Why am I not surprised that (brain) DED is defending Apple here? What right does Apple have to tell me what apps I can or can't run on my own phone? What right does Apple have to tell me that I can't buy DRMed music from anyone other than Apple? What right does Apple have to force developers to jump through these hoops?
I hope people wake up and start dumping their iOS devices. The hardware and OS are nice, but Apple's policies get more draconian by the day. Maybe if the company is knocked down a peg or two they'll relent.
I don't know why everyone is upset! This is good for users. It gives choice.. isn't that what we always hear.. choice?!
As a user you have the choice to buy from the App using your iTunes account OR through the developers website (outside the apps). It is not my problem as a user who take that 30% cut. If Amazon, Sony, B&N, and other decided to charge 30% more for In-App purchase then be it. I still have the choice of buying out of the App.
This is not a real choice, now is it. Firstly there is no way that Apple are going to let people have an App Store price different to the website price. Otherwise apps could charge $1000 for all in-app purchases, and the proper price for the website purchases.
If the price is the same it means that users will have no reason to go outside the app, and they wont. Because it takes longer.
Quote:
t is not my problem as a user who take that 30% cut
I don't know why everyone is upset! This is good for users. It gives choice.. isn't that what we always hear.. choice?!
As a user you have the choice to buy from the App using your iTunes account OR through the developers website (outside the apps). It is not my problem as a user who take that 30% cut. If Amazon, Sony, B&N, and other decided to charge 30% more for In-App purchase then be it. I still have the choice of buying out of the App.
Let's hope those 30% aren't shared on both sides of the sales, as with a nice guideline of let's not confuse the user and have the same price on both sides XD
And by the way, unless I'm mistaken, two revenue streams for the same product means twice the accounting. Even that is already spending my money, if i'm a shareholder of the company required to use Apple's "offered" service.
Hell, yes, I'd sue that company for not suing... the second after I sold their stock. And I'd ask for huge damage...
... It's about the same as saying that Nikon should have a cut on any picture taken with a Nikon camera...
There's nothing I hate more than a bad analogy, and this is one of the worst I've seen in these forums. Just to review, for an analogy to be valid it must share characteristics with the thing or situation it is supposed to be analogous to. Taking pictures with a camera doesn't have any common characteristics to selling eBooks on smartphones and tablets.
Even if Apple change that figure tomorrow this is still an unholy cockup. Apps have been rejected all week based on these new guidelines which were never broadcast to anyone nor in fact was the wording even changed, and a major developer - Sony - has pulled it's app already.
Sony had it's app pulled, because it's web portal does not do book sales at all.
Something did happen - Amazon last quarter started selling more Kindle books than paperback for the first time ever. Apple isn't able to make the deals with publishers fast enough with their limited, competing iBookstore, so rather than compete, they'll just start taking a cut off Amazon and Sony. Good for Apple, bad for everyone else, including us.
You are making this up.
Quote:
Apple should have thought of that before they allowed developers to develop on their platform. Also, Apple does *NOT* provide the infrastructure for services like Kindle - Amazon does. Apple only provides bandwidth for the application, which obeyed and followed all the rules set by Apple. Now, Apple is changing the rules. Again.
They say rules are subject to change.
Quote:
Every in-app purchase gives 30% of the transaction to Apple. If Amazon and Sony have to start providing in-app purchase options to all of their books in order to remain in the App Store, that means Apple starts taking a major chunk of their revenue on any sale that takes place inside the app. Not every transaction, but enough to affect your business.
Those apps do not make in-app purchases. Ebay, Netflix, BofA are mostly a native user interface for their web services. Your are not buying anything through the app itself.
Quote:
Dude.... Apple vetting applications doesn't ensure security. That's a fallacy. How many times have you read stories of applications that steal your info or otherwise break app store rules still being approved, but then later removed from the store? Vetting an app doesn't guarantee security. Its better than the wild west, but not perfect. Don't kid yourself.
I haven't read any times that an app steals your info. There were reports of apps that secretly monitored information without the users permission. That was primarily for advertising and it wasn't specific information about the user. That is not the same as stealing info for malicious reasons.
Quote:
Again, in-app purchases give Apple 30%.
The 10x figure refers to POS systems, which stand for "Point of Sale." They're the services that handle the transactions you make on your credit or debit card. Typically, these services charge around 3% of your transaction. Apple's in-app purchase does the same thing and charges 30%, hence, 10x the cost just to handle the credit card.
