4 ms·

Sigh is right. I used and paid for dark sky on Android, and now it's dead. This is one way Apple tries to lock people in, and it's really frustrating. This isn

Sigh is right. I used and paid for dark sky on Android, and now it's dead. This is one way Apple tries to lock people in, and it's really frustrating. This isn't an efficient market situation, this is a monopolist protecting their walled garden kingdom by slurping up the cross platform innovators. I'm terribly disappointed in the Dark Sky authors for doing this to long time loyal customers, no matter what their paychecks look like.

simonh 7y ago
How is iOS in any way, shape or form a monopoly?
- vertis 7y ago
  There is a difference between being a monopoly and monopolist behaviour. One has successfully become the only one standing, one is seeking to shut out competition by one method or another. At least to my understanding.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    What competition? Is it “monopolistic” every time that any company buys a smaller company instead of developing it in house?
    - drusepth 7y ago
      I don't think anyone's raising any problems about Apple buying a small company instead of developing comparable functionality in-house. People are raising concerns over Apple buying a small company and shutting down its offerings to any platform that isn't Apple's.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        So Apple should be forced to develop for a competitors platform?
        drusepth 7y ago
        Nobody's saying that either. Apple has a pattern of purchasing companies that already offer products on other platforms and immediately shutting all non-iOS products down. Obviously, they're free to run their business however they want, but it's also understandable that fans of those products might be upset that their app (or APIs that power other apps they enjoy) are no longer available simply because Apple did "their usual thing". Many companies (including Apple in rare cases) maintain or even develop codebases for applications across more than one platform. There's nothing wrong with Apple buying companies to shut them down. It just sucks for the end-users who no longer get to use those companies' products for the sole reason of "they got bought by Apple".
  - foota 7y ago
    This could in a sense be viewed as a form of bundling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_(antitrust_law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_(antitrust_law)) where the services being bundled are the OS and the weather app.
    - quanticle 7y ago
      The problem is that bundling is only considered problematic if your product is in a monopoly position. Bundling Internet Explorer was problematic for Windows because Windows was considered to have a monopoly in the OS market.
      - M2Ys4U 7y ago
        That depends on the interpretation, which differs by jurisdiction. The EU, for example, aims its anti-competitive regulation towards firms who have a "dominant market position" rather than a "monopoly".
- kbutler 7y ago
  https://bizfluent.com/about-6601606-monopoly-economics-.html https://bizfluent.com/about-6601606-monopoly-economics-.html A monopoly exists when there is a single seller of a commodity. Copyrights and patents are government-granted monopolies. A broader definition is that a monopolist is a provider that has pricing power - the ability to set prices. Apple has a monopoly on the channel to deliver iOS apps. Anyone seeking to deliver an iOS app must accept Apple's terms, including Apple's cut of revenue.
  - CarlRJ 7y ago
    > Apple has a monopoly on the channel to deliver iOS apps. That's only a monopoly in the same sense that McDonalds has a monopoly on Big Macs. It's within their own ecosystem. Customers can decide whether they want to buy into that ecosystem or choose an alternative (like Burger King, or Android).
    - Nullabillity 7y ago
      Utter nonsense. Buying a burger is an independent transaction. Buying a Big Mac one day doesn't make you less likely to buy a Whopper the next. Buying a phone is an investment that locks you into that ecosystem for ~2 years (until you buy a new one), and once that time comes, both ecosystems encourage you to stick with your existing choice via purchase transfers, exclusives, and (more) seamless data transfers. Your comparison would only make sense in a world where McD and BK competed by lacing their burgers with different drugs to get you chemically addicted. Fuck Apple, fuck Google, and fuck Tim Cook in particular. This is fucking depressing, and almost makes COVID seem appealing. At least it would take your mind off this bullshit for a while.
      - simonh 7y ago
        We're not talking about a monopoly on selling particular phones as physical products. We're talking about apps, which often, but not always are much more 'burger-like'. I think the best analogy would be video games on console platforms, does Sony have a 'monopoly' on PlayStation games? Well, kind of if you squint really hard, not that it seems to stand in the way of a vibrant and competitive console industry and that's the key issue. If there's a competitive market that is serving customer needs, and no deceptive practices so customers have a clear choice then it's hard to argue there's a market dysfunction such as a monopoly.
- root_axis 7y ago
  Monopolies aren't the issue, anti-competive behavior is. Buying out a company and then shutting out your competitor's customers is pretty anti-competetive and also clearly bad for consumers.
cpv 7y ago
Have you found good alternatives? I'm looking at meteoblue at the moment.
valuearb 7y ago
Why should Apple subsidize Android development?

