
Why are you people defending Apple? - Andrex
http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/16/why-are-you-people-defending-apple/
======
Bossman
And people wonder why I hate the walled approach Apple takes.

The article makes another great point about people not being able to leave iOS
devices for a competitor because all their music, movies, apps, etc are in
Apple's DRM format and won't transfer to other devices.

Apple deserves to have control over their own platform, but this is getting a
little crazy. The extra fee wouldn't be so bad if developers could increase
fees through apps to offset it, but Apple is forcing them into a horrible
position. They can't say the reason for higher prices is Apple charging them.
They have to eat that cost for the customer and aren't even allowed to post
links to their site in the app anymore.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Now everyone should know, if they didn't before, why Apple is no Microsoft.
Apple isn't content to create a platform, they want to own everything. They
want a walled garden, they want captive users, they want to be able to demand
exorbitant profit margins in perpetuity.

Mostly benign monarchies may seem very attractive at first glance, but over
time abuse of power is inevitable and then it's too late.

~~~
coffeedrinker
I wonder how much content will end up simply as web apps and web sites and
then it won't matter what platform the end user chooses.

I've changed my focus from iOS to web because of Apple's policies.

~~~
chc
I wish that were practical, but Web apps just don't measure up for a lot of
domains. Personal example: I was recently toying with the idea of porting a
design program to be a Web app, but even just getting very simple typography
right is pretty intractable.

~~~
coffeedrinker
Sure, not everything can be a web app, but a lot of the _subscription_ world
can easily be ported to web app, since the content will likely be delivered in
HTML.

~~~
mryall
Interestingly, serving e-books over HTML would destroy the DRM models that
Amazon and others have developed to "protect" their content. I can't see there
being a Kindle web-based reader unless Amazon takes the same road as Apple
with regard to DRM [1], and tells all their content providers to get on board.

[1] <http://www.apple.com/fr/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/>

~~~
fpgeek
[http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?ie=UTF8&docId=1000...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?ie=UTF8&docId=1000579091)

------
neutronicus
"And finally, there’s the related notion that anyone who doesn’t like Apple’s
rules can pick up and move to another platform, like Android. Which is
ridiculous."

What? Ridiculous how? This claim is ridiculous.

Suck it up and use Android. You'll live. I did.

~~~
chc
Abandoning your users and moving to a platform where there's little money to
be made is a questionable proposition for producers. And a lot of users will
have second thoughts about moving to a platform they perceive to be distinctly
inferior just because Apple are being dicks.

Also, as a reminder in case you live in a country where it isn't so: Contracts
prevent most of Apple's customers from jumping platforms, and sunk costs in
iOS apps tighten the lock-in.

~~~
zyb09
Oh that's gonna change, no doubt. Produces can't ignore iOS, true, they'll
suck it up for now, but the mobile market isn't gonna stay this way forever if
Apple continues to behave this way.

I say 80% of all apps we do, we do now both for iOS and Android. While Android
used to be a second class citizen a year or so ago - often just recieving a
'port' of the iPhone version (ok it runs, we're done) - now there's much more
focus on making 'native' Android apps (no more Back-button in the navigation
bar etc.). Android revenue is still behind iOS, but it's profitable and worth
doing.

Since Android is growing already at a much faster rate than iOS and the whole
tablet & smartphone business is only expected to get bigger anyway, you gotta
wonder where we'll be in say - 5 years from now? Which will be the next
Windows, the OS with 90% market share, that everybody is gonna develop for?
Well it could've been iOS, but I don't think that's going to happen anymore.

~~~
adriand
> you gotta wonder where we'll be in say - 5 years from now?

Is it possible that the market won't coalesce and will instead stay
fragmented? I wonder about the likelihood of that happening. It seems unlikely
that either Android or iOS will capture 90% market share any time soon, plus,
there is Blackberry to contend with (perhaps the Playbook will revive their
fortunes somewhat) and you can never completely count out Microsoft either, as
we've seen with the recent Nokia situation.

I think there are perhaps a couple of ways this could go. First, regardless of
who executes best on technology, there may be a company who executes best on
earning money for developers, and this economic factor could really boost the
platform - if developers start coalescing around a platform, consumers may
(will?) follow. (I think iOS has the edge here.)