Your figures make no sense. When you buy something at a store you are paying for more than the credit card transaction. The store has marked up the cost so it can make actually profit to keep the store open and you pay taxes.
Quote:
If Apple felt that the $99 fee isn't enough, they shouldn't have come up with that figure in their development program. Apple is a corporation, friend. They're some small startup that's getting exploited and bullied by bigger companies. Apple sets a price, developers sign an agreement with them to follow the rules, and Apple provides the service. Its no more complicated than that.
I don't understand how this relates to what I said previously.
Quote:
The publisher is absolutely involved with that. Amazon is authorized to sell books through their own channel. By allowing in-app purchase, Amazon is now involving Apple through the sale of books. Do you really think publishers are going to allow revenue from the sales of their products go to another company (Apple) without permission? Absolutely not. Take a business course at your local community college and they will teach you about this sort of stuff.
Show me where you can find specific information on Amazon and its deals with all of its publishers.
Yes it is fair. It's not like you download iTunes from Microsoft's servers. Microsoft doesn't have to pay anything to let you run iTunes on your PC.
You do, however, download the Sony Reader app from Apple's servers. Apple is paying for hosting the app and the bandwidth to allow you to download it.
Well, iTunes for Windows is then unfairly using Microsoft Windows... and Microsoft spends a lot of money ensuring Windows stays up to date, in order to allow iTunes to work fine....
Kindle could easily embed their store in the app, or (less easily) re-do the store UI in-app as native code and handle their own credit card transactions. That is banned under App Store rules.
From the rest of them. So you are missing the point.
As mentioned, Apple will likely have to look at their percentage-take on publications due to this change, but I'm sure it will all be resolved in the end to everyones benefit.
They are not capable of delivering content into the curated part of the iPad.
Not without Apple's consent.
Just as Apple are not capable of delivering iBooks onto the Kindle reader without Amazon's cooperation.
Key word there: Consent.
Gwidion was partially correct. Amazon has the technical capabilities to deliver just as many copies of the Kindle app without any assistance from Apple whatsoever. (Beyond normal developer support which is necessary for every single platform.)
The ONLY reason they go through the App Store is that Apple does not permit any other option.
Another key difference is that the iOS devices are general computing platforms. The Kindle is a dedicated single purpose device.
Apps can be put onto iOS devices because they're designed for that purpose. Apps cannot (generally) be put onto the Kindle because it was designed to do only one thing, but to do that very well.
If Apple wants to put content on the Kindle, they can do so without involving Amazon and extra costs and without having to jailbreak the Kindle. (Download the file from Apple's servers and copy it to the Kindle via USB transfer.) Or if Apple chooses, Apple can sell content for the Kindle through Amazon. In that case, Amazon gets paid only for the transactions which they actually handle.
The problem here is that Apple is forcefully inserting themselves between the content providers and the end users and demanding a rather large payment for doing so. The only reason they can do so is the very word you used: Consent.
Why am I not surprised that (brain) DED is defending Apple here? What right does Apple have to tell me what apps I can or can't run on my own phone? What right does Apple have to tell me that I can't buy DRMed music from anyone other than Apple? What right does Apple have to force developers to jump through these hoops?
If you use one of the many phones that wasn't created by Apple, then you are correct they have no right to dictate what you do with it.
Quote:
I hope people wake up and start dumping their iOS devices. The hardware and OS are nice, but Apple's policies get more draconian by the day. Maybe if the company is knocked down a peg or two they'll relent.
The more draconian the rules, the more iOS devices they seem to sell.
Amazon is not going to shut down all those potential book sales. And Apple certainly does not want to irritate its user base.
This is a negotiation. And a middle ground will be found. The end consumer will not notice any difference. Apart from a slightly improved purchasing experience.
There's nothing I hate more than a bad analogy, and this is one of the worst I've seen in these forums. Just to review, for an analogy to be valid it must share characteristics with the thing or situation it is supposed to be analogous to. Taking pictures with a camera doesn't have any common characteristics to selling eBooks on smartphones and tablets.
Oh, yes, it is a good analogy.
The point is exactly the one you just made. Selling ebooks on smartphones and tablets has NO characteristics that should warrant that 30% cut.
Just as taking photos with a Nikon has NO characteristics that should warrant that 30% cut.
Except one.
That smartphone is so wonderful that it's thanks to it that the sale was made.
That camera is so wonderful that it's thanks to it that the picture was made.
As you MAY have noticed through your amazing skills, those phrase have an impressive degree of similarity, otherwise known as "common characteristics".
Just for review, for a critic to valid, it should be written while using your brains, anonymouse, not your fanboy-cheatsheet.
Exactly. In this brave new world, if you own a platform, you can monetize it how you see fit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman
The ONLY reason they go through the App Store is that Apple does not permit any other option.
Not exactly true. Web apps are not curated. You can put anything you want on the web-side of your iPad, with Apple's blessing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman
Another key difference is that the iOS devices are general computing platforms. The Kindle is a dedicated single purpose device.
Well that's very convenient.
But I don't entirely buy the idea that it's okay to monetize a single-purpose device, but not a multi-function device?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman
Apps can be put onto iOS devices because they're designed for that purpose. Apps cannot (generally) be put onto the Kindle because it was designed to do only one thing, but to do that very well.
If Apple wants to put content on the Kindle, they can do so without involving Amazon and extra costs and without having to jailbreak the Kindle. (Download the file from Apple's servers and copy it to the Kindle via USB transfer.) Or if Apple chooses, Apple can sell content for the Kindle through Amazon. In that case, Amazon gets paid only for the transactions which they actually handle.
Not true. The Kindle has an API for app developers. It wanted to encourage app development. They all do.
I suggest you download it and create your own store on a Kindle.
Let's see how far you get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWTHeckman
The problem here is that Apple is forcefully inserting themselves between the content providers and the end users and demanding a rather large payment for doing so. The only reason they can do so is the very word you used: Consent.
We have no idea how large or small the payment is.
Apple is gaining by the popularity of the Kindle app. Amazon has given them an app which was developed for free, and handles downloads of the biggest library of digital e-books in the world. A position not likely to be challenged anytime soon. This has driven hardware sales.
If Amazon removes that app, the people buying tablets primarily as an e-book reader with benefits will flee the platform.
And this is exactly why Apple will not face any anti-trust issues. They are not the dominate e-book seller and they are only insisting that a purchasing option be included.
I am looking forward to ipad2, but if the kindle reader is affected by this nonsense, then I will start looking at some other brand of tablet.
You can still buy your books from Amazon. You do not have to purchase them from iTunes.
Quote:
Why should apple get any direct benefit from someone's app being popular? Apple gets hardware sales out of the deal. You are allowing yourself to be brainwashed into believing that Apple has some moral right to continuous revenue streams for everything.
This isn't direct revenue for Apple. That 30% pays for the App Store itself.
This is not a real choice, now is it. Firstly there is no way that Apple are going to let people have an App Store price different to the website price. Otherwise apps could charge $1000 for all in-app purchases, and the proper price for the website purchases.
You don't know that. Apple has never interfered with how developers price their apps and contents.
Quote:
If the price is the same it means that users will have no reason to go outside the app, and they wont. Because it takes longer.
They will if they have to pay for the same item.
Quote:
It is if the vendor pulls his app.
They won't. It is a competitive area and pulling out the app will mean users with iOS devices will move to the competitor.
Oh Amazon will certainly withdraw Kindle if the 30% level is maintained. They can sell on many devices, rather than one with no margins for them unless they increase costs by 43%.
(we may get new pricing models tomorrow).
One reason why I'm rocking a Droid X after owning an iPhone for two years is for that very reason - I want alternative platforms to succeed, to grow and improve. Android and WP7 are the best thing for Apple - it forces them to compete fairly.
...though a 30% markup is hardly what I consider fair .
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
You are making this up.
In reference to Kindle ebooks outselling paperback books for the first time last quarter, here's the source:
If you use one of the many phones that wasn't created by Apple, then you are correct they have no right to dictate what you do with it.
Oh, I THINK I just read "if you want to use an iPhone without being forced by Apple to pay 30% more on the content streamed, just don't use an iPhone". Hey, guess what. I love my iPhone. I don't see why I should pay 30% more for the content without any added value.
So, no, thanks. I don't want any other phone. But I can give you my bank number if you feel like giving me the price difference on the things I buy.
