4 ms·

> I’d rather pay an extra $100 for the phone than have ads all over it. In all likelihood, we will pay an extra $100 AND have ads.

by hhoorzad 10mo ago

isodev 10mo ago
Apple Ads+, curated selection of premium ads for 9.99€/month. Also available as part of Apple One if you buy 2TB of extra iCloud storage.
- notyourwork 10mo ago
  Cannot wait for ads to slip into my iCloud storage.
mystifyingpoi 10mo ago
THIS. Never promote the idea of "can you please not bother me with ads, there you go there is your extra $100, what, $200? okay sure". That's how mafia operates. Do not promote such.
- fasbiner 10mo ago
  People pay the mafia protection money because it's cheaper than fighting the mob and it makes the mob go away for awhile, and in the long run, we're all dead. Most mafia-like entities don't have an inexorable existential drive to take it all, they just charge what the market will bear. And if you think there's a definitional difference between a government, a corporation and a mafia that stands up to any objective measure and isn't based entirely on social cues and special pleading, I think that's an extraordinary claim you have no evidence for. Go lead a maoist insurgency or don't, but the fingerwagging moral appeal is worse than useless.
  - bigyabai 10mo ago
    > and in the long run, we're all dead. Well gee, when you put it like that all morality is relative huh?
    - rcMgD2BwE72F 10mo ago
      Of course morality is relative. But still, there's no point to compare something to nothing and say "why bother". Comparisons can be useful.
      - b112 10mo ago
        Only a left or right, one or the other world view would think such. As with almost everything, it's both. Some morality is relative, some is absolute.
        coldtea 10mo ago
        What morality is absolute? Morality being absolute means just that you subjectively consider some moral rules absolute. Doesn't make them so, the way the law of gravity is absolute. And it doesn't mean that every human society agrees to what you consider "absolute". All things you consider "absolute", there are whole societies which found them to be just fine, and you'd do too if you were raised in them, including incest, murder of innocents, slavery, torture...
        somenameforme 10mo ago
        Many things are naturally repulsive, but are indulged out of necessity or gain. For instance Aristotle wasn't opposed to slavery, yet nonetheless in his writings, now some 2400+ years ago, he found himself obligated to lay out an extensive and lengthy defense and rationalization of such, and he even predicted what would eventually end it: "For if every instrument could accomplish its own work, obeying or anticipating the will of others, like the statues of Daedalus, or the tripods of Hephaestus, which, says the poet, 'Of their own accord entered the assembly of the Gods.' If, in like manner, the shuttle would weave and the plectrum touch the lyre without a hand to guide them, chief workmen would not want servants, nor masters slaves." [1] There were millennia of efforts to end slavery, but it's only the technological and industrial revolution that finally succeeded in doing so. But the point is that even though Aristotle was ostensibly not opposed to slavery, he nonetheless knew it was a decision that needed justification because it was fundamentally repulsive, even in a society where it was ubiquitous and relatively non-controversial, thousands of years ago. This 'natural repulsion' is, I think, some degree of evidence for persistent, if not absolute, morality throughout at least thousands of years of humanity's existence, and I see no reason to assume it would not trend back long further than that. [1] - https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.mb.txt https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.mb.txt
  - rightbyte 10mo ago
    That seems rather reductionist.
    - fasbiner 10mo ago
      How so? In china, app stores are open to market competition as an eventual consequence of a maoist insurgency. It's fine if you're personally a coward or you just don't think it's worth it. But not only does it work, it is so far, the only thing that has ever been proven to work.
      - rightbyte 10mo ago
        I am not a maoist. I meant that this is reductionist: > definitional difference between a government, a corporation and a mafia that stands up to any objective measure and isn't based entirely on social cues and special pleading Thinking about it. Your post now is also reductionist. Maybe that is your thing?
        fasbiner 10mo ago
        Using -ist instead of engaging in discussion or presenting any evidence or explanation whatsoever for extradorinaiy claims is in fact a thought-terminating cliche. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A... If I were to stoop to your level of reasoning and inquiry, I could simply say that you are are a racist and a sexist for disagreeing with me with just as much basis.
  - ben_w 10mo ago
    > People pay the mafia protection money because it's cheaper than fighting the mob and it makes the mob go away for awhile, and in the long run, we're all dead. Most mafia-like entities don't have an inexorable existential drive to take it all, they just charge what the market will bear. If I had to guess, the Mafia will have professional economists on payroll telling the bosses about the Laffer curve and emigration. But in this context, Apple's clearly on the low end of the Laffer curve* because they don't need a million apps, so who cares if the store fees are 15% or 85%, the supply is still there?**; while for emigration, being the least bad of the Apple/Google duopoly is all that is necessary. * if you take literally that the App store fee is the "Apple tax" ** Answer: Judges in market abuse/monopoly cases because Apple is not actually sovereign; on paper neither is the Mafia, but this is where "monopoly on violence" is a useful definition of a state, in that where anything like the Mafia can exist, the state is de facto not sovereign no matter what it says on paper.
