6 ms·

If you read the subtext of the other Epic v. Apple threads, this is the point: government is somehow going to do a better job than Apple or Google. That or gov

If you read the subtext of the other Epic v. Apple threads, this is the point: government is somehow going to do a better job than Apple or Google. That or government will mandate the Libertarian Wild West on our phones where anyone can install anything from any store. Mobile operators alone will balk at that. This is a fever dream from a new generation of publishers and developers that have to learn how this worked in the past: the market evolved, the old platforms withered or became irrelevant. Consent decrees don’t fix things, at best they add a counterweight on the scale. See: Microsoft, still making money hand over fist due to the PC monopoly that no one cares about.

akira2501 6y ago
> That or government will mandate the Libertarian Wild West on our phones where anyone can install anything from any store. It's a little disconcerting to me that you would see allowing me to install whatever software I want on a device I fully own as a "Libertarian wild west." > Mobile operators alone will balk at that. Why? Don't fixed-location ISPs have the same issue? > the market evolved I think the concern is it didn't evolve naturally.. it evolved to this configuration due to the whims of a few companies in strong monopoly positions. Believing that we have the best solution available is again, a bit disconcerting. > due to the PC monopoly that no one cares about. They were sued for this. The government won. Then the next administration basically vacated the actions against them. People care.
- bilbo0s 6y ago
  The libertarian argument is a fever dream. There will be no wild west. If you're in India, you will be using the Indian government approved service. In China, you will be using Chinese government approved services. In Africa, you will be using ECOWAS, EAC, or SADC approved services. In Brazil, you will be using.. well, you get the idea. Material point being, none of these services will be made by developers outside of those regions. There will be no wild west, what's forming up is very much the opposite of the wild west. It is governmental control with radical reach. Worse, it's forming up to be balkanized governmental control with radical reach.
  - comex 6y ago
    > In China, you will be using Chinese government approved services. First of all, this is only about app stores. When it comes to “services” in general, people in China already do mostly use government approved ones; the Great Firewall makes sure of that. Today, you use Apple’s App Store, but Apple blocks whatever apps the Chinese government tells them to. Is that really such a great situation? Under a sideloading model, at least you’d have the technical ability to opt out of whatever app store anyone told you to use. As for legal ability, who knows, but any legal restrictions on where you can get apps from would be hard to enforce. And why would phones be any different from desktops, where such restrictions don’t currently exist?
- parasubvert 6y ago
  If the device wasn’t connected to the global telephone network then you’d have a point. Mobile carriers and governments have never allowed just “anything“ installed on phones. > I think the concern is it didn't evolve naturally.. it evolved to this configuration due to the whims of a few companies in strong monopoly positions. What’s “natural?” Markets are not created by god, they’re created by customers. Apple didn’t build the most successful product line in history because of monopoly practices - they built it because customers wanted it. And, Apple isn’t a monopoly by any historical definition of the term. Google is one in search and have tried to parlay that into Android. Illegally? We will see. > Believing that we have the best solution available is again, a bit disconcerting. I don’t claim we have the best solution available, I claim that government regulation of app stores or forced disaggregation of app stores would make the current situation far worse. Want a better situation? Build a new and better ecosystem. It wasn’t even 6 years ago that Apple and iPhone and iPad was declared dead by most pundits, about to get trammelled by Samsung and Chinese Android makers. Now we want government to turn them into a utility? These decisions and laws take decades. > The government won. Then the next administration basically vacated the actions against them. People care. There was a second consent decree. It arguably didn’t really matter, because the next generation was mobile. And I’m sure some people care about Microsoft’s continued dominance of PCs, but not enough to convince a government to do anything about it. The same likely goes with iOS and Android. I see a lot of devs/publishers complaining and not a lot of users.