Comment by gregbot
1 day ago
The business model apple is proposing should be ruled anticompetitive. The cost of maintaining the iOS platform should be covered by the cost of selling the hardware. Apple trying to lock out side-loading and third party app stores and payments is just an abuse of dominant market position. Phones are general purpose computers the users have a right to run whatever software we want on.
Calling it anti-competitive ignores the reality: Apple built and maintains the entire iOS ecosystem (hardware, software, security, developer tools, everything). The new EU-compliant model does allow sideloading and external payments, but with reasonable fees to help support that infrastructure. That’s not abuse; it’s Apple defending the integrity of its platform while still giving developers and users more choice. No one is forced to use iOS, but if you do, it’s fair that Apple sets the terms for its own system.
Apple gets payment when people buy their phones, are you suggesting that the cost of those things are not built into that cost? Especially considering how much they make on certain things such as storage increases?
People keep their phones for multiple years and Apple supports the phone with iOS operating system and security patches for 7+ years.
7 replies →
The hardware purchase is a one time purchase, the App Store infrastructure expenses are ongoing.
> cost of maintaining the iOS platform should be covered by the cost of selling the hardware
Let's get right to the crux of the issue here. Who are you to decide how apple should run their business and how they should recoup their R&D investments? A business is free to charge what it wants for what it makes. You are free to buy or not.
Should razors also be priced higher to be self-funding so that blades can be cheaper? Should airlines change their pricing structure? Who gave you a right to dictate how a business you do not own is run?
I'm having trouble viewing this as a serious continuation of discussion.
If the razor company wanted me to only use their razor blades and went to the effort of installing an electronic verification system to ensure that I don't slot other razors in (despite them fitting) then it would be a much more apt comparison.
Who gave us the right? We're the humans here, not the corporations. We don't need to be given the right. Who gave them the right to "sell" us a device that they control to this level? We did. We can take it away, too, particularly when it causes more harm than benefit.
The comparison is more like, if you buy Gillette Fusion handle you need to buy Fusion blades not Mach3 blades and certainly not generic/universal blades unless you plan on not using the handle or jailbreaking it by duct taping it on to the handle somehow.
If you don't like that setup, then you are probably better off getting a safety razor that uses what ever generic standard blade you wish to throw at it -- but you won't be getting reliability of buying into the proprietary Gillette system.
2 replies →
i can cut myself with the razor blades after i purchase them and nobody can stop me. who gave apple the right to dictate how i use their product after they sold it to me (and is not something they own anymore)?