Comment by Abishek_Muthian | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Abishek_Muthian | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Abishek_Muthian

Apple is an aspiration selling company.

>>I also can't imagine $100 is easy to come up with in countries below level 4[1]

Someone who is developing for Apple platform in specific, has already spent ~$1000 in devices. Say they couldn't afford to build explicitly for Apple[1], they instead develop for web using a Raspberry Pi and try to leverage smartphone capabilities using PWAs; Alas Apple throws in hurdles there as well so that your PWA doesn't function properly on Apple devices[2].

I get it, perhaps this is part of Apple's aspiration i.e. 'You should deserve to be part of the Apple ecosystem' which is enticing to its customers.

But what's overwhelming to me is, Apple's blatant hypocrisy.

Exihibit -1: Data

Apple calls Google by name, questioning its business model around data and proudly calims 'they chose not to do business with data'.

Then why does Apple advertise its products using Google Ads?

So, it's like 'I will call out dirty work, but I will use the results of that dirty work for my own advantage'.

Exihibit -2 : Values

Apple claims itself to be the beacon of human rights.

a. We know Apple was included among list of other companies supplying user data for snooping in the documents highly regarded to be genuine.

b. We know Apple actively cooperates with an autocratic regime and its highly publicised 'Privacy features' isn't applicable there. But, Apple never includes 'USA only' when it advertises it's 'Privacy'. More over when confronted with proof of Apple's platform being actively used for exploitation of minorities, it outright downplayed/dismissed the impact of it.

[2]https://ionicframework.com/blog/is-apple-trying-to-kill-pwas...

Someone who is developing for Apple platform in specific, has already spent ~$1000 in devices.

Ignoring the fact someone might have been given a Mac by someone else, or bought one second-hand for less, or that they might be working on a computer they don't own themselves, why is it that someone who can afford $1000 for a Mac can automatically afford another $100? Surely there has to be an amount that you assume they can't afford, right? If they can afford 10% more then why not 15%? Or 20% or 100%?

You're applying a sort of reverse of Zeno's Arrow[1] to affordability, and I think shows a distinct lack of understanding of how money works when you don't have all that much of it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#Arrow_parad...

Also, it's $100 each year, right. I was thinking me too that that can be a lot if compared with a 2nd hand macbook.

I have two macs. Main is a 2013 macbook air which cost £999 (work bought it), so £140 a year. Second is my own mac mini from 2012 which cost £500, so £60 a year.

My main machine is a linux one. Costs nothing to write software on that of course.

I get the feeling that developers who 'came of age' in the last 10-15 years will slowly discover RMS was right all along.

>why is it that someone who can afford $1000 for a Mac can automatically afford another $100

Someone who has invested in ~$1000 specifically to develop applications for Apple ecosystem has to invest $100 to release the application, that is the overall context of my statement in that sentence.

>You're applying a sort of reverse of Zeno's Arrow[1] to affordability, and I think shows a distinct lack of understanding of how money works when you don't have all that much of it.

Cherry picking part of my sentence to make a statement, then claiming to throw insight about my understanding of how money works based on how much of it I have seems like using your own logical fallacy intentionally to make an ad hominem argument.

PWAs are terrible, but that debate has nothing on the real gem here:

> ...Then why does Apple advertise its products using Google Ads?

Congratulations, this cracks top 5 oddest Apple hater argument ever posted in this land of many of 'em.

Interesting to see PWAs being proposed as the ultimate alternative on HN all the time. Questions of quality etc. aside it's essentially Google's platform that they're pushing for via standards that benefit them and their goal of the web as a platform they control. While Apple wants dominance over their walled garden, Google wants total dominance over the web.

> PWAs are terrible

Why again? In the world of silos and proprietary platforms it's an absolute godsend that PWAs even exist.

You know, I grew up in USSR. There were no western made cars, only soviet ones: Ladas (based on 40 years old FIAT), Volgas, the dreaded Moskvich or Zaporozhets. Volgas were for the elite and not really accessible for the ordinary citizens, so Lada was it. And it seemed to be a fine car—because you did not know any better. Yes you had to reassemble it yourself after you bought one to make sure it does not fall apart on the road, but otherwise the seemed fine. That's till the USSR collapsed and western old cars markets got accessible. Almost all soviet cars were replaced by the old, mostly German, ones. Why? Because poeple saw the differenece. And the saw that even 15-20 years old Audi, BMW or Opel were still waaay better than brand new soviet crap. So yeah, there are thing that may seem fine till you hava a chance to compare them to the truly fine.

Hate is a very strong word, something which I wouldn't give a private business luxury of buying from me.

If you could give a justifiable answer to what you've quoted from me, I'm all ears.

Google has a functional monopoly on online advertising, so you’re options for online advertising are google and Facebook, or ad companies that primarily have scams. Seriously it’s just google, Facebook, and then things like taboola, and the most popular sites on the web are 100% google ads only.

Apple’s alternative to google ads is essentially no online advertising.

You forgot about your Apple watch and phone being made by tiny human slave robots in china.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com