7 ms·

I can buy a Nest Thermostat from any of thousands of websites and it would work just fine in my home. I can't even get a Steam Link app for free from anyone an

I can buy a Nest Thermostat from any of thousands of websites and it would work just fine in my home. I can't even get a Steam Link app for free from anyone and have it work effortlessly on my iOS device. These two are not the same, no matter which side you are on.

emodendroket 8y ago
Alright, then how about removing Adblock from their stores? Android is a little better, but it's by no means totally free.
- 013a 8y ago
  You can install android apps or chrome extensions from any source, not just the Google-managed store. This sounds minor, but its absolutely a major reason why the stores aren't monopolies. I find it startling how few people on HN remember the fact that stores have a right to decide what they want to sell and not. We don't live in communist Russia. Walmart doesn't have to sell Whole Foods-branded food, H&M doesn't have to sell Mossimo clothes, Amazon doesn't have to sell Nest thermostats, Apple doesn't have to sell Pixel devices in their stores, and Google doesn't have to sell Adblocking software. In every single one of these cases, its because the companies managing the stores have a business interest against selling the items. Apple's case is different in a significant way. When they block a product from their store, they establish that none of the users on their systems are able to get the item legally. However, they can still use the argument that iOS is only one platform among any mobile platforms, they don't have a massive marketshare, and they aren't taking any actions in the realm of mobile platform adoption which could be construed as hostile against competition.
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    If you're willing not only to download sideload apps but also to modify your device so you can have root access, then it works. So not really different from Apple.
    - cblades 8y ago
      This is absolutely not the case. I can install any app-store app I'd like, and it can install apps on my phone. I can even download raw apk file and install them myself.
      - emodendroket 8y ago
        But we're talking about AdBlock specifically, which needs root privileges.
        grawprog 8y ago
        I'm not sure I understand your point...your computer also has programs that will only work with root privileges. At least it's possible to do this on an android as opposed to Apple.
    - 013a 8y ago
      You don't need to get root on an android device to sideload apps, unless the app has specific functionality that requires root. You don't need to break anything about the system or your warranty. Its just a toggle in the settings menu.
      - emodendroket 8y ago
        Adblock needs root to work as intended though.
        lern_too_spel 8y ago
        No, you just implement VpnService.
      - tekknik 8y ago
        you don’t need root to sideload in ios either
    - lern_too_spel 8y ago
  - paulmd 8y ago
    Much like obstruction of justice, anticompetitive behavior is an intent that transforms behavior that would otherwise be perfectly legal into something that is not. It is perfectly legal for Amazon to decide they don't want to carry Apple products in their store. If they decide they don't want to carry Apple products because they're releasing their own lines of phones and tablets, that may not be legal. Intent and context do matter.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - tekknik 8y ago
    You can also install ios apps by sideloading, it’s existed since at least ios9. Valve could release the binary and allow users to self install with just a drag and drop in itunes.
zwily 8y ago
There are more non-iOS phones out there than iOS phones. I think this is why Apple isn’t too concerned about “monopoly” talk right now. (No, a “monopoly” on Apple products is not an illegal thing.)
- Steltek 8y ago
  A company doesn't need a majority of the market to be prosecuted for anti-competitive behavior and likewise having a majority of the market does not mean your every move is illegally anti-competitive.
  - ethbro 8y ago
    If prosecuted under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, existence of a monopoly is a precondition. Certainly there are non-Sherman charges that could be brought, but I'm not aware of anything that would be applicable in this instance? To your first point, assuming Sherman is used, I believe US v Alcoa [1] is still the controlling case law. And you'd have a very hard time convincing a court that "smartphones made by Apple" constitute a product category over which it could have a 75%+ market share. Or are there other laws under which action could be brought in this situation?
- mromanuk 8y ago
  Yes it is. Pretty much the same case was when Microsoft bundled internet explorer by default in Windows, which was detrimental to Netscape Navigator.
  - viraptor 8y ago
    At that time virtually everyone was using windows though. There wasn't a competitor like Android is for iOS.
    - tekknik 8y ago
      That’s just incorrect on the face of it. Linux and Mac have existed for as long as Windows, or longer. It’s pure opinion to say there were no competitors.
bhnmmhmd 8y ago
Given that Apple - as a private company - is the owner of iOS, no one can blame them for what they wish to include/exclude from their ecosystem. A mistake many people make these days is they think just because some services are so prevalent and worldwide, they ought to be under control of the law and government. The same thing happens when people complain about Google/Amazon/Facebook for their policies. They're private companies! If you don't like them, fine, quit using their services, simple as that. The day we give a person the right to sue a private company over their policies, we will essentially kill the free market.
- sirtaj 8y ago
  Hopefully we are still free to discuss what effects a company's perfectly legal choices could have on us as a society and as an industry? Or is that also now verboten in the name of fairness to the free market?
- zeveb 8y ago
  > Given that Apple - as a private company - is the owner of iOS, no one can blame them for what they wish to include/exclude from their ecosystem. Apple may own their property, but iOS-device owners own their devices, and Apple have no right to prevent them from running the software they wish to run on the devices they own.
  - bhnmmhmd 8y ago
    I refer you to read Apple's Software License Agreements carefully. They're here: https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/ https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/ Specifically it states: " The software (including Boot ROM code, embedded software and third party software), documentation, interfaces, content, fonts and any data that came with your iOS Device (“Original iOS Software”), as may be updated or replaced by feature enhancements, software updates or system restore software provided by Apple (“iOS Software Updates”), whether in read only memory, on any other media or in any other form (the Original iOS Software and iOS Software Updates are collectively referred to as the “iOS Software”) are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Inc. (“Apple”) for use only under the terms of this License. Apple and its licensors retain ownership of the iOS Software itself and reserve all rights not expressly granted to you." If a person has agreed to these terms, I don't see how they can complain about Apple's policies in the future. The same software that isn't owned by the person, but is Apple's, now refuses to run Steam Link. The person who agreed to such terms had it coming, you can't blame Apple for that.
ballenf 8y ago
But if you've paid for Amazon Prime then Amazon has become a platform similar your iPhone. Just like you can buy a cheap secondary phone for Steam Link, you can join another company's "free shipping membership program" to buy your Nest (or just pay shipping or get it locally, like you said). Regardless, I think the distinction is less clear than you make out.
- cblades 8y ago
  Is that a serious suggestion to buy a second phone, or is it supposed to be absurd? How does having prime lock you into Amazon, at all? You're not disallowed to shop elsewhere after signing up for Prime. You don't even have to sign up for someone else's "free shipping membership program" to buy your Nest. You're argument doesn't work for me.
  - zimbatm 8y ago
    The argument on both sides is around financial burden: * Pay more for delivery because not using Amazon Prime * Pay more to buy an Android phone When making this argument it's obvious that buying a new phone is much more expensive than Amazon Prime but this raises an interesting question; what is the financial threshold at which point one has to be considered a monopoly?
    - _Mazza_ 8y ago
      Most people shop on multiple websites, most people don't carry around two phones.
      - shawnz 8y ago
        Most people also don't pay for a subscription service that gives you cheaper prices. If you look specifically at Prime subscribers, I bet you'd find that they make efforts to do all their shopping through Amazon where possible.
      - zimbatm 8y ago
        In this context, the Phone is supposed to be on the same network for latency reasons. Having multiple phones at home is not a big issue.
myaccountforhn 8y ago
Perhaps I'm not understanding the matter but I don't understand how this is different than what Microsoft faced with IE. This is seemingly worse since at least you could still install Netscape back then.

