6 ms·

I have an allergy to tech analogies in general, but Apple's brick-and-mortar retail analogy is one of the worst. In any locality other than rural towns served

I have an allergy to tech analogies in general, but Apple's brick-and-mortar retail analogy is one of the worst. In any locality other than rural towns served by a single Dollar General, consumers have a choice between multiple retail outlets. If they don't like the choices at one store, they're free to shop at another. "But Android!" one might say, and once again, the analogy falls completely flat. The switching costs of going between iOS and Android are obviously not remotely comparable from the switching costs of going between Walmart and Target. When you move into iOS town, the only store within a thousand miles is the App Store.

scarface74 6y ago
Name one app that is of any importance on iOS that there isn’t available on Android or that would cause you to have to buy again? I have exactly one - Overcast. Even with that I can export to OPML (?).
- millstone 6y ago
  I would miss all the games. Slay the Spire, Darkest Dungeon, Bastion, FTL...
- Marsymars 6y ago
  Well, Apple Maps, Photos, Siri, and Messages. (I'd be willing to pay a subscription fee to have them on Android. As is, I just do without, and deal with ridiculous workarounds like having my Android phone save my photos to OneDrive and them manually copying them over to Photos on my Mac.)
  - scarface74 6y ago
    Really? I’m an iPhone user and even I admit that Google Maps, Google Photos and whatever Google is calling their voice assistant today are better. If I were serious about photos I would use Lightroom.
    - Marsymars 6y ago
      Well I've got some specific points for each of them: Maps: Google Maps is drastically better from a POI standpoint, particularly for reviews, as it's become the de facto standard for restaurant reviews in my locale, while Apple Maps just imports the graveyard of Yelp reviews, and GMaps is mildly better for routing. That being said, Google Maps has ads, which is enough for me that I'd preferentially pay for Apple Maps to avoid ads for anything other than restaurant reviews. As is, I use a Garmin GPS in my car in large part because of my annoyance with Google Maps. Photos: For desktop software, Photos on macOS is fine for my use, and significantly improved over the past few years. (I abandoned Lightroom after Adobe's previous macOS file-deletion snafu a few years ago.) I have no interest in a web-based photo editor/management software rather than a desktop one. Apple's photo recognition stuff is generally done on-device, which is preferable to me over a cloud service. Voice assistants: They're pretty much all equivalent in terms of accuracy for my use. (Setting timers, setting alarms, controlling my lights and music.) The killer feature of Siri/HomeKit is that it processes commands locally, so my lights respond instantly rather than needing to bounce my requests to Amazon/Google HQs for processing. And Apple has generally better privacy policies.
      - pseudalopex 6y ago
        Siri doesn't work locally.
        Marsymars 6y ago
        Hm, seems you're right - I think what I must have been remembering was comparing control of home automation products via Alexa/Google (voice and app are similarly responsive) to non-voice HomeKit control. (But even Siri voice seems more responsive than e.g. Alexa voice for Hue, presumably because commands just bounce to Apple and back to me, rather than to Amazon, then to Philips, then back to me.) I don't actually use voice control on phone, so I guess what I actually want on my Android phone is just HomeKit, and not Siri. (Would also let me switch my camera to HomeKit Secure Video, which I can't practically use with my primary carry being an Android phone, despite owning all of the prerequisites.)
    - 6y ago
- ViViDboarder 6y ago
  App availability isn’t the only cost in switching. Even if so, a duopoly is still a concern as a consumer. Having to chose between only AT&T and Comcast for cable because they are the only providers to your area is not a fair choice. Sure, nothing stops me from moving. I can get power, water, and commute from elsewhere too. But it’s a pain and sucks.
- ascorbic 6y ago
  In the US, iMessage is the most important app for lock-in. I wonder how much of the reason for lower iPhone market share outside the US is down to the fact iMessage is far less widely used by Apple users, who instead use cross platform apps like WhatsApp or Facebook messenger. It's hard to untangle cause and effect, but I do see a lot of iPhone users saying that iMessage is what prevents them from switching. The stigma of the green bubble is real.
em-bee 6y ago
the equivalent would be that you can only use an apple car to go shopping in the apple store, and you can't use that apple car to go shopping anywhere else.
- em-bee 6y ago
  so in fact what we have here is a vertical lock-in. lock-in is just as bad as a monopoly, as it removes the ability to choose competitors. i believe the EU has a law for interoperability, it only applies to API's as far as i know, but one could see the phone as a device with an API that allows apps to run on it. it could therefore be considered that now allowing any app to run on the phone is a violation of that law.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    That's an interesting point. They forced the end of every manufacturer using unique charging cabled for their phones, forcing a universal app API would be a great step. The phone would literally just become a platform and you could have a healthy competition about who builds the best platform.
    - em-bee 6y ago
      the API would not have to be universal, because that would mean android support on IOS. the API would just have to be open, in that neither apple nor google can act as gatekeepers for who gets to use it. this also includes that apple can not disallow duplication of existing features.
  - em-bee 6y ago
    correction: NOT allowing any app is a violation
- Terretta 6y ago
  The equivalent would be that you can only use an apple console to go shopping in the apple store, much like only using an Xbox to shop in the Xbox store ... so the analogy does work and the marketplace is fine with it, and clear. // FWIW, I wish I could play Horizon Zero Dawn on that Xbox, but it’s not in the Xbox store.
nodamage 6y ago
Except if having the choice of more than one app store was important to you, why did you buy an iPhone in the first place? You could have bought something else and and avoided the problem entirely.
- jasonlotito 6y ago
  Because some of us bought into the ecosystem early on when we believed it was going to be much more open based on what the company said. Switching now would require a large investment, and I think their is some element of wanting Apple to be true to its past promises.
  - nodamage 6y ago
    You bought your iPhone before 2008 and are still using it? If so, I'm impressed. Otherwise, Apple has been clear since the very beginning of the App Store that third-party apps require approval and can only be installed via the App Store. Why did you believe otherwise? Third party iPhone and iPod touch applications must be approved by Apple and will be available exclusively through the App Store. https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2008/03/06Apple-Announces-iPhone-2-0-Software-Beta/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2008/03/06Apple-Announces-iPh...