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > Want a better situation? Build a new and better ecosystem. The problem is it's chicken and egg. To get users you need apps, to get app developers you need users. To overcome that you don't just need something which is as good as the status quo, you need something so much better that people will switch to it despite the apps conundrum. Apple got there by being first to market with a modern smartphone. Google got there by undercutting the competition on price. Neither of those are a possible path for a new competitor. They can't be first to market anymore, and they can't undercut Android on price because its price is already zero. The usual way underdog platforms avoid this is by establishing compatibility with the competitor's apps. Sun created Java so that people would write their apps in Java, which would then run on Solaris/SPARC as well as Windows/Intel. Wine allows Windows programs to run on Linux. But that doesn't work here either, because of the very problem the new platform would be needed to solve. Even if you created a competing platform that could run Android apps or iOS apps, it wouldn't have Google or Apple's store, which is where all the existing apps are. The user of your new platform can't go to the developer's website to get the existing app and run it on your new platform because the existing platforms don't allow apps to be distributed that way. So you have to convince all the existing developers to use your store, and avoid use of Google Play Services etc., before you have any users that would give developers the incentive to spend their time doing that. Moreover, the incumbents are vertically integrated. If I think I can make a better OS than Apple, to capture their customers I don't just need to convert all their developers, I also have to make competitive hardware. Where do I get the money to develop a CPU competitive with Apple's? I would have to be a company as big as they are to do that, or bigger to overcome the advantages of incumbency, but nobody is as big as Apple. Microsoft, which is nearly as big, tried and failed. Amazon's Fire line is just an Android fork running on commodity hardware. Who do you propose has the resources to unseat the incumbents at this point? > I see a lot of devs/publishers complaining and not a lot of users. That's a big part of the problem -- the users lack visibility into the inner workings. How many iPhone customers even realize that competing stores are prohibited, or that Apple bans things they may want? They don't see the apps they want that Apple prohibits, because when they're prohibited they don't exist. When they're prohibited the developers are starved of access to their own customers and destroyed, or never exist to begin with, which means they can't campaign to the users for their inclusion. The developers can't even show the users how much they're paying, or offer discounts for purchases made through other channels, because Apple prohibits it. So of course it's the developers complaining, because they're the ones who can see what's happening behind the scenes. But the users are still being harmed, even if that's being hidden from them. And the lack of user awareness is another impediment to establishing a new competing platform.
ptx 6y ago
> Libertarian Wild West on our phones where anyone can install anything from any store An important distinction is that while I can install whatever I want on my phone and you can install whatever you want on your phone, removing Apple's monopoly on distribution wouldn't make our phones world-writable to "anyone". > Mobile operators alone will balk at that. They didn't. We already had multiple app stores for J2ME, Windows CE and Symbian apps before Apple started the trend of locking things down.
- parasubvert 6y ago
  > They didn't. We already had multiple app stores for J2ME, Windows CE and Symbian apps before Apple started the trend of locking things down. There were no "App Stores" for J2ME apps, per se. You certainly could buy and install apps from ISVs, but they were heavily locked down based on carrier policy. I developed apps for WinCE, Palm and Blackberry and the carrier-mandatory permissions were strict depending on the jurisdiction. The devices that weren't restricted were e.g. WinCE devices that were sync'd and not network connected. Apple just took the decades old old trend started by console manufacturers and applied it to Mobile.
  - ptx 6y ago
    By "locking things down" I meant locking down distribution to a single app store. Certainly J2ME apps were locked down via a system of permissions, where you had to buy a code signing cert to be granted the more interesting ones. But you could still install them from multiple sources, e.g. the phone manufacturer, the carrier, the software vendor directly, or even via Bluetooth. And unsigned apps were granted enough permissions to be perfectly viable in many cases. The "carrier policy" you mention might be a US-specific problem.
kelnos 6y ago
> Mobile operators alone will balk at that. I don't think that's a consideration anymore. When the iPhone was brand-new, Apple had a ton of trouble negotiating with carriers who were used to controlling what goes on their network. Nowadays, carriers have very little say beyond things like PCTRB certification and a mostly-cursory review of OS-level OTA updates. When it comes to apps (or even app stores), the carriers don't even get notified, let alone get veto powers.
jariel 6y ago
"Apple threads, this is the point: government is somehow going to do a better job than Apple or Google." No, it's absolutely not. It's about user and vendor choice. Nobody is suggesting that the 'US Government' make an alternative app store. But a lot of people are suggesting that people should be able to buy directly from Epic, Adobe - or whoever.
- parasubvert 6y ago
  This is the "Libertarian wild west" option, and it will not happen under even the EU. Multiple app stores will only exist with government oversight and an agreed regulatory framework for reviewing apps for admission.
akshaybhalotia 6y ago
A government that knows what it is doing may do a better job at it. So let me put in decreasing order of who will do a good job according to what is good for the users: - government that knows what it is doing - government - authoritarian government - authoritarian government that knows what it is doing

