5 ms·

It's not a market. It's like a shopping mall on a cruise ship—you chose to go on this cruise, and if you don't like dealing with the ship as a monopoly vendor,

It's not a market. It's like a shopping mall on a cruise ship—you chose to go on this cruise, and if you don't like dealing with the ship as a monopoly vendor, you can get off the ship and buy whatever you like from wherever. Just because this cruise happens to be the nicest, most comfortable vessel in the sea doesn't mean you have a right to expect space to be reserved on the ship for competitor's stores.

stcredzero 8y ago
Sure, but in the case of the cruise ship, you can just wait until the cruise is over and buy things at your usual store at home. So the analogy falls down at a pretty fundamental level. It's more like you're living in a company town, and there's no openly advertised non-black market alternatives to the company shops.
- sjwright 8y ago
  Yes, a company town is also a good analogy. Maybe even a better one, though it is a lot easier and cheaper to switch mobile platforms than it is to pick up your whole life. To expand your analogy, nothing stops you from owning homes in two different towns at the same time. (Nobody is forcing you to carry just one mobile phone, even though most people do.) And in this company town, yes they own all the stores and playgrounds, but you can still get stuff delivered from anywhere. (All these phones have web browsers that give you unencumbered access to the wider internet. No you can't play Fortnite through a web browser, but you can't play football by mail-order either, so the analogy holds.)
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    (Nobody is forcing you to carry just one mobile phone, even though most people do.) So now we're getting somewhere. This is the height of the wall around this particular walled garden. Now let me ask this: What percentage of the population would even consider owning two smartphones? That's how close to an idealized monopoly this walled garden is. So granted, it's not a monopoly in an idealized sense. But we now quantify how "monopolish" it is.
    - sjwright 8y ago
      Imagine you live in a town with two similarly good cable TV providers. Each has a monopoly on selling HBO subscriptions through their particular service. Most people have one cable TV subscription. Which means if you want HBO on your cable TV box, you can only subscribe through your current cable TV provider. You can call this a monopoly if you like, doesn't make it wrong or illegal.
      - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        > Most people have one cable TV subscription. Which means if you want HBO on your cable TV box, you can only subscribe through your current cable TV provider. You can call this a monopoly if you like, doesn't make it wrong or illegal. It is, however, the exact reason for having network neutrality requirements.
    - hermitdev 8y ago
      I used to carry 2 smart phones- one for work, one personal. I did it because my work phone was strictly monitored and I didnt want my company (or feds, namely SEC) reading my personal communications without a warrant just because it was on my work phone. That said, I would not pay for 2 personal smartphones. Edit: spelling
  - pentae 8y ago
    > though it is a lot easier and cheaper to switch mobile platforms Try telling that to your customers. "Yeah sure just sell your phone and buy an Android device to use our app". And having them use Safari? Yeah right. Apple doesn't even provide push notifications for web apps. Have you ever wondered why that is? The fact is, if your customer has an iOS device, you must include Apple in the transaction and pay them 30%. And if you're a smaller developer there's no way they will let you get away with what Netflix and Epic have done. Oh you thought the review process was completely fair and impartial? Well, i've got some bad news about that too.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      Seeing how websites have abused push notifications I don’t blame them. A happy medium would be only to allow push notifications for websites that the user has saved to their home screen.
      - pentae 8y ago
        That could work. Though i'd argue by now users know what they know what they are getting themselves into when accepting a push notification - and the notifications pane in settings for disabling them has been working just fine.
        scarface74 8y ago
        It would keep expectations more consistent. A website that was saved to the home screen would be a signal that the user wanted to treat it as an app. When they delete the website from their home screen, they would stop getting notifications. Apple could even manage website notifications in that case in the same settings screen as apps.
    - sjwright 8y ago
      You're complaining about the experience from a developer, which is not what this analogy is about. No, Wal-Mart isn't allowed to run their own business in a company town. As for push notifications—it's not surprising that Apple doesn't allow the HTTP version because it would be chaos for battery life. Besides, any website can offer a totally free native app that simply performs push notifications for your site. You don't need to give up 30% of anything to Apple for that.
  - cortesoft 8y ago
    It might be slightly easier, but there are still a big cost to switching phone platforms. You lose all the apps you have purchased over the years, and all the music as well. It isn't easy to just leave. It would be like if the company town made you leave your clothes behind if you decide to leave.
tomrod 8y ago
Why not?
stale2002 8y ago
Wrong. There are multiple alternatives. Such as, by doing what Netflix is doing, and bypassing the whole thing completely. Netflix will still continue to work on iOS, so it seems like it is working out for them. They very much have the legal right to do this.