Comments
I hope people wake up and start dumping their iOS devices. The hardware and OS are nice, but Apple's policies get more draconian by the day. Maybe if the company is knocked down a peg or two they'll relent.
I don't know why everyone is upset! This is good for users. It gives choice.. isn't that what we always hear.. choice?!
As a user you have the choice to buy from the App using your iTunes account OR through the developers website (outside the apps). It is not my problem as a user who take that 30% cut. If Amazon, Sony, B&N, and other decided to charge 30% more for In-App purchase then be it. I still have the choice of buying out of the App.
This is not a real choice, now is it. Firstly there is no way that Apple are going to let people have an App Store price different to the website price. Otherwise apps could charge $1000 for all in-app purchases, and the proper price for the website purchases.
If the price is the same it means that users will have no reason to go outside the app, and they wont. Because it takes longer.
t is not my problem as a user who take that 30% cut
It is if the vendor pulls his app.
I don't know why everyone is upset! This is good for users. It gives choice.. isn't that what we always hear.. choice?!
As a user you have the choice to buy from the App using your iTunes account OR through the developers website (outside the apps). It is not my problem as a user who take that 30% cut. If Amazon, Sony, B&N, and other decided to charge 30% more for In-App purchase then be it. I still have the choice of buying out of the App.
Let's hope those 30% aren't shared on both sides of the sales, as with a nice guideline of let's not confuse the user and have the same price on both sides XD
And by the way, unless I'm mistaken, two revenue streams for the same product means twice the accounting. Even that is already spending my money, if i'm a shareholder of the company required to use Apple's "offered" service.
Hell, yes, I'd sue that company for not suing... the second after I sold their stock. And I'd ask for huge damage...
... It's about the same as saying that Nikon should have a cut on any picture taken with a Nikon camera...
There's nothing I hate more than a bad analogy, and this is one of the worst I've seen in these forums. Just to review, for an analogy to be valid it must share characteristics with the thing or situation it is supposed to be analogous to. Taking pictures with a camera doesn't have any common characteristics to selling eBooks on smartphones and tablets.
Even if Apple change that figure tomorrow this is still an unholy cockup. Apps have been rejected all week based on these new guidelines which were never broadcast to anyone nor in fact was the wording even changed, and a major developer - Sony - has pulled it's app already.
Sony had it's app pulled, because it's web portal does not do book sales at all.
(Try it!)
C.
Something did happen - Amazon last quarter started selling more Kindle books than paperback for the first time ever. Apple isn't able to make the deals with publishers fast enough with their limited, competing iBookstore, so rather than compete, they'll just start taking a cut off Amazon and Sony. Good for Apple, bad for everyone else, including us.
You are making this up.
Apple should have thought of that before they allowed developers to develop on their platform. Also, Apple does *NOT* provide the infrastructure for services like Kindle - Amazon does. Apple only provides bandwidth for the application, which obeyed and followed all the rules set by Apple. Now, Apple is changing the rules. Again.
They say rules are subject to change.
Every in-app purchase gives 30% of the transaction to Apple. If Amazon and Sony have to start providing in-app purchase options to all of their books in order to remain in the App Store, that means Apple starts taking a major chunk of their revenue on any sale that takes place inside the app. Not every transaction, but enough to affect your business.
Those apps do not make in-app purchases. Ebay, Netflix, BofA are mostly a native user interface for their web services. Your are not buying anything through the app itself.
Dude.... Apple vetting applications doesn't ensure security. That's a fallacy. How many times have you read stories of applications that steal your info or otherwise break app store rules still being approved, but then later removed from the store? Vetting an app doesn't guarantee security. Its better than the wild west, but not perfect. Don't kid yourself.
I haven't read any times that an app steals your info. There were reports of apps that secretly monitored information without the users permission. That was primarily for advertising and it wasn't specific information about the user. That is not the same as stealing info for malicious reasons.
Again, in-app purchases give Apple 30%.
The 10x figure refers to POS systems, which stand for "Point of Sale." They're the services that handle the transactions you make on your credit or debit card. Typically, these services charge around 3% of your transaction. Apple's in-app purchase does the same thing and charges 30%, hence, 10x the cost just to handle the credit card.
Your figures make no sense. When you buy something at a store you are paying for more than the credit card transaction. The store has marked up the cost so it can make actually profit to keep the store open and you pay taxes.
