4 ms·

If then yes. But it seems unlikely and my preference is to live in a world where Apple continues to curate the AppStore on my behalf. I hope Apple doesn’t need

If then yes. But it seems unlikely and my preference is to live in a world where Apple continues to curate the AppStore on my behalf. I hope Apple doesn’t need to remove the AppStore entirely. But that would definitely be better than the alternatives of allowing sideloading.

stale2002 6y ago
> If then yes. This is the entire point of the lawsuit and the debate.... That Apple's action were anti-competitive. You haven't actually given any reason as for why thats not true. > where Apple continues to curate the AppStore on my behalf. They will still be able to do that. They simple won't be allowed to make it extremely difficult for alternative app stores to be installed on the iPhone, if another user chooses to do so, if and when the lawsuit is resolved. You will still be perfectly allowed to continue to not install any other app stores that you don't want installed on your phone. > I hope Apple doesn’t need to remove the AppStore entirely They won't. Instead, as long as it is simple and easy for competitors to install apps stores on the iPhone, then the anti-competitive arguments will go away. > than the alternatives of allowing sideloading If you don't want to install competing app stores, then don't install them. Its pretty simple. Your rights are not infringed on, if Apple is forced to allow people who are not you, to install competing app stores.
- yazaddaruvala 6y ago
  > If you don't want to install competing app stores, then don't install them. This is my position on this matter: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24287042 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24287042 Meanwhile, we clearly disagree. It’ll be more productive for us to wait for the results of the lawsuit. Best of luck to you and Epic’s position, but I truly hope the court isn’t misled by the short term “needs” of some iOS developers at the expense of the long term needs of Apple’s customers.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    You are trying to make the argument, that Epic making a voluntary transaction with me, is somehow an infridgement on you, who is an unrelated, 3rd party. Thats is an absolutely ridiculous claim to make. The fact that I would be allowed to easily install apps on my phone, that I paid for, is a ridiculous claim that this is somehow taking away your choice. No. That is dumb. It is my phone. Not yours. Don't install apps that you don't like, if you don't want them. But me installing them on my phone, does not infringe on your rights. > of the long term needs of Apple’s customers. Those customers don't have to install anything that they don't want to install on the phones that they own. Easy. Me, as a 3rd party, being allowed to modify the phone that I own 100% is not related to that. > It’ll be more productive for us to wait for the results of the lawsuit. You did not make a single argument against the idea that Apple has significant market power. Because you did not make a single argument against that, I am going to assume that you agree that Apple has significant market power, and has used it to harm competition. (Which would mean that Apple's actions are illegal)
    - yazaddaruvala 6y ago
      I encourage you to improve your discourse, but I’ll participate anyways. My argument is that Apple has significant market power, on iOS devices. There is no denying that. In fact it is a feature for me as a customer to pool my buying power into a “customer’s union” of sorts. I also agree that Apple has built a large barrier to entry, i.e. it has built trust with customers like me. I truly believe you’ve never tried both Android and iOS in earnest, or else you’d feel similarly. However, Apple has no monopoly on the devices market. I play Fortnite on my PS4 and always have. Additionally, Apple has overall increased competition rather than hamper it. That said, I would like to see Apple compensate applications when it replaces poorer quality apps with better in-house versions, even though it doesn’t need to. It would be a sincere set back for the entire economy if Apple was forced to sideload applications on iOS. That said, as I have previously agreed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24419752 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24419752
      - stale2002 6y ago
        > However, Apple has no monopoly on the devices market A monopoly is not required for anti-trust law to apply. Instead, only significant market power. And the "market" in this case will likely be defined as the smartphone market in the USA, of which Apple has ~50%. Having 50% of a duopoly is within the realm of when anti-trust law applies, as a singular monopoly is not required for anti-trust law to apply (as defined by section 2 of the sherman act).

stale2002 6y ago

> If then yes. This is the entire point of the lawsuit and the debate.... That Apple's action were anti-competitive. You haven't actually given any reason as for why thats not true. > where Apple continues to curate the AppStore on my behalf. They will still be able to do that. They simple won't be allowed to make it extremely difficult for alternative app stores to be installed on the iPhone, if another user chooses to do so, if and when the lawsuit is resolved. You will still be perfectly allowed to continue to not install any other app stores that you don't want installed on your phone. > I hope Apple doesn’t need to remove the AppStore entirely They won't. Instead, as long as it is simple and easy for competitors to install apps stores on the iPhone, then the anti-competitive arguments will go away. > than the alternatives of allowing sideloading If you don't want to install competing app stores, then don't install them. Its pretty simple. Your rights are not infringed on, if Apple is forced to allow people who are not you, to install competing app stores.

yazaddaruvala 6y ago
> If you don't want to install competing app stores, then don't install them. This is my position on this matter: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24287042 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24287042 Meanwhile, we clearly disagree. It’ll be more productive for us to wait for the results of the lawsuit. Best of luck to you and Epic’s position, but I truly hope the court isn’t misled by the short term “needs” of some iOS developers at the expense of the long term needs of Apple’s customers.
- stale2002 6y ago
  You are trying to make the argument, that Epic making a voluntary transaction with me, is somehow an infridgement on you, who is an unrelated, 3rd party. Thats is an absolutely ridiculous claim to make. The fact that I would be allowed to easily install apps on my phone, that I paid for, is a ridiculous claim that this is somehow taking away your choice. No. That is dumb. It is my phone. Not yours. Don't install apps that you don't like, if you don't want them. But me installing them on my phone, does not infringe on your rights. > of the long term needs of Apple’s customers. Those customers don't have to install anything that they don't want to install on the phones that they own. Easy. Me, as a 3rd party, being allowed to modify the phone that I own 100% is not related to that. > It’ll be more productive for us to wait for the results of the lawsuit. You did not make a single argument against the idea that Apple has significant market power. Because you did not make a single argument against that, I am going to assume that you agree that Apple has significant market power, and has used it to harm competition. (Which would mean that Apple's actions are illegal)
  - yazaddaruvala 6y ago
    I encourage you to improve your discourse, but I’ll participate anyways. My argument is that Apple has significant market power, on iOS devices. There is no denying that. In fact it is a feature for me as a customer to pool my buying power into a “customer’s union” of sorts. I also agree that Apple has built a large barrier to entry, i.e. it has built trust with customers like me. I truly believe you’ve never tried both Android and iOS in earnest, or else you’d feel similarly. However, Apple has no monopoly on the devices market. I play Fortnite on my PS4 and always have. Additionally, Apple has overall increased competition rather than hamper it. That said, I would like to see Apple compensate applications when it replaces poorer quality apps with better in-house versions, even though it doesn’t need to. It would be a sincere set back for the entire economy if Apple was forced to sideload applications on iOS. That said, as I have previously agreed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24419752 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24419752
    - stale2002 6y ago
      > However, Apple has no monopoly on the devices market A monopoly is not required for anti-trust law to apply. Instead, only significant market power. And the "market" in this case will likely be defined as the smartphone market in the USA, of which Apple has ~50%. Having 50% of a duopoly is within the realm of when anti-trust law applies, as a singular monopoly is not required for anti-trust law to apply (as defined by section 2 of the sherman act).