7 ms·

It's important to remember that the root issue is not Apple's profit margin, it's Apple's refusal to allow users to install the apps they wish to install on pho

It's important to remember that the root issue is not Apple's profit margin, it's Apple's refusal to allow users to install the apps they wish to install on phones that they've legally purchased. The margin, if it is indeed very high—and common sense says it must be very high—is just an indicator of how much power this control gets them and what the degree of harm might be.

holmesworcester 6y ago
To add to this, we don't even know what the Internet would look like now if half of the U.S. mobile market wasn't subject to Apple control. It's likely that there are amazing apps that never got worked on because of ambiguity about whether Apple would accept them.
- Shivetya 6y ago
  I had to choose to be part of Apple's market, Apple did not choose me. Seriously all arguments to fall short for that one simple reason. No one forced anyone to buy an Apple product. Now if Apple tried to dictate what software you could use on platforms connected to your Apple product it would be an issue but they don't.
threeseed 6y ago
I can't install the apps I wish to install on my Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, Tesla, VW etc. Your argument that "every platform must allow open access" is an unprecedented one that would destroy many business models. Consoles being an obvious one.
- EdwinLarkin 6y ago
  These are not platform providers Apple and Android are. I would argue that digital app stores should be treated as important and critical infrastructure. There should be a way for you to install (based on a contract) whatever you want from whoever you want. I am all for capitalism but this is a monopolized area and deserves to be regulated.
  - threeseed 6y ago
    Your definition is completely arbitrary. So if Sony approves a non-gaming app suddenly their entire platform switches to critical infrastructure and must be opened up ? And companies like Shopify run digital app stores. By what definition is their platform important and critical infrastructure ?
    - EdwinLarkin 6y ago
      By definition of fair trading? Spotify is so huge that it would be a suicide not releasing on their platform.
- echelon 6y ago
  Consoles are single-purpose entertainment devices. There are dozens of choices in this market, even openly distributed PC games. Pocket computers are generic compute devices. These should be the most open systems in the world, and yet, somehow we've been mind controlled into them becoming locked down fiefdoms. People take pictures, make calls, make payments, find love, do business, arrange their schedule, take notes, post online, order food. Literally everything. On these devices. For most, they've even taken the place of the PC. They need to be open. I continue to tell my representatives about this travesty.
  - 29083011397778 6y ago
    > Consoles are single-purpose entertainment devices How do we determine what is single-purpose and what isn't? Consoles have been used as everything from media servers (such as XBMC-turned-Kodi) to supercomputers (such as the Condor Cluster for the US Air Force). I'm certain there are more non-standard uses I haven't heard of, too. There are dozens of choices for open smartphones in the market, just like there are multiple choices for open gaming solutions. However, only one choice runs iOS - just like only one choice runs the Playstation's OS. I whole-heartedly agree that iPhones should be more open, I'm just curious why you're so quick to dismiss easier access to all consoles.
    - Barrin92 6y ago
      >How do we determine what is single-purpose and what isn't? how about, "throwing all other computing devices away, can you get by with only using the one left?". If yes, it's propably a general purpose device. Smartphones have become/are rapidly becoming the primary, often only computer people use to interact with the world, in the developing world in particular. It's a travesty that an entire generation will grow up without even the chance to have an open computation platform. Just as an anecdote about how much damage this does in my opinion. When I was teaching first semester CS students a few years ago, an overwhelming majority already did not know how to boot from a USB stick or install an operating system on a machine.
      - 6y ago
- orwin 6y ago
  Console being a monopsony does not have the same impact as Apple being one. What if microsoft app store became the only app store available on microsoft?
- dividedbyzero 6y ago
