6 ms·

Could you just not buy their products then? While there are more consumer friendly ways to do it sure, I don’t see anything illegal or wrong here. You’re buyin

Could you just not buy their products then? While there are more consumer friendly ways to do it sure, I don’t see anything illegal or wrong here. You’re buying their hardware, with the software licensing understanding that comes with it - if you don’t like the terms you don’t buy the hardware. There isn’t a moral calculus that is or needs to be involved here, it’s a simple flat “don’t buy their product if you don’t like it”. If enough people cared and did so, they’d change very quickly. Apple isn’t a monopoly, there are plenty of alternatives that might suit your needs better.

ZoomerCretin 2y ago
Like a lot of anti-monopoly laws, the harmed party is not the consumer but other businesses. No, you cannot simply refuse to give Apple their 30% (unless you are yourself big enough to negotiate an exemption; including waiving a 30% fee of your own for Apple's apps on your platforms) if you want access to their huge and very lucrative market. Microsoft lost an anti-monopoly case because they bundled a free browser with Windows. Forcing your competitors to pay 30% and thus have higher costs and prices than your own competing services is a much more straightforward violation.
- carlosjobim 2y ago
  > if you want access to their huge and very lucrative market. But what gives some third party the right to that huge and lucrative market? It seems parasitic in a kind of way to demand that right.
  - jemmyw 2y ago
    Competition laws
    - carlosjobim 2y ago
      Apple does not hinder any developer from selling their software on competing devices or operating systems. I don't see how an honest person could claim that they're doing anything anti-competitive. I see how the EU politicians can claim that, because they are dishonest and expected to support parasitic actions.
      - talldayo 2y ago
        > Apple does not hinder any developer from selling their software on competing devices or operating systems But Apple does hinder every developer from selling their software on Apple devices without using Apple's mandatory software distribution service. Which most of us can agree, is relatively monopolistic in nature and creates a captive market of Apple customers ripe for abuse.
        tpmoney 2y ago
        No, I don't think "most of us can agree" that a manufacturer setting the conditions for distributing plugins for the hardware and software system that they produce and sell is "monopolistic" in nature. That's why we're having these discussions in the first place. Every store, market place and mall has conditions for being able to sell your wares in their space. Every single one of them will prevent you from using their space if you fail to meet those conditions. Malls will kick you out if you close your store during mall hours, denying you the ability to sell to those mall customers. eBay will shut your account if you try to get buyers to pay you outside of eBay, denying you the ability to sell to those eBay customers. Your local grocery store won't be allowing you to set up in the middle of the aisle with a laser light show selling your home made cookies, denying you the ability to sell to the grocery story customers. Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony will all very happily terminate your access to their markets for failure to comply with their development programs, denying you the ability to sell to those console customers.
        talldayo 2y ago
        > Every store, market place and mall has conditions for being able to sell your wares in their space. But it's not a store. It's software; Apple charges developers to use their developer tools and then additionally requires you to pay the surcharges in their mandatory App Store. It is a racket that specifically relies on Apple's sole presence as a distributor on iOS and iPadOS; otherwise it will fail, as MacOS has shown us. > Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony will all very happily terminate your access to their markets for failure to comply with their development programs And every single one of those companies competes under fair pretenses with their publishing partners. Apple doesn't. That's why they're singled-out.
  - palata 2y ago
    > It seems parasitic in a kind of way to demand that right. Third parties bring value to the platform. Try to remove all the third parties from the Apple Store and see how people react. Apple's sales of iPhones benefit from the third parties, but they use their dominant position to take a huge cut of what the third parties sell. One could say: either Apple gives access to third parties in a decent way, or they just don't. Apple needs the third parties (otherwise they would not give them access in the first place, obviously), so they should give them decent conditions.