  - coldtea 10mo ago
    >And if you think there's a definitional difference between a government, a corporation and a mafia that stands up to any objective measure and isn't based entirely on social cues and special pleading, If we're speaking of democratic governments you usually get to vote (whatever ineffective). And if we're speaking for non monopolistic corporations you also get to buy from another. With mafia there's a single, non-negotiable, option: the one running your area. And both for goverments and corporations, there are other parties (e.g. courts) limiting what they can do.
  - Imustaskforhelp 10mo ago
    To be honest the parent's comment which related to mafia was already a bit streched but comparing it to maoist insurgency feels like the extreme of an extreme. Can we please discuss how this comment is relevant to the Apple's discussion and how it fits in perhaps too.
- nielsole 10mo ago
  That's how you self select as a high value ad target
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
Lio 10mo ago
If that happens then people will just switch to the less premium, fully ad supported platform, Android, because the platform have just become commodities. It might increase profits in the short term but it will hammer the brand.
- AnthonyMouse 10mo ago
  > It might increase profits in the short term but it will hammer the brand. Publicly-traded companies fairly consistently follow a particular arc. At first they produce something people like, and thereby become popular. This is often before they go public. Then they grow for a while, until the market becomes saturated. But they're a public company, so they're still expected to grow. And if you can't get more users, the only thing you can do is extract more out of each one. That's enshitification in a nutshell. People often suggest things like "consumer protection" regulations, but then you get malicious compliance and regulatory capture. There are only really two things that work: The first is that the company is still controlled by a founder who actually cares about their reputation. This works pretty well when you can find it, but it tends not to last. Eventually people die or retire. The second is competition. Not a duopoly where they each point to the other and claim there's an alternative while mirroring every bad act of their partner in crime. Actual competition, where the market share of new companies that have only entered the market in the last 5 years isn't zero. This is why e.g. Costco can be rated higher than Comcast by an amount represented by the difference in altitude between a scenic view at a local park and the depths of hell. So that's where you want to direct regulatory efforts. Breaking up companies in concentrated markets, repealing regulations that raise barriers to entry or allow incumbents to lock out competitors, etc. Because once a company is beholden to Wall St, the only thing that can keep them honest is real competition.
crapple8430 10mo ago
The only way to avoid that is if that $100 buys you actual ownership, like the ability to have your own secure boot keys and modify the software. So long as Apple still owns your phone, they can alter the deal, and there is nothing you can do about it.
- merelysounds 10mo ago
  Perhaps not even that is completely safe long term, as companies can introduce a locked down dependency, reverse policies (see Google's recent sideloading stance), or find some other workarounds.
WD-42 10mo ago
Apple is just admitting like everyone else that not having ads is just money left on the table. Where are people going to go? So yea they’ll keep adding more ads, keep charging more for their phones and there’s nothing anyone can really do about it.
- al_borland 10mo ago
  It’s not just money left on the table, it’s a way to differentiate from the competition. When someone is trying to decide iPhones vs Android for their next purchase, being able to say “our OS doesn’t have ads” is big. I hear people complain about ads more than just about anything else. I think users should have 0 tolerance for ads in the OS. It’s the broken window theory. Once they start, if the users don’t revolt, they will keep pushing them. I find I don’t use the App Store much anymore. I used to browse it all the time, but it feels like one giant advertisement now.
  - pmontra 10mo ago
    Well, my Androids do not have ads because I can install Firefox with uBO and Blockada to block ads even inside apps. I don't know if uBO works in Safari and I don't know if iOS allows for something like Blockada. In doubt (and for other reasons,) I'm on Android. However I'm not the typical user. The typical buyers just want an iPhone or do not want one, like they want one brand of shoes or a brand of bags, no technical considerations. Fashion.
    - fireflash38 10mo ago
      For now. With Google blocking ad block ability on their browsers, what's to stop them from blocking ad blockers in their OS?
      - WD-42 10mo ago
        Because they don’t restrict what web browser engines you can run on android, so Firefox is actually Firefox there.

> I’d rather pay an extra $100 for the phone than have ads all over it. In all likelihood, we will pay an extra $100 AND have ads.

isodev 10mo ago

Apple Ads+, curated selection of premium ads for 9.99€/month. Also available as part of Apple One if you buy 2TB of extra iCloud storage.

notyourwork 10mo ago
Cannot wait for ads to slip into my iCloud storage.

mystifyingpoi 10mo ago

THIS. Never promote the idea of "can you please not bother me with ads, there you go there is your extra $100, what, $200? okay sure". That's how mafia operates. Do not promote such.

fasbiner 10mo ago
People pay the mafia protection money because it's cheaper than fighting the mob and it makes the mob go away for awhile, and in the long run, we're all dead. Most mafia-like entities don't have an inexorable existential drive to take it all, they just charge what the market will bear. And if you think there's a definitional difference between a government, a corporation and a mafia that stands up to any objective measure and isn't based entirely on social cues and special pleading, I think that's an extraordinary claim you have no evidence for. Go lead a maoist insurgency or don't, but the fingerwagging moral appeal is worse than useless.
- bigyabai 10mo ago
  > and in the long run, we're all dead. Well gee, when you put it like that all morality is relative huh?
  - rcMgD2BwE72F 10mo ago
    Of course morality is relative. But still, there's no point to compare something to nothing and say "why bother". Comparisons can be useful.
    - b112 10mo ago
      Only a left or right, one or the other world view would think such. As with almost everything, it's both. Some morality is relative, some is absolute.
      - coldtea 10mo ago
        What morality is absolute? Morality being absolute means just that you subjectively consider some moral rules absolute. Doesn't make them so, the way the law of gravity is absolute. And it doesn't mean that every human society agrees to what you consider "absolute". All things you consider "absolute", there are whole societies which found them to be just fine, and you'd do too if you were raised in them, including incest, murder of innocents, slavery, torture...
        somenameforme 10mo ago
        Many things are naturally repulsive, but are indulged out of necessity or gain. For instance Aristotle wasn't opposed to slavery, yet nonetheless in his writings, now some 2400+ years ago, he found himself obligated to lay out an extensive and lengthy defense and rationalization of such, and he even predicted what would eventually end it: "For if every instrument could accomplish its own work, obeying or anticipating the will of others, like the statues of Daedalus, or the tripods of Hephaestus, which, says the poet, 'Of their own accord entered the assembly of the Gods.' If, in like manner, the shuttle would weave and the plectrum touch the lyre without a hand to guide them, chief workmen would not want servants, nor masters slaves." [1] There were millennia of efforts to end slavery, but it's only the technological and industrial revolution that finally succeeded in doing so. But the point is that even though Aristotle was ostensibly not opposed to slavery, he nonetheless knew it was a decision that needed justification because it was fundamentally repulsive, even in a society where it was ubiquitous and relatively non-controversial, thousands of years ago. This 'natural repulsion' is, I think, some degree of evidence for persistent, if not absolute, morality throughout at least thousands of years of humanity's existence, and I see no reason to assume it would not trend back long further than that. [1] - https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.mb.txt https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.mb.txt
- rightbyte 10mo ago
  That seems rather reductionist.
  - fasbiner 10mo ago
    How so? In china, app stores are open to market competition as an eventual consequence of a maoist insurgency. It's fine if you're personally a coward or you just don't think it's worth it. But not only does it work, it is so far, the only thing that has ever been proven to work.
    - rightbyte 10mo ago
      I am not a maoist. I meant that this is reductionist: > definitional difference between a government, a corporation and a mafia that stands up to any objective measure and isn't based entirely on social cues and special pleading Thinking about it. Your post now is also reductionist. Maybe that is your thing?
      - fasbiner 10mo ago
        Using -ist instead of engaging in discussion or presenting any evidence or explanation whatsoever for extradorinaiy claims is in fact a thought-terminating cliche. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A... If I were to stoop to your level of reasoning and inquiry, I could simply say that you are are a racist and a sexist for disagreeing with me with just as much basis.
- ben_w 10mo ago
  > People pay the mafia protection money because it's cheaper than fighting the mob and it makes the mob go away for awhile, and in the long run, we're all dead. Most mafia-like entities don't have an inexorable existential drive to take it all, they just charge what the market will bear. If I had to guess, the Mafia will have professional economists on payroll telling the bosses about the Laffer curve and emigration. But in this context, Apple's clearly on the low end of the Laffer curve* because they don't need a million apps, so who cares if the store fees are 15% or 85%, the supply is still there?**; while for emigration, being the least bad of the Apple/Google duopoly is all that is necessary. * if you take literally that the App store fee is the "Apple tax" ** Answer: Judges in market abuse/monopoly cases because Apple is not actually sovereign; on paper neither is the Mafia, but this is where "monopoly on violence" is a useful definition of a state, in that where anything like the Mafia can exist, the state is de facto not sovereign no matter what it says on paper.
- coldtea 10mo ago
  >And if you think there's a definitional difference between a government, a corporation and a mafia that stands up to any objective measure and isn't based entirely on social cues and special pleading, If we're speaking of democratic governments you usually get to vote (whatever ineffective). And if we're speaking for non monopolistic corporations you also get to buy from another. With mafia there's a single, non-negotiable, option: the one running your area. And both for goverments and corporations, there are other parties (e.g. courts) limiting what they can do.
- Imustaskforhelp 10mo ago
  To be honest the parent's comment which related to mafia was already a bit streched but comparing it to maoist insurgency feels like the extreme of an extreme. Can we please discuss how this comment is relevant to the Apple's discussion and how it fits in perhaps too.
nielsole 10mo ago
That's how you self select as a high value ad target

