4 ms·

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 op

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
    I discount the claims that it’s not so easy to move. I know quite a few (regular non-tech) people who have moved, and none of them have had any difficulties. I think people assume it’s hard to explain why there isn’t more switching, when really there just isn’t much incentive to switch. It also seems essentially impossible to regulate ease of switching, since not every app is available on both platforms.
    - enos_feedler 6y ago
      To me, this means we’ve reached a steady state where the duopoly has copied enough from each other to make their own customer base happy. The biggest incentive to switch would be you are fed up with your current platform about something that matters to you.
      - zepto 6y ago
        Yes - I generally agree with that. I wouldn’t say it that way because I think ‘duopoly’ is an overstatement. If a market is ripe for low end disruption, it’s not a duopoly or a monopoly. It just happens not to have had new entrants at this time. I also think that most people aren’t really fed up with the current two platforms, and certainly adding more app stores isn’t going to change anything. The only thing that will do that, is a platform (or more likely ecosystem, since I am proposing that it be open) that enables substantive changes to the way mobile devices work, which the current platforms do not. I mean really, do we think an open general purpose mobile computing platform would enable purposes which are not served by Android or iOS, or not?
        enos_feedler 6y ago
        Thats the big question. If a new entrant that was a true open general purpose platform were to emerge, it would need to create a problem for existing players. It isn’t enough to have better philosophy/ideals. Consumers of Android/iOS need to feel differently about their current setup. I struggle to see what kinds of uses emerge that are not illicit which can’t be copied by current players. Since you mention low end disruption it would rest on simplicity I suppose. But the whole smartphone itself is built on the idea of being a simple computer. How much simpler can we get?

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
  I discount the claims that it’s not so easy to move. I know quite a few (regular non-tech) people who have moved, and none of them have had any difficulties. I think people assume it’s hard to explain why there isn’t more switching, when really there just isn’t much incentive to switch. It also seems essentially impossible to regulate ease of switching, since not every app is available on both platforms.
  - enos_feedler 6y ago
    To me, this means we’ve reached a steady state where the duopoly has copied enough from each other to make their own customer base happy. The biggest incentive to switch would be you are fed up with your current platform about something that matters to you.
    - zepto 6y ago
      Yes - I generally agree with that. I wouldn’t say it that way because I think ‘duopoly’ is an overstatement. If a market is ripe for low end disruption, it’s not a duopoly or a monopoly. It just happens not to have had new entrants at this time. I also think that most people aren’t really fed up with the current two platforms, and certainly adding more app stores isn’t going to change anything. The only thing that will do that, is a platform (or more likely ecosystem, since I am proposing that it be open) that enables substantive changes to the way mobile devices work, which the current platforms do not. I mean really, do we think an open general purpose mobile computing platform would enable purposes which are not served by Android or iOS, or not?
      - enos_feedler 6y ago
        Thats the big question. If a new entrant that was a true open general purpose platform were to emerge, it would need to create a problem for existing players. It isn’t enough to have better philosophy/ideals. Consumers of Android/iOS need to feel differently about their current setup. I struggle to see what kinds of uses emerge that are not illicit which can’t be copied by current players. Since you mention low end disruption it would rest on simplicity I suppose. But the whole smartphone itself is built on the idea of being a simple computer. How much simpler can we get?