Margin Call | Hacker News Reader

Margin Call

asymco.com

160 pointszdw101 comments

Open articleView on HN

Not a huge surprise, there's an iCloud antitrust alleging a 78% gross profit margin:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.42...

The Epic legal case ruling cites a 75% profit margin on App Store fees:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.36...

And of course, their 36% share of Google Ad revenue revealed in Google's antitrust has to be approximately 100% profit:

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/14/google-pays-apple-36percent-...

Epic should take a look in the mirror first

They'd see a 200x smaller villain that didn't cause 1/2 the world to rewrite competition laws and has only been fined $100s of millions for deceiving consumers, not billions.

What did Epic do?

paying for store exclusives mostly. it was a big deal when borderlands 3 dropped in 2019 and again with alan wake 2 in 2023. its kinda hypocritical when you keep talking about competition and how its important to fight monopolies then come up with a $150M exclusivity deal instead of actually competing with steam.

Setting aside whether paying for store exclusives is right or wrong (personally I don't see anything wrong with it), what does that have to do with the Apple discussion? The problem with Apple is specifically that they use their dominant market position to force anti-competitive terms on other companies. Has Epic been bullying companies into accepting their deals? You can sell a game anywhere, Epic has no leverage in this respect.

There are 1,000 ways to get games.

There are over two dozen gaming consoles.

Steam, GoG, Epic, Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, retro games, in-store games, used games, rental games, you name it.

Literally a billion ways to game. And games are just TOYS. One of many hundreds of totally optional dopamine sinks.

Apple is one of two gatekeepers of the most essential device of modern humanity. They tax it, tightly control everything that happens on it, and edge out every business on it.

This needs to END. The DOJ/FTC/EU/etc. need to strip this from Apple and Google permanently. It's had vast deleterious effects on all innovation and business in the world.

You can't park in my city without a smartphone now.

You can't order food without a smartphone.

You can't bank.

You can't prove your identity on a loan.

Yet these two companies won't let you run your own software on a device you bought and own. They won't let any other businesses have any economic activity that isn't taxed. They force their search, their payment rails, and their customer relations and tracking hooks into everything.

Apple and Google are mega-monopolies and need to be rended apart. Not vertically, but horizontally: the DOJ should split Google into "Google A / Google B / Google C / Google D ..." and force them to compete with each other on all the same platform pieces. Just like they did with Ma Bell back in the day. And slap Apple around until they open up their platform and stop being the defaults for everything.

Call your legislators and demand hyperscaler monopoly breakup.

These companies own mobile internet. These companies own search and the web. They tax trademarks. They don't let you do what you want to do with tech you own. They're removing adblock and making it impossible to repair your stuff. They're shitting up the entire internet.

Epic is a puppy by comparison. They've done some lame things, but it pales in comparison.

The reality is that if you are a dominator in the OS market you shouldn't also be allowed to simultaneously pick winners and losers. You are effectively a utility operator and should be regulated like one. They can still do there vertical scaling app business but its fundamentally anti competitive when you collude both.

Epic is hardly a puppy. Scale isn't the only determining factor in how to view these actions by companies.

Ironically, the tech industry at large went after Lina Khan even though she was instrumental in moving forward with taking on tech industry monopolies[0] even though they themselves have complained about the App Store for years[1] because monopoly enforcement also included shutting down anticompetitive mergers like the Figma buyout.

Selective enforcement is how we got here in the first place.

This is why the tech industry writ large did a 180 on Trump and helped to get him elected. Apparently monopolies are good if it means payouts for investors. Despite the fact they'd stand to make more in a highly competitive marketplace, not less, as has been shown throughout history

[0]: https://www.businessinsider.com/real-reason-silicon-valley-h...

[1]: https://techcrunch.com/2025/08/22/y-combinator-says-apples-a...

Best comment I've seen on this topic yet, unfortunate to be buried deep in this topic.

