This isn't really a refutation of what he said. If enough of the proverbial sharecroppers complain, it MAY be worth it for Apple to improve conditions. You are still at their mercy, however.

Also, it's ridiculous that people are voting raganwald's comment down. What's next, covering your ears and yelling "la la la la"?

"What he said" might vary by reader, since reganwald's comment rambled somewhat. But, the gp did refute this line in reganwald's "bottom line" summary:

Trying to argue that Apple's proprietary system ought to be less closed or more free or have more pixie dust than Amazon's is wishful thinking.

It's not wishful thinking, it's a tactic that has proven effective in the past. I voted reganwald down because his line of argument seems to have been refuted.

Arguing with the faceless Apple executives via the internet is wishful thinking, whether you succeed or not.

Also, you don't downvote comments because you consider them wrong or refuted, you downvote because a comment was not beneficial to the discussion. It's people like you that slowly chip away at what HN is intended to be.

The argument isn't with faceless executives, or Apple at all---its with people like you and I, the developers at large.

If we are convinced that what is Apple is doing is wrong, we might be turned away from their ecosystem--thus denying them of profit---or better still we may stand in solidarity if the current complainers try to take more drastic measures such as shifting to another platform all together.

>Also, it's ridiculous that people are voting raganwald's comment down.

How often do you see a comment on hn with positive votes that tells people to "Cry me a fucking river"?

When that's not all there is to the comment, and it has legitimate content and value to the discussion, possibly-dissenting opinions aside?

Often.

And he was quoting from his own article, at a particularly identifiable and primary point of inflection.

It doesn't refute the argument about controlled platforms, which I think most people are very familiar with the costs and benefits of.

It does, however, refute the much more insidious argument that criticizing the company that controls your platform is not worthwhile. It is worthwhile, and in fact vital to the health of the platform.

>Remember when Apple reversed its decision on 3rd-party developer tools and languages?

This is essentially comparing apples and oranges, though. That decision was (presumably) based on maximizing application performance for users - but plenty of non-obj-C applications can perform quickly enough, so they went back and allowed them. And more applications means more sales means more money for Apple.

It's equivalent to sharecroppers first preventing use of externally-developed tools, then discovering that they could make more money if they allowed them. I don't see a comparable situation in Apple pulling 30% from subscriptions.

I do think that 30% is a bit high, as they're recurring sources of revenue and people tend to decide "$1/month? sure. It's cheaper than that $10 app." and then keep it for two years rather than switch to the $10 and waste a buck. People are pretty predictable in this manner - just look at WoW.

"In my experience, employees at Apple care very much what users and developers are saying."

Except employee 0.

I'm sure it was rational feedback and criticism that changed Apple's mind about tools and languages. Adobe's complaint to the FTC (and the subsequent probe) had nothing to do with it, right?