Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple vs. the "Free Market"

pluralistic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–169 of 169 posts

Re: Apple vs. the "Free Market"

#161

Post by n4r9 »

philistine wrote: post #139
n4r9 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple rolling over its sleep and squashing Patreon isn't 'enshittification', it's just textbook monopoly abuse. Isn't it both? Enshittification is a form of monopoly abuse in my mind. Also note that you're arguing against the person who coined the term "enshittification".

Enshittification does not require a monopoly; merely captive consumers. You can enshittify cereal boxes, even though you don't have a monopoly.

True. I guess it's more accurate to say that enshittification is not mutually exclusive from monopolisation. But if anything becomes easier with a monopoly.

Re: Apple vs. the "Free Market"

#163

Post by fundad »

rchaud wrote: post #81
areoform wrote: post #39

> Tumblr still remains heavily moderated and heavily censored. Why? Because Apple kept kicking Tumblr out of the App Store on the basis that it contained sexual material, and without Apple users, Tumblr was dead in the water > Apple claims this is merely a matter of "editorial standards," no different from a bookstore deciding not to shelve pornography. The difference is that in this case, Apple can block you from pa…

While the examples are all valid, the restrictions don't apply on mobile Safari. Why do corporations and devs continue to accept a share cropper role by paying Apple to host native apps? FirefoxOS had the right idea, make the browser the principal gateway for applications. It was a decade ahead of its time, but the mobile web is now at a level where native apps aren't needed for the most part.

This PR campaign from Patreon is meant to inform patrons that their own website offers lower rates than through the Patreon App, if the creator so chooses.

If Patreon doesn't see the value in distributing through the App Store, it's smart to get as much exposure as possible on the way out the door.

Re: Apple vs. the "Free Market"

#164

Post by tines »

brigadier132 wrote: post #29
tines wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Apple users are not purchasable in the same way that Google or Meta users are by advertisers. You might have missed the memo but Apple is one of the largest advertising companies in the world. Also, when Google pays Apple $20 billion a year to be the default search engine, what do you think they are paying for?

Apple's revenue from advertising is tiny compared to its revenue from other sources, while Google's revenue from other sources is tiny compared to its revenue for advertising.

Re: Apple vs. the "Free Market"

#165

Post by tines »

brigadier132 wrote: post #33
taeric wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not purchasable; but they are revenue generating for Apple, specifically. So, it isn't that off?

They are explicitly purchasable. What do you think advertising on the App store is? What do you think Google paying $20 billion to be the default search engine is?

The App store isn't an intellectual treadmill the way Youtube, for example, is. How much time have you actually spent browsing your platform's App store? Compare that to the time people spend hooked on Youtube, Tiktok, Reddit, Instagram, Facebook, etc. Apple isn't an ad company in the same way these other companies are, you're kidding yourself if you think they're the same.

Apple's revenue in 2023 was 383 billion dollars. Ad revenue was, from what I can tell... 9 billion. Let's add the 20 from Google on top of that, so 29 billion is 7% of their revenue for 2023.

Compare that to Meta. 134 billion in 2023. Ad revenue? 131 billion.

The difference is comical.

Re: Apple vs. the "Free Market"

#166

Post by tines »

brigadier132 wrote: post #63
haswell wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Apple’s product is its users, who are its customers? > All of the privacy changes are not to protect the privacy of their users… This is reductionist, and multiple things can be true at the same time. There’s no doubt that Apple has realized privacy is a competitive advantage, and as a customer, it’s one of the reasons I give them money. Even if you could lay bare the deepest desires and true motives of everyone i…

> If Apple’s product is its users, who are its customers? Anyone trying to sell something to an Apple user. And you are right that I'm being reductionist, Apple clearly makes significant profit from the devices themselves, but that revenue is not growing. The revenue that is growing is "services", "app store", and "advertising" revenue. Apple's $20 billion a year deal with Google to be the default search engine accou…

> Apple's $20 billion a year deal with Google to be the default search engine accounts for at least 10% of its entire market capitalization.

Huh? Apple's market capitalization is $3.44 trillion as of today, and the unit of market cap is not dollars per year, so you're conflating categories here.

If you mean yearly revenue, $20 billion is 5% of Apple's 2023 revenue. Compare that to Meta, where ad revenue is like, 98% of their ~$135 billion revenue in 2023. These are different categories of companies, no matter how you slice it. You're fighting the wrong enemy here.

Re: Apple vs. the "Free Market"

#167

Post by talldayo »

paulmd wrote: post #157
talldayo wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is, this "need" for big platforms is entirely a matter of faith. It's like your "need" for supernatural bed-time stories that explain human suffering and make you feel cozy; they're just tall tales. You're taking this practice entirely on their word, your "proof" that this system works is a backwards understanding of determinism. The only realistic, grounded worldview is to conclude that we don't need fairyta…

> Problem is, this "need" for big platforms is entirely a matter of faith. It's like your "need" for supernatural bed-time stories that explain human suffering and make you feel cozy; they're just tall tales. You're taking this practice entirely on their word, your "proof" that this system works is a backwards understanding of determinism. The only realistic, grounded worldview is to conclude that we don't need fairy…

> Oh, so, how is it going with getting hdmi 2.1 support upstreamed into the kernel tree these days?

About as lousy as getting Vulkan upstreamed into MacOS, for much the same reason. Corporate interests and licensing feuds regularly supersede what the community would prefer, or even is capable of making for themselves. Big platforms will gladly reject a free solution if it means they lose out on licensing costs; just look at iOS and the way Apple rejects common-sense standardization so they can eke-out the last vestiges of cash from their victims.

If HDMI® Licensing Administrator, Inc. let AMD provide a free interface to their IP, how could they strongarm Apple and Microsoft into paying for a license to their kingdom? Is this colloquial "big platform" protecting consumer interests now?

Re: Apple vs. the "Free Market"

#168

Post by brookst »

tiltowait wrote: post #27
TheCoelacanth wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patreon's fees are reasonable for what it provides. Apple's aren't.

My, how the times have changed. When the App Store launched, people praised Apple for its low commission rate.

Remember when authors of boxed software were lucky to get 20% net of sales? I do.
Post reply on HN