The network effects of Apple devices are really tiny, compared to say: Microsoft, which holds nearly every company in Europe ransom in effect because Excel is a default tool you need to interact with your government in nearly every country as a business.

Sure, your iPhone doesn't connect as seamlessly to your Windows computer as it would a Mac, but those aren't network effects, thats vertical integration.

Nobody is forcing you to buy a Mac, and Apple themselves are intentionally overcharging for upgrades on the basis that: "If you really need it, you'll pay for it". Most people don't need it but will buy the upgrades anyway then complain that they're too expensive.

I'm aware that it limits the longevity of the devices, but that might also be intentional here, not abusive though. Just a bit bare-faced profit seeking. Which seems to be working because, as you point out, it's one of the worlds most valuable mega-corporations.

If someone else comes out with good premium laptops I'll move over happily, but for now the best laptop you can buy is unfortunately a macbook, and they've decided that upgrades are worth this money, if you don't agree then the answer is to simply not upgrade, or avoid the devices entirely.

Yes, the whole point of abuse, and why there's a social taboo against it, is that it works. It achieves its desired effect.

Microsoft is also a deeply abusive corporation. The discussion was not about them, though.

So, any profiting and market segmentation is abuse?

The same word we use for raping kids?

Give off.

No, not any profiting is abuse. I thought I made that quite clear. With apologies for quoting myself:

> If it were a boutique shop I wouldn't call it abusive. It's a combination of the bad behavior and the exercise of raw power that makes it so.

I was raped as a kid, friend. Many times.

> I was raped as a kid, friend. Many times.

and many of my friends were, which is why I would prefer we keep words with strong meaning quite strong.

A company operating as a company, not even unethically in this case is too far away.

I think I'd be in much more agreement with you if we were talking about people being forced to buy Apple products, but that's rarely if ever the case.

By and large, the people who buy these products are freely choosing to do so. To claim that, for those people, the price is "too high" is equivalent to telling them "you shouldn't be willing to pay that much for that product".

I think it's perfectly fine for me or any other individual to hold the opinion that their products are overpriced, but I think it would be at best borderline presumptuous for me to attempt to tell someone else what they should or should not value.

I think it is safe to assume that nobody particularly likes being on the cashcow end of price discrimination though, however valuable they perceive the product to be. This sort of pricing strategy cannot be good for consumers overall in some economic sense under certain assumptions, right?

Not to mention that design decisions have surely been made to ensure this segmentation works that destroy repairability - so much for environmental friendliness. It is difficult not to feel Apple's contempt for its customers when it has been actively crippling the usefulness of its devices to squeeze some more profits.

To Apple's credit, it has established an effective monopoly over the market of _decent_ laptops fair and square and OS X seems to be less of a malware than whatever is Windows 10/11. I am not _that_ salty to pay the premium.

I don't believe in free will, so I don't believe anyone freely chooses to do anything. I think genetic and environmental luck determines everything in life.

I'm far more interested in improving our lot by altering the environment (e.g. by promoting memory-safe programming languages, or by pressuring corporations to not be abusive) than in appealing to notions like choice.

https://sunshowers.io/posts/there-is-no-free-will/