I’ve seen this argument in a couple places online. Some variation on “both are actually bad so little guy has no one to cheer for”. This misunderstands the system.

You can temporarily ally with the soulless corporation that happens to represent your interests right now even if you’re certain that if they had the chance, they’d be a monopolist themselves. They are using their corporate coffers to take action that helps level the playing field a bit, what an opportunity! Make the alliance, take the win, get the case law on the books, celebrate it.

If you ally only with angels, you fight alone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes

"He did it, too" is an argument that 2 year old children make and should be accorded the commensurate amount of regard.

Decreasing the number of bad actors by one is is worthwhile even if ninety-nine still remain.

I think comments focusing on the App Store are way off base.

Unless my household is a wild outlier, I would expect the vast majority of services revenue to be Apple One and similar. You need more cloud storage to backup your photos, you get Music and TV with it. Even many folks who don't do Apple One will end up paying for some amount of iCloud storage.

Yes, renting cloud storage at scale to consumers can be very profitable. BackBlaze is not as scaled, and doesn't have the platform tie, and achieves a 60% gross margin.

Even with ex-partner being on iOS and an amateur photographer, we never paid for more than a bit of storage. I don’t think I know anyone (or ever did) that paid for Apple TV, and I think all our acquaintances have Spotify (we don’t). People fully buying into the Apple ecosystem seem to be fewer in Europe.

So yes, the App Store fees are the problem/big revenue source for now?

Somehow Apple maintains this perception that they make money on the hardware and therefore are trustworthy because they don't have any interests hostile to their users.

But when you look at what's really happening it's clear - they have a highly hostile interest to their users - they want to lock them into the ecosystem and then rent seek like crazy on services that their users have almost no choice but to buy.

This is why I love Apple products but I only buy the open ones that leave me choice to do what I want - which pretty much means I'm only buying Macbooks these days.

Walled Garden is marketing speak. Walled Prison is the reality.

Its always been like this, but I don't think their target demographic cares. I remember 10 years ago I heard something like: "Iphone, the phone your mom uses." Not that its accurate. Blows my mind VIPs use iphones after Pegasus.. How could these people be so unaware?

iPhones, particularly with the advanced security/hardening turned on are light years in front of Android devices for protection against advanced/sophisticated actors. Which is why VIPs use iPhones.

Apple responded to Pegasus with Lockdown Mode, which is probably the most hardcore security modality that's ever shipped in mass produced consumer hardware.

Empirical evidence doesn't support this. IIRC the bounty for an Android exploit is 500k more than an iphone... Let alone the number of people killed from an Android exploit is... 0? Iphone is at least at 1... Let alone the 1000 other VIPs.

Induction says, its dangerous to have an iphone. There is no deduction based answer here that has been validated by experiment.

Apparently Cellebrite is able to crack open iPhones but not phones running GrapheneOS. There's no doubt iPhones are reasonably secure but I wouldn't say they have "the most hardcore security".

This cuts both ways - ADP requires changing some settings on-device, and (in some cases I've heard) calling Apple to disable. So it is baked in, but it's hardly easy to enable and disable

GrapheneOS (which, FWIW, I do trust at least as much as ADP) has a web-installer IIRC, making it similarly easy to enable, but a little harder to disable for normal users. Moreover, it's not built-in to the Pixel. It's entirely third-party, and did not ship on mass-market hardware

Being an option on the default OS, with OEM support, can make all the difference sometimes

People have been getting zero-click hacked on iPhones by Israeli malware now also in use by ICE, even recently. I don't blame Apple too much given what they're up against, but zero-clicks are the worst thing possible.

[0] https://www.securityweek.com/paragon-graphite-spyware-linked...

[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/09/eff-statement-ice-use-...

If your threat model is a nation state instead of the assholes on a push bike that steals your phone out your hand, you already have other problems.

Are androids getting "assholes on a push bike" to hack their phone? No.

Are androids getting "a nation state" to hack their phone? No.