Second, if the market remains fragmented it is going to be untenable for many
companies, particularly small ones who develop software for clients, to
support all of the platforms. They'll either have to specialize in one,
perhaps two, of the platforms and avoid or subcontract work for the other
platforms, or they'll need to start relying more heavily on HTML5 and
workarounds like Phonegap. From that perspective, it may be in the best
interest of web developers to see the platform fragmentation continue and
perhaps get even worse.

------
GHFigs
_I’m sure this post will invite a throng of Apple advocates to poke holes in
my logic_

...as if that were not transparently the intent of an article entitled "Why
are you people defending Apple?"

------
statictype
This.

More than the actual policy, what disturbs me is the number of people blindly
defending it saying it's in the best interest of the users.

It is not.

This new subscription mechanism will effectively boot all newspaper/book/music
subscription services off the App Store. This is great only if you're one of
those people that believes every piece of technology you ever use should only
be made by Apple.

The only entity that benefits from this scheme is AAPL

------
jokermatt999
This articulated a lot of my issues with Apple better than I could. I tend to
steer clear of TC, but I think this is the best article I've seen on this
issue of the 30% cut.

------
jon_hendry
I'm waiting for Apple to apply a per-MB charge for all data you access on iOS
via WiFi or 3G that doesn't come from Apple.

------
radley
Apple's new subscription model will cost more for end-users on all platforms.
The new terms mean ~50% subscription price hikes across the board. Services
can't reduce costs, and they aren't going to give away their profit.

Ironically, it also creates incentives for competing platforms because the
profit will be 2-5x greater than on iOS.

------
coffeedrinker
They are trying to force content producers to work exclusively with Apple.

I can up the cost to the end user _as long as I stay only with Apple_. Once I
move my product to a second competing device, then it really hurts profit
because the price has to stay the same.

Once they become the exclusive provider, then they continue to dominate the
market, regardless of what other tablets and operating systems come along.

~~~
nooneelse
Actually having the same content/product sold through both Apple and somewhere
else is an interesting case. Between the two distribution channels, in which
do you put your R&D or advertising dollar when channel Apple returns 30% less
per customer gained there versus channel other?

~~~
ubernostrum
Well.

First up, I suspect this policy won't last long; the most likely explanation
for it that I can see is that Apple's trying to figure out what the market
will bear. Which, you know, is something they tend to do fairly often with the
iOS platform, and sometimes it works the first try and they stick to the
policy, and sometimes it doesn't and they change it.

But as far as choosing where to focus money, I think Apple's banking on the
fact that _nobody else in the mobile space_ has the kind of integrated
platform and distribution channel iOS has. There's a lot of attraction there,
especially given that the alternatives (i.e., Android) not only aren't there
yet, but aren't even close to getting there.

So right now, if I had to choose where to put my budget, I'd put it into iOS
without a second thought; sure, Apple's going to get a cut, but the reduced
overhead and relative ease (if I want broad exposure on Android, how many app
stores do I have to market my content in? How many carriers do I have to sign
deals with to get promoted? etc.), combined with an existing and known-to-be-
loyal installed base for the platform, would suggest to me that I'm going to
make up the difference pretty quickly.

------
EGreg
I see this as a steady development towards a new era, away from copyright and
patents and towards distribution-driven innovation.

Look at Netflix, Apple and Google. They are discovering this model but just
like the internet, I think the future will reveal itself over the next few
years. People will pay for easy distribution and one-click purchasing. Some
distribution networks will have a monthly fee for unlimited downloads. Others
will have pay-per-download.

Here's the good news: rather than relying on a government-enforced monopoly
(copyright, patents, etc.) to make sure that the publishers and innovators get
paid, we will rely on direct-to-consumer distribution networks, which compete
with one another for publishers and users on things like ease of use and
selection.

In a way this is the Cable TV model. Eventually, I think everyone will move to
a monthly subscription model for nearly unlimited downloads, like Netflix.
That's because when torrent clients (or usenet or whatever else decentralized
distribution network there will be) become as easy to use as the centralized
ones (and decentralized always wins in the end), it will be just as easy and
convenient to get a pirated movie as it is to get it on iTunes. But movies are
expensive to make. That's why in the future, I think people will pay monthly
fees instead of paying per item.

At the end of the day, there will be a huge number of people subscribed to
Netflix-like distribution networks just like there are people subscribed to
the internet, and generating "positive externalities" for the cheapskates that
get free content through decentralized means. But the system will work.
Content creators will flourish!

------
davidu
Comments all removed.

