4 ms·

I agree that there's no hypocrisy, but I think Apple is acting consistently as a platform owner in both cases. Yes, iOS users should being made aware of trackin

I agree that there's no hypocrisy, but I think Apple is acting consistently as a platform owner in both cases. Yes, iOS users should being made aware of tracking software but it doesn't mean that they should continue being the sole store curator for their platform. We know from past experience that it's commercially viable for platform owners to successfully develop secure operating systems that allow third party developers to develop and distribute apps without an additional tax. We don't have to look very far either. macOS is a great example of where the App Store and third party developers can coexist. People should be able to choose to buy the app (for 30% more) using the App Store so that it's easy to ask for a refund, receive updates and for Apple to market apps they believe you'd like to use. But at the same time, Apple has no right to force people to overpay for services like Spotify on the App Store. Customers already pay to use a licensed copy of iOS on supported hardware. Governments have every right to protect the customer from perpetually getting screwed by Apple. At the very least, we shouldn't allow Apple to limit free speech so that developers can't mention a way for their users to save money.

EveYoung 6y ago
But users already can by an Android or Linux phone instead. It's not like Apple has the monopoly on smartphones.
- fbelzile 6y ago
  You're missing the point. Nobody is arguing that Apple has a monopoly on the smartphone market. The problem is that Apple built an artificial monopoly in the distribution of apps by making the App Store the only curator of the platform. People who decided to purchase an iPhone with an iOS license should have the right to use the device to it's full extent (along with being able to fix it themselves if something breaks). If you don't feel safe running apps outside of the App Store, you don't need to!
  - Dracophoenix 6y ago
    That's like saying Nintendo has an artificial monopoly by allowing only allowing Nintendo approved games to be distributed for sales on their consoles. Or TV channels have an artificial monopoly for shows they buy the syndication/distribution rights for. At some point, someone decided to commit to a certain path. Calling the choice "anti-competitive" cheapens the word. >>People who decided to purchase an iPhone with an iOS license should have the right to use the device to it's full extent The US Copyright Office has already made it clear that jailbreaking is legal. That does not imply upon Apple an affirmative obligation to fix a jailbroken phone or create a open/fixable hardware and software platform, or make either of the two easy to accomplish. Only a negative obligation to not interfere with those who take such risks at their own expense.
    - fbelzile 6y ago
      You're right that I'd classify those as artificial monopolies. Wouldn't you agree that the world would be a better place if we had less of them? Especially for general computing devices like a phone (unlike gaming consoles and media like your examples). We already know that Apple doesn't need the App Store for iDevices to be a commercial success, just look at the Mac and macOS.
      - leadingthenet 6y ago
        > Wouldn't you agree that the world would be a better place if we had less of them? No.
      - dsjoerg 6y ago
        My house is an artificial monopoly. Only I get to decide who comes in. People come in only by choice. My guests and I having freely chosen to be together, in my place, abiding by my rules. It's like that, except my house is very big and I'm Apple. Everyone, by their choice in accepting my invitation, have chosen to abide by my rules. All guests are free to leave any time! Now, what right does a 3rd party (the gov't) have to come in and crash my party and force me to change some of my rules? Consenting adults chose to be here!
      - Dracophoenix 6y ago
  - valparaiso 6y ago
    > The problem is that Apple built an artificial monopoly in the distribution of apps by making the App Store the only curator of the platform. You need to watch Epic Games vs. Apple hearing from September 2020. This argument was already rejected by judge. She stated closed platforms (walled gardens) were before Apple's fore decades and are legal types of business. She also told about Nintendo/PlayStation/Xbox same closed stores.

EveYoung 6y ago

But users already can by an Android or Linux phone instead. It's not like Apple has the monopoly on smartphones.

fbelzile 6y ago
You're missing the point. Nobody is arguing that Apple has a monopoly on the smartphone market. The problem is that Apple built an artificial monopoly in the distribution of apps by making the App Store the only curator of the platform. People who decided to purchase an iPhone with an iOS license should have the right to use the device to it's full extent (along with being able to fix it themselves if something breaks). If you don't feel safe running apps outside of the App Store, you don't need to!
- Dracophoenix 6y ago
  That's like saying Nintendo has an artificial monopoly by allowing only allowing Nintendo approved games to be distributed for sales on their consoles. Or TV channels have an artificial monopoly for shows they buy the syndication/distribution rights for. At some point, someone decided to commit to a certain path. Calling the choice "anti-competitive" cheapens the word. >>People who decided to purchase an iPhone with an iOS license should have the right to use the device to it's full extent The US Copyright Office has already made it clear that jailbreaking is legal. That does not imply upon Apple an affirmative obligation to fix a jailbroken phone or create a open/fixable hardware and software platform, or make either of the two easy to accomplish. Only a negative obligation to not interfere with those who take such risks at their own expense.
  - fbelzile 6y ago
    You're right that I'd classify those as artificial monopolies. Wouldn't you agree that the world would be a better place if we had less of them? Especially for general computing devices like a phone (unlike gaming consoles and media like your examples). We already know that Apple doesn't need the App Store for iDevices to be a commercial success, just look at the Mac and macOS.
    - leadingthenet 6y ago
      > Wouldn't you agree that the world would be a better place if we had less of them? No.
    - dsjoerg 6y ago
      My house is an artificial monopoly. Only I get to decide who comes in. People come in only by choice. My guests and I having freely chosen to be together, in my place, abiding by my rules. It's like that, except my house is very big and I'm Apple. Everyone, by their choice in accepting my invitation, have chosen to abide by my rules. All guests are free to leave any time! Now, what right does a 3rd party (the gov't) have to come in and crash my party and force me to change some of my rules? Consenting adults chose to be here!
    - Dracophoenix 6y ago
- valparaiso 6y ago
  > The problem is that Apple built an artificial monopoly in the distribution of apps by making the App Store the only curator of the platform. You need to watch Epic Games vs. Apple hearing from September 2020. This argument was already rejected by judge. She stated closed platforms (walled gardens) were before Apple's fore decades and are legal types of business. She also told about Nintendo/PlayStation/Xbox same closed stores.