undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdkonofalski4y ago0 comments

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Apple is providing value to developers through access to its userbase, curation of a store, hosting, update services, localization, and reviews. Apple's users have already paid for their hardware so they already provide Apple some value. If developers want to have those customers, then they need to provide some additional value to Apple.

In other words, yes... they absolutely can have it both ways. I'm not saying that developers don't also provide Apple with some kind of value but that value, for most developers, is not enough to justify giving the other services Apple is providing as part of its ecosystem to them for free.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

danShumway4y ago· 1 in thread

Possibly talking past each other then.

My statement was not that Netflix is providing Apple with value (I apologize if it came off that way), it's that Apple's customers are providing Apple with value by being a product that they sell to Netflix.

When Apple says that it provides a service that is "access to its userbase", that is Apple selling their customers as a product to another company.

When I talk about Apple trying to "have it both ways", what I refer to is Apple's simultaneous position that:

A) it monetizes customers directly rather than treating them as a product, which gives it a moral leg up over companies like Google/Facebook.

B) its customers are an asset that it is justified in selling access to.

Both of those statements can't be true at the same time, either it's monetizing access to its customer-base or it's not.

dkonofalskiOP4y ago

>Both of those statements can't be true at the same time

Why? Both of those statements can be true but I don't think the only options are the 2 that you're describing.

To me, it's more like the value proposition that Costco offers than it is selling customers as assets. Costco members pay a fee every year to stay on as members. Businesses want to put their products in Costco stores because Costco members spend money more liberally than in normal stores. Whereas Walmart shoppers are always looking for the lowest cost, Costco shoppers tend to shop for higher quality items and are willing to pay for them. Costco is not necessarily selling its customers to these businesses but access to them is limited because Costco sets certain standards for the limited space they have in their warehouses. So, in that sense, when companies are vying for the "access to [their] userbase", doesn't Costco also "have it both ways"?

Both of your statements are true in the case of Costco so why is it somehow impossible for them to be true in Apple's case as well? If the customer's appreciate Apple and Costco serving as gatekeepers (because they trust them to perform that task) then neither Costco or Apple are violating the trust of their users while still keeping that moral leg up.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse