> That is a bit circular to say developers like Apple because they like money, thus Apple is not truly liked for itself.
It's almost as if users patronize Comcast because they like internet access and Comcast is not truly liked for itself. It's almost as if drivers patronize the DMV because they like driving without being arrested and the DMV is not truly liked for itself.
There is a big difference between needing something and liking it.
> Apple was successful in building a platform because it's in house developers were capable of putting together something that was popolar with many people. They built on that to make more money by allowing other developers to use their platform.
But who are they to be allowing anything? GE makes a fine electrical distribution panel but that doesn't mean they get to decide what kind of lamp or microwave or laptop I can use with it.
> 1. Competency is not a moat. If Apple loses developers it's next product will not be so much better than competition that it's success will maintain against erosion.
Network effects are a moat. Apple had the first mover advantage, so they had the initial users and the developers follow the users. Then the users stay because the developers are there and the developers have no choice but to stay if they want access to those users.
The users could switch to Android -- most of them already have. But the developers can't make the remaining users move outside of some sufficiently large organized boycott, which are notoriously difficult to effectuate because of the coordination problem.
> 2. For all people talk about associating with necessary evils; when you associate with someone long enough, you begin to think they are not evil. Thus it seems reasonable to think developers do not hate Apple, if they work with Apple.
By this logic the most beloved entity in the country should be the IRS. And if people had to file four times a year instead of once they would like them even more.