Why are people desensitized to such Apple tactics? You'd think there would be much more backlash but somehow people just think this is okay and move on.
This is a super tricky topic, which is why it sparks so much dialog.
Like …
- video game platforms, what about them? They all have similar platform fees & requirements that Apple has but yet they are getting a pass on this topic.
- other platforms. Why is it ok that YouTube takes 40% cut of ad revenue from content creators?
- analogy to in-store retail. Imagine Apple is like your neighborhood Walmart. If Walmart is going to put a product on its shelf, they are only going to do so long as they can mark it up and sell it for a profit. Why is Apple not allowed to do the same for their “virtual shelf” (aka App Store)?
- if people think 30% is too high, what is the right rate? Is it 25? 20? Something less? Who decides what’s fair?
- Security. There’s no question that Apple being the single facilitation mechanism for payments drives out fraud and provides a better consumer experience & trust (for both the consumer and Apple). To much fraud on their platform, through rogue sideloading payments, could deter the consumer experience of Apple and effect the adoption of their products. Why should Apple be forced to allow a new fraud vector and put consumers at risk? This will deteriorate their brand.
And much more.
Note: I’m not saying I agree with Apple or its tactics, but it’s also not black or white either.
This is a very tricky topic that is way more nuanced than most people acknowledge.
And obviously there isn’t much precedent for this either.
> If Walmart is going to put a product on its shelf[...]
Because if walmart marks it up too high I can get the same thing from target or the local shop or from amazon or from tons of other places. So they are under competitive pressure to keep their markup low enough they don't chase customers away.
> Why is Apple not allowed to do the same for their “virtual shelf” (aka App Store)?
It is enraging because there is no competitive pressure on them. If the fees are too high, unlike with walmart, what are you going to do? There's nothing you can do. If walmart starts charging $100 for a bar of soap I can get for $1 at target, I'm going to target. If apple raises their cut to 200%, there's nothing you can do.
> Who decides what’s fair?
Ideally, a competitive free market. But apple does not allow that.
Are you writing this from the perspective of the consumer or the app developer?
From the consumer perspective, you have a clear recourse: don't buy Apple phones if you don't want to (or can't afford to) pay for the markup that devs have to place due to the Apple tax. It's that simple. I have an Android phone and install most of my apps through F-Droid for free. No one forced you to buy an iPhone, and no one will force you to buy one again the next time you need a new phone.
From the developer perspective you have a bit of a stronger moral point in that there are a substantial number of US customers that you cannot reach without passing through the App Store, but the current legal situation in the US is pretty clear [0]: US consumers knowingly choose to buy iPhones even though they know that they're choosing a locked-in platform, so there isn't a single-brand aftermarket and there is no monopoly.
Your take on the consumer perspective ignores network effects. Lots of people, particularly children, buy iPhones just to avoid the dreaded green bubbles. Adults may be better at handling this, but it's hard to tell children to just use Android if that means they'll be bullied. I don't think it was originally Apple's intention to conscript legions of schoolyard bullies to increase their market share, but it's certainly happening, and they certainly don't mind that it is. Interoperability (particular opening up iMessage and iCloud to other devices, the same way anyone can use RCS or Google Photos from an iPhone) would mitigate that.
Your take on the developer perspective is a bit confusing. Everyone knows it's a closed system, but that doesn't mean it's not a monopoly. In many ways, it is a monopoly.
> US consumers knowingly choose to buy iPhones even though they know that they're choosing a locked-in platform, so there isn't a single-brand aftermarket and there is no monopoly.
As far as I know, that has not been used as a successful defense of any large antitrust case. Ma Bell and Microsoft could have tried arguing the same point, but I'm not sure if it would override the anticompetitive damages of either company.
I linked to Epic v. Apple, where that exact argument was made and the court sided with Apple. It wasn't a DOJ antitrust suit, so maybe the rules are different there, but in that case Epic tried to make the argument that the relevant market was iOS app distribution and Apple therefore had a monopoly.
The court ruled that in order to make that case, Epic had to demonstrate (among three other tests) that "the challenged aftermarket restrictions are
“not generally known” when consumers make their foremarket purchase". The court found that consumers do know about the restrictions in advance of making their initial purchase decision and therefore found that the relevant market had to include more than just iPhones.
Right, but other antitrust measures (eg. DMA/DSA) haven't been about monopoly power. Europe's measures are industry-wide changes that curtails certain first-party choices. Japan's legislation works the same way. It's entirely feasible to me that this sort of act could gain traction in the US, once the lobbyists are sufficiently exhausted.
It'll be a hard fight for sure, but Epic and Spotify go for low-blows because they know Apple will cede something in the end. Their hostile behavior in France and the Netherlands did not go unnoticed.
I'm not sure what more you're expecting, there's a thread on HN every few weeks with hundreds of people complaining about Apple's tactics. If what you're really asking is why Apple doesn't cave to the pressure, it's because they don't care about people ranting on the internet about their tactics. But there's no shortage of outrage around here, and it doesn't just go away.
At the top level, yes, but there's plenty of opposition within the threads and in lower-rated comments. It's a contentious topic with no clear answers, which is why the Apple threads often turn into huge discussions.
It's also problematic arguing about a tech company on a tech forum where people are either employed at or hold shares in. Even owning an iPhone gives people a vested interest the discussions.
True, but I'm frequently in these threads as an Android user with no Apple shares I'm aware of (probably some baked into some ETFs somewhere, but not that I pay attention to).
My interest in the Apple-is-a-monopoly argument is that it frustrates me that people act like having an iPhone was forced upon them and they should be entitled to having the iPhone the way they want it, when I consciously made the trade-off between customization and great hardware and chose customization.
> All these crazy ideas come from people who don't work in app development, clearly.
Since the dawn of computers, it has always been possible to write and publish software directly from the developer to the consumer. This is the normal state.
Apple has broken this on iOS with their model where they are the sole arbiter, gatekeeper and tax extractor, of every application.
No, they’re not. macOS is a fully-functional Unix environment, and apple has been as welcoming towards Asahi as they can be while staying officially 100% divorced from all activity related to it (Asahi has seen apple do releases with enabling work for the bootloader that had no possible purpose other than enabling third-party OS).
Out of the box it is not. As root I can't read or write files that the permissions say I can, among other problems. It is still possible to disable all this but they make it more and more difficult.
If I were to bet, I'd bet that the roadmap is to eventually make OSX be iOS, where you can't do anything except what apple specifically lets you do.
I don't understand why it is wrong for Apple to profit from the platform they created and maintain. What is there to complain about other than things being expensive? If you create a platform, are you somehow obligated to let people make money off of the platform on their own terms for free?
Apple is not a monopoly. Any competitor can compete with them on price / fees and win if Apple really does not provide enough value to people to justify their prices. I genuinely hope that it happens. I just don't agree with the common heuristic of "hey you have a good thing going there, you shouldn't be allowed to have anything that good!"
Why is Apple not taking 99% of the revenue and takes 30%? Because if they took 99% nobody would develop for their platform. So there is a sweet spot between 99% and 0% where the services and market they provide is good enough that the fee is worth it. Currently it works for everyone as Apple's and developers' business is still booming after all those years. Developers want more, Apple also wants more, everyone wants more, all is natural. Wanting to optimize your gains is natural for everyone. It is not illegal, and should not be.
> I don't understand why it is wrong for Apple to profit from the platform they created and maintain.
Part of it is the double-dipping. Consider why you'd be opposed to Toyota claiming 30% of the revenue of all gas that you buy for your Camry, or why you don't like ads in things you pay for.
> Apple is not a monopoly.
Until they allow third-party app stores and sideloading worldwide, and without any of the malicious compliance like intentionally breaking PWAs along with it, they are.
If the value I get from Toyota is not worth the hassle, I would not buy it under those terms! That is the point. If Toyota is the only car I was allowed to buy, or if Toyota bought out all its competitors, that would be a different issue.
>Until they allow third-party app stores and sideloading worldwide, and without any of the malicious compliance like intentionally breaking PWAs along with it, they are.
How? Do you know what monopoly is? You being upset at how you can use a device you are in no way have to buy and use does not make the brand a monopoly.
One of the problems that plagues phones is that, if apple makes a change everyone else follows.
See it like this: Toyota arbitrarily declares that they'll disable any car without "Toyota" approved 30% taxed fuel. Then all the other car companies immediately copycat, seeing a new way to make money.
This is the case with iPhone and android. They do not have meaningful competition when they can just work together as a pseudo monopoly.
So I create a device, it does not even support 3rd party apps (and does not have to).
People think the device is amazing. They want to be able to create their own applications on it. They ask for support.
