1. Opting to expand their market. Their market. Expanding is a risk. It costs money, time, effort, resources to expand. There is the very real possibly they could have failed, and lost out to this market. Many were saying it would fail.
You can try and push for such a right. However, if you are not in control of the paint supply (in this example). There are companies that own a color for instance. Or own a patent on the chemicals that make up the paint. You may not have any right to any of that. It could have been sold to that car company as an exclusive. So neither would a 3rd party repair shop have access to it, without some kind of certification from them allowing them to work on it on their behalf. So while you "could" get it painted again by anyone. You "May" not be able to get the exact same paint color outside of the manufacture of the car. You bought what you bought. Not any-thing else. Do with it after what you will/can. But, the company is under no obligation to assist you outside of that or make it easy for you to do so. They have rights too.
Meaningless. It is a hack to get onto the iPhone. And Apple has every right to prohibit its use "BY" not allowing it to be able to hack its way on. You have every right to try to hack it on to YOUR phone. But, that is the limit for each party here. No different than saying Orange existed before iPhone 17. Why can't I have an orange phone before iPhone 17? Like Samsung BTS edition purple phone. Why can't I get that on an iPhone from Apple?
Proving the point we need not waste time with these rules to allow the 3rd party store. More importantly that Android already had/has the ability to let the end user have a 3rd party store. No need to force Apple to also have one.
It doesn't need the pressure. Only a small fraction of people "want" this just to tinker specifically ON an iPhone. Get a Droid. Have fun. And accept that Apple does NOT want to cater to that audience. That is not where they are focusing on. It is too small a market for them to even bother with, and have to work extra just to please. And, most likely fail at doing so.
1. And some things can’t be ”owned”. Example you can own whatever proprietary way you made the paint. But the paint itself is fairly free. Just as we use car examples, thers no part of the car that can’t be remanufactiree as an off label spare part without the logo. Or things are made FRAND compliant etc etc.
Because you bought what you bought the seller sold what they sold as a package Deal. And sometimes when you’re large enough with enough market impact you have to change your rules to prevent your own selfpreference harming the market.
Apple has a massive market share of about 30%~ Apple doesn’t need to cater, but in this regard stop getting in the way. Effectively make either self signed apps functional or allow unsigned apps do their thing.
And no Apple absolutely need the pressure because they have close to zero competition to make their store experience better for anyone as long as the phone itself is good enough it’s a service you have to use.
2.
If it does work out, they will eventually raise the price point. 1 million will go down to half a million. Royalties will go up from 5-10% or whatever in-between. And if they fail, Steam prices will go up. And on and on.
Perhaps. If it proves to be a big enough issue for them. They will. If not, they will move on to other things.
There is aways a markup on almost everything we buy. 27% may still be lower than what it would have been in a physical store. The MSRP or retail price could still be the same as a store as well. Since none of us are working for them to know the input costs, profit margins, taxes, tariffs, etc. Knowing it "is" 27% more than it otherwise would be is misleading. Not to mention IAP is generally something they created already being resold a million times over.
Qualcomm charges a lot, based on price of the device. And they own the patents for the tech that makes the cellular modem work. Bravo for them. Apple has to pay them. But, that cost is HIGH. And they fought over the cost with them. AND managed to come to an agreement (2 years or so later). HOLY CRAP! They didn't publicly shame or take out ads?? What in the world??? And now, they have an in-house modem chip based on tech they purchased from intel. So at some point, they will not have to pay Qualcomm anything. Because they will own their own modem. Not like Apple is going to sell its modem design to 3rd parties to compete against Qualcomm, just like they are not going to sell M chips to 3rd parties. They made it for themselves. I personally had no issue with EPIC going to court with Apple over the 30% or anything else they felt was "wrong". But they did it in public, and broke OUR access to playing the games or having EPIC anything going forward. THAT is the issue. I still got to make phone calls with my iPhone during the Qualcomm dispute.
30% is too much for you. The value is whatever you perceive it to be. We have different values. I don't want to open up the platform, as I chose this platform as it is. If you want it open, pick a platform that is more open. We both get what we want. Closer to what we both want rather.
This isn't Apple or Googles problem to solve. Neither can please everyone.
Again, nothing is perfect. And you should care how they make their money, since this whole conversation is about MONEY. Who/m charges what and if that is too much or not enough. How fair it is to charge what is being charged, and or if there should be a charge at all. Facebook, and Google can offer a platitude of services for free, but those services aren't really free and they have found a way to make a good bit of coin without directly charging you for it. Best of luck to you to MacGyver your way around that. I truly hope you succeed. Just note that if enough of us figured out a way to do the same. Then we should expect Google and Facebook to go away at some point for not making any money.
If you built the device. But, you didn't. You bought the device. That device is yours to do with as you see fit. It gives you nothing more than that right to it. And it also works for Apple, they don't have to do anything for you other than support the device as they shipped it to you. You have no right to make another company make that same device work exactly how you want it to, when you want it to. They built it the way they wanted to. You decide if you like it enough to purchase it. That's it.
2. Steam has done close to nothing for the last 20~ years for their fees because the service has improved and reflected it to stay dominant. Epic have had their Unreal engine royalty for decades as well. While iOS AppStore has largely stagnated.
And no the 27% cost increase is above the price they have online through their own platform. Hence why they didn’t want IAP. And we know this costs because we can compare their statements and their price difference. Apple forced Protonmail to have a payed option or be removed. Developers don’t choose where their customers are located.
And no, Apple didn’t manage to get to an agreement, they acted like a spoiled child and refused to continue to pay the deal when Qualcomm refused to renegotiate the terms. And the tried to bring them to court so they didn’t need to pay because it was unfair to them and tried to call it a monopoly and anti competitive. Yet they lost the case and the legal battle is still ongoing.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday again declined to hear Apple Inc's bid to revive an effort to cancel three Qualcomm Inc smartphone patents despite the settlement of the underlying dispute between the two tech giants.
www.reuters.com
It is their business strategy. I picked Apple because they aren’t Google, yet slowly Apple is becoming more like Google in their business strategy in monetizing my data. Something I paid a premium for.
If a service is offered for free they aught give the option of targeted adds and non targeted adds without using my data without explicit consent. And I make policy work pushing this to be less plausible and harder.
Well right to repair and environmental policy can still enforce some design rules. So they can’t design something that is artificially constraint like inkjet cartridges. Hence why you can put in whatever cartridge you want. Same should be with most of the replacement parts like your screen, back glass, battery etc etc without any syncing chips.
3. The Mac Studio is 100 watt full tilt. So still 5x less power for what would most likely equal or better performance based on your existing system spec. Now you can't upgrade it in the traditional sense, so you still would most likely prefer the PC for that reason alone. But typically PC video cards need more than the 75 watts that come from the slot. Usually in the 100 - 500+ watt range alone. And Micro$oft will most likely force you to upgrade your CPU before 10 years is done. Building is definitely cheaper than buying from a vendor like Dell. But, everything has its pro-con's.
The history of Mac gaming is the games are generally never well optimized for the Mac as a platform. When you take into account say a console. All games on the console tend to run well enough to justify its existence on the console. For Mac, it tended to have limited hardware options. Which like a console, shouldn't be a limitation. But, it is on the Mac. Mainly because the dev didn't really optimize it as well as they could or should have. Games are an afterthought for Mac. Usually a game comes out a year or more later. Games that came out with a simultaneous release was rare and still needed a relatively new Mac to run well. As it is now with M chips. They are at minimum as good as a Nintendo Switch is at running any game. And the future M5 Pro or Max will easily handle all the games available for the Mac. But, that's the other problem. Just not that many. Heck even CyberPunk 2077 can run on an M chip. Can it run it as well as a 5090? No. But, it's not 5 times worse either.
3. My PC is 4~ year already with the 5600G, 16gb DDR4 Ram and rtx3080, so around when the M1 was released. So my system probably is about 50-100watt when I don’t do heavy loads, so it probably can’t compete with apples M chips in any meaningful way. Before that I had my 2012 retina MacBook Pro.
Only upgrade I have done is just sticking in 2TB extra NVME storage over my existing 1TB NVME. Hence why I was hoping for the Mac Pro was going to allow dedicated GPU upgrade for. I can’t imagine Microsoft forcing me to upgrade as unwound just stay on whatever software it supports and hope Linux or Apple hardware is suitable when that day comes.
I am genuinely excited about Apple M chips and other avenues they push hardware. But I don’t even think it’s fair to compare the M chips to a 5090 when we have the laptop versions or even the different 3060,4060,5060 or the 80s models. The M4 Max is worse than a 3080 desktop GPU, but equivalent to 4070 laptop version. Because the M4 max 40core is 5x worse than the 5090 chip
Apple for a long time just crippled themselves regarding gaming when they continued to be very behind the openGL standards and slow on driver support
4. This is the whole point. Might as well say. Xbox was designed for games, but is so much more now that we can't hold it to just gaming anymore...
Why does this matter? It's not exactly standard issue provided at birth.
Perfect
If you agree that Apple makes the device to a specification "they" came up with, and they should have the right to come up with whatever specifications they wish. So long as it doesn't harm the end user in some illegal way.
Apple also lets you do whatever you can do with your device. They just don't have to help you do it. So when you purchase the device. If you don't like what it does, how it does it or why it does it. And you have the means. You can do with it as you wish. You did buy the device.
4. Except the Xbox is exactly what it was designed for and have failed to become anything more than that despite Microsoft’s attempts. The smartphone is nolonger just a phone with some funny apps, it has become a fullfledged computer that we do everything with a tie in to the digital world. We do banking, government verification, ID, messaging, media consumption, online and offline shopping, wallet, smart home automation etc etc.
It matter in the same way electricity has become an important factor that we don’t allow utilities profiteering and interfering in services that depends on it. So Apple can control their store, but not alternative stores that wishes to be used by the user on the device.
Just how Nintendo can brick your device in the U.S. legally, but can’t do it in EU despite they want to do it.
Apparently the EU and other parts of the word think they are closing the can.
Well what cans of worms are there? Nobody think they are ”closing” it, but opening up more opportunities for the market and prevent undue rentseeking and limiting smaller entities innovation capabilities.
