4 ms·

> The problem is the iPhone and Android platforms are the only two ways to reach many customers. Neither has a monopoly, or anything close to a monopoly. Duopo

by caslon 6y ago

> The problem is the iPhone and Android platforms are the only two ways to reach many customers. Neither has a monopoly, or anything close to a monopoly. Duopolies are legal. > Web isn't first class, and there's no open standard or easy way to distribute native apps. This isn't a bad thing. People who want native apps from a source other than Apple or Google can pretty easily get them: Cydia's existed longer than the App Store has, and Google makes it easy to sideload anything. The world doesn't owe you a business model, and you can't take away people's rights because you want a better way to sell your wares.

leggenda47 6y ago
> People who want native apps from a source other than Apple or Google can pretty easily get them: Cydia's existed longer than the App Store has, and Google makes it easy to sideload anything. It might be easy for tech-savvy people but not for the average customer. Installing Cydia on an iPhone requires jailbreaking, I think. Sideloading is easier but you have to jump through a few hoops to be able to install apps. > The world doesn't owe you a business model, and you can't take away people's rights because you want a better way to sell your wares. I may be misunderstanding this but how does this take away people's rights?
- caslon 6y ago
  > It might be easy for tech-savvy people but not for the average customer. Having domain knowledge is pretty helpful in everything. People who don't know what they're doing shouldn't play with explosives, for example. Plenty of ten year olds have jailbroken their devices, just check the jailbreak reddit. If they can do it, anyone can. Just read about it first. Epic Games got hundreds of thousands of little kids to sideload their app on Google's operating system. > I may be misunderstanding this but how does this take away people's rights? Forcing someone to host something takes away their right to free speech.
tomatocracy 6y ago
Monopolies are also legal. But it's not unusual for industries which are dominated by a small number of players (ie monopolies or oligopolies) to face additional regulation or regulatory action aimed at preventing them from abusing that position, especially when the service provided is viewed as "essential" in some way. I don't think it's an unreasonable position to hold that the app stores should be subject to this type of regulatory oversight.
Dylan16807 6y ago
Funny, "The world doesn't owe you a business model" is exactly what I would say to google and apple about their app stores. Maybe even the full "The world doesn't owe you a business model, and you can't take away people's rights because you want a better way to sell" even though that invites unproductive sidetracking about to what extent a free market is a right.
- caslon 6y ago
  Speech is a right, and forcing someone to host something is against 1A.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    Not a person, a company. We force companies with dominant market power to do all kinds of things that normal people and even normal companies aren't forced to do. And it's not "you must host this" but "if you want to keep the overwhelming level of power you have then you must host this"
fakedang 6y ago
Fun fact, duopolies are often regulated in other industries precisely because price matching is illegal.
- caslon 6y ago
  Google nor Apple is guilty of that.
  - fakedang 6y ago
    The 15% - 30% appstore developer cut says otherwise
echelon 6y ago
> Duopolies are legal. This shit we have to put up with shouldn't be legal! I dream for the day that the DOJ forces Apple and Google to make an interoperable native platform. Or when it forces both to spin off their app marketplaces. Or requires them to allow easy installs from the web. > People who want native apps from a source other than Apple or Google can pretty easily get them That's not at all correct. You can count the percentage of people that can do this on one hand. > The world doesn't owe you a business model, and you can't take away people's rights because you want a better way to sell your wares. The world doesn't owe you clean air, either. But thankfully we've decided to artificially limit business to make the world a better place.
- caslon 6y ago
  > This shit we have to put up with shouldn't be legal! I dream for the day that the DOJ forces Apple and Google to make an interoperable native platform. Or when it forces both to spin off their app marketplaces. Or requires them to allow easy installs from the web. You're begging for a way to enforce capitalism while taking away Apple and Google's right to practice capitalism. You're not promoting this altruistically, you're promoting it because you want to make money. Why should anyone support your right to make money over Apple's or Google's? > You can count the percentage of people that can do this on one hand. Anyone can do it, so long as they have access to a search engine. > The world doesn't owe you clean air, either. But thankfully we've decided to artificially limit business to make the world a better place. You're arguing for this as a way to limit businesses in favor of your businesses, though. You're just passing the buck! What you're advocating for helps no one aside from you (and people in your profession) and hurts consumers. I don't like using Google or Apple products, so I don't. Vote with your wallet, don't vote for taking away rights.
  - modo_mario 6y ago
    >You're begging for a way to enforce capitalism while taking away Apple and Google's right to practice capitalism. Capitalism and it's benefits isn't necessarily self-sustaining and enforcing in the same way that total democracy can still have a party participating democratically to end it. If you allow every anticompetitive market practice depending on the sector you quickly loose the benefit of open competition that one might expect from capitalism. > What you're advocating for helps no one aside from you (and people in your profession) and hurts consumers. If people in his profession include the countless companies developing stuff for these platforms then obviously yeah and that's not a bad thing. If Google and apple can kill competition if they enter a market on their platform then that reduces competition. If they can use their platform to prevent competition in a segment of it where they are established then that stops competition. Competition serves the consumer but is not inherent. The high fees that google can ask due to their market dominance get passed on to the consumer and thus do not benefit the consumer. The market dominance is something they can retain and enforce with minimal competition due to a mix of their clout and anticompetitive practices.

by caslon 6y ago

leggenda47 6y ago

> People who want native apps from a source other than Apple or Google can pretty easily get them: Cydia's existed longer than the App Store has, and Google makes it easy to sideload anything. It might be easy for tech-savvy people but not for the average customer. Installing Cydia on an iPhone requires jailbreaking, I think. Sideloading is easier but you have to jump through a few hoops to be able to install apps. > The world doesn't owe you a business model, and you can't take away people's rights because you want a better way to sell your wares. I may be misunderstanding this but how does this take away people's rights?

caslon 6y ago
> It might be easy for tech-savvy people but not for the average customer. Having domain knowledge is pretty helpful in everything. People who don't know what they're doing shouldn't play with explosives, for example. Plenty of ten year olds have jailbroken their devices, just check the jailbreak reddit. If they can do it, anyone can. Just read about it first. Epic Games got hundreds of thousands of little kids to sideload their app on Google's operating system. > I may be misunderstanding this but how does this take away people's rights? Forcing someone to host something takes away their right to free speech.

tomatocracy 6y ago

Monopolies are also legal. But it's not unusual for industries which are dominated by a small number of players (ie monopolies or oligopolies) to face additional regulation or regulatory action aimed at preventing them from abusing that position, especially when the service provided is viewed as "essential" in some way. I don't think it's an unreasonable position to hold that the app stores should be subject to this type of regulatory oversight.

Dylan16807 6y ago

Funny, "The world doesn't owe you a business model" is exactly what I would say to google and apple about their app stores. Maybe even the full "The world doesn't owe you a business model, and you can't take away people's rights because you want a better way to sell" even though that invites unproductive sidetracking about to what extent a free market is a right.

caslon 6y ago
Speech is a right, and forcing someone to host something is against 1A.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  Not a person, a company. We force companies with dominant market power to do all kinds of things that normal people and even normal companies aren't forced to do. And it's not "you must host this" but "if you want to keep the overwhelming level of power you have then you must host this"

fakedang 6y ago

Fun fact, duopolies are often regulated in other industries precisely because price matching is illegal.

caslon 6y ago
Google nor Apple is guilty of that.
- fakedang 6y ago
  The 15% - 30% appstore developer cut says otherwise

echelon 6y ago

> Duopolies are legal. This shit we have to put up with shouldn't be legal! I dream for the day that the DOJ forces Apple and Google to make an interoperable native platform. Or when it forces both to spin off their app marketplaces. Or requires them to allow easy installs from the web. > People who want native apps from a source other than Apple or Google can pretty easily get them That's not at all correct. You can count the percentage of people that can do this on one hand. > The world doesn't owe you a business model, and you can't take away people's rights because you want a better way to sell your wares. The world doesn't owe you clean air, either. But thankfully we've decided to artificially limit business to make the world a better place.

caslon 6y ago
> This shit we have to put up with shouldn't be legal! I dream for the day that the DOJ forces Apple and Google to make an interoperable native platform. Or when it forces both to spin off their app marketplaces. Or requires them to allow easy installs from the web. You're begging for a way to enforce capitalism while taking away Apple and Google's right to practice capitalism. You're not promoting this altruistically, you're promoting it because you want to make money. Why should anyone support your right to make money over Apple's or Google's? > You can count the percentage of people that can do this on one hand. Anyone can do it, so long as they have access to a search engine. > The world doesn't owe you clean air, either. But thankfully we've decided to artificially limit business to make the world a better place. You're arguing for this as a way to limit businesses in favor of your businesses, though. You're just passing the buck! What you're advocating for helps no one aside from you (and people in your profession) and hurts consumers. I don't like using Google or Apple products, so I don't. Vote with your wallet, don't vote for taking away rights.
- modo_mario 6y ago
  >You're begging for a way to enforce capitalism while taking away Apple and Google's right to practice capitalism. Capitalism and it's benefits isn't necessarily self-sustaining and enforcing in the same way that total democracy can still have a party participating democratically to end it. If you allow every anticompetitive market practice depending on the sector you quickly loose the benefit of open competition that one might expect from capitalism. > What you're advocating for helps no one aside from you (and people in your profession) and hurts consumers. If people in his profession include the countless companies developing stuff for these platforms then obviously yeah and that's not a bad thing. If Google and apple can kill competition if they enter a market on their platform then that reduces competition. If they can use their platform to prevent competition in a segment of it where they are established then that stops competition. Competition serves the consumer but is not inherent. The high fees that google can ask due to their market dominance get passed on to the consumer and thus do not benefit the consumer. The market dominance is something they can retain and enforce with minimal competition due to a mix of their clout and anticompetitive practices.