The parent asked why I defend apple and I laid out my argument. Clearly people
cared enough to respond and react. And yet I'm being downvoted for sharing my
perspective just because it might be contrarian?

Maybe that's /not/ why I'm being downvoted, but that's what it feels like to
me. So no thanks. I'm content to keep my opinions to myself.

~~~
daleharvey
Apart from some of those examples being incredibly tenuous (personal
computing), and the concept of defending companies position on one thing
because you like its decisions elsewhere being kinda scary.

But Google has had that impact on the entire web, both by providing visibility
and a revenue stream via advertising.

~~~
davidu
Comments all removed.

~~~
burgerbrain
Make _judgment calls_ in each case.

Don't like or dislike a _company_ , that's just senseless. Rather, like or
dislike _what a company does_. Appreciate IBM's Watson, and dislike IBM's
European business dealings in the 30's and 40's. Appreciate contributions
Apple has made to personal computing, disliking their control-freak attitude.

Use your brain, don't make sweeping generalizations by sweep shit under the
carpet.

~~~
davidu
Comments all removed.

~~~
burgerbrain
I don't know you, and haven't conversed with you, so I can't speak for how you
support Apple.

I simply oppose people who will defend _any_ action, no matter how absurd,
because they support the people behind that action in most other cases. You'll
see all sorts of gymnastics used to justify it, but it really boils down to
people supporting things they wouldn't normally, were they outside of context
of their 'affiliation'. You see this a lot in politics (I used to do this
myself, before I realized how silly it was), and you see it with popular
consumer brands as well.

~~~
davidu
I don't think I was hiding the fact that a big part of my Apple support comes
equally from my distrust of Google than my love of Apple.

I just look at the wreckage each has created and would pick Apple's wreckage
over Google's any day.

I'm a bit surprised that people find my position to be unusual. I think it
represents reasonable behavior. But I often feel this way on HN. :-/

~~~
Natsu
I would honestly like to know what "wreckage" Google has created? Granted, I
probably haven't experienced the most likely types (domain gets a penalty,
webmaster doesn't understand how to fix it, or that sort of thing). Most of
the time, they spend their days trying to make information open and accessible
to everyone, which I love.

In contrast, given the chance, Apple would control everything I do on my
computer and charge me for it. No doubt that computer would be beautiful and
it would work very well, but I prefer to manage on my own.

------
cfontes
Apple is just like a religion or sport team to some ppl... no matter what
happens they stay on their side, I hate ppl that take things as a religion.

BUT...

I don't disagree with apple in this one though, they own the infra and without
them there would be no place to sell the stuff so you should pay.

~~~
elehack
They own the infrastructure, but they do _not_ own the device. The customer
does. They bought it.

Apple comes along and says that anything you want to use on the device you
bought and paid for needs to go through their infrastructure. That's where it
becomes a huge problem. Not that they're charging for using their services,
but because they're charging to let people do things with their property.

~~~
superuser2
They're charging to let people do things _through the iTunes store_.

Find me an example of them going after someone who liberated themselves from
the iTunes store - Cydia still exists. Last I checked, there aren't any.

~~~
elehack
But they make it very clear that the iTunes store is the only
authorized/approved means of doing things on the device, and try to make it
illegal to do otherwise (although the Library of Congress put a temporary stop
to that agenda). And while they don't go after the jailbreakers, they do try
to diminish their experience with things like the iBooks jailbreak test.

When you combine this behavior and stance with the "charging through the
iTunes store" policy, it becomes effectively a mostly successful attempt to
charge for doingsomething with the device. The Apple Tax in isolation, while
disturbing, isn't intolerable. It's when you combine it with their other
policies surrounding the platform that the real problem arises.

------
bane
I suspect that, like most outrageous things Apple does

1) that we'll all have a big fight

2) Apple will continue with what they're doing for a while while we all get
enraged and a bunch of us and the consumers jump platforms.

3) After months of fighting, Apple will relent and put a saner policy in
place.

4) All will be right in the world

5) Wash, rinse, repeat.

More likely than not, Apple is probably doing what they do best which is to
feel out the upper ceiling of the market, do a credible job of defeating their
competition, find out where a comfortable profit can be made, then screw up
any path to bigger market share because the margins (and the ability to
control the ecosystem) aren't there.

------
olalonde
[...] my colleague MG Siegler did a thorough piece talking about why this
makes sense for Apple and users [...]

How surprising...