I create the SDK for it support it and say "ok, you can if you want to, under my own terms. You need to pay me a fee for the privilege, we both win".
And you say "that is illegal! your device is too good! you have to let me develop and sell apps on it for no additional cost to me!"
is that really your position?
Apple, as a company, can disallow installation of any 3rd party apps on their platform tomorrow, is it not their right? I mean no one is not owed anything by Apple. iOS does not have to legally support 3rd party apps does it?
They are being punished for making it too easy. If they sold overpriced dev kits and demanded 5 figure upfront dev license costs and worked only with select partners for their apps, no one would bat an eye. They make the barrier to entry too low and suddenly everyone is entitled.
And there be the dragons. Thats why antitrust laws exists. Not everything written in a contract is contractual. Given the extensive protections that apple is afforded by law to prevent circumvention of their platform, there must also be some take. He who lives by the sword...
My position is that if you open development to 3rd parties they have to be able to develop for your platform for free. You can charge for the services you provide to the developers (fees if they use your payments platform, your distribution platform, etc), but you should not be able to force them to use such services.
The win-win is that by opening your device to 3rd parties it is made more useful for your users and hence more desirable. Iphones wouldn't be so popular if you couldn't access tiktok, instagram and what not with them after all...
>Apple, as a company, can disallow installation of any 3rd party apps on their platform tomorrow
No, they can't. False advertising, etc. Installing apps is one of the expected/marketed features of an iPhone at purchase time. Apple could be sued into the ground for doing something like that.
It's like saying that an auto manufacturer can advertise their car going 0-60 in 3 seconds, so you buy it, then afterwards they release an OTA update that drops the cars performance to 0-60 in 5 seconds. It's not allowed at all, and if a company does it they owe the consumer.
But because you want to give Apple special treatment, I suppose the logic follows that you would think that this case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor.... was unjust to Microsoft, since it's their platform, they can do whatever the fuck they want, right?
The current situation is that legislation in the EU disagrees with that claim, but a court ruling in the US agrees that defining the market as "iOS app distribution" is too narrow [0]. Until something changes, which definition of the market is accurate depends on your jurisdiction.
But that's not quite the same situation with Apple. It's more like if your Big Mac didn't support being eaten with non-McDonalds-approved Ketchup or Mayo.
But people are not asking Apple to install their apps for them on their own iPhone. People are only asking Apple to stop preventing them from installing apps. After you pay for the iPhone, it is yours, after you leave the physical Apple Store you are not in their store any more.
If McDonalds sent someone to my house with me after I purchase a Big Mac, and tried to stop me when I wanted to put some of my own condiments in it, I would find this creepy and controlling behavior very weird.
Apple is the only place you can buy an iPhone, yes, but you don't have to buy an iPhone. You can buy an Android phone instead (in fact Android has about 2/3 of the market worldwide, which, condiments aside, make the claim that Apple is a "monopoly" pretty dubious).
After I leave the McDonalds "store" with a Big Mac, I can have their food with outside food/drinks. After I leave the Apple Store with an iPhone, I cannot use my phone with outside apps.
Words are just words, though. I have a monopoly on what ice cream I get to put in my freezer, so what?
The legislation really isn't clear enough about this -- if it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion -- and to the extent it was clear in 1930, it's been muddied ever since Reagan.
And sometimes things have nuance! Not everything is black and white.
It is when you’re essentially in a market dominating position, which Apple is.
Imagine if Automotive OEMs (a great example for another industry with questionable tactics) would get a 30% licensing fee for for each independent after market accessory somebody sells for one of their cars.
Because Apple are veeeery good at public perception of their company. Hell, every time they add a new hardware feature, they present it like they invented it (often they haven't) and consumers eat it up.
They've given themselves this image of everything we make just works, is designed perfectly and consumers are happy to accept any and all rules and conditions imposed on them to live in the Apple ecosystem, it's all very Stockholm Syndrome.
Apple could be taking 30% of donations to orphanages or for children with cancer thru an app and fans would be like "well it's expensive to run the app store!1!1" (no, it's really, really not...$173bn profit 2023).
This really sounds like Insight Timer was relying on these tips as a primary form of monetary compensation for their teachers. Which is to say, the existence of the tips means their own subscription fee can be lower because they don't have to pay the teachers as much.
It's worse. They're shifting the economic risk of shitty service off to the worker - even if/when much of the service is beyond the control of the worker.