  - oblio 2y ago
    Parasitic? My God, the Kool Aid has been depleted. The reason their "ecosystem" has any value is because of the "parasites". They're a f**ng platform. Excuse me, but we should know better over here.
    - ryan_lane 2y ago
      It's parasitic because if you want to participate in the market, you need to use their platform. Their value is ideally keeping scammers out, but they don't do a great job of that and part of the reason they don't is because they also profit when the scammers do. For example, gambling for kids (loot boxes) is OK. The other part of the value is having a central place to list and promote apps, but also there they're double dipping as you need to pay them to get eyes to your app. Their value absolutely does not equal 30% of your revenue.
      - oblio 2y ago
        You've misread the original comment. It wasn't calling Apple parasitic, it was calling the app DEVELOPERS parasitic which is crazy talk.
        ryan_lane 2y ago
        Oh. Wow. Yeah, calling devs parasitic is wild.
    - carlosjobim 2y ago
      People who are demanding benefits for free (ie selling your products in somebody else's store), are parasites. Those who cooperate, or set up their own shop if they don't want to cooperate, are not. Let me know when I can start selling stuff on Amazon without giving them a cut. Or put up a stand in the local supermarket where I sell my produce directly to customers. If App developers made iOS such a profitable market, why haven't they made Android an equally profitable market? There's more users, more liberty, more potential money to be made. What it comes down to is whether it's better to get a big piece of a small pie or a smaller piece of a big pie. Apple offers a bigger pie of user spending for developers, while cutting out a bigger chunk for themselves from that pie.
kklisura 2y ago
> don’t buy their product if you don’t like it I like their product. If I buy it: do I own it or do I rent it from them? Obvious next question: If I own it, do I have right to install whatever I want?
- jdmg94 2y ago
  I like a product from Ford, if I own it I have the right to install whatever I want right? Except Ford has no obligation to make their products compatible with other car makers. If I wanted to LS-swap an F150 it would require a lot of technical knowledge, time, and help but it can be done. You can develop your own jailbreaks for iOS it just requires a lot of technical knowledge, time, and help.
  - kklisura 2y ago
    Apple products are general purpose computers while Ford is not.
    - WheatMillington 2y ago
      iphone is absolutely not a general purpose computer, nor has it ever purported to be.
      - kklisura 2y ago
        Would you mind providing your definition of general purpose computer.
      - talldayo 2y ago
        Very conveniently so, because if anyone ever discovered that so-called "apps" are no different from "software" we would accidentally realize that the iPhone is in fact a computer.
  - mbrameld 2y ago
    I think a better analogy would be swapping tires instead of an engine. Engine swaps are rare, most people understand there are physical complications to using an engine from one car in another, even from the same manufacturer. Tire swaps are common, most people expect that if the tire is the right size you can put it on your car, regardless of who made it or where you got it. The same is true for apps on a computing device. Installing new ones is common, not rare like an engine swap in a car. Most people expect that if the app is compatible with the hardware you can put it on the device, regardless of who made it or where you got it.
prmoustache 2y ago
Are you read the software licenses for the whole software ecosystem in an Apple shop at purchase time?
nox101 2y ago
This so tiring. The issue is not about whether you as a consumer can buy a different phone. The issues is about whether you, as a company, can do business with half the world with one company gating access to those customers. No company should have that level of power. That's why its called the Digital "Markets" Act. It's not some consumer choice act. Neither Apple, nor Google, nor anyone else, should be able to control so many businesses. It's the same reason Booking.com is in trouble. they're so big, they affect nearly every hotel in the world. That's too much power over too many business.