Slartie 6y ago
> "But Android!" one might say, and once again, the analogy falls completely flat. The switching costs of going between iOS and Android are obviously not remotely comparable from the switching costs of going between Walmart and Target. When you move into iOS town, the only store within a thousand miles is the App Store. The analogy actually works quite nice, and you already hinted at how: the Android alternative is akin to permanently moving from one place to another because that one place you were in did only have one store with very restrictive rules and opening others is forbidden. Accepting such a monopoly and arguing that "people are free to sell their houses, leave their friends and family behind and move elsewhere if they don't like it" doesn't really make it a monopoly is ridiculous.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  > that one place you were in did only have one store with very restrictive rules and opening others is forbidden. See also: certificate-of-need laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_of_need https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_of_need > Accepting such a monopoly and arguing that "people are free to sell their houses, leave their friends and family behind and move elsewhere if they don't like it" doesn't really make it a monopoly is ridiculous. If only. CON laws and their analogues form monopolies in the true sense - businesses who are protected from competition by law. But hey, what's wrong with that?
  - Slartie 6y ago
    I am pretty sure that comparing the economics of healthcare and the economics of a hypermarket is like comparing apples to oranges. Same with comparison of healthcare and a virtual store selling smartphone apps. Comparing a hypermarket selling all the physical stuff for everyday needs and a virtual store on a smartphone selling all the apps for everyday needs though...
  - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
    > If only. CON laws and their analogues form monopolies in the true sense - businesses who are protected from competition by law. But hey, what's wrong with that? CONs are a tool - and they can be used for good, or used for bad. Obviously cases where they're misused will attract media attention and no-one thinks about why CONs exist in the first place: I understand that CONs exist to prevent over-supply of medical services in one area to the detriment of another, or to prevent the inefficient - or inhumane - distribution of medical resources given the US' healthcare system and hospital builder's and operators motives. In an economic sense: in poorer and rural areas you'll find higher rates of people being uninsured, which means the hospital will have to deal with more indigent patients which can be very expensive - without having enough wealthy patients effectively subsidizing the poorer patients. In the case of emergency care, federal law requires ER departments to treat everyone regardless of ability to pay or insurance which will be hugely expensive - and in non-emergency care you'll simply have fewer paying patients overall - meaning less revenue for a hospital - this means that even the most altruistically run non-profit hospital would rather set-up shop in a wealthier area than a poorer area. This then leads to poorer areas being under-served, which then leads to greater disparities in socioeconomic and quality-of-life outcomes. This is not good for a well-functioning society. The other reason concerns the negative consequences of having hospitals competing with each other. I assume we all know that (and why) having two hospitals in the area will not result in lower sticker-prices for services or will necessarily improve the quality of the patient-experience (besides bigger marketing budgets...) - competing for patients is one thing, but when they start competing for staff, doctors, specialists - and competing for limited resources (e.g. Covid-19 test kits, medical supplies, etc) that pushes expenses up sharply. This is also not good. So yes - just like the New York Taxi Cab Medallion system, the Certificate-of-Need system can also be used to artificially restrict supply for the worst reasons - but it has its place, and provided it's well-administered it will be essential to ensure certain efficiencies until the US gets its act together on healthcare like most of the developed world already has. (If my understanding of the nature of CONs is incorrect, please let me know in a reply - I understand there's an increasing general consensus in academia and public-policy against CONs lately, but I'm also suspicious that people may conflate CON systems in some states that so-far appear to be working well with CON systems in states with a history of regulatory-capture and legislative abuse. Obviously I'd prefer non-CON to a poorly-run CON system, but from what I can tell a well-run CON system is better than non-CON).
hn_check 6y ago
>When you move into iOS town, the only store within a thousand miles is the App Store. A thousand miles? I've switched between iOS and Android multiple times over my smartphone life (Android to iOS to Android to iOS). The switch is trivial. Yeah, it is like going between Walmart and Target, and not knowing the aisles layouts or having the loyalty card, but it's a pretty easy barrier and you'll figure it out quickly enough. All of this moping and crying speaks as if Apple drew everyone in and then suddenly changed the rules of the game -- some master bait and switch -- and now everyone is finding the gates locked. Yet it has been the same rules for the entire ascent. Everyone who has bought an iPhone in the past decade+ knows that there is one app store, it's curated, etc. None of this is new. Every developer who made an app knew the way the store works, the rules, Apple's cut, etc. Apple is on the wrong side of history with some of their current positions (cloud gaming as a big example of Apple being wrong), but this whole thread feel like people who want to force their way by grossly exaggerating their grievances and opposition. Many of these comments read like an absurd parody.
Sebb767 6y ago
> The switching costs of going between iOS and Android are obviously not remotely comparable from the switching costs of going between Walmart and Target. True, but you knew that very well when you bought iOS device (and it might've even been exactly because of the strict review). Same if you moved to that town with the single Dollar General - you knew what you were getting into. Don't get me wrong - I don't like the situation. But people buy iPhones (at the very least) despite the strict guidelines and developers still put apps in the store despite the strict rules. If either of those components would miss, Apple would not be one of the highest value companies in the world right now. And Apple does not have the market force to simply crush everyone else.

