4 ms·

It must be fun being Apple to be both perpetually doomed by detractors as having minuscule marketshare and collapsing sales (any day now for the last 40 years).

It must be fun being Apple to be both perpetually doomed by detractors as having minuscule marketshare and collapsing sales (any day now for the last 40 years)... and also a rampant monopolist that must be turned into a public utility because we’d much rather have the government review apps than Apple or Google (wait what?). Pick one! But if you pick monopolist, don’t expect regulation to necessarily go the way you want it to. It probably will preserve everything you hate about the current system, just replacing Apple with a bureaucracy. Forcing the return of the Wild West of the PC ecosystem Into mobile will only happen when consumers demand it. They won’t, because that wasn’t a very user friendly approach. It Was originally for tinkerers and hackers and that pedigree continues to this day. Mobile carriers and government aren’t likely too fond of the idea of phones where anything can be installed on them.

fragsworth 6y ago
At some point monopolies stop being the more user friendly approach by abusing their position to the point that they provide bad service for high costs, and you're forced to deal with it. These companies were user friendly at first, but as all companies do, they are slowly squeezing the profits out of everything they can. They are steering us towards a local maximum that ends in them taking a massive chunk of the money from everyone forever, for no benefit to anyone else, simply because they're sitting on market inertia. People could eventually demand something like that "Wild West" you speak of, because it is the solution that fosters competition and prevents the monopolies from abusing their power. But I think there is something preventing that from happening - the companies in charge are spending vast amounts of money on PR to convince the public that their monopoly situations are not really so bad. And, I think as a result, they've got folks like you defending them.
- dodobirdlord 6y ago
  And yet, the platforms and the services they provide just keep getting better and better, and Apple is still charging the same 30% cut that they started with back in 2008. "Slowly squeezing the profits out of everything they can" just reads like anger fantasy.
- parasubvert 6y ago
  This isn’t about PR or propaganda, that’s a lazy way or implying you’re somehow more enlightened then the defenders. This reminds me of old Windows vs OS/2 or Linux advocacy arguments on USEnet. I’m defending them because I have seen enough history to not want the alternative for our mobile phones, and also because most folks here are very flawed understanding of antitrust, monopoly and rents. None of those laws as traditionally interpreted and enforced apply to this situation. They’re free to extract 30% because that’s the holy grail of what businesses are and have always been about, taught in every business school for the past 50 years, and how commerce laws were structured: crafting a sustainable competitive advantage that still benefits consumers.
dbuder 6y ago
The reality is that they have a monopoly on rich phone users who are likely to spend money while using their phone, if you can't get access to them then you are locked out of the entire worthwhile market.

fragsworth 6y ago

At some point monopolies stop being the more user friendly approach by abusing their position to the point that they provide bad service for high costs, and you're forced to deal with it. These companies were user friendly at first, but as all companies do, they are slowly squeezing the profits out of everything they can. They are steering us towards a local maximum that ends in them taking a massive chunk of the money from everyone forever, for no benefit to anyone else, simply because they're sitting on market inertia. People could eventually demand something like that "Wild West" you speak of, because it is the solution that fosters competition and prevents the monopolies from abusing their power. But I think there is something preventing that from happening - the companies in charge are spending vast amounts of money on PR to convince the public that their monopoly situations are not really so bad. And, I think as a result, they've got folks like you defending them.

dodobirdlord 6y ago
And yet, the platforms and the services they provide just keep getting better and better, and Apple is still charging the same 30% cut that they started with back in 2008. "Slowly squeezing the profits out of everything they can" just reads like anger fantasy.
parasubvert 6y ago
This isn’t about PR or propaganda, that’s a lazy way or implying you’re somehow more enlightened then the defenders. This reminds me of old Windows vs OS/2 or Linux advocacy arguments on USEnet. I’m defending them because I have seen enough history to not want the alternative for our mobile phones, and also because most folks here are very flawed understanding of antitrust, monopoly and rents. None of those laws as traditionally interpreted and enforced apply to this situation. They’re free to extract 30% because that’s the holy grail of what businesses are and have always been about, taught in every business school for the past 50 years, and how commerce laws were structured: crafting a sustainable competitive advantage that still benefits consumers.

dbuder 6y ago

The reality is that they have a monopoly on rich phone users who are likely to spend money while using their phone, if you can't get access to them then you are locked out of the entire worthwhile market.