3 ms·

> 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

> 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).
    - yazaddaruvala 6y ago
      I'm curious, how many years have you, - used an iPhone as your primary device? - used an Android as your primary device? - played Fortnite, and on what device? For me it was 6 years of Android before switching to an iPhone for the last 4 years. I've been playing a lot of Fortnite (less during the waterworld season) on a PS4 over the last 11 months. Edit: Especially because you're arguing for sideloading and Android already allows that, yet Epic is still suing Google. I ask because when you keep saying you're arguing "for customers" and "pro-competition", that Epic is just requesting a "basic right" (which they don't seem to be given the Google lawsuit). I'm just wondering what background experience you have with all of these different companies and platforms that helps you judge what is best "for competition and the customer".
      - stale2002 6y ago
        So then you have no response then, on my comment regarding anti-trust law it seems. It is well established that a participant does not have to be a singular monopoly, in a market, in order for anti-trust law to apply. And in this case, Apple has ~50% of the smartphone market, in the USA, which is enough that anti-trust law can apply. > yet Epic is still suing Google Google also has large amounts of market power. Anti-trust law applies to them as well, given that they argueably have large amounts of control over the other 50% of the US smartphone market (even if it is a bit less direct of a control, as compared to Apple which is vertically integrated, and controls both the hardware and software. But sure, the case is less clear cut with Google, if you want to make that argument.)

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).
  - yazaddaruvala 6y ago
    I'm curious, how many years have you, - used an iPhone as your primary device? - used an Android as your primary device? - played Fortnite, and on what device? For me it was 6 years of Android before switching to an iPhone for the last 4 years. I've been playing a lot of Fortnite (less during the waterworld season) on a PS4 over the last 11 months. Edit: Especially because you're arguing for sideloading and Android already allows that, yet Epic is still suing Google. I ask because when you keep saying you're arguing "for customers" and "pro-competition", that Epic is just requesting a "basic right" (which they don't seem to be given the Google lawsuit). I'm just wondering what background experience you have with all of these different companies and platforms that helps you judge what is best "for competition and the customer".
    - stale2002 6y ago
      So then you have no response then, on my comment regarding anti-trust law it seems. It is well established that a participant does not have to be a singular monopoly, in a market, in order for anti-trust law to apply. And in this case, Apple has ~50% of the smartphone market, in the USA, which is enough that anti-trust law can apply. > yet Epic is still suing Google Google also has large amounts of market power. Anti-trust law applies to them as well, given that they argueably have large amounts of control over the other 50% of the US smartphone market (even if it is a bit less direct of a control, as compared to Apple which is vertically integrated, and controls both the hardware and software. But sure, the case is less clear cut with Google, if you want to make that argument.)