emodendroket 8y ago

Alright, then how about removing Adblock from their stores? Android is a little better, but it's by no means totally free.

013a 8y ago
You can install android apps or chrome extensions from any source, not just the Google-managed store. This sounds minor, but its absolutely a major reason why the stores aren't monopolies. I find it startling how few people on HN remember the fact that stores have a right to decide what they want to sell and not. We don't live in communist Russia. Walmart doesn't have to sell Whole Foods-branded food, H&M doesn't have to sell Mossimo clothes, Amazon doesn't have to sell Nest thermostats, Apple doesn't have to sell Pixel devices in their stores, and Google doesn't have to sell Adblocking software. In every single one of these cases, its because the companies managing the stores have a business interest against selling the items. Apple's case is different in a significant way. When they block a product from their store, they establish that none of the users on their systems are able to get the item legally. However, they can still use the argument that iOS is only one platform among any mobile platforms, they don't have a massive marketshare, and they aren't taking any actions in the realm of mobile platform adoption which could be construed as hostile against competition.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  If you're willing not only to download sideload apps but also to modify your device so you can have root access, then it works. So not really different from Apple.
  - cblades 8y ago
    This is absolutely not the case. I can install any app-store app I'd like, and it can install apps on my phone. I can even download raw apk file and install them myself.
    - emodendroket 8y ago
      But we're talking about AdBlock specifically, which needs root privileges.
      - grawprog 8y ago
        I'm not sure I understand your point...your computer also has programs that will only work with root privileges. At least it's possible to do this on an android as opposed to Apple.
  - 013a 8y ago
    You don't need to get root on an android device to sideload apps, unless the app has specific functionality that requires root. You don't need to break anything about the system or your warranty. Its just a toggle in the settings menu.
    - emodendroket 8y ago
      Adblock needs root to work as intended though.
      - lern_too_spel 8y ago
        No, you just implement VpnService.
    - tekknik 8y ago
      you don’t need root to sideload in ios either
  - lern_too_spel 8y ago
- paulmd 8y ago
  Much like obstruction of justice, anticompetitive behavior is an intent that transforms behavior that would otherwise be perfectly legal into something that is not. It is perfectly legal for Amazon to decide they don't want to carry Apple products in their store. If they decide they don't want to carry Apple products because they're releasing their own lines of phones and tablets, that may not be legal. Intent and context do matter.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- tekknik 8y ago
  You can also install ios apps by sideloading, it’s existed since at least ios9. Valve could release the binary and allow users to self install with just a drag and drop in itunes.

zwily 8y ago

There are more non-iOS phones out there than iOS phones. I think this is why Apple isn’t too concerned about “monopoly” talk right now. (No, a “monopoly” on Apple products is not an illegal thing.)

