4 ms·

> Apple aren't doing anything to prevent competition with their platform. This is a categorically false statement. I can point to a lot of places where Apple a

> Apple aren't doing anything to prevent competition with their platform. This is a categorically false statement. I can point to a lot of places where Apple are doing quite a bit to prevent competition on their platform. I mean, browser engine choice is the easiest to see of dozens of ways Apple is doing something to prevent competition on their platform. Did you mean something else by your statement I do not understand? Even if you mean "with their platform" vs "on their platform" as if users can go somewhere else, that's a far cry from "aren't doing anything" as they are in fact doing lots of things.

scarface74 8y ago
So a lot of places is “1”?
- kodablah 8y ago
  I was just trying to avoid a large and obvious enumeration in my comment. I assumed we all knew things like browser engine, development/compilation hardware, app store choice, software installation method, system OS choice, runtime eval approach (e.g. JIT), phone/sms app choice, keyboard choice, etc, etc are not subject to choice and in most cases competition is actively prevented. I suppose my assumption was wrong though.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    You can develop on other platforms - see Xamarin You want to be able to install another OS on an iPhone? Unless you happen to have an Android phone that has hardware that is supported by one of the forks - good luck with that. Yes you can use scripting languages with iOS apps, games do it all of the time. Alternate voip apps integrate well with the native iOS dialer. For instance a call using Skype looks just like a call on the native phone dialer and your Skype call history is integrated with your regular phone call history. You can even say call X using Y with Siri and it will use the alternate app - same with messages. If you use a third party VoIP app, and you’re connected to Bluetooth in your car, it uses the phone call Bluetooth protocol just like the native dialer. Third party keyboard support has been available for 3 years and unlike Android, you can install a third party keyboard and not give it network access so you’re not installing a keylogger.
    - kodablah 8y ago
      Sigh. My comment has nothing to do with what you can do elsewhere. I was responding specifically to the false claim "aren't doing anything to prevent competition" which is untrue, they are doing things.
      - scarface74 8y ago
        Your claim was that you couldn’t have third party keyboards on iOS (untrue), you couldn’t have third party dialer (untrue), you couldn’t use third party development environments (untrue), you had to develop on the Mac (untrue). You couldn’t use a third party SMS client- Google Voice let’s you do that.
        kodablah 8y ago
        Unfortunately, whether we agree or not, automatic defaults, prominence of placement, ease of change, and several other factors all contribute to rulings of active competition prevention. That you can change (with or without caveats) is often not enough. None of it relates to the original false statement that Apple does nothing to prevent competition with their platform which it does for many values of platform. I was incorrect on the keyboard choice, but caveats about what the dialer can be used for or what system that you have to compile on remain. Again though, that's nitpicking here, they have restrictions on all sorts of places that will conveniently be ignored in responses (e.g. alternative installation methods) to make specific points. The general point stands, they actively stifle. To say they don't or that it's only 1 comes off as bias. To ask someone to list some examples to make the general, obvious point is a bit derailing.
        scarface74 8y ago
        Now you're changing the argument... What are the caveats with the dialer? To ask someone to list some examples to make the general, obvious point is a bit derailing. How is it "derailing" to ask you to give specifics and then systematically get them torn down?
bena 8y ago
The best way I can think of describing this is like going into McDonald's and asking for a Whopper. You're not going to have a good time. You can't get whatever you want. McDonald's controls everything involved with their own operation, so they get to decide what's on the menu. And competitors products are not on it. That's Apple. Google is more like the only lumberyard in the reasonable vicinity. But they'll only sell you lumber if you also buy nails, a hammer, paint, and pipe from them as well even though there are closer, cheaper, or better alternatives elsewhere for those. They're using their position to force others into deals they don't want to be in.
annabellish 8y ago
I do mean with their platform, which is why I wrote that and not on their platform. Only offering your software on your hardware isn't anticompetitive. It's the default for almost everything - your smart fridge isn't anticompetitive because you can't install a different web browser, your modem/router isn't anticompetitive because you can't switch to openwrt, your smart toothbrush isn't anticompetitive because you can't install custom firmware, et cetera. What is anticompetitive on Google's end has absolutely nothing to do with the software, and everything to do with the licensing. Google have a couple simple rules that make their behaviour anticompetitive. If you want to ship an Android phone with google apps, then: 1) You may not ship any android phones without google apps 2) You may not ship a phone with google apps and a default search engine which is not Google So, if you're a new manufacturer, Smasung, and you wish to make an Android phone, you have two choices: 1) Use Google Apps and immediately get an extremely mature operating system with a very large software library, but you may not compete with google. Not even that you may not use _that device_ to compete with google. You're not allowed to make any Android-based devices which compete, even if those themselves don't use google software. 2) Develop API-compatible replacements for everything in Google apps, or you can't access the android ecosystem because of how tightly integrated things are. Note, some of these APIs are not clearly documented and have mysterious behaviour. This option is thus only really available to megacorporations who can afford to sink a couple years of development into the project before selling a single device. This is fundamentally different from what Apple is doing, which is simply selling a product.
- kodablah 8y ago
  > Only offering your software on your hardware isn't anticompetitive I'd say that it has been upheld that only offering your software on your platform has been ruled as anticompetitive if you are large enough. Same with prioritizing your results on your platform, etc. Regardless of if that platform is hardware or any other restricted area with a majority presence. > your smart fridge isn't anticompetitive because you can't install a different web browser Unfortunately, I'm afraid if you have the vast majority of the fridge market, and you lock out development for it, you very likely will be accused of anticompetitive behavior. > This is fundamentally different from what Apple is doing, which is simply selling a product. Yes, that is very true it is fundamentally different and the specific part about the Android licensing is anticompetitive for those reasons and Apple would not be subject to those rulings. Many of the other software installation practices that Google/Microsoft have been ruled anticompetitive for, however, are very similar to what Apple is doing and only their smaller market share prevents the violation. But we shouldn't pretend that Apple isn't doing anything to prevent competition here, just not in the way that Google did with the most recent Android ruling. Apple does plenty to prevent competition with their platform as do most companies. To say it does nothing is wrong.