------
rauljara
If the basic argument is that apple's margin are too high, I agree completely.
They are a massively profitable company; they don't need to be charging what
they're charging.

If the argument is that there is something immoral about them charging people
for use of their subscription service, I call bullshit. Until incredibly
recently, they had no subscription service. Now they are offering the _option_
to use a subscription service. If you find the fees are too high, you are not
obliged to take part in it. I think the real reason this upsets so many is
that it clearly is worth it for many developers to take part in it, just like
it clearly is worth it to let apple take their 30% cut for everything else
sold on the app store. People are riled because they don't want to have to pay
apple this fee, but hard cold business logic demands that they should, because
it is profitable to do so (or less unprofitable than not doing so). It
wouldn't be threatening at all if you felt like you could afford to just walk
away from the ecosystem apple's built.

Which seems to indicate they are adding value.

Now, as to whether the value added == 30%, I direct you to the first
paragraph. But what's the motivation to create such a wonderfully easy to use
ecosystem if you can't derive a profit off it?

~~~
statictype
_Now they are offering the _option_ to use a subscription service._

Wrong. Please don't misunderstand this new policy as something that is in
addition to the existing rules.

The Kindle App currently in the app store (which doesn't offer in-app purchase
or subscription) is now probably in violation of the app store guidelines in
light of these new terms. They have forced companies that offer any
subscription service outside the store to also offer it in the store and with
a hefty 30% commission.

~~~
mryall
Yeah, this confused me a lot. The press release [1] says quite clearly:

> Apple does require that if a publisher chooses to sell a digital
> subscription separately outside of the app, that same subscription offer
> must be made available, at the same price or less, to customers who wish to
> subscribe from within the app. In addition, publishers may no longer provide
> links in their apps (to a web site, for example) which allow the customer to
> purchase content or subscriptions outside of the app.

It's that last clause which clearly states that apps like the the current
Kindle app, which includes a "Buy Books" link at the top, will no longer be
allowed.

This will be a massive shock to the nascent content-based app market on iOS. I
can see only two possibilities for developers of these existing apps: primary
producers of content who can afford to wear the extra 30% will just lose on
their margin; or apps reduce the price of content on iOS so the Apple cut
isn't as big. Neither option will be particularly palatable to most producers.
Many might avoid the platform entirely.

But over the long term, I suspect this will have a positive disruptive effect
in the iOS content market. Smaller producers who can build a business model
around the 30% cut by Apple (similar to app developers) will have a better
chance at maintaining a healthy margin.

[1] <http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/02/15appstore.html>

~~~
sethg
So under the new guidelines, can Amazon distribute an app that lets you read
Kindle books you’ve already purchased in other ways, with a note “we can’t
actually make a clicky link here, but open up Safari and go to amazon.com to
buy more books”?

~~~
xentronium
Loopholes aren't going to work because your app is not going to get approved.

------
epo
More anti-Apple whining and double standards. Funny how when people commit
theft by avoiding paying for recorded content like music and films the claim
is that the world has changed and the studios and record companies should
adapt their business models.

Apple's marketplace, Apple's T&Cs. If you can't do business using Apple's
marketplace change your business model or change your marketplace. If enough
people do the latter then Apple will have fewer quality suppliers.

------
aj700
Uhh, it's an ingrained reflex from my teens.

Because they're not Microsoft.

It's just the leftover bitterness of Amiga Persecution Complex. Billg killed
the Amiga

...or so it is widely believed, especially in Europe.

------
46Bit
I'm looking forward to Antitrust.

~~~
sethg
If I understand correctly, antitrust concerns would only kick in if Apple uses
its monopoly power to screw _its competitors_. For example, if iOS apps were
required to sell content for _less_ at the App Store than through competing
channels, then Amazon et al. could rightfully cry foul.

But screwing _your customers_ is not an antitrust violation: it’s capitalism
as usual. :-)

~~~
fpgeek
Given the impact of these new policies on music streaming services like
Rhapsody et al and Apple's dominant share in the digital music and digital
music player markets, I think antitrust will become part of the story sooner
rather than later. Especially if Apple launches their own streaming service
(as has been rumored).

------
speleding
30% is not as much as people think it is. I've been involved in billing
systems that do recurring billing and it is actually surprisingly hard, a lot
harder than one-off payments. Just a few examples:

* Credit cards on file get stolen or expire all the time.

* People forget to cancel in time and do charge backs which you then have to resolve in some other way.

