Hacker News Reader

Comment by charcircuit | Hacker News Reader

>All they do is steal 30% from society that could be used for more productive purposes

This is how all businesses work. If there was no way to make profit then businesses would not exist. Apple spent billions of dollars creating an app platform with a clear monetization model that did not get in the way of them accumulating a lot of valuable apps and users. Developers are not forced to make apps for the platform nor are users forced to use the app platform. Other app platforms can impose lower fees and developers are free to release exclusively on those platforms if they wish. Apple hopes that the developers willing to tolerate the 15/30% fee for what the developer gets in return will be good enough to make their app platform competitive to users compared to others.

It's not just defending a trillion dollar company, it is defending the right to set your own prices.

View on HN

Something is not moral just because it makes a profit or because it is legal, and revenue is also not profit. And I think if a company operates outside societal norms, which I think Apple with regards to European societal norms, it should expect to get regulated to fit those norms again. Maybe the US is too dysfunctional to do this any more, but the purpose of government should be to align the laws and regulations with the morals of the people being governed.

My bank generates revenue by offering me a service in return for my money, not by monopolizing access to my money and then charging people who want to sell to me for the honour of allowing me to buy their goods and services.

Very few companies that I deal with as a consumer have similar business practices, and the ones that do, like Visa and Mastercard, is also something I think should be cracked down upon.

There are many things the EU messes up in my opinion, but cracking down on this clearly immoral business practices is not one of those as it aligns 100% with my morals even though I'm incredibly pro "free" market (i.e. pro minimally regulated market, as every person who has ever been pro "free market" is).

>My bank generates revenue by offering me a service in return for my money, not by monopolizing access to my money and then charging people who want to sell to me for the honour of allowing me to buy their goods and services.

Well, maybe Apple should open a bank. You just gave them ideas. :)

If that is the only way they can make profits while aligning with the norms of the societies they operate in then sure, more power to them.

They already operate as a bank, they just offload the legal/annoying part of it to others and focus on selling the sum of its customers' purchasing power

> nor are users forced to use the app platform is side loading or alternative stores like f droid available on IOS?

Yes, but it is for supporting developers and enterprises.

>Apple spent billions of dollars creating an app platform with a clear monetization model

I don't want their platform forced down my throat. On my PC I can download and install software from wherever I see fit. Had I not being a MacBook Pro user for the time being, I would have a chance to upgrade RAM and SSD without paying twice on the damn device.

If anything, I consider Apple being an anti consumer company. What is good for them, is not good for the end user.

That being said, their devices do have some advantages.

Why did you buy a Mac then? You clearly knew the drawbacks, so I'm interested to hear, in this competitive market where both Windows and even Linux machines are now available, what made you decide to buy a Mac?

>what made you decide to buy a Mac

Battery life.

> I don't want their platform forced down my throat.

> I would have a chance to upgrade RAM and SSD without paying twice on the damn device.

>> what made you decide to buy a Mac

> Battery life.

When you made the choice to buy your MacBook because of the better battery life were you at any point lied to about the disadvantages?

Additionally, if you're not aware the RAM on SOC is a fundamental tradeoff because of physics. Hardwiring it into the SOC is a BIG part of the battery life improvements that you have stated you prefer.

>I don't want their platform forced down my throat.

As a consumer the whole point of buying a computer is to get access to its app platform. It's not forced down your throat it just inherently is a part of the device's identity.

Ummm no? This is a weird take. I want a device to run software, I do not care about their app platforms per se. I have a macbook and barely use the apple store. If they prevent me from running any software apart from through their platform, that is a problem for me.

>I want a device to run software

Without an app platform there would exist no software.

>I have a macbook and barely use the apple store.

The app platform is more than just the store. If you can install an app without the apple store, that app has to be able to run and actually do stuff somehow. The way it is able to run is the app platform.

>If they prevent me from running any software apart from through their platform

If you do not want to run software using Apple's hardware and Apple's software then Apple is effectively out of the picture. Apple won't prevent you from running apps on a different app platform like Android.

Apple should charge separately for their App Platform then, instead of bundling it with arbitrary features. The US government threatened to break up Microsoft as a result of the IE case, Apple would be wise to skate to away from where the laser-breathing regulatory dragon is headed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com