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

Lio 10mo ago

If that happens then people will just switch to the less premium, fully ad supported platform, Android, because the platform have just become commodities. It might increase profits in the short term but it will hammer the brand.

AnthonyMouse 10mo ago
> It might increase profits in the short term but it will hammer the brand. Publicly-traded companies fairly consistently follow a particular arc. At first they produce something people like, and thereby become popular. This is often before they go public. Then they grow for a while, until the market becomes saturated. But they're a public company, so they're still expected to grow. And if you can't get more users, the only thing you can do is extract more out of each one. That's enshitification in a nutshell. People often suggest things like "consumer protection" regulations, but then you get malicious compliance and regulatory capture. There are only really two things that work: The first is that the company is still controlled by a founder who actually cares about their reputation. This works pretty well when you can find it, but it tends not to last. Eventually people die or retire. The second is competition. Not a duopoly where they each point to the other and claim there's an alternative while mirroring every bad act of their partner in crime. Actual competition, where the market share of new companies that have only entered the market in the last 5 years isn't zero. This is why e.g. Costco can be rated higher than Comcast by an amount represented by the difference in altitude between a scenic view at a local park and the depths of hell. So that's where you want to direct regulatory efforts. Breaking up companies in concentrated markets, repealing regulations that raise barriers to entry or allow incumbents to lock out competitors, etc. Because once a company is beholden to Wall St, the only thing that can keep them honest is real competition.

crapple8430 10mo ago

The only way to avoid that is if that $100 buys you actual ownership, like the ability to have your own secure boot keys and modify the software. So long as Apple still owns your phone, they can alter the deal, and there is nothing you can do about it.

merelysounds 10mo ago
Perhaps not even that is completely safe long term, as companies can introduce a locked down dependency, reverse policies (see Google's recent sideloading stance), or find some other workarounds.

WD-42 10mo ago

Apple is just admitting like everyone else that not having ads is just money left on the table. Where are people going to go? So yea they’ll keep adding more ads, keep charging more for their phones and there’s nothing anyone can really do about it.

al_borland 10mo ago
It’s not just money left on the table, it’s a way to differentiate from the competition. When someone is trying to decide iPhones vs Android for their next purchase, being able to say “our OS doesn’t have ads” is big. I hear people complain about ads more than just about anything else. I think users should have 0 tolerance for ads in the OS. It’s the broken window theory. Once they start, if the users don’t revolt, they will keep pushing them. I find I don’t use the App Store much anymore. I used to browse it all the time, but it feels like one giant advertisement now.
- pmontra 10mo ago
  Well, my Androids do not have ads because I can install Firefox with uBO and Blockada to block ads even inside apps. I don't know if uBO works in Safari and I don't know if iOS allows for something like Blockada. In doubt (and for other reasons,) I'm on Android. However I'm not the typical user. The typical buyers just want an iPhone or do not want one, like they want one brand of shoes or a brand of bags, no technical considerations. Fashion.
  - fireflash38 10mo ago
    For now. With Google blocking ad block ability on their browsers, what's to stop them from blocking ad blockers in their OS?
    - WD-42 10mo ago
      Because they don’t restrict what web browser engines you can run on android, so Firefox is actually Firefox there.