scarface74 6y ago

Name one app that is of any importance on iOS that there isn’t available on Android or that would cause you to have to buy again? I have exactly one - Overcast. Even with that I can export to OPML (?).

millstone 6y ago
I would miss all the games. Slay the Spire, Darkest Dungeon, Bastion, FTL...
Marsymars 6y ago
Well, Apple Maps, Photos, Siri, and Messages. (I'd be willing to pay a subscription fee to have them on Android. As is, I just do without, and deal with ridiculous workarounds like having my Android phone save my photos to OneDrive and them manually copying them over to Photos on my Mac.)
- scarface74 6y ago
  Really? I’m an iPhone user and even I admit that Google Maps, Google Photos and whatever Google is calling their voice assistant today are better. If I were serious about photos I would use Lightroom.
  - Marsymars 6y ago
    Well I've got some specific points for each of them: Maps: Google Maps is drastically better from a POI standpoint, particularly for reviews, as it's become the de facto standard for restaurant reviews in my locale, while Apple Maps just imports the graveyard of Yelp reviews, and GMaps is mildly better for routing. That being said, Google Maps has ads, which is enough for me that I'd preferentially pay for Apple Maps to avoid ads for anything other than restaurant reviews. As is, I use a Garmin GPS in my car in large part because of my annoyance with Google Maps. Photos: For desktop software, Photos on macOS is fine for my use, and significantly improved over the past few years. (I abandoned Lightroom after Adobe's previous macOS file-deletion snafu a few years ago.) I have no interest in a web-based photo editor/management software rather than a desktop one. Apple's photo recognition stuff is generally done on-device, which is preferable to me over a cloud service. Voice assistants: They're pretty much all equivalent in terms of accuracy for my use. (Setting timers, setting alarms, controlling my lights and music.) The killer feature of Siri/HomeKit is that it processes commands locally, so my lights respond instantly rather than needing to bounce my requests to Amazon/Google HQs for processing. And Apple has generally better privacy policies.
    - pseudalopex 6y ago
      Siri doesn't work locally.
      - Marsymars 6y ago
        Hm, seems you're right - I think what I must have been remembering was comparing control of home automation products via Alexa/Google (voice and app are similarly responsive) to non-voice HomeKit control. (But even Siri voice seems more responsive than e.g. Alexa voice for Hue, presumably because commands just bounce to Apple and back to me, rather than to Amazon, then to Philips, then back to me.) I don't actually use voice control on phone, so I guess what I actually want on my Android phone is just HomeKit, and not Siri. (Would also let me switch my camera to HomeKit Secure Video, which I can't practically use with my primary carry being an Android phone, despite owning all of the prerequisites.)
  - 6y ago
ViViDboarder 6y ago
App availability isn’t the only cost in switching. Even if so, a duopoly is still a concern as a consumer. Having to chose between only AT&T and Comcast for cable because they are the only providers to your area is not a fair choice. Sure, nothing stops me from moving. I can get power, water, and commute from elsewhere too. But it’s a pain and sucks.
ascorbic 6y ago
In the US, iMessage is the most important app for lock-in. I wonder how much of the reason for lower iPhone market share outside the US is down to the fact iMessage is far less widely used by Apple users, who instead use cross platform apps like WhatsApp or Facebook messenger. It's hard to untangle cause and effect, but I do see a lot of iPhone users saying that iMessage is what prevents them from switching. The stigma of the green bubble is real.