scarface74 8y ago

So a lot of places is “1”?

kodablah 8y ago
I was just trying to avoid a large and obvious enumeration in my comment. I assumed we all knew things like browser engine, development/compilation hardware, app store choice, software installation method, system OS choice, runtime eval approach (e.g. JIT), phone/sms app choice, keyboard choice, etc, etc are not subject to choice and in most cases competition is actively prevented. I suppose my assumption was wrong though.
- scarface74 8y ago
  You can develop on other platforms - see Xamarin You want to be able to install another OS on an iPhone? Unless you happen to have an Android phone that has hardware that is supported by one of the forks - good luck with that. Yes you can use scripting languages with iOS apps, games do it all of the time. Alternate voip apps integrate well with the native iOS dialer. For instance a call using Skype looks just like a call on the native phone dialer and your Skype call history is integrated with your regular phone call history. You can even say call X using Y with Siri and it will use the alternate app - same with messages. If you use a third party VoIP app, and you’re connected to Bluetooth in your car, it uses the phone call Bluetooth protocol just like the native dialer. Third party keyboard support has been available for 3 years and unlike Android, you can install a third party keyboard and not give it network access so you’re not installing a keylogger.
  - kodablah 8y ago
    Sigh. My comment has nothing to do with what you can do elsewhere. I was responding specifically to the false claim "aren't doing anything to prevent competition" which is untrue, they are doing things.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      Your claim was that you couldn’t have third party keyboards on iOS (untrue), you couldn’t have third party dialer (untrue), you couldn’t use third party development environments (untrue), you had to develop on the Mac (untrue). You couldn’t use a third party SMS client- Google Voice let’s you do that.
      - kodablah 8y ago
        Unfortunately, whether we agree or not, automatic defaults, prominence of placement, ease of change, and several other factors all contribute to rulings of active competition prevention. That you can change (with or without caveats) is often not enough. None of it relates to the original false statement that Apple does nothing to prevent competition with their platform which it does for many values of platform. I was incorrect on the keyboard choice, but caveats about what the dialer can be used for or what system that you have to compile on remain. Again though, that's nitpicking here, they have restrictions on all sorts of places that will conveniently be ignored in responses (e.g. alternative installation methods) to make specific points. The general point stands, they actively stifle. To say they don't or that it's only 1 comes off as bias. To ask someone to list some examples to make the general, obvious point is a bit derailing.
        scarface74 8y ago
        Now you're changing the argument... What are the caveats with the dialer? To ask someone to list some examples to make the general, obvious point is a bit derailing. How is it "derailing" to ask you to give specifics and then systematically get them torn down?