For example: you deliver food for fictional service Yoter Eats. The customer pays a fixed price for the meal plus surcharges. Yoter Eats and the restaurant are guaranteed to get their cut no matter the quality of the meal, the completeness of the order (ie missing items 'accidentally' left out by the restaurant), how well it was dispatched, how quickly it was prepared, etc.
You, the delivery person? You're the only expense of the transaction that the customer has control over.
You have no recourse if your payment for services is reduced or withheld.
It's even worse: some services don't show how much the "tip" is before you accept the order (because they don't want you to refuse low tip orders) or after the transaction completes, other services take a portion of your "tip" and don't tell you how much they took.
Some services allow customers to "tip bait" - they can set one tip when they order, but then reduce it for no reason, up to hours after the order is delivered.
Exactly, your are making your staff take entrepreneur risks without the benefits. Open a restaurant, get a staff that you pay next to nothing. If you don't get that many customers no prob you are paying most of your staff next to nothing, if it's a great success maybe your customers will pay the staff for you.
Is Instacart's model still where the customer bid with tip is shown to shoppers before they accept a batch, but isn't binding, so customers can claw back their promised tip? (in which case arguably it wasn't a 'bid', but anyway). Can lead to 'tip-baiting'.
I see this said a lot and while I understand the spirit of it, do any of these apps actually call it a bid when it works that way? I don't believe they do
They're still paid a lot less than Apple employees, and considering that they are getting fewer and fewer opportunities for exposure outside of Apple/Google/Facebook ecosystems, it doesn't seem fair that they should be subject to insane taxes by these mega-corps, far more than the government would tax them.
Even consider a tech geek, gets $1M a year from a hot app, 30% goes to Apple, 37% of what's left goes to federal taxes, 13% goes to California taxes, there's hardly anything left, do we even own our money anymore?
And then lose another 10% of what's left to sales tax when you try to actually spend any of it ... god damn.
Plus the sales tax on the hot app to begin with. Plus all the paperwork for all these various fees, cuts, and taxes. Plus all the start up costs. Plus full responsibility for the (relatively high) risk of failure.
What incentives are we setting up for people looking to start new tech businesses? No wonder the average start-up plan these days is 'don't bother with sustainable profits, just make a splash, cross your fingers and hope to "exit" on the back of some VC with more money than sense'.
There is a big difference between public school teachers and guided meditation helpers. There is no benchmark that says guided meditation helpers should be paid on par with apple employees.
Guided meditation helpers are receiving less and less opportunities outside of app stores? What are these shrinking alternative opportunities you talk about?
Likewise, You make it seem that each one of those % values are deducted directly from the $1M/year. Thats not how taxes work.
what? that’s just shy of 32k a month. enough to save for all your retirement, pay a mortgage, support a family, go on holiday, do whatever you want. and if this supposed dev did $999,999 he’d only pay 15%.
hardly anything left? i made less than that at a FAANG and live an amazingly comfortable life.
also, everyone pays sales tax: consume more, pay more. how is earning over $350k in cash a year net a bad place to be? this is insane
Retirement shouldn’t be the grand prize. If you execute well on a good idea, it’s important that you have an opportunity to scale it into a real business.
> what? that’s just shy of 32k a month. enough to save for all your retirement, pay a mortgage, support a family, go on holiday, do whatever you want.
Really? Houses here cost $3M, and since you can't afford that you'll be paying an arm and a leg to rent from a greedy landlord. You'll take 20 years to save up that 3M, by which time you're too old to enjoy life, and houses will cost 8M at that point in time. Good luck if you plan to have kids, that $32k/month won't be enough at all for daycare, schooling, afterschooling, insane medical expenses, fixing all the shit they break, and all that.
And no, taking out a loan to buy a house doesn't mean you can afford a house, it means you're spending money that you don't have. This should NOT be the norm. People should be able to afford basic shit, like a roof.
This tech geek actually COULD have afforded that roof if Apple and the government weren't stealing all of her money.
> and if this supposed dev did $999,999 he’d only pay 15%.
Living a comfortable life on much less income than a million a year, in another western country with way higher taxes and social insurance payments, it feels grotesque to read about these complaints. Comes across as supremely out of touch.
Setting the expectation that people should be able to afford a house with cash to be comfortable is quite a leap. If you’re making 850k/yr (1M/yr minus apples cut) then you are making more than the vast majority of people in the Bay Area. You’d be doing just fine, much better than most people, and could easily, easily, afford a $3M house.