If Apple felt that the $99 fee isn't enough, they shouldn't have come up with that figure in their development program. Apple is a corporation, friend. They're some small startup that's getting exploited and bullied by bigger companies. Apple sets a price, developers sign an agreement with them to follow the rules, and Apple provides the service. Its no more complicated than that.
I don't understand how this relates to what I said previously.
The publisher is absolutely involved with that. Amazon is authorized to sell books through their own channel. By allowing in-app purchase, Amazon is now involving Apple through the sale of books. Do you really think publishers are going to allow revenue from the sales of their products go to another company (Apple) without permission? Absolutely not. Take a business course at your local community college and they will teach you about this sort of stuff.
Show me where you can find specific information on Amazon and its deals with all of its publishers.
Yes it is fair. It's not like you download iTunes from Microsoft's servers. Microsoft doesn't have to pay anything to let you run iTunes on your PC.
You do, however, download the Sony Reader app from Apple's servers. Apple is paying for hosting the app and the bandwidth to allow you to download it.
Well, iTunes for Windows is then unfairly using Microsoft Windows... and Microsoft spends a lot of money ensuring Windows stays up to date, in order to allow iTunes to work fine....
Kindle could easily embed their store in the app, or (less easily) re-do the store UI in-app as native code and handle their own credit card transactions. That is banned under App Store rules.
From the rest of them. So you are missing the point.
As mentioned, Apple will likely have to look at their percentage-take on publications due to this change, but I'm sure it will all be resolved in the end to everyones benefit.
They are not capable of delivering content into the curated part of the iPad.
Not without Apple's consent.
Just as Apple are not capable of delivering iBooks onto the Kindle reader without Amazon's cooperation.
Key word there: Consent.
Gwidion was partially correct. Amazon has the technical capabilities to deliver just as many copies of the Kindle app without any assistance from Apple whatsoever. (Beyond normal developer support which is necessary for every single platform.)
The ONLY reason they go through the App Store is that Apple does not permit any other option.
Another key difference is that the iOS devices are general computing platforms. The Kindle is a dedicated single purpose device.
Apps can be put onto iOS devices because they're designed for that purpose. Apps cannot (generally) be put onto the Kindle because it was designed to do only one thing, but to do that very well.
If Apple wants to put content on the Kindle, they can do so without involving Amazon and extra costs and without having to jailbreak the Kindle. (Download the file from Apple's servers and copy it to the Kindle via USB transfer.) Or if Apple chooses, Apple can sell content for the Kindle through Amazon. In that case, Amazon gets paid only for the transactions which they actually handle.
The problem here is that Apple is forcefully inserting themselves between the content providers and the end users and demanding a rather large payment for doing so. The only reason they can do so is the very word you used: Consent.
Why am I not surprised that (brain) DED is defending Apple here? What right does Apple have to tell me what apps I can or can't run on my own phone? What right does Apple have to tell me that I can't buy DRMed music from anyone other than Apple? What right does Apple have to force developers to jump through these hoops?
If you use one of the many phones that wasn't created by Apple, then you are correct they have no right to dictate what you do with it.
I hope people wake up and start dumping their iOS devices. The hardware and OS are nice, but Apple's policies get more draconian by the day. Maybe if the company is knocked down a peg or two they'll relent.
The more draconian the rules, the more iOS devices they seem to sell.
That wouldn't be as elegant as a native app.
The ONLY reason they go through the App Store is that Apple does not permit any other option.
Calm down!
Amazon is not going to shut down all those potential book sales. And Apple certainly does not want to irritate its user base.
This is a negotiation. And a middle ground will be found. The end consumer will not notice any difference. Apart from a slightly improved purchasing experience.
C.
Someone who gets it.
There's nothing I hate more than a bad analogy, and this is one of the worst I've seen in these forums. Just to review, for an analogy to be valid it must share characteristics with the thing or situation it is supposed to be analogous to. Taking pictures with a camera doesn't have any common characteristics to selling eBooks on smartphones and tablets.
Oh, yes, it is a good analogy.
The point is exactly the one you just made. Selling ebooks on smartphones and tablets has NO characteristics that should warrant that 30% cut.
Just as taking photos with a Nikon has NO characteristics that should warrant that 30% cut.
Except one.
That smartphone is so wonderful that it's thanks to it that the sale was made.
That camera is so wonderful that it's thanks to it that the picture was made.
