I think many will interpret this as sarcasm, but it’s actually spot-on. If you watch Apple’s history, they’re strongly opinionated and they always do what they believe is best for users, regardless of what developers or critics think.

This usually works out well. I think the one big conflict is that Apple is also very diligent about it’s profit margins, and while this usually doesn’t conflict with “what’s best for the user,” where Apple gets in trouble is when it does.

One prominent example: there’s really no reason to think that the 5GB of free iCloud storage is sufficient anymore. Maintaining cloud storage isn’t free, so I understand why they don’t want to offer more than a “free trial” so to speak, but I would guess this hurts a lot of users who have a degraded user experience on their phone because they don’t have enough storage for iCloud backups, for example. It would make more sense to me if they would offer something like “system backups don’t count against your storage cap” and then include two years of iCloud 50GB with the purchase of the phone. That conflicts with the profit margins, though, so the 5GB teaser stays around.

I think it's part of an onboarding strategy, because remember that the next tier is $1/mo., or $12 a year. Peanuts. It could easily be rolled into the purchase price of the device for a year or two. Apple TV+ which come with a year free with purchasing an iPhone would be $60 a year, or 5 years of iCloud 50GB.

However, by charging peanuts, you got the user into a subscription, which is the important bit. A person in a subscription who jumped the hurdle of not paying vs paying a little is much more likely to upgrade later.

It also plays into a Steve Jobs strategy, for better or worse. Many people don't hear about this, but Steve Jobs had a view that people don't value things that are free. He made the Cafe at Apple HQ subsidized but require payment, not that Apple couldn't afford it, but because he knew people wouldn't respect free food. This view of Apple's, that people don't value things they didn't pay for, seems to permeate many of their business decisions.

Yes, I think you’re exactly right. Overall it’s a good business strategy. I just personally think that in this case, it’s an example of “what’s best for profit margins” conflicting with “the best user experience for most users,” and the awkward place they’ve landed today is how they’ve split that difference.

> This view of Apple's, that people don't value things they didn't pay for, seems to permeate many of their business decisions.

This would explain why their users are so quick to defend the 30% cut, with sunken cost taken into account.

Accident, yeah

Can anyone else name an industry where this would be allowed?

Imagine if John Deere decided to switch all of their tractors to a proprietary gasoline formula, and said "We're doing what we want, so get on board if you're interested".

They would be sued before the sun went down.

Except here's the twist: Imagine if John Deere made their tractors from day one with the proprietary gasoline formula. And that people liked their tractors from day one and grew them into the behemoth they are today despite the formula.

That's more like what the current situation is.

John Deer tractors are locked down... just go talk to a real farmer and see what he says.

John Deere unfortunately does do this. To the court's credit, at least they keep losing right to repair lawsuits. To law enforcement's discredit, they don't change the behavior and suffer no punishment.

A better analogy would be if Deere required a new fuel formulation that all the industry players had access to but no one else had sufficient clout/“courage” to use.

Do Apple devices use special Apple Electricity? No? Then your analogy is nonsensical, as analogies always are.