4 ms·

At some point the platform has to be considered common infrastructure, similar to power transmission lines, the railroad or the Windows OS. Just because you hap

by mrich 6y ago

At some point the platform has to be considered common infrastructure, similar to power transmission lines, the railroad or the Windows OS. Just because you happened to build a successful platform should not imply that you can hold everyone hostage - that is why antitrust is a thing.

unknown2374 6y ago
There are open platforms, and due to convenience of distribution developers have reluctantly chosen these platforms over open ones. Now while I am not defending Apple's position here, developers who have chosen to distribute only on such platforms for the past few decades are partly to blame too. The success of Apple (etc.) are due to choices that developers have made, closing themselves in and then citing anti-trust when they themselves locked the doors and gave away the keys.
- ece 6y ago
  While this is even more true for consoles, the difference is in a specific purpose vs a general purpose. General purpose platforms that become overly closed have roundly been rejected or been forced to open up: Carterfone, AOL, Windows, carrier locked phones, etc.. even iOS itself didn't allow apps at first and now does. Closed platforms for a specific purpose like consoles, kindles, rokus, etc.. do a bit better because they are 1) more likely to have competitors, and 2) have more limited impact from being specific purpose platforms, though are still capable of maintaining monopolies/duopolies. The phone market is a iOS/Android duopoly, and both are being forced to open up more. Hardly surprising.
- Thorentis 6y ago
  Exactly. Developers loved the gravy train while it lasted. 30% cut for being put into the hands of millions of people instantly was pocket change in the 2010s. Now that the market is saturated and developers have tougher competition, they're turning on Apple. Take your money, smile that it happened, and go work on open platforms from now on.
  - notSupplied 6y ago
    What if the phone is in the hands of millions of people in the first place because it is full of apps? Didn’t the Mac cede it’s place in PC history because Windows had more software?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
Thorentis 6y ago
I am on board with the internet being common infrastructure, since you cannot own your own fibre cable that goes to the ISP (at least not easily and cheaply). With hardware it is different. Nobody forced you to buy an iPhone. Nobody forced you to buy an Android, Windows, Nokia, whatever phone. Same with laptops. If you want an open platform, buy one. If you want an open OS, install one. Don't buy an iPhone, complain about the platform not being open enough for you, and then demand that all platforms be made common infrastructure so that you're absolved of making decisions about the hardware you use.
- stale2002 6y ago
  Would you make the same claim about Internet Explorer? Imagine if Microsoft required a 30 percent cut for any transaction that is done on a windows PC. The same exact arguments you are using could justify this. But, obviously, this is illegal, and similar behavior was proven as such, by the courts.
  - Thorentis 6y ago
    Internet Explorer was already ubiquitous at that point. The iPhone was not ubiquitous when the App Store was released. The iPhone become so widely used because of the popularity of the App Store. The 30% cut was there from the very start, and people were fine with it. It's only now that people are turning around and complaining that a platform that was never open to begin with, is not open enough.
    - stale2002 6y ago
      > The iPhone was not ubiquitous when the App Store was released. But it is ubiquitous now. As of last month, the iphone now has 52.4% of the US market. > The 30% cut was there from the very start, and people were fine with it. Anticompetitive behavior become illegal when a company has enough market power. > It's only now that people are turning around and complaining Well yes, that is how anti-competitive laws work. If a company has enough market power, previously legal practices can become illegal.

by mrich 6y ago

unknown2374 6y ago

There are open platforms, and due to convenience of distribution developers have reluctantly chosen these platforms over open ones. Now while I am not defending Apple's position here, developers who have chosen to distribute only on such platforms for the past few decades are partly to blame too. The success of Apple (etc.) are due to choices that developers have made, closing themselves in and then citing anti-trust when they themselves locked the doors and gave away the keys.

ece 6y ago
While this is even more true for consoles, the difference is in a specific purpose vs a general purpose. General purpose platforms that become overly closed have roundly been rejected or been forced to open up: Carterfone, AOL, Windows, carrier locked phones, etc.. even iOS itself didn't allow apps at first and now does. Closed platforms for a specific purpose like consoles, kindles, rokus, etc.. do a bit better because they are 1) more likely to have competitors, and 2) have more limited impact from being specific purpose platforms, though are still capable of maintaining monopolies/duopolies. The phone market is a iOS/Android duopoly, and both are being forced to open up more. Hardly surprising.
Thorentis 6y ago
Exactly. Developers loved the gravy train while it lasted. 30% cut for being put into the hands of millions of people instantly was pocket change in the 2010s. Now that the market is saturated and developers have tougher competition, they're turning on Apple. Take your money, smile that it happened, and go work on open platforms from now on.
- notSupplied 6y ago
  What if the phone is in the hands of millions of people in the first place because it is full of apps? Didn’t the Mac cede it’s place in PC history because Windows had more software?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

Thorentis 6y ago

I am on board with the internet being common infrastructure, since you cannot own your own fibre cable that goes to the ISP (at least not easily and cheaply). With hardware it is different. Nobody forced you to buy an iPhone. Nobody forced you to buy an Android, Windows, Nokia, whatever phone. Same with laptops. If you want an open platform, buy one. If you want an open OS, install one. Don't buy an iPhone, complain about the platform not being open enough for you, and then demand that all platforms be made common infrastructure so that you're absolved of making decisions about the hardware you use.

stale2002 6y ago
Would you make the same claim about Internet Explorer? Imagine if Microsoft required a 30 percent cut for any transaction that is done on a windows PC. The same exact arguments you are using could justify this. But, obviously, this is illegal, and similar behavior was proven as such, by the courts.
- Thorentis 6y ago
  Internet Explorer was already ubiquitous at that point. The iPhone was not ubiquitous when the App Store was released. The iPhone become so widely used because of the popularity of the App Store. The 30% cut was there from the very start, and people were fine with it. It's only now that people are turning around and complaining that a platform that was never open to begin with, is not open enough.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > The iPhone was not ubiquitous when the App Store was released. But it is ubiquitous now. As of last month, the iphone now has 52.4% of the US market. > The 30% cut was there from the very start, and people were fine with it. Anticompetitive behavior become illegal when a company has enough market power. > It's only now that people are turning around and complaining Well yes, that is how anti-competitive laws work. If a company has enough market power, previously legal practices can become illegal.