[ImPostingOnHN]

> If you want to live in a world where the pinnacle of innovation is another hammer, be my guest

I'm less interested in a future where hammer manufacturers charge rent for every nail the user drives. I don't consider that "innovation" to be good for humankind.

[strogonoff]

You are free to abandon iPhones and live under a rock. Just, please:

0) don’t speak for all humankind,

1) when there is no extractive behavior—defined as taking a fee without producing even remotely proportionate value in return—do not misuse the word “rent” (as I said: landlords don’t innovate), and

2) when innovation is actually innovation, don’t put it in quotes.

Unless your hammer comes with a team of security engineers that work round the clock pushing security updates against zero-day vulnerabilities, or a selection of millions of expansions that expand its functionality in various ways, etc., no amount of mental gymnastics would make your hammer anything like a supercomputer that fits in the palm of your hand. The analogy you decided to repeat works against you; the fact that such a supercomputer costs only 20x more than a really good hammer costs today is amazing.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> You are free to abandon iPhones and live under a rock.

This seems like a disingenuous and fallacious response. Would you like to try replying in a more good faith manner? It might convince others to keep reading, rather than stopping at the first sentence.

It certainly did not seem to convince anyone that a hammer manufacturer which charges rent for every nail the user drives (in addition to charging for the hammer) is better than a regular hammer pricing model, and I still don't consider that rent-seeking "innovation" to be good for humankind.

[strogonoff]

Even though I pointed out that hammer is not a suitable metaphor (I think “disingenuous” and “fallacious” is fitting) and explained in detail why you are incorrect, you keep using that metaphor, do not address any of my points specifically, and then you call my response not “good faith”.

I am the one trying to maintain a constructive argument here. It is not coincidental that people upholding the other side very rarely do.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> I pointed out that hammer is not a suitable metaphor...

Your claim that a hammer manufacturer's "pay us for every nail" model is not a suitable metaphor for the apple's "pay us for every dollar" payment processing model, was respectfully communicated (thank you for that) and heard. The case you made for that claim, was not persuasive enough to convince the people who think it is. I think no more meta-arguing (or meta-insisting) need be done regarding whether a metaphor is perfect or not: I will be the first to admit that none are (because comparing a thing to itself is useless), but some are illustrative.

To wit, this metaphor illustrates that the world would be a better place without apple asking to be paid for every dollar accepted in-app which is distributed in the app store, just like the world would be a better place without a hammer manufacturer asking to be paid for every nail driven by the hammer.

Maybe one might think otherwise if apple showed data that explained how their 27-30% cut of others' sales was necessary to allow payments? We understand that making 2 hammers costs ~2x as much as making 1 hammer, but does allowing an app to accept $2 cost ~2x as much as allowing an app to accept $1? What is the magnitude of that cost? Remember that compensation for distribution (which covers the costs of running the app store, and need not be correlated with in-app payments) can happen separately.

[strogonoff]

> Your claim that a hammer manufacturer's "pay us for every nail" model is not a suitable metaphor for the apple's "pay us for every dollar" payment

Great job at goalpost moving (and putting words in my mouth).

No amount of mental gymnastics will turn your hammer into a sophisticated device that gains new features after you buy it, so powerful that it can be used by ill-intentioned people to compromise entire livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of customers if it’s not patched in a timely manner after they bought it. All of them expect this ongoing service, and many of them do not pay a cent for it, never using any paid apps or in-app purchases.

However, I’m repeating myself.

TL;DR: The reason your business model works for a hammer is because it is a damn hammer. Come back with a better analogy, reply to my points in the comment upthread, and start finally making sense—or, to quote the comment whom you are so hell-bent on defending, “get outta here”. The overhwelming majority of people worldwide use Android; go join their ranks and be happy.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> No amount of mental gymnastics will turn your hammer into a sophisticated device that gains new features after you buy it

No amount of mental gymnastics will turn apple's "pay us for every dollar you make" payment extortion model into an innovation good for humankind, nor will it make that model any more innovative. It's simply a vig, one of the oldest business models in history. No change, no innovation. Same ol' "give us a cut of everything you make [or else]" that it's always been. The extortion model is not necessary for the app store, it's not necessary for devices, it's not necessary for security, it's not necessary for anything except making more profits. Apple could start demanding 1% of every dollar spent in an app, instead of 27-30%, and still continue providing the same service. Your deafening silence on the topic of their actual incurred costs speaks volumes here: One would be forgiven for concluding that you agree with me, that it has no justification to speak of, other than greed and might-makes-right.

As for your claim that a hammer manufacturer's "pay us for every nail" model is not a suitable metaphor for the apple's "pay us for every dollar" payment processing model: It was respectfully communicated (thank you for that) and heard. Unfortunately, the case you made for that claim was not persuasive enough. You could try to come back and make a better case, but I think no more meta-arguing (or meta-insisting) need be done regarding whether a metaphor is perfect or not: I will be the first to admit that none are (because comparing a thing to itself is useless), but some are illustrative.

To wit, this metaphor illustrates that the world would be a better place without apple asking to be paid for every dollar accepted in-app which is distributed in the app store, just like the world would be a better place without a hammer manufacturer asking to be paid for every nail driven by the hammer.

Maybe one might think otherwise if apple showed data that explained how their 27-30% cut of others' sales was necessary to allow payments? We understand that making 2 hammers costs ~2x as much as making 1 hammer, but does allowing an app to accept $2 cost ~2x as much as allowing an app to accept $1? ---> What is the magnitude of that cost? <--- Remember that compensation for distribution (which covers the costs of running the app store, and need not be correlated with in-app payments) can happen separately.