- Last Active
HomePod is a very sophisticated device, playing music with a very high tonal quality. I tend to listen to music as a pastime, rather than having a jangly noise in the background. Consequently, I pay more for sound reproduction equipment. To that end, HomePod is not expensive when taking into account its quality in every respect. Ultimately, you get what you pay for. I suspect most people buy the cheap devices for what it provides, other than music, so the requirement is different.
It is a shame when apps are not updated and won’t work on newer OSs. I do, though, see the reasoning. More frustrating is when an app changes developer and has to be paid for again (which I won’t do).
On one other point, I don’t think Apple can be considered a monopoly. There are a number of alternatives. However, it is entirely fair if Apple controls the content and operation of software run on its hardware. Apple hardware and software combined are far more secure than, say, MS operating systems because hardware and software are integrated. If developers are allowed a free-for-all the security will be compromised. If a developer wants to run its app on an Apple device it should (a) tie in with Apple infrastructure and (b) pay Apple for the ability to do so.
It’s fine if these companies don’t want to operate via the App Store. Many companies don’t. It is entirely reasonable for Apple to charge what it does for providing the infrastructure. Selling via the App Store still gives 70%. If that’s not enough, then put your price up a bit. I suspect it’s all about Apple having money and the startups don’t. Quite why Apple should provide its services for free or at a reduced price is beyond me.