Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Who's paying for this IP, then?

The consumer, who bought the device? Surely the cost of development of said IP is in total recouped from device sales? The device doesn't work without said framework.

The developers who provide a reason to buy the device? Why should they be forced to use a monopolistic platform only because Apple's marketing has successfully clouded consumers' heads?

Humans are terrible at actually boycotting, but I'd love to see what would happen if 90% of app store devs pulled their apps from app stores. Would people buy as many iPhones? Ooooh, now we realise the value proposition that devs are _offering_ Apple, not taking from them.



My guess is users would only notice if a few dozen developers were gone, and the rest of them make apps that are only a little bit better than web apps if that.

Watch and Mac are more or less failed developer platforms (how many native 3rd party apps exist for them?) yet are also both huge businesses just with Apple apps.


Let's see what I have open on my Mac right now: Chrome, Firefox, VSCode, Slack, Teams, Outlook, Spotify, Activity Monitor, TextEdit, Preview, Cura, Docker Desktop.

Of these Apple is only responsible for 2 of them: textedit I could replace with vscode tbf and activity monitor is only open for when the Macbook plays up (constantly) and doesn't even offer remotely useful _aggregate_ stats like "what the fuck is actually consuming all of my memory".

I use Android so let's see what's open on my phone: Ebay, Telegram, Firefox. Hmmm nothing specifically Samsung/Google related. Just because you make a device with an OS doesn't mean you get to charge rent. Flat charge app developers for the minor admin involved in them submitting apps but charging a percentage is a ludicrous anti-consumer money grab. Doesn't matter if it's Apple, Google or anybody else.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: