Re: Hardware Lockin and Appstore taxes
@"This would be hard to get a study on, but anecdotally, I think prices have come down quite a lot."
I disagree, only hardware prices have come down and trying to include software that is part of a different purchase as being in someway part of the same market as FOSS is disengenious. FOSS is seperate from "free apps" that are provided with hardware or part of another purchase because FOSS doesn't charge at all even if you dont buy anything. It is like the old joke about going to a store and taking the "free" item from a 3 for 2 offer, same for "bugfixes" being charged. Microsoft managed to keep selling "upgraded" versions of their software that contained significant chunks of code that users has already purchased. I was referring to general cost of software when sold by big business where they use the same model as the music and movie industry and charge the max the market will bear. That they then use the massive profits to buy out or crush those not using the big business model means that prices have continued to increase even when most of their products contain nothing new at all.
@"Well, they're usually not distributing direct to the customer. Also, I think prices have come down. For example, you can watch a lot of movies on a streaming service for a price which would have gotten a small number of rentals, and rentals for a short period. Whether that's the way you choose to spend your movie budget is another story, but it is a price and it is lower."
Disneyplus (movie productor) is an example of the way things are going, so whilst you say things are cheaper I say compared with say DVD the reality is that the majority of content on streamed services would have been sold as a DVD at a fraction of the cost for new releases. In effect charging the majority of the customers for access to content they have already purchased in one form or another thus overall old movies are padding to justify the cost for access to newer movies.
@"Doesn't matter to me. I don't need to be rewarded for my loyalty. If I still want the product, I will still buy it. " again you are confusing the actual situation for most purchases, by not recognised why you want the product even though you have seen and purchased it all before. With all these markets people purchase based upon marketting methods like showing select content from the product to suggest that it is better than it typically is in it's entirety and you purchased based upon what they have allowed you to see of the product. I mentioned shareware in my original post because when it started you got the full software missing only items that were a fair extension of the same theme. In effect you got to use the product before buying and decide if it was actually worth what they wanted to charge, this has give way to movie marketting where you often purchase something based upon lies.
@"Apple do not need money to pay for their production. They get that from sales. The product concerned is not theirs. It is Epic's, and the value to the customer comes from what Epic provides those who choose to pay. Also, they don't demand that Apple gives them more money on their transactions, since they're more than willing to use their own transaction system and relieve Apple both of the commission and the required labor in managing the transaction."
OFC Apple need money to pay for production either shifting internal funds or via borrowing. The later costs more and is related to how the lender sees Apple's potential to return the loan. EPIC also have the same model but since they do not have to maintain a hardware platform as well then EPIC get charged to sell to the customers who purchased from apple the apple system.
Do you believe that Apple are incapable of producing a game like fortnite? given that the vast majority of this game is not original then Apple could do just as EPIC have and knock up their own version and sell it on their market. That they do not is simply because it is cheaper to let a third party pay them for access to their market than take the risk of producting th econtent themselves. In the same way EPIC have enough money to make their own hardware and market but do not wish to take the risk when they can just sell software and keep what profits come from that.
Like I said originally Apple have done much for hardware developement and that cost money, if you are saying that previous innovation, that has already returned an ample profit paid for should not be allowed to dictate control of a market then I would agree with you but that is not what I am see here or in law. I am seeing people blindly opposed to Apple, some because of true past expereince but I would suggest a significant percentage doing so because they are paid to in one form or another.
So unless patents and copywrite become limited to a "fair profit" then it comes down to who you want to see profitting the most. I have paid EPIC for their products in the past, I would not pay apple for theirs but in terms of honesty and fair play EPIC IMHO are the bad guys here. They agreed to do one thing and did the opposite, all the bad stuff you can say about Apple did not stop EPIC signing their contract with them so either Apple have changed the contract or EPIC signed up in order to cheat Apple out of their agreed share. Using politics and spreading lies about your business partner should not be promoted in business unless you want chaos and the associated additional costs to doing business, that is what EPIC chose to do without regard for the impact it would have on their customers and partners.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