Its objectively worse security to have an iphone.

Objectively it is not. You appear to be living in a parallel reality!

Can you elaborate? I own an iphone and pay for zero apple services. I imagine you’re thinking icloud? I have my phone backed up on the 5 gigs they give for free. photos is where data gets heavy. I previously ran things on google photos and paid, but recently moved to immich — either way it’s zero bucks for apple.

wrt hostility: they’re the most privacy focused phone provider out there (which is why they can’t produce an llm from user data)

Are you buying apps in the App Store or paying for digital goods (eg. signing up for streaming services) through iOS apps? Apple charges a 15-30% rent on all of that.

Apple also tracks and charges for conversions on ads for mobile games (eg. purchasing lootboxes on clash of clans) which makes them direct competitors with the other big tech ad platforms.

Yes, Apple's "1984" advertisement is looking extremely ironic nowadays. Reality is stranger than fiction.

You're editorializing the headline, aside from your vague phrasing for "margin" (actually gross margin) and "Services [segment]" which has had gross margins >66% since FY20.

Better to reflect the actual headline and then add a comment.

edit:

This is the SaaS division. Similar at GOOG, MSFT, CRM, etc. have similar gross margins.

I don't understand what you want to say with your comment.

Meh.

On one level, it's fair.

If everyone has similar services margins, then it's, at one level, disingenuous to single out Apple.

At the same time, I have to say that, to my mind, the comment is whatabout-ism. Right now we're talking about Apple.

Maybe we can broaden the discussion? I'm fine with that. But we'd still be talking about Apple as part of that discussion.

Have you read the HN guidelines?

insert spiderman meme

And that's a "no."

insert spiderman meme

The article and the submitted HN post both appear to have the same title to me: "Margin Call".

What are you talking about? Did one or the other have a different title when you wrote your comment?

Yes, an admin changed the headline.

Original headline was misleading and editorialized.

Got it. Out of curiosity, what was it?

From memory, "Apple has 76% margin in Services"

Ah, very fair. Without otherwise taking a position on the article, I can totally see how that's editorialized.

Would prefer if dang/admins added subtitle or bracketed the altered title

Usually, admins make a simple comment upon edit. But not really required given it's an explicit policy in HN guidelines.

Ah. We had:

Margin call (the term):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_(finance)#Margin_call

Margin Call (the good movie):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_Call

I guess now we have "Margin Call", the one page long blog entry.

  Products gross margin was 40.7%, up 450 basis points sequentially, driven by favorable mix and leverage.
  Services gross margin was 76.5%, up 120 basis points sequentially, driven by mix.

Apple is paying 50% more for memory, yet maintaining product margin thanks to reduced royalties to Qualcomm for cellular radios and Broadcom for WiFi radio. As more Apple devices switch over Apple modems, margins will increase.

Hardware OEM competitors will likely pay >50% more for memory and continue paying full price for Qualcomm and Broadcom radio IP.

Not sure what is new here. It continues to baffles me most analyst still dont get it. ( They are usually not very good with commodity trading )

Actual cost of Apple Silicon is much lower than most expected. Apple has plenty of room to play with those Hardware R&D numbers. Not to mention Modem and Network Silicon.

Apple Services include R&D on Software, development cost of all OS and software shipped by default such as Numbers and Photos. That has been the case since 2014 and again has room for moving margins.

NAND and Memory price dont hit Apple (yet) because Apple sign early contract to ensure supply. Apple is the largest or 2nd largest Smartphone manufacture and if you include all computing devices they are likely number one. Smartphone, Tablet, MacBook and Servers. In commodity market such as NAND and DRAM, not having Apple as base load is equivalent to self destruction. They have a much higher leverage than most people imagine.

Judging from the increase of Active Devices, I would not be surprised if 2025 Google are paying even more to Apple on a per user Default Search engine price.

