[labcomputer]

> Apple sells highly profitable devices and makes its apps free, but locks you into a proprietary ecosystem.

Apple does sell a number of software products for high-ish prices: Final Cut Pro (as well as add-ons Motion and Compressor) and Logic Pro are paid-for software.

But the another thing (which is fascinating to me, given the audience of HN and the tone of the comments here) is that part of the purpose of the ecosystem lock-in is to get users to pay indy devs for software.

Now, yes, Apple does take a cut. But that aligns them with devs in terms of getting users to open their wallets. The iPad still has no calculator app. But there are plenty of paid ones in the App Store. Apple gets an extra $0.30 and the indy dev gets $0.70 because iPadOS lacks a built-in calculator[1]

I predict that the european experiment will ultimately prove to be a failure for paid apps. If you look at the commentary from users and developers about why they like the changes, the things they like are completely orthogonal, even if they sound the same. Developers like that they won't have to pay the "Apple Tax" because users can side-load. Whereas users like that they don't have to pay developers because they can side-load.

I hope I'm wrong.

[1] Except the one in spotlight.

[musicale]

> Developers like that they won't have to pay the "Apple Tax" because users can side-load. Whereas users like that they don't have to pay developers because they can side-load.

The killer app for jailbreaking/sideloading on Apple's handheld gaming system is ... running unlicensed games?

So basically similar to jailbreaking/sideloading on Nintendo's handheld gaming system?

Perhaps one difference may be that popular iPhone games are "free to play" with intrusive microtransactions, while Nintendo games (especially first party) cost more up front but avoid microtransactions. Also iPhone games tend to be "live service" while many Nintendo games can be played offline (or on a LAN for games like Mario Kart or Smash.)

iPhone game developers may be able to leverage online DRM schemes in "live service" games to block unauthorized players of sideloaded games.

[aleph_minus_one]

> But the another thing (which is fascinating to me, given the audience of HN and the tone of the comments here) is that part of the purpose of the ecosystem lock-in is to get users to pay indy devs for software.

The group of indie devs is not a homogeneous group. For example, there exist "hacker-type" indie devs who love to write software that subverts Apple's rules and/or adds functionalities that Apple does not like or restricts.

[labcomputer]

Yes, and they are quite vocal and not afraid to shout down the other type nor to use the downvote button. Unfortunately I'm afraid their shenanigans will undermine the market and ecosystem of those who would like to make a living from writing quality software.

C'est la vie.

Part of the problem (I believe) is people who want to have their cake and eat it too. If that worked in real life, the government could simply pass a law that cake shall cost $0 and no-one would go hungry ever again. Apple's ecosystem imposes restrictions on developers, but also brings benefits. Sometimes in real life you have to take the bad with the good.

[eviks]

The calculator example doesn't explain anything since iphone has a calculator, Mac has one, and there are also free calculator apps, so how is the alignment driving open wallets?

[squigz]

I'm sorry, but if "supporting indie devs" means "having to pay for basic computer functionality like a calculator" I don't care about supporting them.