> Setting the expectation that people should be able to afford a house with cash to be comfortable is quite a leap.
I disagree. EVERYONE should be able to afford basic necessities (housing, food, car, clothing, heating, electricity, water, internet, medical care) with cash.
> 850k/yr (1M/yr minus apples cut)
The government steals close to 50% of that 1M. More than 50% if you're self employed. You aren't left with anything close to 850k.
I'd just like to point out that you're talking about the most expensive form of housing in the most expensive pockets of one of the most expensive housing markets in the country, with the highest tax rates. This is not representative, to put it mildly.
I don’t know what world you’re living in, but even if the government “steals” 50% of your 850k you’re not living like any sort of pauper on 425k net. That’s just ridiculous.
Anywhere in the bay area. (Except maybe Oakland, though you probably not live very long if you live there, so I guess you could get away with less retirement savings.)
Unless you want to try to make arguments about places like Atherton, in which case you can't really point to a community of 5,000 people with residents including multiple NBA and NFL players, Eric Schmidt, Ben Horowitz, Robby Krieger of The Doors, Charles Schwab (the one and the same), Lindsay Buckingham of Fleetwood Mac... any more than you can point to Medina in Washington and try to extrapolate that to Seattle.
i hate that people can get a mortgage with as little as 5% upfront at the moment, it's a terrible financial decision
but to say that any mortgage should not be the norm i think is clearly wrong. history doesn't repeat itself, but through the past 100 years, the extra leverage you get from putting, say, 25% down on a 20 year mortgage has made it an amazing investment.
I got a $365k mortgage with 3% down at 3.2% when I made $180k and I had absolutely zero problem paying it.
If I'd done your stupid "wait till you have 20% deposit" thing that some 75year old told you they did 40 years ago to buy their first home - my first home would've been bought 20 years later because with the way the market prices are going up the length of time for me to save 20% vs buying now and reaping the reward of the 2019+ housing market.. And now I'd have at least an 8% APR.
the people i'm talking about earn $60k and this is their only chance to own property. 1 interest rate change, unexpected expense, property market downturn, and they're literally broke.
If I made $180k and didn't have 20% and they required 20% I wouldn't be able to buy a house. That's what I'm saying. There are also people like me, a LOT of us, who buy house we can "afford" (technically speaking) but just doesn't make sense to wait another 5+ years to accumulate the 20% total.
I don't care at all about 20% now that I know PMI is only around $160/mo and can be removed. I wish I'd known that like a decade before I bought my first house, I would've bought WAY earlier.
I thought you HAD to have 20% until I was probabyl nearly 30 and could get anywhere near buying a house.
> Apple took issue with Insight Timer accepting tips for live events and meditations, deciding that this money was for digital content. Plowman did not agree with Apple's assessment, and spent months negotiating. Apple did agree to allow tip links on teacher profile pages that are not subject to a 30 percent fee, but donations from live events and meditations are not considered tips. Apple's reasoning is that a one-to-one donation is a monetary gift, but a workshop or class with at least two people is digital content that's subject to a commission.
It is unquestionably digital content when it's a teacher giving a class and the amount of tipping is so high that it is their primary compensation model.
There's a clip where Steve Jobs talks about how Xerox became run by salesman. The current Apple is not quite there yet, but it's very slowly heading in that direction.
Phil Schiller previously had suggested [1] Apple should lower their cut once the App Store is bringing in $1b of profit a year. That feels pretty reasonable to me, but they're clearly addicted to the huge cashflows that come from taking 30%, and I feel like they'd raise it if the market would bear it. After all, their products and services keep getting better...
This is why I refuse to develop my core product offering on the app store. Native app will always be companion features. Apple has built a shitty machine called the App Store. It's not developer friendly. It's not people friendly. It's a troll under a bridge collecting money.
Its not developer or people friendly? What are you talking about??? They have the most mature dev stack for app development available.
Its the most convenient option for anyone who owns an Apple device by far. Its not even an argument, the number of apps and the income generated from customers says it all.
People want fully featured apps, not companion apps. Your personal feelings on the matter aren't relevant to what a customer wants.
