4 ms·

> So there, looks like Apple brings in the money for Patreon. Apple users bring in the money for Patreon. I own an iPhone. I am not Apple, and Apple does not

by lapcat 2y ago

> So there, looks like Apple brings in the money for Patreon. Apple users bring in the money for Patreon. I own an iPhone. I am not Apple, and Apple does not own me. Why should Apple be able to charge money for "access" to me, as if I were a prostitute and Apple my pimp? I'm simply using a computer, which I paid for.

fuzztester 2y ago
>I own an iPhone. I am not Apple, and Apple does not own me. Why should Apple be able to charge money for "access" to me, as if I were a prostitute and Apple my pimp? I'm simply using a computer, which I paid for. really solid point. they shouldn't be able to.
ProfessorLayton 2y ago
So I'll start by saying that companies like Apple need to be regulated, as they're misusing their market power to the detriment of everyone but them. However, your argument isn't what you think it is. It's extremely common for companies to sell/gatekeep (Or "pimp" as you put it) access to "their" user base. Think credit cards (Amex can charge merchants more as because their users tend to spend more) or even club memberships like Costco (They're certainly not letting telcos sign up users for free.)
- lapcat 2y ago
  This is a very strange analogy. I didn't buy my credit card. I don't own it. The credit card is just a little piece of plastic, totally useless without the line of credit, i.e, the service provided by the credit card company, in stark contrast with my computers, which can be used quite extensively without the App Store. The credit card company is not gatekeeping "access" to me. I can pay for things with cash, a debit card, a check, etc. If I choose to pay with a credit card, it's because I wish to take advantage of the specific features of the credit card, the primary one of which is the ability to pay for the product later rather than at the moment of purchase.
  - ksec 2y ago
    >This is a very strange analogy. You can be both an Amex and a Visa card Customer. You can also be an iPhone and Android Customer at the same time as well. As well as a web user. Amex charges higher fees, and offer specific services to their customer base.
    - lapcat 2y ago
      > You can be both an Amex and a Visa card Customer. Yes, which supports my point. > You can also be an iPhone and Android Customer at the same time as well. Who does this? Barely anyone. Most people can't afford to buy two smartphones, and even if you could afford two, why in the world would you use two of them simultaneously? That sounds extremely inconvenient, for no apparent benefit. Practically speaking, a smartphone is an exclusive relationship; you pick one at a time. Yours is such a bizarre hypothetical. In any case, the crucial difference is that a smartphone is a product of independent value that you can buy, whereas a credit card is not. The piece of plastic is just a container for your credit card number, a means of accessing the service, a line of credit.
      - ProfessorLayton 2y ago
        >In any case, the crucial difference is that a smartphone is a product of independent value that you can buy, whereas a credit card is not. This is missing the broader point, which is that companies absolutely do gatekeep access to "their" customers all the time in several industries in and outside of tech. Customer acquisition costs a lot of money, and one of the ways businesses recoup their costs or boost profits is by monetizing them by selling access. The problem with Apple doing it is that they're abusing their market power.
        lapcat 2y ago
        > This is missing the broader point, which is that companies absolutely do gatekeep access to "their" customers all the time in several industries in and outside of tech. You're still in need of examples, because I've already explained how credit card companies don't gatekeep access to me. > Customer acquisition costs a lot of money, and one of the ways businesses recoup their costs or boost profits is by monetizing them by selling access. iPhones also cost a lot of money. Apple sold almost $40 billion worth of iPhones just last quarter. I'm quite certain that Apple is recouping its costs via hardware sales.
wkat4242 2y ago
> Why should Apple be able to charge money for "access" to me, as if I were a prostitute and Apple my pimp? I'm simply using a computer, which I paid for. I had the same feeling but I couldn't put it to words that well. But you hit the nail on the head. Thanks for this!
ksec 2y ago
I dont think, the customer, or in your example "you" does not even come into the equation. It is straightly Apple and Patreon. And in terns of Apple, they do think Patreon is accessing their customer base ( You ) and hence they want a cut of it.
- lapcat 2y ago
  This comment makes no sense to me and contradicts itself. First sentence: > "you" does not even come into the equation Second sentence: > Patreon is accessing their customer base ( You ) Of course I come into the equation. Apple does not and cannot subscribe me to a Patreon without my initiative and consent.
  - ksec 2y ago
    >without my initiative and consent. You are acting as if someone is forcing you to do it. >and contradicts itself. To word it better, You the customer does not come between Apple and Patreon.

by lapcat 2y ago

fuzztester 2y ago

>I own an iPhone. I am not Apple, and Apple does not own me. Why should Apple be able to charge money for "access" to me, as if I were a prostitute and Apple my pimp? I'm simply using a computer, which I paid for. really solid point. they shouldn't be able to.