akira2501 6y ago

> That or government will mandate the Libertarian Wild West on our phones where anyone can install anything from any store. It's a little disconcerting to me that you would see allowing me to install whatever software I want on a device I fully own as a "Libertarian wild west." > Mobile operators alone will balk at that. Why? Don't fixed-location ISPs have the same issue? > the market evolved I think the concern is it didn't evolve naturally.. it evolved to this configuration due to the whims of a few companies in strong monopoly positions. Believing that we have the best solution available is again, a bit disconcerting. > due to the PC monopoly that no one cares about. They were sued for this. The government won. Then the next administration basically vacated the actions against them. People care.

bilbo0s 6y ago
The libertarian argument is a fever dream. There will be no wild west. If you're in India, you will be using the Indian government approved service. In China, you will be using Chinese government approved services. In Africa, you will be using ECOWAS, EAC, or SADC approved services. In Brazil, you will be using.. well, you get the idea. Material point being, none of these services will be made by developers outside of those regions. There will be no wild west, what's forming up is very much the opposite of the wild west. It is governmental control with radical reach. Worse, it's forming up to be balkanized governmental control with radical reach.
- comex 6y ago
  > In China, you will be using Chinese government approved services. First of all, this is only about app stores. When it comes to “services” in general, people in China already do mostly use government approved ones; the Great Firewall makes sure of that. Today, you use Apple’s App Store, but Apple blocks whatever apps the Chinese government tells them to. Is that really such a great situation? Under a sideloading model, at least you’d have the technical ability to opt out of whatever app store anyone told you to use. As for legal ability, who knows, but any legal restrictions on where you can get apps from would be hard to enforce. And why would phones be any different from desktops, where such restrictions don’t currently exist?
parasubvert 6y ago
If the device wasn’t connected to the global telephone network then you’d have a point. Mobile carriers and governments have never allowed just “anything“ installed on phones. > I think the concern is it didn't evolve naturally.. it evolved to this configuration due to the whims of a few companies in strong monopoly positions. What’s “natural?” Markets are not created by god, they’re created by customers. Apple didn’t build the most successful product line in history because of monopoly practices - they built it because customers wanted it. And, Apple isn’t a monopoly by any historical definition of the term. Google is one in search and have tried to parlay that into Android. Illegally? We will see. > Believing that we have the best solution available is again, a bit disconcerting. I don’t claim we have the best solution available, I claim that government regulation of app stores or forced disaggregation of app stores would make the current situation far worse. Want a better situation? Build a new and better ecosystem. It wasn’t even 6 years ago that Apple and iPhone and iPad was declared dead by most pundits, about to get trammelled by Samsung and Chinese Android makers. Now we want government to turn them into a utility? These decisions and laws take decades. > The government won. Then the next administration basically vacated the actions against them. People care. There was a second consent decree. It arguably didn’t really matter, because the next generation was mobile. And I’m sure some people care about Microsoft’s continued dominance of PCs, but not enough to convince a government to do anything about it. The same likely goes with iOS and Android. I see a lot of devs/publishers complaining and not a lot of users.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > Want a better situation? Build a new and better ecosystem. The problem is it's chicken and egg. To get users you need apps, to get app developers you need users. To overcome that you don't just need something which is as good as the status quo, you need something so much better that people will switch to it despite the apps conundrum. Apple got there by being first to market with a modern smartphone. Google got there by undercutting the competition on price. Neither of those are a possible path for a new competitor. They can't be first to market anymore, and they can't undercut Android on price because its price is already zero. The usual way underdog platforms avoid this is by establishing compatibility with the competitor's apps. Sun created Java so that people would write their apps in Java, which would then run on Solaris/SPARC as well as Windows/Intel. Wine allows Windows programs to run on Linux. But that doesn't work here either, because of the very problem the new platform would be needed to solve. Even if you created a competing platform that could run Android apps or iOS apps, it wouldn't have Google or Apple's store, which is where all the existing apps are. The user of your new platform can't go to the developer's website to get the existing app and run it on your new platform because the existing platforms don't allow apps to be distributed that way. So you have to convince all the existing developers to use your store, and avoid use of Google Play Services etc., before you have any users that would give developers the incentive to spend their time doing that. Moreover, the incumbents are vertically integrated. If I think I can make a better OS than Apple, to capture their customers I don't just need to convert all their developers, I also have to make competitive hardware. Where do I get the money to develop a CPU competitive with Apple's? I would have to be a company as big as they are to do that, or bigger to overcome the advantages of incumbency, but nobody is as big as Apple. Microsoft, which is nearly as big, tried and failed. Amazon's Fire line is just an Android fork running on commodity hardware. Who do you propose has the resources to unseat the incumbents at this point? > I see a lot of devs/publishers complaining and not a lot of users. That's a big part of the problem -- the users lack visibility into the inner workings. How many iPhone customers even realize that competing stores are prohibited, or that Apple bans things they may want? They don't see the apps they want that Apple prohibits, because when they're prohibited they don't exist. When they're prohibited the developers are starved of access to their own customers and destroyed, or never exist to begin with, which means they can't campaign to the users for their inclusion. The developers can't even show the users how much they're paying, or offer discounts for purchases made through other channels, because Apple prohibits it. So of course it's the developers complaining, because they're the ones who can see what's happening behind the scenes. But the users are still being harmed, even if that's being hidden from them. And the lack of user awareness is another impediment to establishing a new competing platform.

ptx 6y ago

> Libertarian Wild West on our phones where anyone can install anything from any store An important distinction is that while I can install whatever I want on my phone and you can install whatever you want on your phone, removing Apple's monopoly on distribution wouldn't make our phones world-writable to "anyone". > Mobile operators alone will balk at that. They didn't. We already had multiple app stores for J2ME, Windows CE and Symbian apps before Apple started the trend of locking things down.

parasubvert 6y ago
> They didn't. We already had multiple app stores for J2ME, Windows CE and Symbian apps before Apple started the trend of locking things down. There were no "App Stores" for J2ME apps, per se. You certainly could buy and install apps from ISVs, but they were heavily locked down based on carrier policy. I developed apps for WinCE, Palm and Blackberry and the carrier-mandatory permissions were strict depending on the jurisdiction. The devices that weren't restricted were e.g. WinCE devices that were sync'd and not network connected. Apple just took the decades old old trend started by console manufacturers and applied it to Mobile.
- ptx 6y ago
  By "locking things down" I meant locking down distribution to a single app store. Certainly J2ME apps were locked down via a system of permissions, where you had to buy a code signing cert to be granted the more interesting ones. But you could still install them from multiple sources, e.g. the phone manufacturer, the carrier, the software vendor directly, or even via Bluetooth. And unsigned apps were granted enough permissions to be perfectly viable in many cases. The "carrier policy" you mention might be a US-specific problem.

kelnos 6y ago

> Mobile operators alone will balk at that. I don't think that's a consideration anymore. When the iPhone was brand-new, Apple had a ton of trouble negotiating with carriers who were used to controlling what goes on their network. Nowadays, carriers have very little say beyond things like PCTRB certification and a mostly-cursory review of OS-level OTA updates. When it comes to apps (or even app stores), the carriers don't even get notified, let alone get veto powers.

jariel 6y ago

"Apple threads, this is the point: government is somehow going to do a better job than Apple or Google." No, it's absolutely not. It's about user and vendor choice. Nobody is suggesting that the 'US Government' make an alternative app store. But a lot of people are suggesting that people should be able to buy directly from Epic, Adobe - or whoever.

parasubvert 6y ago
This is the "Libertarian wild west" option, and it will not happen under even the EU. Multiple app stores will only exist with government oversight and an agreed regulatory framework for reviewing apps for admission.

akshaybhalotia 6y ago

A government that knows what it is doing may do a better job at it. So let me put in decreasing order of who will do a good job according to what is good for the users: - government that knows what it is doing - government - authoritarian government - authoritarian government that knows what it is doing