> People want fully featured apps, not companion apps
Not my experience. I rock climb, sail and play pen and paper rpgs. I have a companion app for the second, four for the third (2 I coded myself). The rock climbing is the only one that would need a true app (with geo-localisation and maybe a gmap interface). Idem for my work, I don't care, on my phone, about a full feature github, or even email service.
Just forgot, I also have a tuner, it's a full app but it doesn't need to be (I had one of Firefox OS too, you only had web apps on it).
You code? Then you should know your personal preferences are completely irrelevant. You think 99.999999%+ of apple users care about github or Firefox OS. Why even bring it up? 'I like using these specific apps, so millions upon millions of other users must be identical to me.'.
The initial argument was completely different. This person makes companion apps simply because they don't like Apples business practices. Lovely for him I guess.. for most it makes absolutely no sense financially to ignore your customers needs based on a personal preference. Customer will just use a better, fully featured app thats not bound by the developers inflated ego.
I'm not a customer of any music app. I'm not a customer of any dnd app. I am a user of music companion app, and in my opinion, but i'm clearly in the majority in my area, full feature tuner/music apps are inferior to companion apps for musicians. And it's the same for character sheet helpers for rpgs, we tried using an app a few years ago, it worked well enough, but companion apps are just better in my experience if you play on a table.
Probably because often, companions app have users, not customers?
Again, why do you keep bringing up personal experiences as a benchmark? It’s completely irrelevant. We are talking about a store with 100s of millions of users, you’re just 1. How about checking what apps are the most downloaded for a start to get an idea what people actually want in an app.
Customers, users… just interchangeable terms to mean the same thing. The whole issue is this particular developer does not build fully featured apps with Apple as they would take too much money out of any generated income (if any). So yeah, this is just about money.
What can I say.. That is completely false, 100% false, its not an argument. Infinitely more apps have been developed in Xcode than Jetbrains IDEs and Visual Studio combined. Now and historically.
Anecdotal stories of developers watching WWDC videos for info means something? There are millions upon millions of developers who worked and created apps just fine without referring to WWDC videos.
I think the mobile duopolies would be a lot less bad if there weren't so many compliance moats for cellular infrastructure. For example, I was trying to use the pinephone for a while but ran into unreliability issues with SMS. It turned out that there was a known issue with the firmware for the cell modem in the phone, and maintainers claimed a working fix that they couldn't distribute because of a legal hurdle. A small problem that's likely been fixed by now, but aggregate a bunch of delays like this and it's no wonder there aren't yet strong FOSS alternatives to these big closed platforms yet
It's just Apple protecting their golden goose. If they start making exceptions, then that opens them up to more scrutiny and they have been very adamant about forcing all devs to pay the Apple tax.
Can you imagine having $170 billion in cash reserves and not using it to both cut prices for your customers and engage in gargantuan philanthropic works.
You speak as if Apple, the company that controls those cash reserves, is incapable of using those cash reserves, which is a strange thing to claim. It may not be a slush fund but it is obviously not untouchable.
Yeah but in this case, "maximize profit by charging 30% tax" is what the board (elected by the shareholders) decided to implement. You're free to disagree, but you'll have to start a proxy fight to change the board.
There is so much attention right now at Apple, like we don’t have other real problems. Reminds me of masmedia in Russia, when they show how bad things are in other countries. (I am originally from Russia).
With Apple - I am a user and developer. To be honest, I am pretty happy with App Store from both sides. I mean, there are a LOT of issues. But comparing to other platforms, I can deal with them.
I have more problems:
- with cars that don’t have documentations how to replace anything on them, or install CarPlay after purchase. And we pay for those way more than 1000.
- medical insurance in USA and the whole medical system. Everyone knows all the issues we have here. Forget even about the prices, just the whole system.
- very shitty quality of any home appliances, that become smart and might not do basic features as they used to.
- smart TVs. This is certainly where things need to be fixed. My TV now takes 30 seconds to turn on. Vizio, LG, Samsung, all of them.
- amount of spam, robocallers, text, emails. I want that to be fixed.
- internet and cellular providers in USA. The max upload speeds are still 20mpbs
- streaming services, we cut the cables, but now we pay $100 for hbo, disney, hulu and netflix. And prime just added 2.99 for ad free subscription.
Those are just examples. We know about those issues, but we don’t talk about them, because they are beneficial for other large organizations. But we talk about Apple because some large organizations don’t want to pay other large organization money.
And yes. The title is clickbait. Those aren’t tips, those aren’t teachers.