em-bee 6y ago

the equivalent would be that you can only use an apple car to go shopping in the apple store, and you can't use that apple car to go shopping anywhere else.

em-bee 6y ago
so in fact what we have here is a vertical lock-in. lock-in is just as bad as a monopoly, as it removes the ability to choose competitors. i believe the EU has a law for interoperability, it only applies to API's as far as i know, but one could see the phone as a device with an API that allows apps to run on it. it could therefore be considered that now allowing any app to run on the phone is a violation of that law.
- luckylion 6y ago
  That's an interesting point. They forced the end of every manufacturer using unique charging cabled for their phones, forcing a universal app API would be a great step. The phone would literally just become a platform and you could have a healthy competition about who builds the best platform.
  - em-bee 6y ago
    the API would not have to be universal, because that would mean android support on IOS. the API would just have to be open, in that neither apple nor google can act as gatekeepers for who gets to use it. this also includes that apple can not disallow duplication of existing features.
- em-bee 6y ago
  correction: NOT allowing any app is a violation
Terretta 6y ago
The equivalent would be that you can only use an apple console to go shopping in the apple store, much like only using an Xbox to shop in the Xbox store ... so the analogy does work and the marketplace is fine with it, and clear. // FWIW, I wish I could play Horizon Zero Dawn on that Xbox, but it’s not in the Xbox store.

nodamage 6y ago

Except if having the choice of more than one app store was important to you, why did you buy an iPhone in the first place? You could have bought something else and and avoided the problem entirely.

jasonlotito 6y ago
Because some of us bought into the ecosystem early on when we believed it was going to be much more open based on what the company said. Switching now would require a large investment, and I think their is some element of wanting Apple to be true to its past promises.
- nodamage 6y ago
  You bought your iPhone before 2008 and are still using it? If so, I'm impressed. Otherwise, Apple has been clear since the very beginning of the App Store that third-party apps require approval and can only be installed via the App Store. Why did you believe otherwise? Third party iPhone and iPod touch applications must be approved by Apple and will be available exclusively through the App Store. https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2008/03/06Apple-Announces-iPhone-2-0-Software-Beta/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2008/03/06Apple-Announces-iPh...

Slartie 6y ago

> "But Android!" one might say, and once again, the analogy falls completely flat. The switching costs of going between iOS and Android are obviously not remotely comparable from the switching costs of going between Walmart and Target. When you move into iOS town, the only store within a thousand miles is the App Store. The analogy actually works quite nice, and you already hinted at how: the Android alternative is akin to permanently moving from one place to another because that one place you were in did only have one store with very restrictive rules and opening others is forbidden. Accepting such a monopoly and arguing that "people are free to sell their houses, leave their friends and family behind and move elsewhere if they don't like it" doesn't really make it a monopoly is ridiculous.

