darelrex

gmgravytrain said:

wizard69 said:

It is pretty delusional to believe that pricing isn't an issue.   It is pretty easy to argue that Apple could have sold a lot more iphones if they didn't price the things so high.

One could say that much about any product. Porsches could be as numerous as Toyotas if they were cheaper in price.

The Porsche analogy isn't entirely wrong, but it has a major failing. The average or somewhat above-average American, for example, can afford a Toyota, not a Porsche. But that same person can easily afford even a top-of-the-line iPhone: spread over its average four-year life, $1,000 is only $20/month, much smaller than the service plan required by any smartphone.

Dracarys said:

It's come to the point where if DED writes something you know the competition is doing something right. Everything is just twisting the truth into lies to show that the competition is failing and Apple is winning. ...

When the numbers come in, and the allegedly disappointing iPhone X turns out to be the most successful single model of smartphone ever made, while Google's Pixel phone is a much worse flop than the now-completely-cancelled Windows Phone — what truth do you need to twist into what lie, to make it look like Apple is winning and its competition is failing?

sfolax said:

I used to enjoy DED articles, but to be honest this constant bickering and "everyone else is wrong" is starting to get boring and monotonous.

At least the other writers here bring some variety in their articles.

Dilger specializes in exposing/countering anti-Apple propaganda with splashes of cold, hard, reality. If that's not your thing, move on to the next article. I myself find it immensely enjoyable.

Radarthekat: exactly right. Apple could pay itself the 30%, but that wouldn't mean anything. Apple, however, has to shoulder the burden of running the whole store, dealing with the credit card companies, etc. Its developers do not; that's why they pay 30% of their revenue to Apple. It's been over seven years since Apple CFO Peter Oppenheimer publicly stated that Apple runs the App Store at "just a little over break even." What does the EU want, Apple to operate the App Store at a loss? And do they really think Apple will just go along with that?

"Legal or not, tax evasion is a scourge that plagues [blablabla...]"

"Tax evasion," like "assault and battery," is illegal by definition. "Tax avoidance," like "self-defense," is perfectly legal, also by definition. To publicly accuse Apple of tax evasion is slander, but I guess if you're an avante-garde French protestor/performance artist with too much time on their hands, you can get away with slander, not to mention trespassing, stalking, harassment, intentional disruption of legal, consensual business, etc. My personal suspicion is that the typical French citizen is happy to put up with this in the name of righteous protest — up until it actually starts blocking their ability to safely purchase their iPhones. And as long as Apple's wants to sell its products at retail in France, it will just put up with it too (but also to the same limit).