Steltek 8y ago
A company doesn't need a majority of the market to be prosecuted for anti-competitive behavior and likewise having a majority of the market does not mean your every move is illegally anti-competitive.
- ethbro 8y ago
  If prosecuted under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, existence of a monopoly is a precondition. Certainly there are non-Sherman charges that could be brought, but I'm not aware of anything that would be applicable in this instance? To your first point, assuming Sherman is used, I believe US v Alcoa [1] is still the controlling case law. And you'd have a very hard time convincing a court that "smartphones made by Apple" constitute a product category over which it could have a 75%+ market share. Or are there other laws under which action could be brought in this situation?
mromanuk 8y ago
Yes it is. Pretty much the same case was when Microsoft bundled internet explorer by default in Windows, which was detrimental to Netscape Navigator.
- viraptor 8y ago
  At that time virtually everyone was using windows though. There wasn't a competitor like Android is for iOS.
  - tekknik 8y ago
    That’s just incorrect on the face of it. Linux and Mac have existed for as long as Windows, or longer. It’s pure opinion to say there were no competitors.

bhnmmhmd 8y ago

Given that Apple - as a private company - is the owner of iOS, no one can blame them for what they wish to include/exclude from their ecosystem. A mistake many people make these days is they think just because some services are so prevalent and worldwide, they ought to be under control of the law and government. The same thing happens when people complain about Google/Amazon/Facebook for their policies. They're private companies! If you don't like them, fine, quit using their services, simple as that. The day we give a person the right to sue a private company over their policies, we will essentially kill the free market.

sirtaj 8y ago
Hopefully we are still free to discuss what effects a company's perfectly legal choices could have on us as a society and as an industry? Or is that also now verboten in the name of fairness to the free market?
zeveb 8y ago
> Given that Apple - as a private company - is the owner of iOS, no one can blame them for what they wish to include/exclude from their ecosystem. Apple may own their property, but iOS-device owners own their devices, and Apple have no right to prevent them from running the software they wish to run on the devices they own.
- bhnmmhmd 8y ago
  I refer you to read Apple's Software License Agreements carefully. They're here: https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/ https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/ Specifically it states: " The software (including Boot ROM code, embedded software and third party software), documentation, interfaces, content, fonts and any data that came with your iOS Device (“Original iOS Software”), as may be updated or replaced by feature enhancements, software updates or system restore software provided by Apple (“iOS Software Updates”), whether in read only memory, on any other media or in any other form (the Original iOS Software and iOS Software Updates are collectively referred to as the “iOS Software”) are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Inc. (“Apple”) for use only under the terms of this License. Apple and its licensors retain ownership of the iOS Software itself and reserve all rights not expressly granted to you." If a person has agreed to these terms, I don't see how they can complain about Apple's policies in the future. The same software that isn't owned by the person, but is Apple's, now refuses to run Steam Link. The person who agreed to such terms had it coming, you can't blame Apple for that.

ballenf 8y ago

But if you've paid for Amazon Prime then Amazon has become a platform similar your iPhone. Just like you can buy a cheap secondary phone for Steam Link, you can join another company's "free shipping membership program" to buy your Nest (or just pay shipping or get it locally, like you said). Regardless, I think the distinction is less clear than you make out.

cblades 8y ago
Is that a serious suggestion to buy a second phone, or is it supposed to be absurd? How does having prime lock you into Amazon, at all? You're not disallowed to shop elsewhere after signing up for Prime. You don't even have to sign up for someone else's "free shipping membership program" to buy your Nest. You're argument doesn't work for me.
- zimbatm 8y ago
  The argument on both sides is around financial burden: * Pay more for delivery because not using Amazon Prime * Pay more to buy an Android phone When making this argument it's obvious that buying a new phone is much more expensive than Amazon Prime but this raises an interesting question; what is the financial threshold at which point one has to be considered a monopoly?
  - _Mazza_ 8y ago
    Most people shop on multiple websites, most people don't carry around two phones.
    - shawnz 8y ago
      Most people also don't pay for a subscription service that gives you cheaper prices. If you look specifically at Prime subscribers, I bet you'd find that they make efforts to do all their shopping through Amazon where possible.
    - zimbatm 8y ago
      In this context, the Phone is supposed to be on the same network for latency reasons. Having multiple phones at home is not a big issue.

myaccountforhn 8y ago

Perhaps I'm not understanding the matter but I don't understand how this is different than what Microsoft faced with IE. This is seemingly worse since at least you could still install Netscape back then.