Hacker News Reader

Comment by tyre | Hacker News Reader

I would argue the reverse.

I have a HomePod and not an alexa or Google device because Apple has shown it cares about privacy. That's user-centric. Sure, we could be incredibly cynical in saying that "well because you buy it then it is actually Apple-centric", but they clearly care about privacy.

Google to me is entirely Google-centric, which means harvesting as much data about me as possible to sell to advertisers.

I'm fine with Apple's walled garden. It works really, really well. People love iPhones for more than just marketing and status. They're excellent phones. And a not-insignificant piece of that experience is an ecosystem fits together nicely, with central control. Infinite choice isn't better for most people.

View on HN

> I'm fine with Apple's walled garden.

Are you fine with paying Apple 30% of the cost of any application that you buy? It's not the developers that are paying this cost -- this is what you are paying to Apple for each app. That $25 app is costing you $7.50 that goes straight to Apple. All that money adds up fast.

Even if you are good with that, I think you imagine that a lot of users -- even those who might be happy with other aspects of the Apple ecosystem -- might not be happy with a 30% tax on all purchases made on their thousand dollar device. Apple even mandates that you're not allowed to know inside of an app about cheaper ways to pay.

> It's not the developers that are paying this cost -- this is what you are paying to Apple for each app.

Is that right though? Is the economics as simplistic as that? Could it be that Apple can now bring down iPhone device prices while hitting the revenue targets they have in mind offset from services, effective benefiting iPhone SE 2020 consumers? Could it be that the cost of running the store, marketing and distribution and properly reviewing all the free apps that I actually use is subsidized by the minority of apps that are paid or have in app purchases? To say that the user is burdened by the entire 30% directly is quite an overreach. How do we know the developers won’t pocket the additional margin and keep prices at the current rate? (my bet is this, actually).

For me personally who almost never used a paid app, I can assure you that the 30% is not paid by me. I may have even benefited through iPhones cheaper than hypothetical price that Apple has to sell them without AppStore revenue potential. I certainly benefited by AppStore vetting shitty apps.

This is a business model choice and banning it is like saying Google Drive is not supposed to charge paid users more to subsidize free quotas.

They can then leave the walled garden and buy cheaper apps on android and if they are satisfied with that, good for them. I absolutely relish Apple’s walled garden, not just for me, but for my aged parents and aunts whom I help with their devices. Barely any UI differences, security for inept or careless users. And I know that the UI will move at a glacial pace, which is a feature for that demographics.

Don't forget that Apple is a multinational megacorp, and is user centric only when it suits them. Consider Tim Cook speaking at the conference used by the Chinese government to promote internet regulation, saying that the vision of the conference is one that Apple shares, and also the handing over of user data to Chinese servers (encrypted, but still out of their control).

Isn't Apple just like Google and Amazon also using people to listen to some recordings they get via Siri to improve it? If so, that's not really privacy.

It continues to surprise me that tech-literate people fall for Apple's privacy marketing when it doesn't hold up to the most basic scrutiny. You can't even install an app on your device without telling Apple. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23796808

Reply on news.ycombinator.com