3 ms·
I wonder if everything would have been simple if the regulation itself was something death-simple like: If you control the software of the hardware you sell, y
by mrtksn 2y ago
I wonder if everything would have been simple if the regulation itself was something death-simple like:
If you control the software of the hardware you sell, you must refund with the inflation adjusted sums the users at any time they return their hardware.
This way, companies can choose if they are renting platforms they deliver their services like the TV boxes some cable providers will rent, or of they are selling products and the users can choose to do whatever they like with it.
The makers can still provide and and sell services on devices they built but they will have to be good at it.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- pmontra 2y agoHow would it play out? A scenario is that I could buy an iPhone for 1000 Euro, use it for one year, return it, get my 1k back and use it to buy a newer model. Basically they would be working for free or they'd have to increase the price of 1k per year, with huge discounts for whoever swaps an Android for an iPhone.
- mrtksn 2y agoIt would be up to them to choose their models. If they want to keep the closed model where you can't use the device you purchase in absence of Apple, they will have to charge accordingly for the device and services and do the refunds if the user no longer want the device. I guess people would like yearly updates, so Apple will have to operate drastically differently to keep the closed platform model. Alternatively, they can sell the devices as today and provide a method to install any software the user wishes and even to remove iOS from the device. I guess they will be required to produce a basic documentation on all this so others can create the alternative services but wouldn't be required to modify their own software and services.
- pmontra 2y agoSo, the device is sold at a loss at 100 Euro but it doesn't work without mandatory services that cost 500 Euro per year?
- mrtksn 2y agoMaybe, I don't know. Its up to the companies to do the math, who would like to pursue this model. If it's not feasible, the shouldn't be doing it though. AFAIK BoM is usually no that high, so it can be viable. Anyway, maybe some depreciation calculations might be used to account for wear&tear but the core idea is that if you are selling something that works only on your other services by actively preventing competition you shouldn't be charging for the hardware that delivers that and the money you take upfront is just a fully refundable deposit to cover stuff like the consumer breaking the device or taking it but not using the services.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- blackoil 2y agoThat would be very bad for customers and Apple will love it. Instead of buying iPhone you'll subscribe to it and pay $99/m for iphone+one+Apple telecom
- mrtksn 2y agoWhat’s stopping them from doing it now then?
- luyu_wu 2y agoThey do (or did for some time).
- p_l 2y agoThat's literally the original iPhone sales model. Early iPhones were sold only on special "iPhone plans", not because "special unlimited internet" (at least once iPhone 3G landed for sale outside USA and its shitty telecom market), but because there was a percentage paid from the plan to Apple.