Apple has been steadily tightening up loops holes or grey area on IAP, especially in China with WeChat and Mini-Apps.

I have been wondering if Apple has increased the usage of Chinese Components for iPhone within China for import Tax deduction. Although no evidence so far have suggested China iPhone 17 are made with screens from BOE only.

I just wish Apple would spend more on fixing bugs.

Why do people even calculate or care the gross margin percentage outside of manufacturing and retailing?

I genuinely fail to see why and how it's a number with any meaning. For example, a plumber fixed your house's pipe. He charged mostly for his time instead of the tools and materials he used (righteously). If you count his 'gross margin percentage' it might be higher than Apple. Does it mean anything?

It doesn't mean anything because you're comparing the plumber with Apple, but if you compare plumbers to each other, or possibly even a plumber to an electrician, it could be useful.

The plumber hourly wage is to be deducted from his margin. Just as Apple's costs for running the payment system and platform are deducted.

> I genuinely don't know why and how it's a number with any meaning.

It has meaning in the context of Apple arguing that their fees are that high because they have to maintain said infrastructure.

Which leads to the question "how come there is no competition to lower such high margins?", which in turns questions whether any competition in unfairly blocked by Apple.

In a totally frictionless market, profit margins are usually low. Very high margins are often a sign of a closed market where _somehow_ competition cannot emerge.

Yea. I saw that too. One day all the hardware will be loss leaders for services revenues.

That would be a shame, because that’d put Apple’s interests completely at odds with mine. Using Linux would not be too much of a hurdle, but there aren’t really any better phones or tablets. I am not going to jump from the Apple pan into the Google fire.

Oh don’t get me wrong: I love the Apple hardware. It’s by far some of the best on the market. The attention to detail and workmanship is why I buy them. I just don’t know how they will avoid the push to move everything into services and only see hardware as a means to an end that end being more services revenue. They’ll become IBM then :(

Looks like we are in the same boat.

Their hardware margin supposedly averages 40%. A 40+% price drop across the board would be a good outcome for a lot of their customers.

This screams huge potential for dividing the internet into localities due to new geopolitical situation.

Europe accounts for over %26 of the revenue, for $30B thats close to ~$8B for the last 3 months.

The thing about hegemons is that they are able to enforce things like breaking the network effect or demolishing the walls of walled gardens. If things get bad enough, EU can give Apple a choice: leave EU market and loose all your EU revenue which is %26 of all revenue or as big as %65 of the US revenue OR unlock your devices %100 to be usable with 3rd party services. Put in numbers, definitely loose $38B per quarter or possibly loose $8B per quarter.

I bet with %76.5 margin which translates to potential $2B profit per month and employment for thousands of high paying jobs, this will create enough greed to push for 3rd party local services investment. Anti-Americanism, national security concerns, pricing and better services(Apple's some services can be better) or even maybe bad due to war/political meddling can push Apple's services revenue to 3rd parties. Also, there's quite a bit unemployed American talent out there so with EU's push they can move to EU and eat Apple's service revenue.

That's a bit on the fantasy realm but considering that so many unthinkable things are happening these days, maybe US will threaten France and bring a carrier strike group to Normandy shores and US services revenues from EU will go to zero? There's definitely will among the people for that, just the politicians need some push.

I wonder how AI can disrupt this nasty business by teaching users how they can self-host much of those services and save $$$. Let's face it: for the normies out there, the idea of having "your own iCloud" is still daunting (albeit very much possible).

Can AI level the playing field between users and greedy firms like Apple?

Nah. They won’t even know it’s a problem to solve.

Most users won’t ever use any AI outside of the big players, and those couldn’t give a flying fuck about user empowerment. They’ll just advertise at you and recommend whatever is popular. It’s unrealistic to believe AI will bring any kind of democratisation or software service independence to regular users.

Most people don't have the time to "self host". I could easily self host, but I don't because it's not worth my time.

