4 ms·

That’s a very good and valid question but did they sell the device with the premise that anyone can run any app they want or only the apps Apple approved can ru

That’s a very good and valid question but did they sell the device with the premise that anyone can run any app they want or only the apps Apple approved can run? We believe in the same thing, our devices should be free like speech. But the whole thing turned into a show because some rich software companies don’t want to pay Apple 30% while they have no problem with other platforms like gaming consoles.

grishka 1y ago
Apple does market the iPhone as a general-purpose communication and computing device. Not an appliance like a game console. Most iPhone users don't know what making an app is like, how asinine the app store review process is, and what kinds of bonkers rules developers have to follow. Apple initially did that to protect the ecosystem from malware and make sure all apps meet their quality standards. Also to make distribution easy for indie developers. All commendable goals. But as the iOS market share grew, this turned into a very convenient revenue source that they can't let go now.
- itopaloglu83 1y ago
  The Original iPhone didn’t have any apps and Apple later created their own ecosystem with an end user agreement which supersedes the ads. The digital market should be regulated for sure but what’s happening is a bunch of companies who are in the digital market (and not regulated themselves) exploiting the public sentiment and the regulatory processes. Spotify and others fail to mention that they were able to access billions of Apple customers without paying a single dime to Apple initially which is unheard of in business relationships.
  - grishka 1y ago
    I keep seeing that argument made but it doesn't make any sense. Yes, Apple may deserve a cut when a user was acquired thanks to the app store alone. Like in that case when you're an indie developer and the app store putting your app listing in front of potential new users is genuinely helpful. However, to many developers, and especially large ones like Spotify that do their own marketing, the app store is a hindrance. It's an obstacle they need to clear. It provides no value to them. Spotify is able to "access billions of Apple customers" because Spotify spends millions on ads and because statistically some people who would like to use Spotify on their phone happen to have an iPhone. Apple has no part in this at all. Simple as that.
    - itopaloglu83 1y ago
      I would like to explain it, if you're genuinely interested. Apple designs and manufactures incredible hardware and software. The ecosystem they created is beautiful, secure, and intuitive to use. When it was first announced, many people started using it even before they allowed apps on it. Apple later launched the App Store and allowed 3rd party developers access to their platform in exchange for a percentage of the sale price. And this is where most people trip, it's their platform, not an open ecosystem. Apple is granting Spotify access to billions of Apple's users in exchange for a cut of the sale price. It doesn't matter if one person bought a subscription or one million, the platform still belongs to Apple. And in exchange billions of Apple customers are likely to purchase a subscription from Spotify. If a company builds a 50,000 people capacity football stadium, and I open a concession stand in there in exchange for a percentage of the sales, can I say I want to sell to all these people without paying my contractual obligations? Spotify is free to sell their subscriptions and install their applications wherever they like but that's not the contractual agreement they had with Apple. Private ownership is essential to our economy, Apple created this platform and their own it. Forcibly taking it from them would give all the wrong signals to everyone else about what could happen to them next. Who knows, maybe someone says you voted for the wrong party. --- Digital marketplace, not just Apple or gatekeepers or whatever, must be regulated from the first principles. A couple of rich software companies cozying up to regulators and trying to force changes that will increase only their profit margins is not the way to do it in my humble opinion.
      - stale2002 1y ago
