6 ms·

Boot camp level access isn't going to provide the documentation necessary to program those machines. It also impedes the pace of vertically integrated innovatio

Boot camp level access isn't going to provide the documentation necessary to program those machines. It also impedes the pace of vertically integrated innovation that has been happening over the years. If Apple needed a public contract for open operating systems to build on top of, it would either slow down the roadmap, or break the open software regularly. It isn't just a money problem, it's a technical and human coordination problem that can't be solved with money. IMO, Google should have stepped up to build this right, but didn't. They built Android to defend against Apple not to invent a better future path. If there is something to regulate it is making super easy for consumers to have choice over Apple vs. something else. Regulate the need for easy adoption paths between mobile ecosystems. This creates a fair arena for a free market to fight for consumers without lock in.

zepto 6y ago
> If Apple needed a public contract for open operating systems to build on top of, it would either slow down the roadmap, or break the open software regularly They managed it with Boot Camp itself, so it can be done. Also, forcing alternate app stores would be even more of an impedance in the vertical integration model. That said I don’t think the forced boot camp is a requirement. Agreed about Google. Google said ‘open always wins’, and then Android didn’t win because it’s not actually open. It already is super easy for consumers to have access to “something else” vs Apple. It’s just that the only viable “something else” is Android, which isn’t open. Consumers need an open alternative to choose before they can actually choose it. > It isn't just a money problem, it's a technical and human coordination problem that can't be solved with money. Building an open mobile Linux problem is both a human coordination problem and a money problem. Not much different from Ubuntu or Firefox, just with a different goal. You need a coordinated group of people and they need to be paid to work on it full time. That can definitely be solved with money, as long as there are people who want to build it.
- enos_feedler 6y ago
  To start, it would be nice if consumers can choose between Android and iPhone and regulate that. Having the systems in place is a precursor to adding a third open alternative with a chance to be successful. I meant human coordination problem in the sense that Apple is already working at a lower bound of innovation delivery speed. They by definition have the least effort coordination with everyone working under perfectly aligned goals, under a single Delaware C Corp. Even with Android not being a fully open system, you are already moving away from the lower bound of coordination which is why Android maintains a 2-3 year roadmap gap with iOS. Money doesn't solve this, it takes _time_ to coordinate humans working for differently entities with their own goals/motives. This is coming from someone who worked on Android, at Google and met regularly with hardware vendors, OEMs, app developers, etc.
  - zepto 6y ago
    > consumers can choose between Android and iPhone They already can. > Android maintains a 2-3 year roadmap gap with iOS. Understood, however I don’t think this is actually a problem anymore. It’s ok if there is a lag between the open platform and whatever Apple is able to do at the cutting edge. This isn’t about eliminating Apple, or removing all incentive for them to produce high end products. It’s about creating a true open alternative. We’re at the stage where there is room for low end disruption. The alternative doesn’t have to be as good at everything as the latest iPhone. It only needs to be ‘good enough’ and it needs to be able to do some things that iPhones cannot do.
    - enos_feedler 6y ago
      Yes agreed there is room for low end disruption. I would also agree that consumers can choose between Apple and Android but the perception I’ve encountered especially on HN is that it isn’t so easy to move which is why people call for regulating Apple.
      - judge2020 6y ago
        It actually is pretty easy to move, the issue is that no other company wants to put in the effort to compete with these two platforms which already encompass 99%+ of the smartphone market. Any competitor (that isn't just a fork of Android) is going to have a hard time competing against operating systems which are completely free and raising the billions in up-front funding that would be required to have parity with these OS's. Whether or not having only 2 companies is a problem is one of choice, but the fact is that these companies are a natural duopoly simply due to the market's barriers of entry.
        zepto 6y ago
        > billions in up-front funding that would be required to have parity with these OS's I agree it would almost certainly require a billion or so of investment. However parity isn’t needed from that investment. It has to be ‘good enough’ (in terms of features) for users, and strong enough that people can build on it. Android isn’t completely free - because Google controls what you can do with it. The point about billions is to notice that how little a couple of billion actually is in relation to the revenues of the companies who have an interest in this.

zepto 6y ago

> If Apple needed a public contract for open operating systems to build on top of, it would either slow down the roadmap, or break the open software regularly They managed it with Boot Camp itself, so it can be done. Also, forcing alternate app stores would be even more of an impedance in the vertical integration model. That said I don’t think the forced boot camp is a requirement. Agreed about Google. Google said ‘open always wins’, and then Android didn’t win because it’s not actually open. It already is super easy for consumers to have access to “something else” vs Apple. It’s just that the only viable “something else” is Android, which isn’t open. Consumers need an open alternative to choose before they can actually choose it. > It isn't just a money problem, it's a technical and human coordination problem that can't be solved with money. Building an open mobile Linux problem is both a human coordination problem and a money problem. Not much different from Ubuntu or Firefox, just with a different goal. You need a coordinated group of people and they need to be paid to work on it full time. That can definitely be solved with money, as long as there are people who want to build it.

enos_feedler 6y ago
To start, it would be nice if consumers can choose between Android and iPhone and regulate that. Having the systems in place is a precursor to adding a third open alternative with a chance to be successful. I meant human coordination problem in the sense that Apple is already working at a lower bound of innovation delivery speed. They by definition have the least effort coordination with everyone working under perfectly aligned goals, under a single Delaware C Corp. Even with Android not being a fully open system, you are already moving away from the lower bound of coordination which is why Android maintains a 2-3 year roadmap gap with iOS. Money doesn't solve this, it takes _time_ to coordinate humans working for differently entities with their own goals/motives. This is coming from someone who worked on Android, at Google and met regularly with hardware vendors, OEMs, app developers, etc.
- zepto 6y ago
  > consumers can choose between Android and iPhone They already can. > Android maintains a 2-3 year roadmap gap with iOS. Understood, however I don’t think this is actually a problem anymore. It’s ok if there is a lag between the open platform and whatever Apple is able to do at the cutting edge. This isn’t about eliminating Apple, or removing all incentive for them to produce high end products. It’s about creating a true open alternative. We’re at the stage where there is room for low end disruption. The alternative doesn’t have to be as good at everything as the latest iPhone. It only needs to be ‘good enough’ and it needs to be able to do some things that iPhones cannot do.
  - enos_feedler 6y ago
    Yes agreed there is room for low end disruption. I would also agree that consumers can choose between Apple and Android but the perception I’ve encountered especially on HN is that it isn’t so easy to move which is why people call for regulating Apple.
    - judge2020 6y ago
      It actually is pretty easy to move, the issue is that no other company wants to put in the effort to compete with these two platforms which already encompass 99%+ of the smartphone market. Any competitor (that isn't just a fork of Android) is going to have a hard time competing against operating systems which are completely free and raising the billions in up-front funding that would be required to have parity with these OS's. Whether or not having only 2 companies is a problem is one of choice, but the fact is that these companies are a natural duopoly simply due to the market's barriers of entry.
      - zepto 6y ago
        > billions in up-front funding that would be required to have parity with these OS's I agree it would almost certainly require a billion or so of investment. However parity isn’t needed from that investment. It has to be ‘good enough’ (in terms of features) for users, and strong enough that people can build on it. Android isn’t completely free - because Google controls what you can do with it. The point about billions is to notice that how little a couple of billion actually is in relation to the revenues of the companies who have an interest in this.