  There is also the security angle; keeping a Windows laptop safe if you're someone who struggles with basic usage is pretty much down to luck, and that's how it is for a huge lot of people. It's much harder to shoot yourself in the foot with iOS (and Android, I guess), and I'd say a considerable part of this stems from a relatively clean app store and few (or no) easy options to bypass that. Of course, keeping app stores clean doesn't require the current predatory conditions, but for me it's a strong counter-argument to abolishing walled gardens completely, even though some, as power users, professionals, developers might desire the most open platform imaginable. I think especially app stores and the large walled gardens in general should be regulated a lot more strongly, though.
- 627467 6y ago
  How often have you seen people pay their coffee (or something bigger like airtravel) with a Nintendo device? Many governments around the world are relying on apps to address the pandemic: how many of those government apps are released for Tesla or Sony? Do you still think the importance of those companies/brands you listed are the same as iOS devices?
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > I can't install the apps I wish to install on my Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, Tesla, VW etc. People keep bringing this up as if it wouldn't be better if they were required to allow competition too. > Your argument that "every platform must allow open access" is an unprecedented one that would destroy many business models. The illegality of murder destroys the business model of hitmen. Destroying harmful business models is the idea. It's not as if consoles wouldn't exist under a different business model. The console itself would cost more (or just generate less profit) and the games would cost less. It's hard to see how that wouldn't be an improvement.
  - swinglock 6y ago
    I'm not convinced it would exist in any meaningful way. We already have such a "console", it's called a PC. You could buy one today but for whatever reasons people still buy the locked down consoles.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      The consoles are purpose-built devices. They come with game controllers rather than keyboards. They're designed to be attached to a television with an interface designed to be used from across the room. You might very well end up in a market where you could build your own console by plugging a game controller into a PC and installing SteamOS on it in addition to companies selling them pre-built like that, but what's so bad about that?
  - ballenf 6y ago
    "Harmful business model" is a reductive, meaningless argument. I don't buy many games and have 2 latest gen consoles. I would be harmed by your suggestion. How do you choose which group's harm is more important? And who do you trust to make that analysis?
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      > "Harmful business model" is a reductive, meaningless argument. It has a very specific meaning here. It means a market where the company is not subject to significant competitive pressure. > I don't buy many games and have 2 latest gen consoles. I would be harmed by your suggestion. You are engaged in arbitrage. The company sold you a subsidized game console on the theory that you would buy games for it, and you didn't. If everyone did what you did the business model would fail anyway (or the company would devise a way to prevent you from doing that), so you're hardly in a position to argue against something else that attacks the same business model that you're attacking yourself. You would also have no recourse if the company implemented some method of preventing your arbitrage. > How do you choose which group's harm is more important? The one being deprived of the benefits of competition. > And who do you trust to make that analysis? You can make it yourself. Obviously you have to hire someone to actually do the enforcement, but if they come to the same conclusion as you then you know they're doing it right.
- contravariant 6y ago
  It's hardly unprecedented, although it might be one of the more hard-core interpretations of the free software movement.
- searchableguy 6y ago
  > Your argument that "every platform must allow open access" is an unprecedented one that would destroy many business models. > Consoles being an obvious one. Source? Most of the latest consoles make profit from day 1 or after few months. It's not like PS3 anymore. You can argue this model of extracting value and money in a roundabout way qualifies as predatory and should not exist. EU is already looking into it btw. Check: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right The argument itself is flawed too. It ignores that there are some things you cannot live with. That is your phone, not the console.

holmesworcester 6y ago

To add to this, we don't even know what the Internet would look like now if half of the U.S. mobile market wasn't subject to Apple control. It's likely that there are amazing apps that never got worked on because of ambiguity about whether Apple would accept them.

Shivetya 6y ago
I had to choose to be part of Apple's market, Apple did not choose me. Seriously all arguments to fall short for that one simple reason. No one forced anyone to buy an Apple product. Now if Apple tried to dictate what software you could use on platforms connected to your Apple product it would be an issue but they don't.

threeseed 6y ago

I can't install the apps I wish to install on my Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, Tesla, VW etc. Your argument that "every platform must allow open access" is an unprecedented one that would destroy many business models. Consoles being an obvious one.

EdwinLarkin 6y ago
These are not platform providers Apple and Android are. I would argue that digital app stores should be treated as important and critical infrastructure. There should be a way for you to install (based on a contract) whatever you want from whoever you want. I am all for capitalism but this is a monopolized area and deserves to be regulated.
- threeseed 6y ago
  Your definition is completely arbitrary. So if Sony approves a non-gaming app suddenly their entire platform switches to critical infrastructure and must be opened up ? And companies like Shopify run digital app stores. By what definition is their platform important and critical infrastructure ?
  - EdwinLarkin 6y ago
    By definition of fair trading? Spotify is so huge that it would be a suicide not releasing on their platform.
echelon 6y ago
Consoles are single-purpose entertainment devices. There are dozens of choices in this market, even openly distributed PC games. Pocket computers are generic compute devices. These should be the most open systems in the world, and yet, somehow we've been mind controlled into them becoming locked down fiefdoms. People take pictures, make calls, make payments, find love, do business, arrange their schedule, take notes, post online, order food. Literally everything. On these devices. For most, they've even taken the place of the PC. They need to be open. I continue to tell my representatives about this travesty.
- 29083011397778 6y ago
  > Consoles are single-purpose entertainment devices How do we determine what is single-purpose and what isn't? Consoles have been used as everything from media servers (such as XBMC-turned-Kodi) to supercomputers (such as the Condor Cluster for the US Air Force). I'm certain there are more non-standard uses I haven't heard of, too. There are dozens of choices for open smartphones in the market, just like there are multiple choices for open gaming solutions. However, only one choice runs iOS - just like only one choice runs the Playstation's OS. I whole-heartedly agree that iPhones should be more open, I'm just curious why you're so quick to dismiss easier access to all consoles.
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    >How do we determine what is single-purpose and what isn't? how about, "throwing all other computing devices away, can you get by with only using the one left?". If yes, it's propably a general purpose device. Smartphones have become/are rapidly becoming the primary, often only computer people use to interact with the world, in the developing world in particular. It's a travesty that an entire generation will grow up without even the chance to have an open computation platform. Just as an anecdote about how much damage this does in my opinion. When I was teaching first semester CS students a few years ago, an overwhelming majority already did not know how to boot from a USB stick or install an operating system on a machine.
    - 6y ago
orwin 6y ago
Console being a monopsony does not have the same impact as Apple being one. What if microsoft app store became the only app store available on microsoft?
dividedbyzero 6y ago
There is also the security angle; keeping a Windows laptop safe if you're someone who struggles with basic usage is pretty much down to luck, and that's how it is for a huge lot of people. It's much harder to shoot yourself in the foot with iOS (and Android, I guess), and I'd say a considerable part of this stems from a relatively clean app store and few (or no) easy options to bypass that. Of course, keeping app stores clean doesn't require the current predatory conditions, but for me it's a strong counter-argument to abolishing walled gardens completely, even though some, as power users, professionals, developers might desire the most open platform imaginable. I think especially app stores and the large walled gardens in general should be regulated a lot more strongly, though.
627467 6y ago
How often have you seen people pay their coffee (or something bigger like airtravel) with a Nintendo device? Many governments around the world are relying on apps to address the pandemic: how many of those government apps are released for Tesla or Sony? Do you still think the importance of those companies/brands you listed are the same as iOS devices?
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> I can't install the apps I wish to install on my Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, Tesla, VW etc. People keep bringing this up as if it wouldn't be better if they were required to allow competition too. > Your argument that "every platform must allow open access" is an unprecedented one that would destroy many business models. The illegality of murder destroys the business model of hitmen. Destroying harmful business models is the idea. It's not as if consoles wouldn't exist under a different business model. The console itself would cost more (or just generate less profit) and the games would cost less. It's hard to see how that wouldn't be an improvement.
- swinglock 6y ago
  I'm not convinced it would exist in any meaningful way. We already have such a "console", it's called a PC. You could buy one today but for whatever reasons people still buy the locked down consoles.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    The consoles are purpose-built devices. They come with game controllers rather than keyboards. They're designed to be attached to a television with an interface designed to be used from across the room. You might very well end up in a market where you could build your own console by plugging a game controller into a PC and installing SteamOS on it in addition to companies selling them pre-built like that, but what's so bad about that?
- ballenf 6y ago
  "Harmful business model" is a reductive, meaningless argument. I don't buy many games and have 2 latest gen consoles. I would be harmed by your suggestion. How do you choose which group's harm is more important? And who do you trust to make that analysis?
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > "Harmful business model" is a reductive, meaningless argument. It has a very specific meaning here. It means a market where the company is not subject to significant competitive pressure. > I don't buy many games and have 2 latest gen consoles. I would be harmed by your suggestion. You are engaged in arbitrage. The company sold you a subsidized game console on the theory that you would buy games for it, and you didn't. If everyone did what you did the business model would fail anyway (or the company would devise a way to prevent you from doing that), so you're hardly in a position to argue against something else that attacks the same business model that you're attacking yourself. You would also have no recourse if the company implemented some method of preventing your arbitrage. > How do you choose which group's harm is more important? The one being deprived of the benefits of competition. > And who do you trust to make that analysis? You can make it yourself. Obviously you have to hire someone to actually do the enforcement, but if they come to the same conclusion as you then you know they're doing it right.
contravariant 6y ago
It's hardly unprecedented, although it might be one of the more hard-core interpretations of the free software movement.
searchableguy 6y ago
> Your argument that "every platform must allow open access" is an unprecedented one that would destroy many business models. > Consoles being an obvious one. Source? Most of the latest consoles make profit from day 1 or after few months. It's not like PS3 anymore. You can argue this model of extracting value and money in a roundabout way qualifies as predatory and should not exist. EU is already looking into it btw. Check: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right The argument itself is flawed too. It ignores that there are some things you cannot live with. That is your phone, not the console.