stcredzero 8y ago

Sure, but in the case of the cruise ship, you can just wait until the cruise is over and buy things at your usual store at home. So the analogy falls down at a pretty fundamental level. It's more like you're living in a company town, and there's no openly advertised non-black market alternatives to the company shops.

sjwright 8y ago
Yes, a company town is also a good analogy. Maybe even a better one, though it is a lot easier and cheaper to switch mobile platforms than it is to pick up your whole life. To expand your analogy, nothing stops you from owning homes in two different towns at the same time. (Nobody is forcing you to carry just one mobile phone, even though most people do.) And in this company town, yes they own all the stores and playgrounds, but you can still get stuff delivered from anywhere. (All these phones have web browsers that give you unencumbered access to the wider internet. No you can't play Fortnite through a web browser, but you can't play football by mail-order either, so the analogy holds.)
- stcredzero 8y ago
  (Nobody is forcing you to carry just one mobile phone, even though most people do.) So now we're getting somewhere. This is the height of the wall around this particular walled garden. Now let me ask this: What percentage of the population would even consider owning two smartphones? That's how close to an idealized monopoly this walled garden is. So granted, it's not a monopoly in an idealized sense. But we now quantify how "monopolish" it is.
  - sjwright 8y ago
    Imagine you live in a town with two similarly good cable TV providers. Each has a monopoly on selling HBO subscriptions through their particular service. Most people have one cable TV subscription. Which means if you want HBO on your cable TV box, you can only subscribe through your current cable TV provider. You can call this a monopoly if you like, doesn't make it wrong or illegal.
    - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      > Most people have one cable TV subscription. Which means if you want HBO on your cable TV box, you can only subscribe through your current cable TV provider. You can call this a monopoly if you like, doesn't make it wrong or illegal. It is, however, the exact reason for having network neutrality requirements.
  - hermitdev 8y ago
    I used to carry 2 smart phones- one for work, one personal. I did it because my work phone was strictly monitored and I didnt want my company (or feds, namely SEC) reading my personal communications without a warrant just because it was on my work phone. That said, I would not pay for 2 personal smartphones. Edit: spelling
- pentae 8y ago
  > though it is a lot easier and cheaper to switch mobile platforms Try telling that to your customers. "Yeah sure just sell your phone and buy an Android device to use our app". And having them use Safari? Yeah right. Apple doesn't even provide push notifications for web apps. Have you ever wondered why that is? The fact is, if your customer has an iOS device, you must include Apple in the transaction and pay them 30%. And if you're a smaller developer there's no way they will let you get away with what Netflix and Epic have done. Oh you thought the review process was completely fair and impartial? Well, i've got some bad news about that too.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    Seeing how websites have abused push notifications I don’t blame them. A happy medium would be only to allow push notifications for websites that the user has saved to their home screen.
    - pentae 8y ago
      That could work. Though i'd argue by now users know what they know what they are getting themselves into when accepting a push notification - and the notifications pane in settings for disabling them has been working just fine.
      - scarface74 8y ago
        It would keep expectations more consistent. A website that was saved to the home screen would be a signal that the user wanted to treat it as an app. When they delete the website from their home screen, they would stop getting notifications. Apple could even manage website notifications in that case in the same settings screen as apps.
  - sjwright 8y ago
    You're complaining about the experience from a developer, which is not what this analogy is about. No, Wal-Mart isn't allowed to run their own business in a company town. As for push notifications—it's not surprising that Apple doesn't allow the HTTP version because it would be chaos for battery life. Besides, any website can offer a totally free native app that simply performs push notifications for your site. You don't need to give up 30% of anything to Apple for that.
- cortesoft 8y ago
  It might be slightly easier, but there are still a big cost to switching phone platforms. You lose all the apps you have purchased over the years, and all the music as well. It isn't easy to just leave. It would be like if the company town made you leave your clothes behind if you decide to leave.

tomrod 8y ago

Why not?

stale2002 8y ago

Wrong. There are multiple alternatives. Such as, by doing what Netflix is doing, and bypassing the whole thing completely. Netflix will still continue to work on iOS, so it seems like it is working out for them. They very much have the legal right to do this.