bena 8y ago

The best way I can think of describing this is like going into McDonald's and asking for a Whopper. You're not going to have a good time. You can't get whatever you want. McDonald's controls everything involved with their own operation, so they get to decide what's on the menu. And competitors products are not on it. That's Apple. Google is more like the only lumberyard in the reasonable vicinity. But they'll only sell you lumber if you also buy nails, a hammer, paint, and pipe from them as well even though there are closer, cheaper, or better alternatives elsewhere for those. They're using their position to force others into deals they don't want to be in.

annabellish 8y ago

I do mean with their platform, which is why I wrote that and not on their platform. Only offering your software on your hardware isn't anticompetitive. It's the default for almost everything - your smart fridge isn't anticompetitive because you can't install a different web browser, your modem/router isn't anticompetitive because you can't switch to openwrt, your smart toothbrush isn't anticompetitive because you can't install custom firmware, et cetera. What is anticompetitive on Google's end has absolutely nothing to do with the software, and everything to do with the licensing. Google have a couple simple rules that make their behaviour anticompetitive. If you want to ship an Android phone with google apps, then: 1) You may not ship any android phones without google apps 2) You may not ship a phone with google apps and a default search engine which is not Google So, if you're a new manufacturer, Smasung, and you wish to make an Android phone, you have two choices: 1) Use Google Apps and immediately get an extremely mature operating system with a very large software library, but you may not compete with google. Not even that you may not use _that device_ to compete with google. You're not allowed to make any Android-based devices which compete, even if those themselves don't use google software. 2) Develop API-compatible replacements for everything in Google apps, or you can't access the android ecosystem because of how tightly integrated things are. Note, some of these APIs are not clearly documented and have mysterious behaviour. This option is thus only really available to megacorporations who can afford to sink a couple years of development into the project before selling a single device. This is fundamentally different from what Apple is doing, which is simply selling a product.

kodablah 8y ago
> Only offering your software on your hardware isn't anticompetitive I'd say that it has been upheld that only offering your software on your platform has been ruled as anticompetitive if you are large enough. Same with prioritizing your results on your platform, etc. Regardless of if that platform is hardware or any other restricted area with a majority presence. > your smart fridge isn't anticompetitive because you can't install a different web browser Unfortunately, I'm afraid if you have the vast majority of the fridge market, and you lock out development for it, you very likely will be accused of anticompetitive behavior. > This is fundamentally different from what Apple is doing, which is simply selling a product. Yes, that is very true it is fundamentally different and the specific part about the Android licensing is anticompetitive for those reasons and Apple would not be subject to those rulings. Many of the other software installation practices that Google/Microsoft have been ruled anticompetitive for, however, are very similar to what Apple is doing and only their smaller market share prevents the violation. But we shouldn't pretend that Apple isn't doing anything to prevent competition here, just not in the way that Google did with the most recent Android ruling. Apple does plenty to prevent competition with their platform as do most companies. To say it does nothing is wrong.