ProfessorLayton 2y ago

So I'll start by saying that companies like Apple need to be regulated, as they're misusing their market power to the detriment of everyone but them. However, your argument isn't what you think it is. It's extremely common for companies to sell/gatekeep (Or "pimp" as you put it) access to "their" user base. Think credit cards (Amex can charge merchants more as because their users tend to spend more) or even club memberships like Costco (They're certainly not letting telcos sign up users for free.)

lapcat 2y ago
This is a very strange analogy. I didn't buy my credit card. I don't own it. The credit card is just a little piece of plastic, totally useless without the line of credit, i.e, the service provided by the credit card company, in stark contrast with my computers, which can be used quite extensively without the App Store. The credit card company is not gatekeeping "access" to me. I can pay for things with cash, a debit card, a check, etc. If I choose to pay with a credit card, it's because I wish to take advantage of the specific features of the credit card, the primary one of which is the ability to pay for the product later rather than at the moment of purchase.
- ksec 2y ago
  >This is a very strange analogy. You can be both an Amex and a Visa card Customer. You can also be an iPhone and Android Customer at the same time as well. As well as a web user. Amex charges higher fees, and offer specific services to their customer base.
  - lapcat 2y ago
    > You can be both an Amex and a Visa card Customer. Yes, which supports my point. > You can also be an iPhone and Android Customer at the same time as well. Who does this? Barely anyone. Most people can't afford to buy two smartphones, and even if you could afford two, why in the world would you use two of them simultaneously? That sounds extremely inconvenient, for no apparent benefit. Practically speaking, a smartphone is an exclusive relationship; you pick one at a time. Yours is such a bizarre hypothetical. In any case, the crucial difference is that a smartphone is a product of independent value that you can buy, whereas a credit card is not. The piece of plastic is just a container for your credit card number, a means of accessing the service, a line of credit.
    - ProfessorLayton 2y ago
      >In any case, the crucial difference is that a smartphone is a product of independent value that you can buy, whereas a credit card is not. This is missing the broader point, which is that companies absolutely do gatekeep access to "their" customers all the time in several industries in and outside of tech. Customer acquisition costs a lot of money, and one of the ways businesses recoup their costs or boost profits is by monetizing them by selling access. The problem with Apple doing it is that they're abusing their market power.
      - lapcat 2y ago
        > This is missing the broader point, which is that companies absolutely do gatekeep access to "their" customers all the time in several industries in and outside of tech. You're still in need of examples, because I've already explained how credit card companies don't gatekeep access to me. > Customer acquisition costs a lot of money, and one of the ways businesses recoup their costs or boost profits is by monetizing them by selling access. iPhones also cost a lot of money. Apple sold almost $40 billion worth of iPhones just last quarter. I'm quite certain that Apple is recouping its costs via hardware sales.

wkat4242 2y ago

> Why should Apple be able to charge money for "access" to me, as if I were a prostitute and Apple my pimp? I'm simply using a computer, which I paid for. I had the same feeling but I couldn't put it to words that well. But you hit the nail on the head. Thanks for this!

ksec 2y ago

I dont think, the customer, or in your example "you" does not even come into the equation. It is straightly Apple and Patreon. And in terns of Apple, they do think Patreon is accessing their customer base ( You ) and hence they want a cut of it.

lapcat 2y ago
This comment makes no sense to me and contradicts itself. First sentence: > "you" does not even come into the equation Second sentence: > Patreon is accessing their customer base ( You ) Of course I come into the equation. Apple does not and cannot subscribe me to a Patreon without my initiative and consent.
- ksec 2y ago
  >without my initiative and consent. You are acting as if someone is forcing you to do it. >and contradicts itself. To word it better, You the customer does not come between Apple and Patreon.