> The OS APIs that most apps use are already paid-for by the user when they buy the device.

That argument would assume no cost for upgrades.

I remember having to buy new operating systems.

That said, looking at the state of recent OS upgrades, I think I'd have been happy if the only changes over the last, oh, decade or so, had been purely security updates. But these too are not free.

> Apple wants to double-dip and charge developers for the value that the users already have by virtue of owning their iDevices with all the necessary iOS paraphernalia in them.

Yes, obviously they want to make as much money as possible, and this is at odds with consumer interests.

That said, I have the impression that for many users, the benefit is the app ecosystem, while for many developers the benefit is the users. Endless marketing cycles of new-shiny-API for one, and new-shiny-UI for the other.

That said, power-law distribution, so "the app ecosystem" is probably mostly Meta, Google, Amazon, as specific names, then becoming somewhat vague with "whatever work mandated of Slack or MS teams", "their bank", "three or four supermarkets", and "a taxi firm who may or may not be Uber".

▲

an hour ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

Despegar 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>Yes, obviously they want to make as much money as possible, and this is at odds with consumer interests.

It's not at odds with consumer interests at all. It's at odds with developer interests.

It would actually cost consumers more if Apple couldn't make any money from developers directly because they'd try to make it up by charging more for Apple products.

Developers might prefer to shift the burden to consumers's wallets instead of their own, but overall this model is beneficial for everyone involved. It is also better for the environment because directly making money from developers incentivizes them to support old hardware for as long as possible.

▲

xp84 9 hours ago | parent [-]

> because they'd try to make it up by charging more for Apple products. > Developers might prefer to shift the burden to consumers's wallets

I vigorously disagree with this. It sounds very confused about economics, specifically prices.

Apple, as every market actor does, charges the absolute maximum price the market will bear for their products and not a penny less. They cannot "make up" any money that comes from unrelated parties (such as their Google payola for search, or their casino games for children IAP revenue) by raising product prices. If they could raise their product prices and have that be profit-positive, they would have done it yesterday.

They could raise prices on phones to make up for a hypothetical "free iCloud+," because the same consumers are the other party in both those transactions so presumably many people would see that the more expensive phone justifies free iCloud services.

Apple doesn't set its prices by saying "OK, we need exactly 83 billion dollars in net income this year, so given that our products cost us 233 billion dollars to make and we have 54 billion dollars in expenses, we need 383 billion in revenue, so now let's set prices of each product to target this."

That $83 billion in net income is just the number they are able to make last year with the prices being what the market would bear. Trying to increase prices to hold it there when a downfall in other revenue happens would depress sales.

▲

Despegar 9 hours ago | parent [-]

>Apple, as every market actor does, charges the absolute maximum price the market will bear for their products and not a penny less.

That price is much lower than it otherwise would be if the only revenue Apple could generate came from hardware. The opposite incentive exists today, where it actually benefits Apple to sell cheaper razors to make more money from the razor blades.

	▲	rekoil 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Only if consumers would pay it, which isn’t something we can really know.

▲

noja 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'd like to see Windows 2000 as a base taken by Anthropic and beefed up with security stuff.

▲

21 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

ben_w 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm kinda tempted to do that to classic MacOS. But only kinda, because copyright and trademarks are things, and I don't want to risk incurring the wrath of any legal team, let alone a trillion dollar corporation's legal team.

	▲	idichejcjd 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[flagged]

▲

xp84 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Maybe ReactOS can be a good base for this actually becoming a reality!

	▲	noja 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Woods for the trees- Great idea!