        > . Apple is granting Spotify access No. Those users control themselves. They are not Apples users. They own their own device and they are free to do whatever they want with the hardware that they own. > the platform still belongs to Apple No actually. The device is owned by the user. > billions of Apple customers They aren't Apples. They own their own device. > e but that's not the contractual agreement they had with Apple. Or instead of that, they can completely ignore apple's copntract, and force Apple by law to allow them access to this market. If apple doesn't like it, then they can leave the EU entirely, or accept 10s of billions of dollars in fines. > Forcibly taking it Its not Apples. The device belongs to the user. > must be regulated from the first principles. Ok, and what about the first principle of "A user owns there own device and should be free to pay Apple exactly 0 dollars for the ability to install spotify on the device that they own".
  - EMIRELADERO 1y ago
    > The Original iPhone didn’t have any apps and Apple later created their own ecosystem with an end user agreement which supersedes the ads. The whole "user agreement" thing is one of the biggest problems, because it means Apple thinks you buying an iPhone doesn't inherently entitle you to the advertised functionality of it. Which is, to out it mildly, highly misleading and potentially illegal. The "small print" shouldn't contradict the big picture. You can't pretend you're selling a device and then turn around and declare that those sales were only about raw hardware and not actual functionality. That's not how products work, and most importantly, not how consumer protection laws see it. The reason why Apple is so adamant in this line of reasoning is clear once you factor in the App Store rationale. From that perspective, any time a third-party app runs on a user's device and calls iOS APIs in order to actually function, it's not part of what the user actually paid money for. Any execution of any software that uses those APIs is an additional transaction altogether, dealt with separately through the iOS EULA. In short, Apple's position is that any time iOS does anything, either by default or powering a third-party app, it's not actually part of the functionality that was paid for in full by the iPhone's owner, because the owner never paid for ANY functionality at all, only the hardware.
    - itopaloglu83 1y ago
      It's called EULA Roofie. I think Apple will eventually fade away and be replaced by another company that has a more free and open platform. My main concern throughout this discussion is how we're drifting from regulating the digital market place itself. Preventing things like EULA Roofies etc. where somebody can track your personal life and sell it to others to manipulate you. According to the App Store policies, if I remember correctly, technically all the customers belong to Apple. Although, the developers are also correct to see it the other way around as well. The ecosystem was built on the assumption that hardware would be sold with its own profit margin and software would have its own separate profit margin to sustain its own operations, tools, and libraries. The DMA made the entire software branch unsustainable and everybody thinks that Apple earned enough and they should give the software for free. Well, it's their platform and they're entitled to profit from it as they're pleased. Even the European Commission admitted that as well, because saying otherwise is akin to confiscating their intellectual property. I wouldn't bet the house on it but I think Apple would give up the European market before the core technology fee.
lxgr 1y ago
> some rich software companies don’t want to pay Apple 30% while they have no problem with other platforms like gaming consoles Why would you think they don't have a problem with the cut game console manufacturers take? It's also different kinds of companies: Epic and Spotify have quite different concerns, for example.
- itopaloglu83 1y ago
  I want my phone to be free like speech and I want free commerce. But I also know that if people start ganging up on and start taking over other people’s property, not because they did anything illegal but because they just don’t like them anymore, things soon turn savor really fast.
- burnerthrow008 1y ago
  > Why would you think they don't have a problem with the cut game console manufacturers take? Because they haven't sued them in the US nor lobbied the EC to label game console manufacturers as "gatekeepers".
  - itopaloglu83 1y ago
    Japan is also a very big player in the console market by the way. Anyway, I got sidetracked, nobody has to put their apps on Apple products. The premise Apple is making is that they're allowing access to billions of possible users in exchange for a certain percentage of the sale price. The record labels are charging artists up to 50% for an album and nobody is even betting an eye about it or talking about regulation. That's why I find all this noise so artificial.

