The problem I have with that argument, though, is that I already gave Apple $630 for my iPad, specifically because I can read Kindle books on it. I'd really like to be able to continue reading my Kindle books on it, and I really don't give a damn if Apple thinks they're somehow entitled to a cut of Amazon's sales for that.

Yes, Apple does bear the cost of maintaining the app store, but my sympathy for them on that point is rather limited considering that they're the ones who insist everything must go through the app store.

I can see both sides of the argument, but I still think Apple is being unreasonable. Really, I think this is the same as network neutrality -- just because Apple provides a platform doesn't mean they're entitled to a cut of every sale on it any more than it means Time Warner is entitled to a cut of Apple's sales every time I rent a movie through the iTunes store. Apple already got my money off the hardware (not to mention the other apps I've bought) and Time Warner's already getting my monthly subscription fees.

Now, if you want to argue that 30% is reasonable if Apple is doing the content hosting and other stuff, sure. 30% just to process a convenient payment? No fucking way.

Except Apple didn't build Netflix any more than HP, Dell or LG did, all of whom provide devices you can use for Netflix.

Why doesn't Firefox get to charge 30%? A big chunk of people probably get to Netflix via it.

So we'll let the market decide which approach provides better value and a better user experience. Sounds like we've all got options, so what's the problem?

Because Apple's terms are distinctly anti-market. Apple is forcing vendors that sell content on their platform to incur a 30% overhead, and then forcing them to maintain the same pricing across all platforms.

So you have an overhead that doesn't exist on other platforms artificially introducing pricing inefficiencies elsewhere. Just the tip of the iceberg, really.

I've got one problem, but I haven't really figured out how it fits in exactly.

Assuming a lot of things in how this plays out, I don't find it terribly unlikely that some subscription services will have to raise their rates to maintain a profit. Maybe not a big problem for iOS users, since they get the benefit of using the app store for purchases.

What about non-iOS users? I subscribe to Netflix, but I don't use any apple products to access that subscription. According to Apple's rules, Netflix can't have the subscription available at different prices, and so my price goes up because of Apple's policy.

There may be some ways around this, like Netflix offering two plans - one that includes iOS use, one that doesn't - without hiking the latter. But they might not.

I haven't yet worked out what the "fairness" of this all is. As a consumer, I certainly don't feel that I am entitled to never having price hikes, and I realize at the same time that some of the money from products I pay for is used to support products that I don't pay for. But this feels wrong to me - maybe it's just the directness of it. Apple says "pay more" and even people who don't buy Apple products have to pay more.

The problem is Netflix can't offer their content to Apple customers at $13, and everyone else $10. Apple using their position to remove those options you say consumers have.

Sure they can: Charge $13 for Netflix with iOS streaming, or $10 for Netflix with no iOS streaming.

I'm almost sure this kind of trick won't help your app get validated.

The problem is that YOU're going to end up paying an additional 30% of the price. Don't be fooled...those companies at the other end of the subscription will pass that 30% straight to you.....

Is that hard? I mean, yes, it took tons of manhours and billions of dollars, but the "fucking science fiction" they made is pretty much par for the course these days. You can say it is a "superior user experience" and stuff like that, but c'mon. That is how tech advances. If I wanted, it would be quite trivial to get something delivered to someone anywhere without anything made by Apple.

I'd amazed by how much people support one of the richest companies in the world get richer off the backs of others. After all, it isn't like they are hurting for money.

> I'd amazed by how much people support one of the richest companies in the world get richer off the backs of others.

Apple is getting rich by making extremely good stuff. I support them getting richer because I want them to continue making really good stuff I enjoy using. Because I can't trust any other company in the world to do that hard work.

Let me show you something:

2001:

http://www.wired.com/gadgets/miscellaneous/news/2001/10/4754...

2007:

http://www.palminfocenter.com/news/9414/palm-treo-755p-revie...

One month later:

http://ipod.about.com/od/iphoneproductreviews/fr/iphone_revi...

Fucking science fiction. Consumer wireless devices were dull, stodgy things until Apple came in and said "fuck you, this sucks" and did it better. Innovation was putting an ugly resistive color screen into the clunky enclosures from six years earlier. Spicy.

2003:

http://www.tabletpc2.com/Acer.htm (Owned one of these)

2010:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2904

Three months later:

http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/

Hey, that looks familiar, where have I seen that before? Oh, right, in science fiction.

http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/PADD

I am just missing the connection between "making good products you like" to "making it cool to have all the money in the world". You paid for the device. Apple was (more than) suitably compensated. It should end there.

I personally think Netflix/Amazon/Spotify are doing science fiction too (every movie and song ever made, at your fingertips in a second!) and I would like them to survive too.

My question to you; is consuming content in a device that is not "dull, stodgy" worth 30% overcharge for life?

It is to me.

But then again, I buy a MacBook Pro instead of a junky plastic laptop. I'll pay a premium for quality, so will another chunk of the market and everyone else can fight over the Wal-Mart segment.