As you MAY have noticed through your amazing skills, those phrase have an impressive degree of similarity, otherwise known as "common characteristics".
Just for review, for a critic to valid, it should be written while using your brains, anonymouse, not your fanboy-cheatsheet.
You're forgiven for your mistake
Key word there: Consent.
Exactly. In this brave new world, if you own a platform, you can monetize it how you see fit.
The ONLY reason they go through the App Store is that Apple does not permit any other option.
Not exactly true. Web apps are not curated. You can put anything you want on the web-side of your iPad, with Apple's blessing.
Another key difference is that the iOS devices are general computing platforms. The Kindle is a dedicated single purpose device.
Well that's very convenient.
But I don't entirely buy the idea that it's okay to monetize a single-purpose device, but not a multi-function device?
Apps can be put onto iOS devices because they're designed for that purpose. Apps cannot (generally) be put onto the Kindle because it was designed to do only one thing, but to do that very well.
If Apple wants to put content on the Kindle, they can do so without involving Amazon and extra costs and without having to jailbreak the Kindle. (Download the file from Apple's servers and copy it to the Kindle via USB transfer.) Or if Apple chooses, Apple can sell content for the Kindle through Amazon. In that case, Amazon gets paid only for the transactions which they actually handle.
Not true. The Kindle has an API for app developers. It wanted to encourage app development. They all do.
I suggest you download it and create your own store on a Kindle.
Let's see how far you get.
The problem here is that Apple is forcefully inserting themselves between the content providers and the end users and demanding a rather large payment for doing so. The only reason they can do so is the very word you used: Consent.
We have no idea how large or small the payment is.
C.
That's not true. Amazon could create a web app (...)
That wouldn't be as elegant as a native app.
Then how is that "not true"... the ONLY way to have the same service is to go through Apple, you just agreed to that...
Apple is gaining by the popularity of the Kindle app. Amazon has given them an app which was developed for free, and handles downloads of the biggest library of digital e-books in the world. A position not likely to be challenged anytime soon. This has driven hardware sales.
If Amazon removes that app, the people buying tablets primarily as an e-book reader with benefits will flee the platform.
And this is exactly why Apple will not face any anti-trust issues. They are not the dominate e-book seller and they are only insisting that a purchasing option be included.
I am looking forward to ipad2, but if the kindle reader is affected by this nonsense, then I will start looking at some other brand of tablet.
You can still buy your books from Amazon. You do not have to purchase them from iTunes.
Why should apple get any direct benefit from someone's app being popular? Apple gets hardware sales out of the deal. You are allowing yourself to be brainwashed into believing that Apple has some moral right to continuous revenue streams for everything.
This isn't direct revenue for Apple. That 30% pays for the App Store itself.
This is not a real choice, now is it. Firstly there is no way that Apple are going to let people have an App Store price different to the website price. Otherwise apps could charge $1000 for all in-app purchases, and the proper price for the website purchases.
You don't know that. Apple has never interfered with how developers price their apps and contents.
If the price is the same it means that users will have no reason to go outside the app, and they wont. Because it takes longer.
They will if they have to pay for the same item.
It is if the vendor pulls his app.
They won't. It is a competitive area and pulling out the app will mean users with iOS devices will move to the competitor.
Oh Amazon will certainly withdraw Kindle if the 30% level is maintained. They can sell on many devices, rather than one with no margins for them unless they increase costs by 43%.
(we may get new pricing models tomorrow).
One reason why I'm rocking a Droid X after owning an iPhone for two years is for that very reason - I want alternative platforms to succeed, to grow and improve. Android and WP7 are the best thing for Apple - it forces them to compete fairly.
...though a 30% markup is hardly what I consider fair
You are making this up.
In reference to Kindle ebooks outselling paperback books for the first time last quarter, here's the source:
(CNET) Amazon: Kindle books outselling paperbacks
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20029839-1.html
Don't really have to go into the rest, friend.
If you use one of the many phones that wasn't created by Apple, then you are correct they have no right to dictate what you do with it.
Oh, I THINK I just read "if you want to use an iPhone without being forced by Apple to pay 30% more on the content streamed, just don't use an iPhone". Hey, guess what. I love my iPhone. I don't see why I should pay 30% more for the content without any added value.
So, no, thanks. I don't want any other phone. But I can give you my bank number if you feel like giving me the price difference on the things I buy.