grishka 1y ago

Apple does market the iPhone as a general-purpose communication and computing device. Not an appliance like a game console. Most iPhone users don't know what making an app is like, how asinine the app store review process is, and what kinds of bonkers rules developers have to follow. Apple initially did that to protect the ecosystem from malware and make sure all apps meet their quality standards. Also to make distribution easy for indie developers. All commendable goals. But as the iOS market share grew, this turned into a very convenient revenue source that they can't let go now.

itopaloglu83 1y ago
The Original iPhone didn’t have any apps and Apple later created their own ecosystem with an end user agreement which supersedes the ads. The digital market should be regulated for sure but what’s happening is a bunch of companies who are in the digital market (and not regulated themselves) exploiting the public sentiment and the regulatory processes. Spotify and others fail to mention that they were able to access billions of Apple customers without paying a single dime to Apple initially which is unheard of in business relationships.
- grishka 1y ago
  I keep seeing that argument made but it doesn't make any sense. Yes, Apple may deserve a cut when a user was acquired thanks to the app store alone. Like in that case when you're an indie developer and the app store putting your app listing in front of potential new users is genuinely helpful. However, to many developers, and especially large ones like Spotify that do their own marketing, the app store is a hindrance. It's an obstacle they need to clear. It provides no value to them. Spotify is able to "access billions of Apple customers" because Spotify spends millions on ads and because statistically some people who would like to use Spotify on their phone happen to have an iPhone. Apple has no part in this at all. Simple as that.
  - itopaloglu83 1y ago
    I would like to explain it, if you're genuinely interested. Apple designs and manufactures incredible hardware and software. The ecosystem they created is beautiful, secure, and intuitive to use. When it was first announced, many people started using it even before they allowed apps on it. Apple later launched the App Store and allowed 3rd party developers access to their platform in exchange for a percentage of the sale price. And this is where most people trip, it's their platform, not an open ecosystem. Apple is granting Spotify access to billions of Apple's users in exchange for a cut of the sale price. It doesn't matter if one person bought a subscription or one million, the platform still belongs to Apple. And in exchange billions of Apple customers are likely to purchase a subscription from Spotify. If a company builds a 50,000 people capacity football stadium, and I open a concession stand in there in exchange for a percentage of the sales, can I say I want to sell to all these people without paying my contractual obligations? Spotify is free to sell their subscriptions and install their applications wherever they like but that's not the contractual agreement they had with Apple. Private ownership is essential to our economy, Apple created this platform and their own it. Forcibly taking it from them would give all the wrong signals to everyone else about what could happen to them next. Who knows, maybe someone says you voted for the wrong party. --- Digital marketplace, not just Apple or gatekeepers or whatever, must be regulated from the first principles. A couple of rich software companies cozying up to regulators and trying to force changes that will increase only their profit margins is not the way to do it in my humble opinion.
    - stale2002 1y ago
      > . Apple is granting Spotify access No. Those users control themselves. They are not Apples users. They own their own device and they are free to do whatever they want with the hardware that they own. > the platform still belongs to Apple No actually. The device is owned by the user. > billions of Apple customers They aren't Apples. They own their own device. > e but that's not the contractual agreement they had with Apple. Or instead of that, they can completely ignore apple's copntract, and force Apple by law to allow them access to this market. If apple doesn't like it, then they can leave the EU entirely, or accept 10s of billions of dollars in fines. > Forcibly taking it Its not Apples. The device belongs to the user. > must be regulated from the first principles. Ok, and what about the first principle of "A user owns there own device and should be free to pay Apple exactly 0 dollars for the ability to install spotify on the device that they own".
- EMIRELADERO 1y ago
  > The Original iPhone didn’t have any apps and Apple later created their own ecosystem with an end user agreement which supersedes the ads. The whole "user agreement" thing is one of the biggest problems, because it means Apple thinks you buying an iPhone doesn't inherently entitle you to the advertised functionality of it. Which is, to out it mildly, highly misleading and potentially illegal. The "small print" shouldn't contradict the big picture. You can't pretend you're selling a device and then turn around and declare that those sales were only about raw hardware and not actual functionality. That's not how products work, and most importantly, not how consumer protection laws see it. The reason why Apple is so adamant in this line of reasoning is clear once you factor in the App Store rationale. From that perspective, any time a third-party app runs on a user's device and calls iOS APIs in order to actually function, it's not part of what the user actually paid money for. Any execution of any software that uses those APIs is an additional transaction altogether, dealt with separately through the iOS EULA. In short, Apple's position is that any time iOS does anything, either by default or powering a third-party app, it's not actually part of the functionality that was paid for in full by the iPhone's owner, because the owner never paid for ANY functionality at all, only the hardware.
  - itopaloglu83 1y ago
    It's called EULA Roofie. I think Apple will eventually fade away and be replaced by another company that has a more free and open platform. My main concern throughout this discussion is how we're drifting from regulating the digital market place itself. Preventing things like EULA Roofies etc. where somebody can track your personal life and sell it to others to manipulate you. According to the App Store policies, if I remember correctly, technically all the customers belong to Apple. Although, the developers are also correct to see it the other way around as well. The ecosystem was built on the assumption that hardware would be sold with its own profit margin and software would have its own separate profit margin to sustain its own operations, tools, and libraries. The DMA made the entire software branch unsustainable and everybody thinks that Apple earned enough and they should give the software for free. Well, it's their platform and they're entitled to profit from it as they're pleased. Even the European Commission admitted that as well, because saying otherwise is akin to confiscating their intellectual property. I wouldn't bet the house on it but I think Apple would give up the European market before the core technology fee.

lxgr 1y ago

> some rich software companies don’t want to pay Apple 30% while they have no problem with other platforms like gaming consoles Why would you think they don't have a problem with the cut game console manufacturers take? It's also different kinds of companies: Epic and Spotify have quite different concerns, for example.

itopaloglu83 1y ago
I want my phone to be free like speech and I want free commerce. But I also know that if people start ganging up on and start taking over other people’s property, not because they did anything illegal but because they just don’t like them anymore, things soon turn savor really fast.
burnerthrow008 1y ago
> Why would you think they don't have a problem with the cut game console manufacturers take? Because they haven't sued them in the US nor lobbied the EC to label game console manufacturers as "gatekeepers".
- itopaloglu83 1y ago
  Japan is also a very big player in the console market by the way. Anyway, I got sidetracked, nobody has to put their apps on Apple products. The premise Apple is making is that they're allowing access to billions of possible users in exchange for a certain percentage of the sale price. The record labels are charging artists up to 50% for an album and nobody is even betting an eye about it or talking about regulation. That's why I find all this noise so artificial.