Automotive OEMs (a great example for another industry with questionable tactics) would get a 30% licensing fee for for each independent after market accessory somebody sells for one of their cars.

dkarras 3y ago
Describe "market domination". They are the leading brand in the US, not anywhere near domination. Again, with Automotive, as long as you have other options, it is fine.