42 ms·
Apple and Google are similar to China and America. Apple has more restrictive policies within a walled garden. Google gives more freedoms but its platform is wi
by kanobo 6y ago
Apple and Google are similar to China and America. Apple has more restrictive policies within a walled garden. Google gives more freedoms but its platform is wild and open. It's easy for Apple to take advantage of Google's ecosystem and open policies, but very difficult for Google to do the same to Apple. It's similar to how US companies don't get a fair shake in China. And in both, the citizens get taken advantage of and the little people have no power. Did any of what I just said make any sense?
- blub 6y agoWhile one can draw parallels to all sorts of things the question is whether that makes the original situation clearer or offers any insights. In this case it doesn't, it's just a cutesy yet pointless way of expressing something.
- kanobo 6y agoIt's not the work of a high intellect, but I don't think it's fair to proclaim it as pointless. Most creative output, such as modern art and especially stand-up comedy is all about making parallels - it's up to the viewer to decide if it provides any insights for themselves or provokes discussion. You might as well disregard all creative activity and thought using your argument.
- kiliancs 6y agoIt certainly forces one to compare personal stances on A and B, possibly leading to a change of stance in order to resolve conflicts.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- naveen_ 6y agoYes.. You're right.
- labster 6y agoMaybe.
- clomond 6y agoFascinating analogy. Given the fundamental differences between corporations and governments (and the span of control they have over people’s lives) I do not believe this analogy can be used for any useful inference. It’s almost as if this example with app stores is an incredibly specific, narrow example, and government control in this way is incredibly broad in impact (I.e. life or death, end of the actual world etc). Did any of that make any sense?
- intortus 6y agoI think you are saying that they are right, but also very, very wrong?
- vmception 6y ago> Given the fundamental differences between corporations and governments I disagree with that line. I feel like people are desperate for there to be a difference based on some 9th grade civics class, or because an animated anthropomorphic piece of paper sang to them about bills in elementary school. The British East India company had the power to jail and kill, for centuries. The Head of the Executive Branch is the CEO of government agencies. Anything is possible.
- baddox 6y agoThe British East India company was a government actor. It’s silly to consider them otherwise simply because it was technically a “joint-stock company.” It was part of the government. Wikipedia even notes: > Originally chartered as the "Governor and Company of Merchants of London Trading into the East-Indies"
- nindalf 6y ago> It was part of the government. It was not. It did not answer to Parliament, only to its shareholders. It has the best of both worlds though, because many powerful MPs were shareholders. So they got govt protection without govt oversight.
- Fezzik 6y agoThe idea that a person’s country of origin, where all laws and political dynamics are compulsory at birth, is somehow equivalent to the luxury item that is an iPhone is... bananas. Me thinks you stretch too far. Edit: ‘equivalent‘ should be ‘comparable’... obviously the OP is not saying they are equivalent.
- jariel 6y ago" is somehow equivalent to the luxury item that is an iPhone" A mobile phone is not a 'luxury' - it's almost an essential good these days. Even without that, an iPhone doesn't meet the criteria of 'luxury good'. It's just a little more expensive. Android and iOS have an important market locked down, it's time for some basic regulation.
- znpy 6y agoA little more expensive isn't an accurate description. I have a 200€ xiaomi phone (redmi note 4) that works very well and I have little to no complaints. An iPhone costed 4-5 times that amount when I bought my phone, and does essentially the same things. But it's shinier. Yes, the iPhone is a luxury good. Edit, just to clarify: I have used an iPhone for an extended period of time (company issued): yes, the iPhone pretty much does the same thing as an android phone, maybe a little less.
- bzzzt 6y agoFor starters it shares less data with Google by default and is not subsidised by privacy invasion.
- jariel 6y agoProducts or services that are consumed in quantities by broad classes of individuals, generally are not a luxury goods. A more specific definition [1] FYI there are tons of mobiles in the iPhone price range. Ferraris, yachts, bespoke suits, exclusive trips to Antartica, private engagements with former Presidents, a closet full of Gucci - luxury goods. Due to the sophisticated nature of mobile tech, there are really no such thing as 'luxury goods' in that category, because he market size would be far too small to support the massive R&D effort. Which is why Bang & Olufsun don't make phones. Of course Apple definitely takes cues from luxury good makers in their marketing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_goods#:~:text=In%20economics%2C%20a%20luxury%20good,increases%20proportionally%20less%20than%20income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_goods#:~:text=In%20econ....
- cHaOs667 6y agolol, Googles platform is "wild and open"? Oh boy, you have never experienced the Windows phone/mobile app store...
- jeswin 6y agoHere's something many HNers might be unaware of. China has several App Stores for Android, but only Chinese companies are allowed to list apps. Yup, completely closed to outside competition. The only appropriate response really is to close markets to Chinese companies until they open up theirs (without unreasonable restrictions on free speech).
- ssss11 6y agoI think the western world hoped China would open up over the past 20 years.. unfortunately that strategy has become a spectacular failure
- randomsearch 6y agoWould it have been such a failure without the election of Trump?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- dilutedh2o 6y agoyes
- simonh 6y agoTrump has only been in power for a few years, so it’s really nothing to do with him. There are enough things we can legitimately lay at his door without making stretches like that.
- randomsearch 6y agoSo strange to be downvoted for asking a question, where a generous reading would be that I was genuinely asking it. I think the aggressive stance of China coincides with the election of Xi Jinping in 2013, seven years ago. Trump has been in power for 3.5 years, so that's half of this time period. So it certainly _could_ be something to do with Trump. My question was whether if would have been _such_ a failure. It seems to me that both Trump and Xi Jinping have benefitted from the trade wars and diplomatic arguments between the countries. There seems little doubt that the Trump administration has given Xi Jinping a window of opportunity where he has been able to consolidate power and conduct aggressive foreign policy... so I genuinely wonder: how important has Trump's disastrous leadership been in the failure of this policy?
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago> Did any of what I just said make any sense? No. We don't need bizzaro metaphors when the situation is easy to discuss on its own terms.