3 ms·

I certainly don't like it, no, but that doesn't make it antitrust in this case. My feelings and desires aren't what determines law, and thank goodness for that.

robbrown451 7y ago
In a democracy, they kind of are. Indirectly, obviously. My feelings and desires affect how I vote, and voting affects legislation as well as such things as who gets appointed to the Supreme Court. (and given our legal system, courts determine law as much as legislators do) I think it is awful that manufacturers of devices have that level of control of who can sell apps to run on them, and I certainly hope enough other people do to affect law. I'm old enough to remember when you could only buy a (landline) phone through Ma Bell, and luckily the law -- via courts of course -- stopped that eventually. This is very similar, but in my opinion the current issue is a good bit worse that AT&Ts monopoly.
- Fellshard 7y ago
  Consumers have a choice, though, and that trumps most other considerations. With Android, they receive an alternative set of constraints. Do I think Apple is wise to be as restrictive as they are? No. Is it within their bounds to do so? Absolutely. As a consumer, I can be disgruntled that my chosen platform is not as flexible as I wish. I can either throw a fit and lobby congress to force Apple to open its gates, or wait a year or two for my phone to slow down and pick up an Android device. In fact, this kind of migration occurs in both directions on a regular basis. Only religious loyalists stick with a single ecosystem without examining the tradeoffs they're making, as a general rule.
  - robbrown451 7y ago
    They have a choice between two monopolistic platforms, frankly. Your purchasing decisions are not mutually exclusive with action from courts and legislators and voters and such. And, especially if you take into account that market theory as well as game theory tends to view individuals as rational agents pursuing self interest (1), a pure free market approach simply does not effectively curtail monopolistic and otherwise anti-competitive behavior of corporations. [1] as a baseline, anyway.
    - Fellshard 7y ago
      As a user, I can freely sideload onto Android devices, or even use custom Google-free distributions. This argument is incomplete.
      - robbrown451 7y ago
        And a court would likely take that into account. They might even consider that you have the right to fabricate your own phone, and write the operating system from scratch. Luckily courts take into accounts the barriers inherent in such things. If few enough people do such things because the difficulty of doing so makes them impractical for most people, they give appropriately low weight to such arguments.
- millstone 7y ago
  Is there a general principle at work here? I have a Wii, a PlayStation, an LG smart TV, a Chromecast. All of these runs apps and are substantially more locked down than my iPhone. If I make a device, you should not be able to force me to support your software running on it. That seems fundamental.

robbrown451 7y ago

In a democracy, they kind of are. Indirectly, obviously. My feelings and desires affect how I vote, and voting affects legislation as well as such things as who gets appointed to the Supreme Court. (and given our legal system, courts determine law as much as legislators do) I think it is awful that manufacturers of devices have that level of control of who can sell apps to run on them, and I certainly hope enough other people do to affect law. I'm old enough to remember when you could only buy a (landline) phone through Ma Bell, and luckily the law -- via courts of course -- stopped that eventually. This is very similar, but in my opinion the current issue is a good bit worse that AT&Ts monopoly.

Fellshard 7y ago
Consumers have a choice, though, and that trumps most other considerations. With Android, they receive an alternative set of constraints. Do I think Apple is wise to be as restrictive as they are? No. Is it within their bounds to do so? Absolutely. As a consumer, I can be disgruntled that my chosen platform is not as flexible as I wish. I can either throw a fit and lobby congress to force Apple to open its gates, or wait a year or two for my phone to slow down and pick up an Android device. In fact, this kind of migration occurs in both directions on a regular basis. Only religious loyalists stick with a single ecosystem without examining the tradeoffs they're making, as a general rule.
- robbrown451 7y ago
  They have a choice between two monopolistic platforms, frankly. Your purchasing decisions are not mutually exclusive with action from courts and legislators and voters and such. And, especially if you take into account that market theory as well as game theory tends to view individuals as rational agents pursuing self interest (1), a pure free market approach simply does not effectively curtail monopolistic and otherwise anti-competitive behavior of corporations. [1] as a baseline, anyway.
  - Fellshard 7y ago
    As a user, I can freely sideload onto Android devices, or even use custom Google-free distributions. This argument is incomplete.
    - robbrown451 7y ago
      And a court would likely take that into account. They might even consider that you have the right to fabricate your own phone, and write the operating system from scratch. Luckily courts take into accounts the barriers inherent in such things. If few enough people do such things because the difficulty of doing so makes them impractical for most people, they give appropriately low weight to such arguments.
millstone 7y ago
Is there a general principle at work here? I have a Wii, a PlayStation, an LG smart TV, a Chromecast. All of these runs apps and are substantially more locked down than my iPhone. If I make a device, you should not be able to force me to support your software running on it. That seems fundamental.