thaumasiotes 6y ago
> that one place you were in did only have one store with very restrictive rules and opening others is forbidden. See also: certificate-of-need laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_of_need https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_of_need > Accepting such a monopoly and arguing that "people are free to sell their houses, leave their friends and family behind and move elsewhere if they don't like it" doesn't really make it a monopoly is ridiculous. If only. CON laws and their analogues form monopolies in the true sense - businesses who are protected from competition by law. But hey, what's wrong with that?
- Slartie 6y ago
  I am pretty sure that comparing the economics of healthcare and the economics of a hypermarket is like comparing apples to oranges. Same with comparison of healthcare and a virtual store selling smartphone apps. Comparing a hypermarket selling all the physical stuff for everyday needs and a virtual store on a smartphone selling all the apps for everyday needs though...
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
  > If only. CON laws and their analogues form monopolies in the true sense - businesses who are protected from competition by law. But hey, what's wrong with that? CONs are a tool - and they can be used for good, or used for bad. Obviously cases where they're misused will attract media attention and no-one thinks about why CONs exist in the first place: I understand that CONs exist to prevent over-supply of medical services in one area to the detriment of another, or to prevent the inefficient - or inhumane - distribution of medical resources given the US' healthcare system and hospital builder's and operators motives. In an economic sense: in poorer and rural areas you'll find higher rates of people being uninsured, which means the hospital will have to deal with more indigent patients which can be very expensive - without having enough wealthy patients effectively subsidizing the poorer patients. In the case of emergency care, federal law requires ER departments to treat everyone regardless of ability to pay or insurance which will be hugely expensive - and in non-emergency care you'll simply have fewer paying patients overall - meaning less revenue for a hospital - this means that even the most altruistically run non-profit hospital would rather set-up shop in a wealthier area than a poorer area. This then leads to poorer areas being under-served, which then leads to greater disparities in socioeconomic and quality-of-life outcomes. This is not good for a well-functioning society. The other reason concerns the negative consequences of having hospitals competing with each other. I assume we all know that (and why) having two hospitals in the area will not result in lower sticker-prices for services or will necessarily improve the quality of the patient-experience (besides bigger marketing budgets...) - competing for patients is one thing, but when they start competing for staff, doctors, specialists - and competing for limited resources (e.g. Covid-19 test kits, medical supplies, etc) that pushes expenses up sharply. This is also not good. So yes - just like the New York Taxi Cab Medallion system, the Certificate-of-Need system can also be used to artificially restrict supply for the worst reasons - but it has its place, and provided it's well-administered it will be essential to ensure certain efficiencies until the US gets its act together on healthcare like most of the developed world already has. (If my understanding of the nature of CONs is incorrect, please let me know in a reply - I understand there's an increasing general consensus in academia and public-policy against CONs lately, but I'm also suspicious that people may conflate CON systems in some states that so-far appear to be working well with CON systems in states with a history of regulatory-capture and legislative abuse. Obviously I'd prefer non-CON to a poorly-run CON system, but from what I can tell a well-run CON system is better than non-CON).

hn_check 6y ago

>When you move into iOS town, the only store within a thousand miles is the App Store. A thousand miles? I've switched between iOS and Android multiple times over my smartphone life (Android to iOS to Android to iOS). The switch is trivial. Yeah, it is like going between Walmart and Target, and not knowing the aisles layouts or having the loyalty card, but it's a pretty easy barrier and you'll figure it out quickly enough. All of this moping and crying speaks as if Apple drew everyone in and then suddenly changed the rules of the game -- some master bait and switch -- and now everyone is finding the gates locked. Yet it has been the same rules for the entire ascent. Everyone who has bought an iPhone in the past decade+ knows that there is one app store, it's curated, etc. None of this is new. Every developer who made an app knew the way the store works, the rules, Apple's cut, etc. Apple is on the wrong side of history with some of their current positions (cloud gaming as a big example of Apple being wrong), but this whole thread feel like people who want to force their way by grossly exaggerating their grievances and opposition. Many of these comments read like an absurd parody.

Sebb767 6y ago

> The switching costs of going between iOS and Android are obviously not remotely comparable from the switching costs of going between Walmart and Target. True, but you knew that very well when you bought iOS device (and it might've even been exactly because of the strict review). Same if you moved to that town with the single Dollar General - you knew what you were getting into. Don't get me wrong - I don't like the situation. But people buy iPhones (at the very least) despite the strict guidelines and developers still put apps in the store despite the strict rules. If either of those components would miss, Apple would not be one of the highest value companies in the world right now. And Apple does not have the market force to simply crush everyone else.