The bigger problem is the experience. There are some integrations you simply can't do that Apple and Google, as their respective owners of the platforms, can. Full device backups for instance.

What $$$?! The top tier of apple one is £36.95pm. If I spend 15 mins of time every month extra self hosting then it’s immediately not worth it. (Not to mention self hosting won’t be free).

Also, for that price I get: 2TB cloud storage,Apple TV,Apple Music,news,workouts,arcade most of which cannot be self hosted.

Economies of scale are real, it’s possible Apple makes a ton of money and the user is getting a good deal!

yet tim cook still feels the need to attend the melania premiere

For some context:

Nvidia: GAAP and non-GAAP gross margins are expected to be 74.8% and 75.0%,

Micron: MU (Micron Technology) Gross Margin % as of today (January 28, 2026) is 56.04%

Upton Sinclair coined the oft-cited maxim “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” I propose a corollary: It is difficult to get a company to see that certain of its core competencies[1] are in severe decline[2] when the company is making more money than ever.

https://daringfireball.net/linked/2026/01/30/apple-reports-r...

[1] https://daringfireball.net/2026/01/resizing_windows_macos_26

[2] https://daringfireball.net/2025/03/something_is_rotten_in_th...

I joked several years ago, that when a software company loses its way, it does UI refresh that makes everything bigger and removes features.

As a shareholder, this is super fantastic.

That's too much margin. They're trading net profits for user happiness and it's hurting their brand more than they understand. The app store cartel must fall.

The competition is limited to android and Google is sabotaging every advantage they held against Apple. Customization is lost, freedom is lost, even the smartphones prices are now similar to iPhones. Pixels sell for premium price nowadays.

The sad truth is the average user couldn't care less about "customization" (unless you're talking about background images), much less "freedom".

Pixel has always been the flagship and priced to match. Unlike Apple, there are plenty of Android phones at all price points.

imo the app store thing is very niche and only affects a small, vocal group that tends to sit on hacker news and pay attention to these things. Can almost guarantee that 95% of the iphone-having population does not know/care about the app store "issue." I do think the general decline in quality and uptick in bugs will bite them slowly, at least once there's an iphone competitor of note.

It affects everyone, because the aggressive revenue cut prevents entire categories of apps and services from being published to the app store. An app store with a 5-10% cut would be an app store with a much richer choice of apps.

What are some examples of the categories of apps and services that aren't publishable on the App Store due to Apple's services revenue?

> An app store with a 5-10% cut would be an app store with a much richer choice of apps.

Why? And how are you defining "rich". Rich in quality? Quantity? Something else?

> What are some examples of the categories of apps and services that aren't publishable on the App Store due to Apple's services revenue?

For example, Apple refuses to allow Peertube app onto the App Store. Peertube is a free version of Youtube with peer-to-peer file transfer acceleration.

That's because you can use it to (bring out smelling salts!) watch porn. If you connect it to a private Peertube instance.

Another example, Apple is not allowing an eBook reader app (FBReader) with full OPDS support. Because you can use OPDS to buy books in third-party stores. I'm using OPDS to get books from my own Calibre Web library, btw.

These are just the ones I can list off the top of my head. No doubt there are others.

I don’t think it’s that simple, they allow Reddit, which Is filled to the brim with porn, and other ver ”non Apple” things. They also allow plenty of comic book readers that open files from almost every possibly conceivable source. Not to mention a lot of video players that can play porn of course.

Is it inconsistent and frustrating, very much so, and certain apps get an unfair treatment for sure, but I don’t think it’s as simple as that ”if app can do x then it’s banned”.

> I don’t think it’s that simple, they allow Reddit

What part of "monopolistic collusion behaivor" you do not understand? Apple likely has backroom deals with large players, while locking out smaller competitors.

After all, Grok app is still in the App Store.

> Is it inconsistent and frustrating, very much so, and certain apps get an unfair treatment for sure, but I don’t think it’s as simple as that ”if app can do x then it’s banned”.

