I'm on my third iteration. The last two each got 7-8 years before they no longer received software updates. My 2013 MacBook Pro is running Linux, its reuse saved having to buy a PC laptop for Linux.

For any given scenario, whether Apple does or does not do something, people will bitch about it plenty.

I agree with respect to Mac computers. Hell, 10 year old PCs are pretty capable machines outside of gaming. CPU performance moved beyond what ordinary users needed long ago. But I have not tried using a Vision Pro, and given its 1.0 nature I would no be surprised if it is sluggish at times.

Plus, it's really a development system, a beta test system. So by having developers tune their software for an M2, but consumers actually have an M4, consumers get a better experience. Assuming the M4 is consumer ready. It may well be a second beta for early adopters and a second developer platform.

Makes me think developers. Sure some early adopters too, but they tend to be pretty affluent so I don't care. Me, I'm being cheap here, I'd get one tomorrow if I had a billable project that used one. Until then ... I don't feel like being an early adopter, a beta tester, and paying for the privilege. I'm an old spoiled Apple developer who preferred the days when Apple gave registered developers a discount on hardware.

And with M2 losing economies of scale, and the M4 currently receiving that benefit, we have an unsurprising move from M2 to M4.

I never heard anyone complain the original vision pro was "slow", so why are they adding a faster chip?

Again, you don't have to do anything wrong. They just have to THINK you did and you can be bankrupted.

There is not really much difference in the UI - except for niche Apps like the current Safari, which is close to unusable in my opinion.

When I used iPhones and iPads simultaneously they were more or less the same, never used an iPad with "iPad-OS" ... perhaps I should fool around with one in a mall, haha.

You keep talking about the phone user as the customer. In this context, the *app developer* is the customer.

If Apple's payment system is really so great and convenient, developers will flock to it, because they will want users to be happy, and they'll want users to buy their app, or things sold in their app.

If the app developer thinks customers want to use the Apple payment system, they can chose to use the Apple payment system. That's not a problem. The problem is, they don't get to choose a different payment system with lower fees. If they could choose, Apple might just have to make their fee structure...*competitive*. Wouldn't that be a thing! Then they could win over developers by competing, instead of by dictating.

You *really* don't understand antitrust law, do you!

There is nothing about curating a software collection, that requires bundling payment processing for everything the user does inside the app.

Agreed! Apple shouldn't insist that payment processing can't be separated from other costs. Forced bundling at high cost is the definition of abusive behavior.

Apple offers several distinct services:
- A marketplace for developers to sell their software
- Infrastructure/hosting that enables that software
- Payment processing

Other types of internet providers offer all these things, as separate items. You can get your web hosting from one place, your marketing from another place, and your payment processing from a third. They compete for customers based on service and price. Apple doesn't do that, they just mandate that you get all three from them.

Developers can't exodus from Google Play because if they do, they'll be invisible to the vast majority of Android users. That's the very definition of market dominance.

My point about Shopify was to compare pricing for payment processing with the App Store payment processing services. Your response completely misses the point.

Google and Apple use their marketplace dominance (i.e., if your app isn't there, it don't exist) to gouge developers for payment processing. These should not be a package. Listing an App on the App Store should not require you to use the App Store's payment processing services, which are not competitive.

The App Store market dominance establishes that Apple and Google have a duopoly. Changing unreasonable prices for payment processing, is something the two giants can do because of their market dominance, not because their payment processing is so special.

No, Apple and Google commissions aren't reasonable. They charge separate developer fees to cover the approval process. The commission, then, is the question. We can compare this to other online marketplaces, like Shopify, which handles hosting and payment processing, for about 3%.

Even if their commissions were reasonable, that's not the point. The point is that if you're a developer, you can't say no to Apple and Google. You have to do what they say, and if you don't like it, you can't take your business elsewhere. That by itself is a problem.

Sideloading isn't a real workaround. The system requires you to disable security "protections", and presents scary warnings about security, intimidating all but the most determined.

Sideloading isn't an option for developers who want to reach 60% of the market that has iPhones.

I think you are again confusing the nature of the marketplace. This is not about the cell phone marketplace. It's about the app store marketplace.

If you want to get an app to smartphone users, you have no choice but to list your app on Apple's App Store and Google's Play Store. There are no other ways to reach the vast majority of smartphone users. You, the app developer, do not have a choice. You have to suck it up and live with Apple and Google's policies, you can't take your business elsewhere if you don't like it.

So no, Apple and Google do not have to compete to attract developers to their platforms. Their terms are equally onerous, almost as if they colluded to keep prices high.

Their platform, their rules...applies ONLY until you control a market to the extent that market participants MUST do business with you, if they want to be part of the market at all. As soon as you do have that level of control, it's your platform, *government* rules. Clearly, you don't understand the nature or rationale behind antitrust law. I recommend some reading. https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F...

Apple was well within their rights to apply whatever app store rules they wanted, while Apple was small and trying to build a new marketplace. Once that marketplace became ubiquitous, they lose the right to apply whatever app store rules they want.

The web app conjecture doesn't matter, it's not about what technology is specified. What matters is, do you have the market dominance to dictate terms because you don't have to compete anymore.

So he has many of the trade secrets to build the device they couldn't sell. It seems Apple would be happy to let a competitor burn through a lot of cash building a similar product.

"award damages to be determined at trial, and reimburse Apple's costs and attorneys' fees"

That kind of retaliation would make me worry about being an Apple employee. If they think you wronged them, they can sue you into debt for life.