Always Angry, Never Happy

There has been Quite A Lot of Discourse on Bluesky in the last 48h and while it's too much to talk about here and arguably outside the scope of this blog, I wanted to talk about a component of it.

There's this sect of people that I've seen called the Always Angry and Never Happy crowd. The terminology is definitely apt, because the defining characteristic of this crowd is even if you give them what they're asking for, or start to move in the direction they want you to move, instead of acknowledging this in any capacity they'll instead move the goalposts and act like they got nothing for their efforts.

Maybe I'm wired differently, but if I were on the receiving end of this type of criticism my response would be to go back to doing what I was doing previously, because it's clear that even if I make an effort to do what is being demanded of me, nothing I do will ever be good enough. Why bother?

That said, don't misconstrue this as me saying that if a company or individual starts moving in a direction you like that you suddenly have to shower them in praise and act like they're suddenly the best ever. What I am saying is that you have to acknowledge their efforts. Praise them doing the right thing. Ease up on the gas a little. But continue pushing them. Don't act as if they gave you absolutely nothing and continue being just as angry at them as you were prior.

This is one of those things I'll agree with Louis Rossmann on, because he said the same thing throughout many of his Apple videos. He'll rightfully criticize them, but also praise them for when they move in the right direction on right to repair. I do this, even. I will be relentlessly critical of them over their handling of AI, but one of the things I will gladly give them is--well, at least for a bit--that AI was entirely an opt-in affair. They didn't force it on you like everyone else is. (But now, sadly, they are. You can still shut it off after the fact, though, and it's unfortunate to admit that this is still better than Apple's contemporaries.)

Point is, if you're not willing to stop and at least show someone some appreciation that they're taking steps to do the thing you want them to do, do not be surprised if they just stop listening to you entirely and/or go somewhere where their efforts will get some level of praise. 

Apple's Comeuppance

I really, really hope the day is approaching where Apple finally, finally gets the comeuppance they so deserve. The day is near, I can feel it, but Apple being what they are won't go down without a fight.

I am referring to the ruling as of recently that Apple could no longer do their anti-steering bullshit (in the US) with the App Store. You know, that thing where apps were not even allowed to so much as hint they could take payment outside of the app, or they'd be kicked off. All because Apple forced you to use its payment processor, which takes 30% off the top of all transactions, to start.

I've long felt that Apple's payments system could very well compete on its own merits. Apple Pay is extremely convenient, you've likely got your cards on file with Apple already. No need to enter new card info or anything. Apple manages your subscriptions, and is generally pretty good about canceling when you ask them to.

But, nope. Apple until recently forced you to use their payment system, and forced you to take a gag order saying you couldn't tell customers to go elsewhere to get a better deal at the cost of convenience.

This was bad enough from the start (for example, you can't buy ebooks from Amazon and the like because Apple believes it is entitled to a 30% tax on those items), but it became worse once Apple entered the services game and began competing with TV/Music streaming services.

For example, if we compare any music service to Apple Music, Apple has an unfair advantage with this 30% fee. Apple doesn't charge itself the 30% fee, of course. So if Apple Music is $10/mo, to compete and look good, I have to also price my service at $10/mo. Except in this case, Apple is now making that full $10/mo (minus credit card processing fees) where I'm only making $7 (minus credit card processing fees AND the yearly $100 I'd have to pay to Apple for the ability to deploy apps).

Apple is forcing me into a losing situation. Either I take a loss to look competitive, or I raise my price by 30% to make up the shortfall and look worse by comparison. This isn't even considering that Apple's services come preinstalled on their phones. Feels like Internet Explorer all over again. Services that compete with Apple's are at an inherent disadvantage from the get go and the 30% fee is just twisting the knife.

It was only a matter of time before Apple got taken to task for this, and thankfully, the ball is rolling. The EU did their thing with the Digital Markets Act, and now the US is (thankfully) catching up. Apple has tried to play their malicious compliance card, by allowing external transactions but trying to say those are also subject to a 27% fee, but fortunately it seems like the legal system isn't about to let them get away with their hubris.

Now, with regards to this, there have been a number of Takes(tm) and I wanted to talk about those.

Apple should be entitled to SOME of that money, after all, they provide so much value to developers!

They sure do. And those developers pay for it. That's what the $99/year pays for. That's what it always paid for. Yes, I'd argue there's room for change here, specifically that bigger companies should pay a higher fee, as $99 is a rounding error to them. That much I can agree on. Other than that, app developers are already paying the fee Apple has asked of them for the services they provide, that $99.

This take also implies that developers--even paid ones--are freeloading off Apple's ecosystems. Hardly the case. Developers themselves provide value in the apps they develop for Apple's platforms, giving people reason to buy iPhones. You know what happens when you can't get developers to bring their apps to your device? You die off like Windows Phone.

Apps in and of themselves provide value to Apple. They enrich the ecosystem. To act like they don't is a vast disservice to developers.

Why is it okay for Sony and Microsoft to do this, though?

1. A game console is not a general purpose device like a phone is, or a computer. The two are not comparable. A game console does games and maybe some media, but not anything near what a general purpose device like an iPhone can do.

2. Sony and Microsoft don't force you to use their stores for subscriptions. 

For the sake of this piece, I actually went and tried to purchase a Spotify and Apple Music subscription on my PS5. You know what happened? Both apps directed me to go to a web browser and sign up there. Neither app directed me to process my transaction through the Playstation Store.

Sony nor Microsoft issue a gag order on developers telling them they can't inform people to go sign up in a web browser. Apple, until recently, did.

To make matters even better, you can also purchase games outside of the consoles' respective stores. Both consoles (if you buy the appropriately equipped versions) can take physical media which you can buy from your store of choice. And then resell. Or lend to a friend. Try that on the App Store. 

But what about Google?

This is less of an issue on the Google side because of multiple factors: Android has always been friendly toward sideloading so you can do a complete end run around Google if you so please. Look at Amazon, they made their whole damn Fire ecosystem on top of Android with their own app store! 

But even if you stick with Google Play, one could argue this is less egregious because you know what Google charges to allow you to deploy apps to the Play Store? $25. One time. No subscription required at all. And far as I know, it isn't illegal over there to tell users they can sign up for your subscription in a web browser.

(Some apps used to even allow you to sign up using an in-app browser, but I think Google began swatting that down.)

Nonetheless, this isn't really an issue over on Google's side if only because you have a mechanism to get around Google if you so pleased. Apple doesn't have that luxury. 

But Apple is going to take such a loss on the App Store! They can't possibly afford to keep it running!

Eh. Debatable. Apple makes money hand over fist. They're one of the most valuable companies out there. They'll be fine. They're not some plucky indie startup that needs to keep the lights on. Apple is a monolithic megacorp. They have loadsamoney. They'll be fine. This ain't the 90s.

But I'm an Apple investor and--

Oh, please, pull your head out of your ass.