I gave the names of actual apps, feel free to talk with their developers. Peertube got in only after removing the ability to add custom endpoints.

I'm not familiar with either of those apps, but it sounds to me like both break their terms of service. We can agree or disagree about those terms, but that seems to me to be the case here, versus Apple banning those apps due to services revenue.

Well, yes. That's the point. Apple's ToS are anti-competitive crap.

I'm not sure if they are or aren't, but I don't think that is a good argument when the premise was that revenue was preventing categories of apps and services. For example, in both of these apps Apple would still be getting services revenue through in-app purchases and such. Maybe that's not enough and so they construct their terms of service accordingly, but that's still not proof one way or the other, which is why I asked the original question that I had asked.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm not sure there is evidence to support your assertion either.

E.g. a PeerTube client with configurable endpoints is impossible under the current AppStore policy. Although Netflix is fine.

Most folks don't realize they're paying (up to) an extra 30% to Apple on everything they purchase in the app store. On top of an already exorbitant device price.

I'm sure you'd see more outrage if you had the app price listed without the fee, and then showed the fee below it/at time of purchase. It's another hidden fee.

They aren't because companies refuse to price discriminate. There are some exceptions, like Spotify where they called it out in a public space that the in app subscriptions were more than if you bought directly.

However, I have noticed that its very rare. In every other case I've looked into, from Omni apps to streaming apps like Netflix, I'm paying the same either way, and often with a more convienent way of managing the subscription.

Thereby, I think it goes undetected by most, because price comparing the app store to the non app store price will yield the same price most of the time. Though importantly, I have noticed, it is not always the same options. For example, regarding Netflix, I am paying the same price for my sub via Apple but new and returning customers can no longer pay for it this way, they must go to the website now. I also can't add additional members (effectively discounted second subs) either.

This has to do with the fact Apple did captiulate to allowing companies link to their own subscription pages and actually allow customers to be directed in that way with clearer and transparent language. However, I have noticed most apps with the exception of large streaming platforms have done away completely with in app subscriptions, and the prices are still the same whether its the web or via in app purchases on Apple's platform.

However, Google Play is no better in this regard. Even though they allow 3rd party payment processing as an alternative to using Google's payment processing, it has not lead to apps being cheaper on their platform, in the majority of cases. Which makes me wonder if the value is still there for a 1st party payment processor, or something else.

I don’t even know what the “issue” is. I’m guessing it’s the 30% they take because it’s definitely not the quality and range of apps they offer.

I haven't ever purchased a single thing in the App Store or in-app so I guess I don't care. But it does seem like a monopoly and something that should be forced to allow competition.

> at least once there's an iphone competitor of note.

What does this even mean? Do you mean in the US or globally?

By units sold, by platform, globally:

Android ~885 Million ~71%

iOS (iPhone) ~247 Million ~20%

HarmonyOS & Others ~118 Million ~9%

A device manufacturer/company that makes people who have iphones seriously consider swapping to the new company's offering. It is such a small tail of people who have an iphone and seriously consider moving to Android, with maybe Samsung being the highest quality and most attractive with Pixel also being pretty cool. I don't know what HarmonyOS is and I am pretty tech savvy. I think any company can make an ultra low spec phone and ship Android on it and get people to buy it on the basis of cost alone, but those people aren't cross-shopping iphones, so they're not a notable comparison. Arguably, with the exception of maybe high end Samsung and Pixel phones, Android phones and others are basically a whole different product category.

> I don't know what HarmonyOS is and I am pretty tech savvy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HarmonyOS

That's what you get with shareholders ...

It's a bit of Valve situation, the competition just refuses to make better product

No. The "competition" is artificially limited to buying an Android phone, and mobility between platforms can be very complicated, not by accident, while apps like Patreon can simply be forced to comply with massive fees even if it makes their service much more expensive.

Stripe, PayPal and a bag full of other payment options would be able to compete just fine with IAP and its fees.

What evidence is there that it's hurting their brand?

Outside of HN I see zero complaints. And the situation has been going on for a while. I might not like it, but it seems perfectly fine for their brand as far as I can tell.

I see a lot of complaints outside of HN. For starters, not every nerd, and not even every Apple nerd, is on HN. Outside of that, even my non-tech-savvy acquaintances have been complaining as of late.

Is it enough of a damaged brand to hurt their profits as of now? Clearly not. But cracks are forming. Apple’s brand isn’t damaged when they’re seen as bad, but when they’re seen as the same as everyone else.

> Outside of that, even my non-tech-savvy acquaintances have been complaining as of late.

What do they say? I'm genuinely curious.

Because e.g. I don't have the slightest idea what percentage Microsoft takes on Xbox games, nor would it ever occur to me to complain about it. I know there's a business model there, but it's not something I think about. And I feel like that's the way people outside of tech feel about whatever percentage Apple takes out of its App Store. But what am I missing?

The important bit is “trading net profits for user happiness”. Non-tech-savvy users aren’t complaining about Apple’s margins for apps, but about the things Apple is doing to degrade their experience in the name of profit. Namely excessive ads on the App Store, on System Settings, and on Apple Apps themselves such as Music and Wallet (F1).

Yeah but again that’s all here on HN. I have plenty of friends who are not on HN and I haven’t heard anyone ever complain about these things.

> Yeah but again that’s all here on HN.

No, it’s not. I have just told you it’s not. Which is anecdotal, but also true. Do you not frequent other websites with nerds other than HN?

> I have plenty of friends who are not on HN and I haven’t heard anyone ever complain about these things.

Is your personal experience the only valid one? Are your friends the epitome of diversity of opinions? I don’t have any friends who are white supremacists, does that mean white supremacists don’t exist? Because I’m pretty sure they do, even in my country. All of us live in bubbles to an extent, you have simply bumped into another boundary of yours.

Do a web search for Apple Wallet F1. Do you think all those people are on HN? They’re certainly complaining outside of it.

I searched for "Apple Wallet F1" and all the search results were literally from tech review websites. One was from Apple subreddit. That just goes on to show how such discontent is largely in a small but vocal community. The everyday consumer doesn't care about these things.

Btw, I was sharing my anecdote as you had done it. I of course know my experiences are not generalizable.

> hurting their brand more than they understand

Among perhaps the 1% super tech savvy users. I never heard anyone who wants to sideload apps outside online (not even from other programmers I know in real life. Ones who care like much always have been using rooted android from day 1.)

Brand name? Apple is a faux-Veblean good targeting lower middle class people, moms, and teens (Who pretend the $50/mo payments are expensive).

Its a demonstration of wealth.

I don't think the sell through of Android phones to the wealthiest has been all that high. Celebs, top business execs, even heads of nations state are most often seen with Apple devices in their hands.

I'm sure not in every case, but even as far back as 2018 the trend line of wealth and iPhone ownership was high. Even today most app store developers admit that iPhone users tend to have more disposable income by a good margin.

Really, when I do a cursory google search of wealthy public figures that include them holding their devices, what I can find is they're clearly holding iPhones most of the time.

I didn't say anything about wealth and android usage. Different usecases.

I did mention wealth and iphone usage. An insecure teen, mom, or middle income person needs an iphone for status.

IMHO as a user I prefer purchasing via app store because it avoids all of the dark patterns companies use to prevent subscriptions or returns.

I get that it sucks that the honest folks have to pay a 30% fees

I'd be happy to pay a 30% premium on my app store purchases just for the ability to unsubscribe without dark patterns.

I like the fact that when deleting an app, it reminds you about existing subscriptions related to that app, and offers to take you to the subscriptions page to unsubscribe.

In saying that, I don't think I'm personally prepared to pay an additional 30% for that. It should just be what is expected as part of good business practice.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com