4 ms·

I’m surprised to find myself siding with Apple / Google / etc on this. They did the work to build and maintain a distribution platform. They should be able to d

by mlthoughts2018 6y ago

I’m surprised to find myself siding with Apple / Google / etc on this. They did the work to build and maintain a distribution platform. They should be able to define its terms of use and costs. If you don’t like it, distribute differently. If everyone uses those companies’ devices, it’s a market endorsement that the world wants the standardization and managed ecosystem of each platform - that it’s a thing of value. I don’t see how there’s any way you can tell Apple how Apple has to run infrastructure to support a distribution channel, but it cannot determine the prices or policies for someone using it to distribute an app.

devit 6y ago
They don't have to run infrastructure, they just have to update iOS to remove the signature check on binaries and support installing IPAs from Safari downloads, so that there is no need for their app store anymore.
- mlthoughts2018 6y ago
  As a consumer of Apple devices, I want the app store, and I only want app store software to be possible on the device. So if Apple needs to meet consumer demands, I’m an example of a consumer who wants the app store to work like it currently does, and I feel Apple’s policies of taking a cut of subscriptions and in-app purchasing is fair. For a system where I want openness, I’ll use Librem 5 for example.
  - can16358p 6y ago
    I've read all of your comments and think that it couldn't be more right! This, this, this! Thank you.
simion314 6y ago
Have you heard about Microsoft or Intel anti trust cases? If it could be done then it must be possible to be done in the present.
- parasubvert 6y ago
  Do you think Microsoft’s consent decree had any impact on Windows being a monopoly? It didn’t. Microsoft still gets a cut of almost every PC sold. It is valued up their with Amazon and Apple in the trillions. The difference is that no one cares anymore because new platforms arose in Android and iOS, and Windows mobile failed. In this case, people are requesting a far more extreme remedy: that iOS and Android and their stores become regulated like public utilities.
  - simion314 6y ago
    Without that pressure Intel and Microsoft would have become even more evil. I think that MS and Intel needed a giant punch for the anti-competitive things they did or tried to do. Intel is still crippling AMD CPUs and they just have to put somewhere one the web a disclaimer(well hidden). If Intel could lockdown their CPU to run only Intel approved apps then Linux and the BSDs would have been hit hard, maybe OSX would not have existed (Apple used and still uses open source code)
whatever1 6y ago
Thankfully the legislators don’t think this way, otherwise we would all have only att service
summerlight 6y ago
> They should be able to define its terms of use and costs. As long as it doesn't conflict with public interests. For this purpose, antitrust laws are designed to tackle this particular type of situations. > the world wants the standardization and managed ecosystem of each platform This maybe true, and such standards might also be too important to be controlled by just one or two companies.
- Google234 6y ago
  There’s more than 2 and also open alternatives for people that care about that
- parasubvert 6y ago
  It is incredible that people actually think this is the end of history with regards to mobile device operating systems, and we should just declare Android and iOS And their ecosystems public utilities. Windows once had 95% market share and that didn’t even happen.
nabla9 6y ago
Just because company creates market where products and services are sold, does not mean that the market is outside competition law. > If you don’t like it, distribute differently. Relevant market for networked multiplayer games can't be divided between platforms. People who own iPhones and Android phones play the same game online with their friends. Epic can't stay competitive and stay outside Apple AppStore and sell only for Android pones.
- mlthoughts2018 6y ago
  Sure Epic can. They can distribute their game as a fully in-browser web app, including building out all the infrastructure required to make this work (like Apple did). Or Epic can create standalone hardware devices that connect to their game network, do market research and user testing on what makes a good device, develop optimized supply chain and production systems to make the device realizable, and spend on marketing to convince consumers to buy and love the device, also like Apple did. I play chess against people on any devices, through chess.com in a browser, even on my mobile devices. “Epic can’t stay competitive” in that scenario is 100% Epic’s problem, they are not owed a slot in an app store distribution mechanism that they also don’t have to obey the policies of.
  - nabla9 6y ago
    Are you trying to be sarcastic?
    - parasubvert 6y ago
      Not that I can tell. He is also completely right.
      - nabla9 6y ago
        His arguments seems to be completely rhetorical and absolutist. "If it's in principle possible to offer an alternative regardless of any cost, even if it's not practical, then there is no monopoly."

