4 ms·

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 espe

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
        Great points: > 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. Yes, but only over time. It took years for iOS to cause a problem for the existing players. > It isn’t enough to have better philosophy/ideals. Definitely. I’d say that’s why this wasn’t relevant before now. > Consumers of Android/iOS need to feel differently about their current setup. Yes - they need to see something they don’t have, or question the value of what they do have. > I struggle to see what kinds of uses emerge that are not illicit which can’t be copied by current players. Imagine a gaming phone with some exclusive content in an Epic store, and a truly first/class built out PWA / installable web app story. Those are two things that Apple wouldn’t want to copy. > Since you mention low end disruption it would rest on simplicity I suppose. Not necessarily. Yes, generally low end disruption means not overserving. But... > But the whole smartphone itself is built on the idea of being a simple computer. How much simpler can we get? It doesn’t mean literally simplifying existing conventions. People are holding onto iPhones for longer and longer - so a 4 year old set of hardware capabilities would be a decent entry point. Software wise - my guess is that if we really have an open platform, there would be a lot of room for creativity which we don’t see on Android or iOS, particularly in the basic features. And then there are all kinds of not illicit but not fitting into the Apple model kinds of thing. E.g. - Signed apps based on distributed models of reputation. - Genuinely decentralized messaging and crypto wallets. - First class, on device programming environments. - Peer to peer distribution of code. - Private local backup mechanisms that don’t require trusting a cloud provider If you think in terms of the an open computer that the end-user really controls, the list opens up quite quickly. Also, the number of users who are sophisticated continue to increase.

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
      Great points: > 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. Yes, but only over time. It took years for iOS to cause a problem for the existing players. > It isn’t enough to have better philosophy/ideals. Definitely. I’d say that’s why this wasn’t relevant before now. > Consumers of Android/iOS need to feel differently about their current setup. Yes - they need to see something they don’t have, or question the value of what they do have. > I struggle to see what kinds of uses emerge that are not illicit which can’t be copied by current players. Imagine a gaming phone with some exclusive content in an Epic store, and a truly first/class built out PWA / installable web app story. Those are two things that Apple wouldn’t want to copy. > Since you mention low end disruption it would rest on simplicity I suppose. Not necessarily. Yes, generally low end disruption means not overserving. But... > But the whole smartphone itself is built on the idea of being a simple computer. How much simpler can we get? It doesn’t mean literally simplifying existing conventions. People are holding onto iPhones for longer and longer - so a 4 year old set of hardware capabilities would be a decent entry point. Software wise - my guess is that if we really have an open platform, there would be a lot of room for creativity which we don’t see on Android or iOS, particularly in the basic features. And then there are all kinds of not illicit but not fitting into the Apple model kinds of thing. E.g. - Signed apps based on distributed models of reputation. - Genuinely decentralized messaging and crypto wallets. - First class, on device programming environments. - Peer to peer distribution of code. - Private local backup mechanisms that don’t require trusting a cloud provider If you think in terms of the an open computer that the end-user really controls, the list opens up quite quickly. Also, the number of users who are sophisticated continue to increase.