ZoomerCretin 2y ago

Like a lot of anti-monopoly laws, the harmed party is not the consumer but other businesses. No, you cannot simply refuse to give Apple their 30% (unless you are yourself big enough to negotiate an exemption; including waiving a 30% fee of your own for Apple's apps on your platforms) if you want access to their huge and very lucrative market. Microsoft lost an anti-monopoly case because they bundled a free browser with Windows. Forcing your competitors to pay 30% and thus have higher costs and prices than your own competing services is a much more straightforward violation.

carlosjobim 2y ago
> if you want access to their huge and very lucrative market. But what gives some third party the right to that huge and lucrative market? It seems parasitic in a kind of way to demand that right.
- jemmyw 2y ago
  Competition laws
  - carlosjobim 2y ago
    Apple does not hinder any developer from selling their software on competing devices or operating systems. I don't see how an honest person could claim that they're doing anything anti-competitive. I see how the EU politicians can claim that, because they are dishonest and expected to support parasitic actions.
    - talldayo 2y ago
      > Apple does not hinder any developer from selling their software on competing devices or operating systems But Apple does hinder every developer from selling their software on Apple devices without using Apple's mandatory software distribution service. Which most of us can agree, is relatively monopolistic in nature and creates a captive market of Apple customers ripe for abuse.
      - tpmoney 2y ago
        No, I don't think "most of us can agree" that a manufacturer setting the conditions for distributing plugins for the hardware and software system that they produce and sell is "monopolistic" in nature. That's why we're having these discussions in the first place. Every store, market place and mall has conditions for being able to sell your wares in their space. Every single one of them will prevent you from using their space if you fail to meet those conditions. Malls will kick you out if you close your store during mall hours, denying you the ability to sell to those mall customers. eBay will shut your account if you try to get buyers to pay you outside of eBay, denying you the ability to sell to those eBay customers. Your local grocery store won't be allowing you to set up in the middle of the aisle with a laser light show selling your home made cookies, denying you the ability to sell to the grocery story customers. Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony will all very happily terminate your access to their markets for failure to comply with their development programs, denying you the ability to sell to those console customers.
        talldayo 2y ago
        > Every store, market place and mall has conditions for being able to sell your wares in their space. But it's not a store. It's software; Apple charges developers to use their developer tools and then additionally requires you to pay the surcharges in their mandatory App Store. It is a racket that specifically relies on Apple's sole presence as a distributor on iOS and iPadOS; otherwise it will fail, as MacOS has shown us. > Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony will all very happily terminate your access to their markets for failure to comply with their development programs And every single one of those companies competes under fair pretenses with their publishing partners. Apple doesn't. That's why they're singled-out.
- palata 2y ago
  > It seems parasitic in a kind of way to demand that right. Third parties bring value to the platform. Try to remove all the third parties from the Apple Store and see how people react. Apple's sales of iPhones benefit from the third parties, but they use their dominant position to take a huge cut of what the third parties sell. One could say: either Apple gives access to third parties in a decent way, or they just don't. Apple needs the third parties (otherwise they would not give them access in the first place, obviously), so they should give them decent conditions.
- oblio 2y ago
  Parasitic? My God, the Kool Aid has been depleted. The reason their "ecosystem" has any value is because of the "parasites". They're a f**ng platform. Excuse me, but we should know better over here.
  - ryan_lane 2y ago
    It's parasitic because if you want to participate in the market, you need to use their platform. Their value is ideally keeping scammers out, but they don't do a great job of that and part of the reason they don't is because they also profit when the scammers do. For example, gambling for kids (loot boxes) is OK. The other part of the value is having a central place to list and promote apps, but also there they're double dipping as you need to pay them to get eyes to your app. Their value absolutely does not equal 30% of your revenue.
    - oblio 2y ago
      You've misread the original comment. It wasn't calling Apple parasitic, it was calling the app DEVELOPERS parasitic which is crazy talk.
      - ryan_lane 2y ago
        Oh. Wow. Yeah, calling devs parasitic is wild.
  - carlosjobim 2y ago
    People who are demanding benefits for free (ie selling your products in somebody else's store), are parasites. Those who cooperate, or set up their own shop if they don't want to cooperate, are not. Let me know when I can start selling stuff on Amazon without giving them a cut. Or put up a stand in the local supermarket where I sell my produce directly to customers. If App developers made iOS such a profitable market, why haven't they made Android an equally profitable market? There's more users, more liberty, more potential money to be made. What it comes down to is whether it's better to get a big piece of a small pie or a smaller piece of a big pie. Apple offers a bigger pie of user spending for developers, while cutting out a bigger chunk for themselves from that pie.

kklisura 2y ago

> don’t buy their product if you don’t like it I like their product. If I buy it: do I own it or do I rent it from them? Obvious next question: If I own it, do I have right to install whatever I want?

jdmg94 2y ago
I like a product from Ford, if I own it I have the right to install whatever I want right? Except Ford has no obligation to make their products compatible with other car makers. If I wanted to LS-swap an F150 it would require a lot of technical knowledge, time, and help but it can be done. You can develop your own jailbreaks for iOS it just requires a lot of technical knowledge, time, and help.
- kklisura 2y ago
  Apple products are general purpose computers while Ford is not.
  - WheatMillington 2y ago
    iphone is absolutely not a general purpose computer, nor has it ever purported to be.
    - kklisura 2y ago
      Would you mind providing your definition of general purpose computer.
    - talldayo 2y ago
      Very conveniently so, because if anyone ever discovered that so-called "apps" are no different from "software" we would accidentally realize that the iPhone is in fact a computer.
- mbrameld 2y ago
  I think a better analogy would be swapping tires instead of an engine. Engine swaps are rare, most people understand there are physical complications to using an engine from one car in another, even from the same manufacturer. Tire swaps are common, most people expect that if the tire is the right size you can put it on your car, regardless of who made it or where you got it. The same is true for apps on a computing device. Installing new ones is common, not rare like an engine swap in a car. Most people expect that if the app is compatible with the hardware you can put it on the device, regardless of who made it or where you got it.

prmoustache 2y ago

Are you read the software licenses for the whole software ecosystem in an Apple shop at purchase time?

nox101 2y ago

This so tiring. The issue is not about whether you as a consumer can buy a different phone. The issues is about whether you, as a company, can do business with half the world with one company gating access to those customers. No company should have that level of power. That's why its called the Digital "Markets" Act. It's not some consumer choice act. Neither Apple, nor Google, nor anyone else, should be able to control so many businesses. It's the same reason Booking.com is in trouble. they're so big, they affect nearly every hotel in the world. That's too much power over too many business.