[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.

[strogonoff]

> No change, no innovation.

I observe such statements being repeated, uncreatively and without any factual support, with my arguments against them conspicuously left unaddressed. In fact, my very first comment in this thread listed how Apple keeps innovating and leading change in multiple industries. Present specific evidence that would refute that.

> As for your claim that a hammer manufacturer's "pay us for every nail" model

This was never a claim I made; in fact, this “pay us for very nail” model was never once mentioned by me and in all likelihood is a hallucination of whatever chatbot is spewing this.

[ImPostingOnHN]

>> [apple's "pay us for every dollar you make" payment extortion model] ... No change, no innovation.

> In fact, my very first comment in this thread listed how Apple keeps innovating and leading change in multiple industries.

That may be so, but their "pay us for every dollar" model isn't innovative, and that's what we're talking about here. All the other innovation is unrelated to that. All the other innovation can be done without that. You seem to be confusing one thing Apple does (the "pay us for every dollar" model) with everything else they do. This point was covered in the post you replied to, but you seem to have not only ignored it, but selectively quoted me so as to make it easier for you to ignore it.

>> 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]

> This was never a claim I made

Sure it was. This entire thread is comparing apple's "pay us for every dollar" model with a hypothetical "pay us for every nail hammered" model. Your contribution was claiming that the metaphor was inapt (a claim unconvincing to multiple people).

It sounds like you're now saying you agree with the metaphor that we've all been discussing, rather than disagree? Either way, I think no more meta-arguing 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.

p.s.: please stop omitting critical context from quotes to make your point: Your "no change, no innovation" quote creatively omitted that it was referring to apple's "pay us for every dollar" business model for app store payments; your quote regarding the metaphor omitted the second half of the metaphor whose invalidity was your central claim. For your convenience, in this post I've added back the critical omitted context.