devit 6y ago

They don't have to run infrastructure, they just have to update iOS to remove the signature check on binaries and support installing IPAs from Safari downloads, so that there is no need for their app store anymore.

mlthoughts2018 6y ago
As a consumer of Apple devices, I want the app store, and I only want app store software to be possible on the device. So if Apple needs to meet consumer demands, I’m an example of a consumer who wants the app store to work like it currently does, and I feel Apple’s policies of taking a cut of subscriptions and in-app purchasing is fair. For a system where I want openness, I’ll use Librem 5 for example.
- can16358p 6y ago
  I've read all of your comments and think that it couldn't be more right! This, this, this! Thank you.

simion314 6y ago

Have you heard about Microsoft or Intel anti trust cases? If it could be done then it must be possible to be done in the present.

parasubvert 6y ago
Do you think Microsoft’s consent decree had any impact on Windows being a monopoly? It didn’t. Microsoft still gets a cut of almost every PC sold. It is valued up their with Amazon and Apple in the trillions. The difference is that no one cares anymore because new platforms arose in Android and iOS, and Windows mobile failed. In this case, people are requesting a far more extreme remedy: that iOS and Android and their stores become regulated like public utilities.
- simion314 6y ago
  Without that pressure Intel and Microsoft would have become even more evil. I think that MS and Intel needed a giant punch for the anti-competitive things they did or tried to do. Intel is still crippling AMD CPUs and they just have to put somewhere one the web a disclaimer(well hidden). If Intel could lockdown their CPU to run only Intel approved apps then Linux and the BSDs would have been hit hard, maybe OSX would not have existed (Apple used and still uses open source code)

whatever1 6y ago

Thankfully the legislators don’t think this way, otherwise we would all have only att service

summerlight 6y ago

> They should be able to define its terms of use and costs. As long as it doesn't conflict with public interests. For this purpose, antitrust laws are designed to tackle this particular type of situations. > the world wants the standardization and managed ecosystem of each platform This maybe true, and such standards might also be too important to be controlled by just one or two companies.

Google234 6y ago
There’s more than 2 and also open alternatives for people that care about that
parasubvert 6y ago
It is incredible that people actually think this is the end of history with regards to mobile device operating systems, and we should just declare Android and iOS And their ecosystems public utilities. Windows once had 95% market share and that didn’t even happen.

nabla9 6y ago

Just because company creates market where products and services are sold, does not mean that the market is outside competition law. > If you don’t like it, distribute differently. Relevant market for networked multiplayer games can't be divided between platforms. People who own iPhones and Android phones play the same game online with their friends. Epic can't stay competitive and stay outside Apple AppStore and sell only for Android pones.

mlthoughts2018 6y ago
Sure Epic can. They can distribute their game as a fully in-browser web app, including building out all the infrastructure required to make this work (like Apple did). Or Epic can create standalone hardware devices that connect to their game network, do market research and user testing on what makes a good device, develop optimized supply chain and production systems to make the device realizable, and spend on marketing to convince consumers to buy and love the device, also like Apple did. I play chess against people on any devices, through chess.com in a browser, even on my mobile devices. “Epic can’t stay competitive” in that scenario is 100% Epic’s problem, they are not owed a slot in an app store distribution mechanism that they also don’t have to obey the policies of.
- nabla9 6y ago
  Are you trying to be sarcastic?
  - parasubvert 6y ago
    Not that I can tell. He is also completely right.
    - nabla9 6y ago
      His arguments seems to be completely rhetorical and absolutist. "If it's in principle possible to offer an alternative regardless of any cost, even if it's not practical, then there is no monopoly."