3 ms·

I’m not a huge fan of Apple’s arbitrary-feeling restrictions on developers and of their market power, but the following argument can be made to show they really

I’m not a huge fan of Apple’s arbitrary-feeling restrictions on developers and of their market power, but the following argument can be made to show they really are not monopolistic abusers who should be regulated against: Costco charges a membership to use their store (“platform”), similar to buying an iPhone. Costco offers reduced-price store brand goods. Costco controls and decides which third-party goods are available in the store. This is all generally considered to be to the consumers advantage due to lower prices and good experience. If the consumer does not like Costco, they can go to a different store. If a consumer does not like the experience of purchasing their apps in the app store, they can use Safari to access the web site, purchase an Android or use a PC for their computing needs, and a console/portable for their gaming needs. The number of competitors to the iPhone platform is lower than the number of competitors to Costco, but it’s not an insignificant number of alternatives. If ALL mobile platforms did not allow sideloading and charged similar rates, AND it was impossible to create a new mobile platform (admittedly difficult, RIP Microsoft, Blackberry, Nokia, Firefox OS) AND it could be shown webapps are not viable (they are viable) then Apple plus the other platform might have an anti-trust problem. As it is it’s a unfair to punish Apple for successfully curating a good experience where users are happy and comfortable spending money. All retailers set the conditions for sellers to sell with them.

emptysongglass 6y ago
>If a consumer does not like the experience of purchasing their apps in the app store, they can use Safari to access the web site, purchase an Android or use a PC for their computing needs, and a console/portable for their gaming needs. That sounds like an incredible headache for the customer wishing to opt for an alternative. > If ALL mobile platforms did not allow sideloading and charged similar rates, AND it was impossible to create a new mobile platform (admittedly difficult, RIP Microsoft, Blackberry, Nokia, Firefox OS) AND it could be shown webapps are not viable (they are viable) then Apple plus the other platform might have an anti-trust problem. You've made my argument for me: nobody wants to use a webapp and just about no one does. There's only one other mobile platform with any market share and it's Google's Android. The Sisyphean task of launching a new OS into this fray is so high that even an authoritarian nation-state isn't going to do it, so let's just call a spade a spade and say it's impossible. Google's Android doesn't give you blue bubbles so say goodbye to much of your iPhone-privileged social circle, which uses blue bubbles as a new kind of social elitism predicated on wealth-peacocking. You're essentially bullied into one avenue or the other and the apps you paid for a long tether of slavery to the platform you've picked. It's enough to give someone Stockholm syndrome but I'm not yet out catching bullets for them, are you? All of these corporations need to be broken up. The problem is not just Apple. But Apple's platform is locked down so tight they will stop at nothing to get their penny's share, whether you're a cool new email service (Hey) or you want to launch a gaming cloud service (xCloud, Stadia, you-name-it). This is not Costco selling generic fruits and meats for your consumption. This is a dominion of access to how you communicate, to how you read, to how you play.

emptysongglass 6y ago

>If a consumer does not like the experience of purchasing their apps in the app store, they can use Safari to access the web site, purchase an Android or use a PC for their computing needs, and a console/portable for their gaming needs. That sounds like an incredible headache for the customer wishing to opt for an alternative. > If ALL mobile platforms did not allow sideloading and charged similar rates, AND it was impossible to create a new mobile platform (admittedly difficult, RIP Microsoft, Blackberry, Nokia, Firefox OS) AND it could be shown webapps are not viable (they are viable) then Apple plus the other platform might have an anti-trust problem. You've made my argument for me: nobody wants to use a webapp and just about no one does. There's only one other mobile platform with any market share and it's Google's Android. The Sisyphean task of launching a new OS into this fray is so high that even an authoritarian nation-state isn't going to do it, so let's just call a spade a spade and say it's impossible. Google's Android doesn't give you blue bubbles so say goodbye to much of your iPhone-privileged social circle, which uses blue bubbles as a new kind of social elitism predicated on wealth-peacocking. You're essentially bullied into one avenue or the other and the apps you paid for a long tether of slavery to the platform you've picked. It's enough to give someone Stockholm syndrome but I'm not yet out catching bullets for them, are you? All of these corporations need to be broken up. The problem is not just Apple. But Apple's platform is locked down so tight they will stop at nothing to get their penny's share, whether you're a cool new email service (Hey) or you want to launch a gaming cloud service (xCloud, Stadia, you-name-it). This is not Costco selling generic fruits and meats for your consumption. This is a dominion of access to how you communicate, to how you read, to how you play.