* People e-mail customer support a lot more than for regular payments ("I want cancel, and please refund last x month too"). Support is expensive

* Apple operates in a lot of countries where credit card penetration is very low and other payment methods are required.

... and then they handle the entire operation of the app store, and they need
to make a profit somewhere. When the iPhone just came out Apple claimed they
were not making any money on the app store and I think that's entirely
believable. Margins will have gone up as scale increased but now that they
have added recurring billing those margins will be lower again.

~~~
brown9-2
This is a completely subjective judgment. _You_ don't think 30% is too much
for these services.

~~~
speleding
Double faux pas: It's not subjective, because I provide quantitative arguments
(Apple not making money on the app store initially) and facts (recurring
billing is much more expensive than regular billing, which is common knowledge
to billing experts). Also note that I did NOT say 30% wasn't too much, I said
it's not as much as people think.

------
hughw
Interesting to contrast Google Apps Marketplace: It charges 20% of "the total
amount your customer ends up paying you for your application and related add-
ons", specifically including recurring revenue but also excluding sales of
items like books (unsure how they would classify e-books for this purpose).

<http://developer.googleapps.com/marketplace/fees>

20% off the top line for all revenue from a customer they acquire for you.
Seems like a bargain for a one-time sale; seems costly in the out years when
it's you, not Google, putting all the work into retaining the customer.

Not complaining. Just contributing a data point from a similar effort in a
slightly different space.

------
reedF211
I'm completely disgusted by Apple's behaviour on this topic. Apple should be
ashamed of itself for gouging developers. This is like if someone has a bakery
in Des Moines, IA and then wants to expand to New York, and the city of New
York insists that the price of cake the bakery charges be the same or lower
than the price in Des Moines where the rent and operation costs are a fraction
of what they are in NYC. This kind of monopolistic behavior by Apple is worse
than Microsoft at its worst in the 90s and the early 2000s.

~~~
rahoulb
It's not worse than Microsoft.

Apple does not have a monopoly in mobile devices. Apple is acting as a
distributor and asking for a cut for being that distributor. There are other
equally viable distributors - web apps, Android, maybe even WP7.

I'm sure the Angry Birds or Pixelmator people don't begrudge Apple taking a
cut for giving them a massive amount of marketing and promotion - as well as
an ultra-simple way of receiving payment (still a major stumbling block in the
online world).

The key thing is how they enforce the external restrictions. It does make
sense to say you need to offer the same terms externally as inside the App
Store - to the consumer. The problem is that this can appear totally
unreasonable to the developer. It all depends on enforcement - if they go
after 30% of Highrise revenue because 37Signals have a native client we will
know things are wrong.

------
ThomPete
Google is the one who undercuts entire industries by making products in the
field free and Apple gets the blame for charging people to get access to
paying customers.

What a funny ass backwards world we live in.

------
Cadsby
I'm not saying I agree with Apple's new policies, but I don't remember seeing
any outrage when Amazon was taking a whopping 70% of ebook sales, while
simaltenously instituting a most favored nation clause which made it
impossible for publishers to sell their books cheaper via any other
distribution channel.

Unfortunately Apple brings out the fanboy in some, while also bringing out the
rabid anti-Apple sentiment in others. I wish the hyper emotion would get toned
down on both sides.

------
Spyckie
Won't this just make consumers hurt at the end? The most reasonable option as
a developer is just to mark up the prices by 30% and then say if you want it
the normal price, too bad - Apple needs its cut.

------
juddlyon
I don't know or care about all the particulars. This feels like pure greed,
not some cool strategic play.

In other news: this is the first decent thing I've read on TC in six months!

------
api
Apple can do this because they have a monopoly on good design. Almost nobody
outside Cupertino understands that design, user interface, and user experience
matter.

------
marze
I imagine the decision at Apple went something like this:

We can always go from 30% to 10% later, and all publicity is good publicity,
so go for it.

~~~
profitbaron
Additionally, it will also make the lower margin appear reasonable to
developers etc, meaning Apple have given themselves a new revenue stream AND
developers aren't that annoyed as they currently are at this 30% rate.

------
nevster
The biggest complainers in all this will be companies like rhapsody who are
middlemen.

------
nevinera
Shame on you people for having opinions that don't match mine.

------
azar1
YOU PEOPLE!? What's that supposed to mean?

------
lotusleaf1987
Zach said it best yesterday: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2224469>

Of course Rhapsody can't sell their stuff for a 30% margin. It's not their own
stuff!

