8 ms·

Is it not already paid for by the purchase of device by consumers and developer fees? Why is Apple entitled to triple dip?

audunw 2y ago
You could argue that the purchase of the device should cover the OS delivered with the device. But you certainly can’t demand that it must cover OS updates, at least not updates that add new features. There was a time when major OS updates was something you got charged for. The reason Apple develops free OS updates for fairly old devices now is that they still get App Store revenues from the users of those old devices.
- goosedragons 2y ago
  Why is macOS free then? Why was Lion paid? Why was iPhone OS 2 free for iPhones when there was no App Store revenue?
  - twoodfin 2y ago
    Not really related to this argument, but for a while in that era Apple was under the impression that Sarbanes-Oxley accounting rules demanded that they charge for software enabling new features of existing products. So various software upgrades came with more or less trivial price tags. It didn’t last long; I guess some combination of lawyers, accountants, and regulators clarified the matter.
    - mejutoco 2y ago
      The paid upgrade to be able to add events to the calendar in iOS was something like 20-25€ IIRC for my ipod touch first generation. I did not get it. I thought it was a rip off. It was free for iphones though.
  - olliej 2y ago
    You know macOS used to be a purchase right? That didn’t end until Apple had the commission revenue.
    - goosedragons 2y ago
      You do know that iPhone updates were free prior to the App Store right? And that OS X still had paid updates even after the introduction Mac App Store? And that macOS didn't start being used until 10.12 well after upgrades went free? Commission revenue doesn't explain Apple's free updates nor is a requirement for them. Software updates were free for many Windows Mobile handsets despite there being no central MS owned and tithed Windows Mobile software store. EDIT: And early Mac OS releases prior to System 7 were free too!
      - okanat 2y ago
        Windows updates has always been free too. Microsoft still made quite a bit money from new sales of Windows and corporate subscriptions until they switched to ad-infested model. Why Apple cannot? They have the biggest margins in hardware sales alone compared to other hardware vendors.
barelysapient 2y ago
Well, unless there's a regulation against it, they're allowed to both 1) charge for the device and 2) charge for additional software / upgrades you want to set on the device. If Apple is banned from collecting revenues from the software side, then I guess they'd be stuck with either accepting the new substantially lower margin structure. Or raising the price of the phones to compensate for the missing software margin.
- goosedragons 2y ago
  Lower revenue isn't "giving away". Under Apple's logic here it's a tiny leap that they should be entitled to 20% of all online purchases. They developed the web browser the customer used to navigate there after all. But it's not clear how an app is really different and some how acceptable to tithe. It's just obscene.
  - goodSteveramos 2y ago
    Imagine Tesla decided to charge you 20% of all annual income you earned by driving to work with your Tesla. Who owns your iPhone? Apple or you?
olliej 2y ago
Consumer pays for the hardware, or are you suggesting the software updates should be paid again? This is a genuine question - Google pays for android updates to be free because the android business model is spyware to support Google’s ad business. Apples business model is the same as Xbox, PlayStation, etc where the developers for those platforms are paying MS, Sony, Nintendo, etc Apple isn’t even charging high rates: their commissions match or are lower than other stores, when those other stores are literally only providing payment services.
- talldayo 2y ago
  > Apples business model is the same as Xbox, PlayStation This would be closer to reality if Apple didn't drive hardware margins that are quite literally orders-of-magnitude larger than any comparable games console. When the Nintendo Switch launched it was shipping below-cost after accounting for shipping, whereas there has never been a modern Apple product that didn't ship with profitable hardware. So when you scrutinize the two no, they really aren't similar. Apple cannot use the same excuse that Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo use.

audunw 2y ago

You could argue that the purchase of the device should cover the OS delivered with the device. But you certainly can’t demand that it must cover OS updates, at least not updates that add new features. There was a time when major OS updates was something you got charged for. The reason Apple develops free OS updates for fairly old devices now is that they still get App Store revenues from the users of those old devices.

goosedragons 2y ago
Why is macOS free then? Why was Lion paid? Why was iPhone OS 2 free for iPhones when there was no App Store revenue?
- twoodfin 2y ago
  Not really related to this argument, but for a while in that era Apple was under the impression that Sarbanes-Oxley accounting rules demanded that they charge for software enabling new features of existing products. So various software upgrades came with more or less trivial price tags. It didn’t last long; I guess some combination of lawyers, accountants, and regulators clarified the matter.
  - mejutoco 2y ago
    The paid upgrade to be able to add events to the calendar in iOS was something like 20-25€ IIRC for my ipod touch first generation. I did not get it. I thought it was a rip off. It was free for iphones though.
- olliej 2y ago
  You know macOS used to be a purchase right? That didn’t end until Apple had the commission revenue.
  - goosedragons 2y ago
    You do know that iPhone updates were free prior to the App Store right? And that OS X still had paid updates even after the introduction Mac App Store? And that macOS didn't start being used until 10.12 well after upgrades went free? Commission revenue doesn't explain Apple's free updates nor is a requirement for them. Software updates were free for many Windows Mobile handsets despite there being no central MS owned and tithed Windows Mobile software store. EDIT: And early Mac OS releases prior to System 7 were free too!
    - okanat 2y ago
      Windows updates has always been free too. Microsoft still made quite a bit money from new sales of Windows and corporate subscriptions until they switched to ad-infested model. Why Apple cannot? They have the biggest margins in hardware sales alone compared to other hardware vendors.

barelysapient 2y ago

Well, unless there's a regulation against it, they're allowed to both 1) charge for the device and 2) charge for additional software / upgrades you want to set on the device. If Apple is banned from collecting revenues from the software side, then I guess they'd be stuck with either accepting the new substantially lower margin structure. Or raising the price of the phones to compensate for the missing software margin.

goosedragons 2y ago
Lower revenue isn't "giving away". Under Apple's logic here it's a tiny leap that they should be entitled to 20% of all online purchases. They developed the web browser the customer used to navigate there after all. But it's not clear how an app is really different and some how acceptable to tithe. It's just obscene.
- goodSteveramos 2y ago
  Imagine Tesla decided to charge you 20% of all annual income you earned by driving to work with your Tesla. Who owns your iPhone? Apple or you?

olliej 2y ago

Consumer pays for the hardware, or are you suggesting the software updates should be paid again? This is a genuine question - Google pays for android updates to be free because the android business model is spyware to support Google’s ad business. Apples business model is the same as Xbox, PlayStation, etc where the developers for those platforms are paying MS, Sony, Nintendo, etc Apple isn’t even charging high rates: their commissions match or are lower than other stores, when those other stores are literally only providing payment services.

talldayo 2y ago
> Apples business model is the same as Xbox, PlayStation This would be closer to reality if Apple didn't drive hardware margins that are quite literally orders-of-magnitude larger than any comparable games console. When the Nintendo Switch launched it was shipping below-cost after accounting for shipping, whereas there has never been a modern Apple product that didn't ship with profitable hardware. So when you scrutinize the two no, they really aren't similar. Apple cannot use the same excuse that Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo use.