ITGUYINSD

elijahg said:

urahara said:

ITGUYINSD said:

lkrupp said:

Everybody wants free ride on Apple's amazingly successful platform. On both the Mac and iOS a developer is more likely to succeed financially if their products are in the App Store where it's easy to buy, install and pay for. But that's not good enough, they want free access or just a nominal fee. Most people don't know that grocery stores actually charge brands for shelf space in their stores. Don't pay, your product does not make it to the shelves. Grocery stores also sell their own branded products in competition with the name brands. Lots of retailers do the same thing but in Apple's case it's deemed anti-trust and anti-competitive.Go figure.

That's what you got out of reading the article, is that everybody wants a free ride?  I've not read anywhere that anyone thinks the App Store should be a free service to developers.  What is an issue is the mandatory 30% cut that Apple takes, and the inability of app companies to sell their own product without going through the App Store.

Your grocery store analogy doesn't really work here because there are more than one grocery store chains.  There is only one App Store.  If Grocery store A sets a 30% fee to sell a food item, and grocery store B sets a 10% fee, the manufacturer has a choice and can sell at store B.  There is no choice in the Apple ecosystem.  That is the problem, not that everybody wants a free ride.

LOL. So by you argument the manufacturer has a choice to sell at store B with 10% fee, and is by doing this entitled to sell in Store A with the same fee? 

It looks like you think so. Because you demand to sell in Apple’s Store/ecosystem by grocery Store B rules. Why do you think so that grocery store A should allow grocery store B to sell on its land?

No. That is an example of competition. The manufacturer goes to store B and shuns store A, who ends up losing out because of their higher fees. But with iOS, there is one store.

Imagine spending thousands of hours and tends of thousands of dollars creating, designing and refining a product which will only fit in slots in store A's shelves, and requires, say, flour to work. You go to store A and say "here is my product, please place it on your shelf". Store A then says hmm, no, we don't like that your product has a website address on wherein you might get flour cheaper than you can here, you have to sell your flour here and give us 30% of your revenue. So then you are stuffed if you still want to make money on the flour. You can't go to store B because their slots are different, you would have to spend tens of thousands again redesigning your product from the ground up to fit. Does that metaphor make it easier to understand why Apple's ecosystem could be seen as a monopoly?

urahara said:

ITGUYINSD said:

lkrupp said:

Everybody wants free ride on Apple's amazingly successful platform. On both the Mac and iOS a developer is more likely to succeed financially if their products are in the App Store where it's easy to buy, install and pay for. But that's not good enough, they want free access or just a nominal fee. Most people don't know that grocery stores actually charge brands for shelf space in their stores. Don't pay, your product does not make it to the shelves. Grocery stores also sell their own branded products in competition with the name brands. Lots of retailers do the same thing but in Apple's case it's deemed anti-trust and anti-competitive.Go figure.

That's what you got out of reading the article, is that everybody wants a free ride?  I've not read anywhere that anyone thinks the App Store should be a free service to developers.  What is an issue is the mandatory 30% cut that Apple takes, and the inability of app companies to sell their own product without going through the App Store.

Your grocery store analogy doesn't really work here because there are more than one grocery store chains.  There is only one App Store.  If Grocery store A sets a 30% fee to sell a food item, and grocery store B sets a 10% fee, the manufacturer has a choice and can sell at store B.  There is no choice in the Apple ecosystem.  That is the problem, not that everybody wants a free ride.

LOL. So by you argument the manufacturer has a choice to sell at store B with 10% fee, and is by doing this entitled to sell in Store A with the same fee? 

It looks like you think so. Because you demand to sell in Apple’s Store/ecosystem by grocery Store B rules. Why do you think so that grocery store A should allow grocery store B to sell on its land?

lkrupp said:

Everybody wants free ride on Apple's amazingly successful platform. On both the Mac and iOS a developer is more likely to succeed financially if their products are in the App Store where it's easy to buy, install and pay for. But that's not good enough, they want free access or just a nominal fee. Most people don't know that grocery stores actually charge brands for shelf space in their stores. Don't pay, your product does not make it to the shelves. Grocery stores also sell their own branded products in competition with the name brands. Lots of retailers do the same thing but in Apple's case it's deemed anti-trust and anti-competitive.Go figure.

rob53 said:

Why do any Apple users care about PCs? Why waste your time comparing hardware. This is an Apple-related website so why bother? Does the Dell hardware run macOS? No, so none of this matters to Apple users. 

Of course the MBP can run Windows