> Apple sells $20-30 billion worth of iPads each year.

> I think they might just survive without your business.

The parent post makes some the argument that the restrictive nature of iOS makes it unappealing to certain users. You counter that with a discussion-ending argument about how much money Apple makes.

Not everything that makes billions of dollars is immune to criticism. Especially since Apple markets the iPad as a "computer", a term that traditionally referred to unrestricted computing devices.

> You counter that with a discussion-ending argument about how much money Apple makes.

The implication is that Apple's design decision favors far more users than it doesn't.

In other words, the same design decisions that cost Apple one HNer nets them general consumers - so Apple can definitely survive without the HNer's business.

That's certainly the implication of their text. It is not a legitimate conclusion. Given the premises "Apple has made a decision X" and "Apple has made billions of dollars since making that decision", you cannot conclude "the decision has made Apple billions of dollars". We cannot accept "All wood burns, therefore all that burns is wood" but "All of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan".

Lots of people disapprove of Facebook's data practices, yet they still run several of the overwhelmingly most popular social networks. Apple could be in a similar position: producing an otherwise excellent product that has a limitation people tolerate.

The fact that Apple makes billions of dollars is not evidence that every single decision of theirs is the best decision for their profitability. In order for their profit to be used against the argument and comfort of a certain Hacker News commentator, we need some evidence that the revenue is because of, not despite (or unaffected by), the decisions that made the random Hacker News commentator unhappy. At best we can conclude that the decision is not such a howler that it's cost them their market viability, but perhaps if they'd made a different decision they could have owned the entire smartphone market in a way that Windows used to own the desktop OS market.

(Another logical fallacy implicit in the argument is that a decision made by a powerful person is more worthy of respect than another decision. I must admit these kinds of reactionary values are extremely far from me, and I am shocked and uncomfortable to find how common they are.)

We to be fair their argument is 100% valid. Apple is very successful in selling their HW as is without the feature certain users want. The reality is that adding that feature would have a great deal of cost behind it for very little growth on their already impressive numbers. Everyone here on HN likes to criticize Apple for not allowing 3rd party stores, but in general wants their HW. This community is self selecting for the tech people so they think this is reasonable. My wife and kid and my friends that are not in tech do not care about 3rd party at all, and when I have asked them the answer is "I buy Apple because it just works and I do not have to think about it. That would add complexity I do not want!" This is Apples market, not HN were this is the norm:

Me: "Great, do not buy an Apple protect." HN: "But I like their HW." Me: "Well then you have to deal with their SW restrictions." HN: "But I do not want to, why cannot they not just do this for me, it's just SW."

Wash, rinse, repeat on every story on AppleHW. I would really love to be able to read the comments on the interesting aspect of the story without 80% of the comments going back to this debate for once.

Apple is NOT a monopoly, therefor you cannot force them to change this. You can buy another device that allows you to install 3rd party stuff. Do that.

>Apple is NOT a monopoly... you can buy another device

They're a monopoly on imessage which most people who own iphones think is just more advanced text messaging. You'll get left out of groups if you do this.

All we want is to be able to run our own binaries, I can't believe this is even controversial especially on a forum full of software developers.

WhatsApp has 2B users vs. 1.6B for Apple. Of the 1.6B for Apple there is a group that would not use iMessage, but any other 3rd party application, like Whatsapp.

The fact that you are left of a chat does not make Apple a monopoly. The people in your group could choose to all switch to the same application, of which most of are closed source. I spent a ton of time in APAC and while each country has different most popular chat apps, the group of us that have spent years working together on and off at different companies all agreed on a common chat app. It's just not hard.

I have a few long term friend groups where a member has an Android and the text is green. No issues sending them text at all. The MMS stuff can be broken but that is not Apples fault.

Your argument is Apple once again the same as everyones else, and appeal to everyone be open because it is your philosophical view of things and it would make your life simpler.

Apple is a for profit company. They are not a monopoly on chat because they choose to offer their users a better experience over the standard SMS (which they supported).

I am frustrated with all the people that miss that distinction. They are a private entity and can do what they way within the outline of the law. You can vote with your pocketbook, or run for office and get the laws changed.

Also, the OSS vs non-OSS comment: you cannot take for granted that everyone here comes down on the side of the GPL 100%. There are a ton of us that work/worked at companies that did priority software because that is what made sense for the business model. We do not write software for free - ie, there has to be a method to pay our bills. I personally have major issues with GPL3 when it comes to creating works for a profit company. No major ones with GPL2, Apache, MIT, etc.

