I cited one campaign that very clearly answers the question posed. It was not incumbent on me to go through all of their campaigns and conferences and earnings calls and whatever else. Although, this campaign was hardly the first time Apple suggested their mobile devices could replace a computer.
> plus a computer is not by definition a general purpose device.
What are we even talking about then? It's not like this campaign was suggesting the iPad would be a fantastic purpose-specific replacement of my TI-89 or my web cam. What, based on the context of this discussion, are we supposed to understand "general purpose device" to mean if not the colloquial definition of a computer?
I looked at that ad you posted earlier and refrained from commenting at the time, but if you take the ad at face value, Apple is claiming that iPads are not computers, or at least not the general purpose ones that culturally we refer to as computers (desktops, notebooks) and do this in both the slogan (“your next computer is not a computer”) and by demonstration, inviting the user to think of iPads as something else. It’s not an ad for tablet computers, it’s an ad for iPads.
Technically, iPhones and iPads are absolutely computers. General purpose computers. In fact arguably they are even more general purpose because you can easily and non-trivially manipulate them in 3D space in ways you probably wouldn’t even manipulate a notebook computer, which makes the inclusion of various sensors in the body of the device more useful to a broader array of applications. I will absolutely use my phone as a wallet in the way I never would a MacBook Pro. Apple has absolutely never marketed them as general purpose computers though even though I think you and I can agree that’s exactly what they are. Duplicitous? I think so, but it’s also the exact same strategy that game consoles benefit from today and in either case I think both Apple and game console makers are at the moment on solid legal footing.
We'll have to agree to disagree. This ad to me looked just like the "Mac VS PC" ads, where Apple wanted to convey to you that their personal computers weren't "PCs", but something else, something better. But, they very clearly were advertising the product as a replacement computer.
They want people shopping for iPads, not tablet computers. I'll grant you that, but that's just a marketing gimmick as far as I can tell. This ad to me says "don't bother with another laptop because the iPad can do the same stuff, but better (and you might look really cool using it)." It's a marketing campaign, so it's going to resonate with people differently.
I still don't know anyone that went out and purchased an Xbox to replace their laptops, but I know plenty of people that have done so with iPads. And they're checking email, commenting on Facebook, taking pictures, editing video, surfing the web, managing todos, making video calls, watching video streams, playing games, and doing many other activities that they used to on a laptop or desktop, while Xbox users play video games, maybe consume media, and possibly deal with being called racist names on a voice chat.
We probably will have to agree to disagree, but I’m trying to see the message I think Apple intended to sell and I think trying to sell a replacement for or an alternative to computers is a lot more in line with how they’ve always marketed iPads. The reason to look at their intended message specially is because this is the marketing gimmick that colors their PR and lobbying campaigns.
I don’t think it is severable from the manner console manufacturers operate either. They sell locked down computers with operating systems and license the software that can operate on it. In terms of functions and capabilities, they’re as Turing complete as any other machine, you just have to jump through extra hoops to run unlicensed software and they take explicit action to prevent this or make it more difficult.
The intended use is basically irrelevant. A device that’s there to operate Facebook or Spotify or a device that’s there to operate Halo or HBO is functionally still just an entertainment device. Where they significantly differ is that Apple licenses a broader array of software and Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo license mostly entertainment software (games, video apps, music apps and comic book readers). If you actually bought an Xbox to do the functions you could on a Windows PC, you would be disappointed but not because there’s some inherent Xbox property preventing this, but because Microsoft does not license Xbox software in the manner Apple does iPhone and iPad software nor allow unlicensed software to run the way it does on Windows. That’s a corporate choice, and because that corporate choice was made, it would be a bad choice to buy an Xbox for those functions or else some people might actually choose to use an Xbox to check their email or do whatever else they do on their PCs. If you think about it, $500 is not bad for a decent gaming computer that lets you get rid of your PC.
