> If a user almost exclusively uses the Patreon ios app to consume the artist’s content and likes to live inside the ios ecosystem for frictionless payments using the card on file/privacy/UX/whatever, then I feel apple should get to set the terms of engagement.

When I paid over $1000 to buy an iPhone I thought I was buying a technological product that I could use to improve my life.

I didn’t realize I was buying a ticket to Disneyland where the seller of the product decided how I interacted with everything the device enabled.

I don’t think this should be disallowed. I certainly think it’s incredibly false marketing for Apple to claim I bought an iphone, when in reality I paid upfront for essentially AOL.

▲

Zak an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> I didn’t realize I was buying a ticket to Disneyland where the seller of the product decided how I interacted with everything the device enabled.

If you're the sort of person who posts on HN and you bought an iPhone after they hit the $1000 price point, you probably did know that.

It surprises me a little that so many people who do know still make that choice.

	▲	Matl an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I think the point OP is making is not that they actually didn't know, but that they shouldn't have to know for that price.

▲

gyulai 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I certainly think it’s incredibly false marketing for Apple to claim I bought an iphone, when in reality I paid upfront for essentially AOL.

I wonder if that has ever been tried against Apple or a similar company in a court of law, because I think there might be real merit there. One would have to get a bunch of people together claiming a refund on the purchase price on the grounds that ownership hasn't been transferred and therefore Apple is in breach of contract in relation to the contract for sale of an iPhone. Then those people would have to bring a class action, and the case would revolve around the concept of "ownership". Because "ownership", to a first approximation, means the legal right to do with some piece of property essentially as you please, and Apple is clearly basing much of their business on the assumption that users do not have those rights and is taking positive action to prevent users from exercising such rights.

I don't know much about the law in the rest of the world, except Germany, but in Germany that would certainly be the case, and there is a surprising amount of case law revolving around such things as horses or other animals being sold, and the former owner then trying to restrict the new owner in exercising their ownership rights, which generally end with ownership rights being upheld by courts.

▲

Teever 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I’ve been thinking for a while now that a really effective way to deal with problem companies would be coordinate a mass action on small claims closets around the world all on the same day.

Often in small claims court you win by default if the other person doesn’t show up and I’m sure judges know average will sympathize with the kinds of arguments that you raised above.

▲

gyulai 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't know. We don't have any such thing as small claims court in Germany, but my expectation would be that judges in low-level courts will try their very best not to get noticed for setting any kind of precedent whatsoever. The only thing that's going to happen if you rule against Apple in a low-level court is that they will go into revision, and carrying a high probability that the higher-level judge will overturn the decision and make the lower-level judge look bad in the process.

Also, any kind of effort to annoy someone by bringing coordinated actions in lots of venues all at the same time is probably abuse of process.

	▲	fauigerzigerk 28 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		>but my expectation would be that judges in low-level courts will try their very best not to get noticed for setting any kind of precedent whatsoever. Is there even such a thing as precedent in the German legal system?
	▲	silon42 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I think a fair coordination would be for someone somewhere to complain about this every single day (1/country).
	▲	Teever 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The idea isn't just to use small claims courts, but to use whatever first level legal venue to seek redress you can find in your area. That might mean small claims courts, or consumer protection bureaus, or binding arbitration. Whatever it is the idea is to coordinate with others to do so in a way that strains the resources of the organization you're fighting against and is in venues that are sympathetic to consumers and are able to make clear judgements with little chance for the opposing side to appeal. The goal of this isn't to annoy someone, the goal is to seek compensation for their unacceptable behavior and raise awareness of it so that others may do so as well. With the mindboggling assymetry in resources between a single individual and an entity like Apple or Google it only makes sense for people to team up and coordinate against them.

▲

patja 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Is this sarcasm? Apple pretty much invented the walled garden of personal computing.