There’s also a monopoly on Slack, Google Docs, Fortnite etc.

In fact by that ridiculous definition everything in life is a monopoly.

This is anti-trust (extreme abuse of the monopoly.)

Slack, Google Docs, and Fortnite don't force you to use their brand of computer to participate in group chats with your friends.

Slack and Google Docs even work on my pinephone.

If Google forced you to buy an Android if you wanted to use Google Docs with whatever group of people you need to work with you'd probably be upset too.

The money is about showing that there is a market for people who do NOT want what this other user finds appealing. Saying "no" is as important as saying "yes" when it comes to adding features to a platform.

I think a broader point is that iPhones will never be the choice of people who want openness, and if the OP had a chance to talk to an Apple engineer, the engineer would probably tell him to use Android because the iPhone isn’t meant for people who need openness, but for those who want to trade freedom for an experience that mostly “just works” as they would say.

Also, Apple knows as much as anyone that terms change over time. Last week the RSA experts were angry that “crypto” now meant “cryptocurrency” instead of the historical “cryptography”.

> Especially since Apple markets the iPad as a "computer"

Do they? I don’t follow their ads closely, but I can’t find the word “computer” on https://www.apple.com/ipad-pro/ (given the 8tneractivity on that page, it still may be there, but I tried looking hard, and couldn’t find it), and they have an explicit ad saying “iPad Pro — Your next computer is not a computer” (https://youtube.com/watch?v=09_QxCcBEyU)

Can you point to that marketing?

If an iPad Pro can be your next computer, it must be a computer.

I think that quote actually emphasises that Apple describes iPads as not really computers... it only works as an ad line if it’s counter intuitive

What's a computer?

1. A device with a screen, a keyboard and some kind of pointing device.

2. A device that can be used for every purpose a computer can be used for.

The Ipad is obviously not 1, so Apple must be claiming it is/will be 2.

The term ‘computer’ has not historically made reference to ‘unrestricted’ in any way, and the early history is rife with examples of restrictive licenses and hardware.

> makes it unappealing to certain users. You counter that with a discussion-ending argument about how much money Apple makes.

For a business that makes it's money from consumer spending habits, I think this is a perfectly valid argument. Apple isn't a utility company or something the users are locked in to. If they decided openness was more important, why are they still buying so many iPhones?

Obviously I don't have exact numbers, but I am absolutely sure the huge majority of people buy iPhone because it is iPhone, and they have zero idea about this whole openness vs security debate. Apple won the market with marketing, not with proving that openness doesn't matter

> Especially since Apple markets the iPad as a "computer"

Except when it's not a computer https://youtu.be/pI-iJcC9JUc (/s)

I think what you mean to say is that their marketing with regards to their security is working. Do you think all of those people with iPads really spend more than 20 seconds investigating the security of iOS?

Source on this please. I'm skeptical that they sell enough iPads to equal half of all clothing sold on the planet, or they have a larger market or 20% of movies or gaming worldwide.

Maybe you don't know what the size of the clothing market is because it isn't $40-60B. If you just look at ecommerce for clothing:

The global fashion ecommerce industry was expected to decline from $531.25 billion in 2019 to $485.62 billion in 2020. The negative compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of -8.59% is largely due to the coronavirus pandemic. However, the market is set to recover and hit $672.71 billion by 2023

The general clothing market is even bigger, obviously:

In 2019, global retail sales of apparel and footwear reached 1.9 trillion U.S. dollars, and were expected to rise to above three trillion U.S. dollars by 2030.

Please don’t ask for sources on things you can easily Google.

It looks like you are trying to discredit the poster or accuse them of dishonesty without adding new information to the thread.

If they are wrong, you can trivially demonstrate that with a link of your own.

Please don’t ask people to do a web search for support for your claims.

For easily verifiable claims, it’s absurd and frankly dishonest to expect people to provide links.

If you want to accuse them of lying or being mistaken, you can provide a link. If their claim is implausible, you can comment on why.

Just asking for a link without adding one of these doesn’t add anything to the conversation except a demand they do work.

This is really low effort to look up from reputable sources if you don’t believe it. Electronics have far higher sales prices than clothing, I can’t even begin to fathom why that is a relevant benchmark.