4 ms·
> I don't see why not. If it's a problem, then either a competitor will emerge, or people won't purchase the product. Aka "the invisible hand will fix it". We
by diffeomorphism 6y ago
> I don't see why not. If it's a problem, then either a competitor will emerge, or people won't purchase the product.
Aka "the invisible hand will fix it". We have been waiting quite a few years for this and it did not happen. Instead we got the complete opposite: a duopoly of android and iOS which nobody, not even Microsoft, can compete against. At this point, we have to acknowledge that simply waiting is not going to fix anything.
- ericmay 6y agoIt works most of the time, actually. I'm not against regulation (I argue that companies like Facebook and other social media companies shouldn't be able to merge or acquire each other, for example), but it needs to be sensible regulation. I also don't think a duopoly is necessarily bad, and in this case I think it's not even a duopoly long-term. It is right now because Google and Apple are the leaders, but it's only a matter of time until other large companies (Samsung, Huawei, etc.) gain a foothold and market share. Being a local duopoly (in the US) is one thing versus being a global duopoly. Further, I'm not really convinced that this duopoly we have is even bad. Why is it bad that we have a duopoly? Is it only acceptable if we have 3 large players? Why aren't we complaining about the Microsoft and Apple duopoly with computers? I think this is just arbitrary really and it won't be long-lived anyway.
- johncolanduoni 6y agoBut Android in general doesn’t have these restrictions. Plenty of phones (including Google’s flagships!) support rooting, and you can install a third-party App Store like F-droid even when they only support sideloading. So that’s not really a good example of market forces failing to solve the unlocked hardware availability problem.