[smoldesu]

> Other than cultivating a base of iOS users spending 7x more than Android users on apps[1].

Those iOS users certainly aren't spending 7x more on AppleTV and iTunes albums. It's because of third-parties that Apple can convince users to spend money in the first place.

> That sounds like significant value to me and not dissimilar to what the console manufacturers pitch to developers.

If console manufacturers had the hardware margins Apple did, they wouldn't be console manufacturers anymore.

[matwood]

Cool, so all the 3rd parties can move to Android and the affluent users will follow. Oh wait.

The problem is assuming that either party is the one providing all the value. Of course the app developers are providing value, but so is Apple.

> If console manufacturers had the hardware margins Apple did, they wouldn't be console manufacturers anymore.

Margins are irrelevant in this discussion.

[madeofpalk]

I mean, if all the third party app developers did stop developing for iOS, I would imagine a significant amount would move to Android.

[akaralar]

Right, but looked from the other angle, if Apple didn’t provide an easy enough experience for developing apps, less 3rd party developers would develop and they wouldn’t have access to a luxurious market. It’s a two way relationship, these things don’t exist in a vacuum.

[smoldesu]

If Apple didn't provide an easy experience for developing software, nobody would want to buy an iPhone. That's why the web browser portion was essential from the start - Apple needs third-parties in order to sell their hardware.

[akaralar]

that’s not entirely true. there was no 3rd party software in the first year and people still bought it. On another note they managed to create a luxurious market although the other platform also allows 3rd party apps. What I’m trying to say is, yeah it’s undeniable that 3rd party devs bring something on the table, but so does Apple

[smoldesu]

There absolutely was third-party content and software on iPhone, at launch. The web browser was one of the biggest selling-points when it was announced, alongside the phone and music-player functionality.

> On another note they managed to create a luxurious market although the other platform also allows 3rd party apps.

Many proven monopolies seemingly "improve" their user experience to get users to defend it. Famously, Bell Telephones had imposed a severely-limiting monopoly on phone hardware, but made long-distance calling free as a consolation to users. Bell's new "luxurious market" didn't excuse their prior market abuses, though.

> it’s undeniable that 3rd party devs bring something on the table, but so does Apple

I'm trying to say the opposite. If Apple was providing first-class support to any of their hardware-products, then they wouldn't need to impose anticompetitive limitations on third-parties. What Apple brings to the table is deliberately gimped to manipulate software margins and reduce user choice as a consequence. Third party devs are the only ones bringing things to the table; Apple is charging them for the privilege.

Again - if you want to test this, ask around and see how many people would buy an iPhone with just first-party content. Nobody would, and the clear and eminent reason is that Apple does not provide a superior experience by removing user choice.