They're trying to be the last link in a chain of 90/10 (or more) splits. They
repackage record labels' repackaging of artists' content. Do you think the
artists would find 30% economically untenable?

The App Store is 70/30 because Apple can take things straight from content
producer to customer. When the Apple takes the place of publishing,
distribution, inventory, sales, payments and shipping, there's real value for
that 30%.

When all someone wants out of Apple is merely to process the payment and send
things down the pipe, gee, who do they think they are? But that's not what
Apple is actually holding themselves out as. Apple doesn't want to be in that
kind of commodity market anyway. Seems reasonable to me.

~~~
statictype
_The App Store is 70/30 because Apple can take things straight from content
producer to customer. When the Apple takes the place of publishing,
distribution, inventory, sales, payments and shipping, there's real value for
that 30%._

This was already addressed in the article. iBooks has a significantly smaller
variety of books than Amazon. By becoming the sole gatekeeper for content,
Apple is ruling out larger distributers. Users don't gain from this. Only
Apple.

~~~
mechanical_fish
_iBooks has a significantly smaller variety of books than Amazon._

But will this be true for long, now that this particular shoe has dropped?

Apple's primary target here is probably Amazon. A company which, incidentally,
is no stranger to the art of using a powerful distribution network, an
existing customer base, and a DRM-locked e-reader platform as a lever to
demand big shares of revenue:

[http://www.jeremyrossmedia.com/2010/02/21/word-
kindle-70-30-...](http://www.jeremyrossmedia.com/2010/02/21/word-
kindle-70-30-deal-for-self-publishers/)

According to this article, and the Stross piece linked therein, Amazon's
standard deal is that they take _seventy_ percent. Their "generous" deal for
self-publishers is that they take a mere 30%... but the publisher must give
_Amazon_ the right to set the price as Amazon sees fit.

Makes Apple's 30% cut look pretty good, actually. But, of course, if you're a
print publisher you pretty much have to have a deal with Amazon, so I expect
there are a lot of negotiations going on right now.

~~~
statictype
To be clear, I don't actually care about how much Amazon actually makes on
each copy sold. What bothers me is that Apple has seemingly made it
economically unviable for distributers to exist in the AppStore at all. This
means we have to rely on Apple for content on our iOS devices, and until Apple
scales up its content sources, the users are losers in this deal.

~~~
jad
If users are truly the losers in this deal, then won't they vote with their
wallets?

~~~
statictype
In what sense? Many (like me) already own iOS devices and are invested in it
with all the apps/games/songs/books that we already bought. I probably won't
switch platforms based on the absence of a newspaper/music subscription
service, but I sure would like the option of having those.

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
Wasn't it obvious when you bought the non-transferable music, books and apps
that this was the sort of company you were dealing with?

It strikes me that this is a pretty unreasonable complaint. If it looks like a
duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I don't think it's fair to
moan when it turns out it's a duck.

I'm not knocking Apple, I like Apple but we as consumers need to be aware of
what we're buying into and I don't think we can moan that it was in anyway
unclear the way they behave, particularly to the sort of person who frequents
Hacker News and really can't feign ignorance.

~~~
statictype
I think you missed my point: I'm not feigning outrage at the fact that I can't
transfer everything I bought for phone A onto phone B.

I'm saying that shutting out apps because they don't cough up Apple's ransom
only hurts the customer and that customers won't necessarily vote with their
wallet and move somewhere else because they have already invested in their
current platform/device.

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
If they won't do anything about being hurt, then the question is surely how
hurt are they?

~~~
duncanj
It depends on what you consider the injury to be. If they didn't have a
smartphone before they purchased an iPhone, then having a phone that lacks the
features of other smartphones doesn't really injure them, it just makes them
jealous, which is possibly bad for business. But if they don't switch, then
the lack of that feature isn't as important to them as the other apps they
have purchased, etc. Are you injured? Well, you got a bad deal, and in a way
Apple changed the terms of your contract without notifying you, but it's hard
to say that you've really lost anything. More, you just made the wrong
purchase due to asymmetric information.

Still, in this case, I think Apple is engaging in a weird sort of brinkmanship
with distributors, and I'm not sure they're in a position to dictate such
terms.

------
1010011010
Apple is still better than Microsoft.

~~~
radley
It's clear that changed over the past few years, starting soon after dropping
"Computers" from their name...

