←back to thread

1704 points ardit33 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.202s | source
Show context
mapgrep ◴[] No.24149792[source]
You could argue about Apple's rights, or citizens' free speech rights, or consumer rights, under existing law. It would be an interesting discussion because I think it's a lot more complicated an issue that most people appreciate.

But really why not talk about how we think things should work on platforms like iOS? What should the law be? What protects essential human rights, encourages creativity, and allows business to function to some extent?

Personally, I would argue that consumers should have a legal right to install whatever software they wish on a product they have purchased, including onto the bundled operating system. I don't think it should be permissible for a company like Apple (or Microsoft or whoever) to sell me a gadget and then use various sorts of locks to try to keep me from putting whatever apps or app stores or services I like on it.

Does anyone have any argument for why this right would be a bad thing? People would get bad software on their phones, but last I checked, this is happening already, including on iOS. Apple would lose some margin, but last I checked, their investment in creating and maintaining iOS has been handsomely rewarded and would surely continue to be.

replies(20): >>24150118 #>>24150217 #>>24150279 #>>24150291 #>>24150292 #>>24150369 #>>24150460 #>>24150828 #>>24151413 #>>24152705 #>>24152764 #>>24154029 #>>24154441 #>>24154710 #>>24154759 #>>24154888 #>>24155099 #>>24155703 #>>24155755 #>>24166318 #
1. ken47 ◴[] No.24155703[source]
If you follow Apple's financial reporting, they need to make up for lost revenue from declining iPhone sales growth, and they've stated they will achieve this via service revenue. So if you're in the Apple C-suite right now, why wouldn't you exploit your monopolistic position to impose unpalatable fees such as this 30% cut? They are trading Apple's reputation in the future (a future in which they will be conveniently uninvolved) for Apple's revenue (and their personal reputations) today. And most Apple shareholders don't care. They'll ride the Apple stock as far as it will go, and then they'll sell as soon as the bottom line begins to reap what is today sown.

Is this not one of the most common refrains among major decision-makers of this era, whether it be business or politics?

In this case, Apple has judged that the consumer doesn't care enough, or doesn't have enough power, to change this calculus. Are they right?