I think it was pretty evident that computers were going to continue to get smaller, handheld, wearable, what have you. Apple didn't invent the space, they just made the product that got people to adopt the new form factor en masse. That's no small thing. But, I don't think they deserve near full control and a 30% tax on all revenue transacted on that form factor as a result. We wouldn't have tolerated it if Microsoft had done it on the desktop environment. We wouldn't have tolerated if Microsoft forced all purchases through their platform.
We've backed ourselves into a weird spot. It's essentially impossible for a new platform to develop in the computing space. Google did everything it could to kill off Windows mobile. Mozilla took a crack at it and failed. There's an illusion of choice, but it's quite difficult to get by without an Android or iPhone. That became very evident to me with the pandemic. Virtual doctor visits, check-ins, mobile passports, and so required a device running one of Android or iOS/iPadOS. My wife isn't fond of smart phones, but we had to get her an iPhone to participate in society. Companies don't want to support web sites for mobile and Apple's support for PWAs is pretty bad, forcing you back into their app ecosystem. Moreover, switching platforms is quite expensive and often impractical, in no small part because your purchases are bound to a particular platform (desktop licenses, on the other hand, often work across operating systems or charge a nominal fee to have licenses for macOS and Windows).
That's a very long-winded way of saying, sure let's start with opening up the App Store for iPads. I think we should do it for phones, too, but I'll take what I can get. For many people, their phone is their "computer" these days as well and as I said, I think that result was inevitable. We can argue about whether smart phones are general computing devices, but I'd argue the only reason they're not as "general" as desktops is because Apple won't allow them to be. Microsoft and Samsung both had interesting technologies (Continuum and Dex, respectively) that could turn your phone into a portable desktop that showed promise for what the space could be. But, people make do with the restrictions placed on them, if for no other reason than switching is expensive and hard.
Regardless, smart phones a completely different class of device than video game consoles. People run many of the same tasks on phones & tablets that they would on a laptop. Despite that, video game consoles are more open. I can buy video games from a dozen different stores, get them on a secondary market, and I can lend them out to people. But, let's open up the consoles too if that's what's holding us back with Apple and Google.
Well, first to set the context. Most money on the App Store isn’t being spent on the little Indy developer. It came out in the Epic trial that the large majority is being spent on games, in-app purchases and loot boxes on pay to win games.
Now, let’s talk about the challenges on the App Store for the Indy developer. 15% vs 30% is the least of it.
1. You have to be discovered among the millions of other apps. The App Store is horrible for discoverability. Even if you do get a one day pop from it being spotlighted, that’s fleeting.
2. The value of an application has been devalued. Back in the day, people didn’t mind spending real money on applications. People think spending $10 on a mobile app is overpriced.
3. No one wants to pay for upgrades even if the App Store made that easy. I once bought an app - Tempo Magic in 2010. I hadn’t thought about it for years. But 10 years later I looked for it. Downloaded it and it still worked. The developer has kept the app working for a decade and through the 32 bit to 64 bit transition. I haven’t paid a penny more for it. How is a developer suppose to sustain themselves?
The only business model where high quality productivity apps are sustainable are via subscriptions. That’s why you have MS Office available.
Apple's insistence on setting the terms of the sale is also problematic and all the more reason to support another store. I absolutely loathe IAP. The last thing I want to do is download an app and guess what parts are going to get unlocked when I pay for something. I'm in favor of having a paid upgrade path. And I'd love to see a trial option that wasn't tied to a subscription. And I think app prices are too low. It's another case of having made a few bad initial moves and then pushing the whole industry that way. The top selling app on the Google Play Store is a slot machine. This is not good for society.
Let’s stick to the crux of the matter - people don’t want to pay for stuff. If an alternative App Store set a minimum price and sn upgrade path, not many people would buy the apps.
The only successful model so far has been subscriptions for productivity apps. For arcade quality games, the streaming services have a chance and Apple is subsidizing non slimy games via Apple Arcade.
Could you point to what makes you think this? As well, are there any court rulings that indicate this matters when it comes to this issue?