4 ms·

It's hard to reason about this, because in a way the app store situation is unprecedented. The best analogy I can come up with is a private road connecting half

by emsy 5y ago

It's hard to reason about this, because in a way the app store situation is unprecedented. The best analogy I can come up with is a private road connecting half the people in the country: Of course you're happy that the private road exists and the amenities it offers. Companies can connect with customers, people can connect with each other. On the other hand, the road owner now has full control over the infrastructure and dictates prices and conditions. In this situation, building your own roads is probably unfeasible or just not possible because there is no land available. So now you're at the whim of the owner. Should the road owner be allowed full control over what can be done on the road and how much it costs because it built the roads in the first place, even though it has become an indispensable part of everyone's lives, thus granting the owner immense power over everyone's lives and livelihoods? By the way, the same argument applies to FB, Google, Twitter and others. I think the individualist, wild west attitude of the US is going to hurt humanity in the long run. Our society needs to figure out a way to deal with the fact that we are granting private companies powers over people's lives beyond mere monetary value.

innagadadavida 5y ago
> The best analogy I can come up with is a private road connecting half the people in the country That is pretty inaccurate. It is more like there are three interoperable road networks (apple, Google, other-free) and you are asking one of the roads to make you an additional toll operator.
ksec 5y ago
>dictates prices and conditions. My biggest problem isn't with the price, but with the conditions. Because currently people are saying I am not allowed to drive a Car that support certain political positions in these roads, and you are forced to use other road network which does not collect to Half of the country.
boublepop 5y ago
In your example, you forget that there is a competing private road just next to it. And competitors aren’t arguing about not being able to put new competing roads, they are arguing that they should be able to put tollboths on Apples road, because even though Apple don’t have a monopoly and don’t even have the most used road, it is still a very profitable road for Apple.
- emsy 5y ago
  No, those two roads connect two mostly distinct group of people, since most people use either an Apple or a Google smartphone, not both, so I still think it’s a fitting analogy. And what is being argued for depends on who you ask. Some are fine with smaller fees, others don’t like the fact that Apple can control who and what is allowed to use the road, which is immense power for a road that connects millions of people.
  - threatofrain 5y ago
    But how does this metaphor work because Apple and Google customers largely have the same experiences; if anything the Apple ecosystem often has a teensy bit more than Google. Also, are single ecosystem households more common than multi ecosystem ones? Is that obvious?
    - emsy 5y ago
      I stated that the same applies to Google and other companies. These networks hold immense power over our lives and for some reason we grant it to them unquestioned because "well they built it". Also, I wasn't talking about households but individuals. Most individuals only use one main OS as a daily driver and the lock-in is a real and important factor that contributes to competitors not simply being able to "build their own". This argument doesn't make sense if you think about it. ISPs build their own infrastructure but depending on where you live they still have to comply to regulations. As smartphones are an ever increasing component of our lives (contact tracing, payment, tickets, access to hardware and services) it seems odd that we somehow exempt them from any regulations whatsoever.

by emsy 5y ago

innagadadavida 5y ago

> The best analogy I can come up with is a private road connecting half the people in the country That is pretty inaccurate. It is more like there are three interoperable road networks (apple, Google, other-free) and you are asking one of the roads to make you an additional toll operator.

ksec 5y ago

>dictates prices and conditions. My biggest problem isn't with the price, but with the conditions. Because currently people are saying I am not allowed to drive a Car that support certain political positions in these roads, and you are forced to use other road network which does not collect to Half of the country.

boublepop 5y ago

In your example, you forget that there is a competing private road just next to it. And competitors aren’t arguing about not being able to put new competing roads, they are arguing that they should be able to put tollboths on Apples road, because even though Apple don’t have a monopoly and don’t even have the most used road, it is still a very profitable road for Apple.

emsy 5y ago
No, those two roads connect two mostly distinct group of people, since most people use either an Apple or a Google smartphone, not both, so I still think it’s a fitting analogy. And what is being argued for depends on who you ask. Some are fine with smaller fees, others don’t like the fact that Apple can control who and what is allowed to use the road, which is immense power for a road that connects millions of people.
- threatofrain 5y ago
  But how does this metaphor work because Apple and Google customers largely have the same experiences; if anything the Apple ecosystem often has a teensy bit more than Google. Also, are single ecosystem households more common than multi ecosystem ones? Is that obvious?
  - emsy 5y ago
    I stated that the same applies to Google and other companies. These networks hold immense power over our lives and for some reason we grant it to them unquestioned because "well they built it". Also, I wasn't talking about households but individuals. Most individuals only use one main OS as a daily driver and the lock-in is a real and important factor that contributes to competitors not simply being able to "build their own". This argument doesn't make sense if you think about it. ISPs build their own infrastructure but depending on where you live they still have to comply to regulations. As smartphones are an ever increasing component of our lives (contact tracing, payment, tickets, access to hardware and services) it seems odd that we somehow exempt them from any regulations whatsoever.