simonh 7y ago

How is iOS in any way, shape or form a monopoly?

vertis 7y ago
There is a difference between being a monopoly and monopolist behaviour. One has successfully become the only one standing, one is seeking to shut out competition by one method or another. At least to my understanding.
- scarface74 7y ago
  What competition? Is it “monopolistic” every time that any company buys a smaller company instead of developing it in house?
  - drusepth 7y ago
    I don't think anyone's raising any problems about Apple buying a small company instead of developing comparable functionality in-house. People are raising concerns over Apple buying a small company and shutting down its offerings to any platform that isn't Apple's.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      So Apple should be forced to develop for a competitors platform?
      - drusepth 7y ago
        Nobody's saying that either. Apple has a pattern of purchasing companies that already offer products on other platforms and immediately shutting all non-iOS products down. Obviously, they're free to run their business however they want, but it's also understandable that fans of those products might be upset that their app (or APIs that power other apps they enjoy) are no longer available simply because Apple did "their usual thing". Many companies (including Apple in rare cases) maintain or even develop codebases for applications across more than one platform. There's nothing wrong with Apple buying companies to shut them down. It just sucks for the end-users who no longer get to use those companies' products for the sole reason of "they got bought by Apple".
- foota 7y ago
  This could in a sense be viewed as a form of bundling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_(antitrust_law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_(antitrust_law)) where the services being bundled are the OS and the weather app.
  - quanticle 7y ago
    The problem is that bundling is only considered problematic if your product is in a monopoly position. Bundling Internet Explorer was problematic for Windows because Windows was considered to have a monopoly in the OS market.
    - M2Ys4U 7y ago
      That depends on the interpretation, which differs by jurisdiction. The EU, for example, aims its anti-competitive regulation towards firms who have a "dominant market position" rather than a "monopoly".
kbutler 7y ago
https://bizfluent.com/about-6601606-monopoly-economics-.html https://bizfluent.com/about-6601606-monopoly-economics-.html A monopoly exists when there is a single seller of a commodity. Copyrights and patents are government-granted monopolies. A broader definition is that a monopolist is a provider that has pricing power - the ability to set prices. Apple has a monopoly on the channel to deliver iOS apps. Anyone seeking to deliver an iOS app must accept Apple's terms, including Apple's cut of revenue.
- CarlRJ 7y ago
  > Apple has a monopoly on the channel to deliver iOS apps. That's only a monopoly in the same sense that McDonalds has a monopoly on Big Macs. It's within their own ecosystem. Customers can decide whether they want to buy into that ecosystem or choose an alternative (like Burger King, or Android).
  - Nullabillity 7y ago
    Utter nonsense. Buying a burger is an independent transaction. Buying a Big Mac one day doesn't make you less likely to buy a Whopper the next. Buying a phone is an investment that locks you into that ecosystem for ~2 years (until you buy a new one), and once that time comes, both ecosystems encourage you to stick with your existing choice via purchase transfers, exclusives, and (more) seamless data transfers. Your comparison would only make sense in a world where McD and BK competed by lacing their burgers with different drugs to get you chemically addicted. Fuck Apple, fuck Google, and fuck Tim Cook in particular. This is fucking depressing, and almost makes COVID seem appealing. At least it would take your mind off this bullshit for a while.
    - simonh 7y ago
      We're not talking about a monopoly on selling particular phones as physical products. We're talking about apps, which often, but not always are much more 'burger-like'. I think the best analogy would be video games on console platforms, does Sony have a 'monopoly' on PlayStation games? Well, kind of if you squint really hard, not that it seems to stand in the way of a vibrant and competitive console industry and that's the key issue. If there's a competitive market that is serving customer needs, and no deceptive practices so customers have a clear choice then it's hard to argue there's a market dysfunction such as a monopoly.
root_axis 7y ago
Monopolies aren't the issue, anti-competive behavior is. Buying out a company and then shutting out your competitor's customers is pretty anti-competetive and also clearly bad for consumers.

cpv 7y ago

Have you found good alternatives? I'm looking at meteoblue at the moment.

valuearb 7y ago

Why should Apple subsidize Android development?