4 ms·

If Apple's AppStore is really so good, it should be able to withstand a little healthy competition from 3rd party stores. Who knows, a little competition might

by shkkmo 5y ago

If Apple's AppStore is really so good, it should be able to withstand a little healthy competition from 3rd party stores. Who knows, a little competition might even inspire the AppStore to become even better?

tshaddox 5y ago
One could argue that this is a bit like saying “if McDonald’s burgers are so good, they should be able to withstand putting competing restaurants’ burgers on their menu.”
- swiley 5y ago
  It's more like saying "if McDonald's burgers are so good they should be able to withstand competing restaurants in the same town." The users buy the phone, not Apple. It's amazing this is even contraversial.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    I don’t see how an individual iPhone is analogous to an entire town. Is a video game console also analogous to an entire town?
    - swiley 5y ago
      In the analogy you have to buy a house somewhere else if you want to eat anything else. It's really not a complex idea, hopefully that's enough for you.
    - shkkmo 5y ago
      > Is a video game console also analogous to an entire town? Kinda, except that video game consoles, unlike iPhones, usually allow you to play physical media that you can buy from any source (so consoles aren't quite as bad.)
- smoldesu 5y ago
  No, this is more like asking McDonald's not to blow up new restaurants within a week of them coming to town because they didn't "ask permission" from them first.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    What does Apple do that is analogous to destroying competitors’ property?
    - smoldesu 5y ago
      Apple isn't a competitor in this analogy, they're the government. They own every piece of land and decide how to use it, and also how many burgers they want to sell you.
      - tshaddox 5y ago
        That’s a weird analogy, since you get to choose which “government” to be a part of, and they’re only chosen by 45% of the United States and 17% of the world.
        smoldesu 5y ago
        It's your lopsided analogy, since Apple isn't analogous to a restaurant in the first place. My point is that Apple holds a lot more power than you give them credit for.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  Then one would be making an argument using an analogy that is quite obviously not actually analagous at all. The more correct analogy is a McDonald's franchise that actively uses every method at their disposal to prevent other fast food restaurants from opening near where you live.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    In what way does Apple do that?
    - shkkmo 5y ago
      I have a feeling this is a facetious question, but: Take a look at the history of Apple's efforts to block jailbreaking in combination with the AppStore rules that disallow 3rd party app stores. It is quite clear that Apple has use multiple methods to successfully fighr off the arisal of any alternative stores. Apple openly admits to doing this, it really isn't a controversial claim.
      - tshaddox 5y ago
        This is nothing like destroying competitors’ property. Coca-Cola can be sold in McDonald’s because the two parties have an explicit business arrangement. But they’ll kick you out if you set up a lemonade stand in their store (they still probably won’t destroy your property, they’ll likely ask you to leave and call the police if you refuse). McDonald’s will probably, however, make no effort to prevent you from selling lemonade from your driveway, or even prevent Coca-Cola (or Coca-Cola’s direct competitors) from selling soda at McDonald’s direct competitors. (If they did do this, I would agree that it’s anti-competitive behavior that ought to be opposed.)
        akiselev 5y ago
        McDonald's pays the rent for their storefronts and owns all the food it cooks for its customers - McDonald's carries all of the inventory risk. It doesn't try to exert any control on the food after the customer has bought it and left the premises and the deals it makes with Coca Cola are about payment terms, branding, and cost of inventory. If Apple wanted to take on development risk for all of the apps on the app store by paying for all that developer time, then we'd be talking about something that is sorta kinda not really the same thing.
- koyote 5y ago
  A restaurant only sells its own merchandise so this comparison does not make any sense. The App Store is a 'store' in this case (it's in the name) and is the only store where you can buy items for your Apple home. Imagine if Walmart sold homes and you could only put items in it that were bought at Walmart.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    McDonald’s sells other companies’ products too, like Coca-Cola. Also, you actually can buy an entire McDonald’s and I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t be allowed to sell Burger King products there. I’m not sure why you introduced homes to the analogy. That’s a very different scenario.
    - koyote 5y ago
      > I’m not sure why you introduced homes to the analogy. That’s a very different scenario. In what way is a home that you fill with stuff you bought in a store different from a computer that you fill with stuff you bought in a store?

by shkkmo 5y ago

tshaddox 5y ago

One could argue that this is a bit like saying “if McDonald’s burgers are so good, they should be able to withstand putting competing restaurants’ burgers on their menu.”

swiley 5y ago
It's more like saying "if McDonald's burgers are so good they should be able to withstand competing restaurants in the same town." The users buy the phone, not Apple. It's amazing this is even contraversial.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  I don’t see how an individual iPhone is analogous to an entire town. Is a video game console also analogous to an entire town?
  - swiley 5y ago
    In the analogy you have to buy a house somewhere else if you want to eat anything else. It's really not a complex idea, hopefully that's enough for you.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    > Is a video game console also analogous to an entire town? Kinda, except that video game consoles, unlike iPhones, usually allow you to play physical media that you can buy from any source (so consoles aren't quite as bad.)
smoldesu 5y ago
No, this is more like asking McDonald's not to blow up new restaurants within a week of them coming to town because they didn't "ask permission" from them first.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  What does Apple do that is analogous to destroying competitors’ property?
  - smoldesu 5y ago
    Apple isn't a competitor in this analogy, they're the government. They own every piece of land and decide how to use it, and also how many burgers they want to sell you.
    - tshaddox 5y ago
      That’s a weird analogy, since you get to choose which “government” to be a part of, and they’re only chosen by 45% of the United States and 17% of the world.
      - smoldesu 5y ago
        It's your lopsided analogy, since Apple isn't analogous to a restaurant in the first place. My point is that Apple holds a lot more power than you give them credit for.
shkkmo 5y ago
Then one would be making an argument using an analogy that is quite obviously not actually analagous at all. The more correct analogy is a McDonald's franchise that actively uses every method at their disposal to prevent other fast food restaurants from opening near where you live.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  In what way does Apple do that?
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    I have a feeling this is a facetious question, but: Take a look at the history of Apple's efforts to block jailbreaking in combination with the AppStore rules that disallow 3rd party app stores. It is quite clear that Apple has use multiple methods to successfully fighr off the arisal of any alternative stores. Apple openly admits to doing this, it really isn't a controversial claim.
    - tshaddox 5y ago
      This is nothing like destroying competitors’ property. Coca-Cola can be sold in McDonald’s because the two parties have an explicit business arrangement. But they’ll kick you out if you set up a lemonade stand in their store (they still probably won’t destroy your property, they’ll likely ask you to leave and call the police if you refuse). McDonald’s will probably, however, make no effort to prevent you from selling lemonade from your driveway, or even prevent Coca-Cola (or Coca-Cola’s direct competitors) from selling soda at McDonald’s direct competitors. (If they did do this, I would agree that it’s anti-competitive behavior that ought to be opposed.)
      - akiselev 5y ago
        McDonald's pays the rent for their storefronts and owns all the food it cooks for its customers - McDonald's carries all of the inventory risk. It doesn't try to exert any control on the food after the customer has bought it and left the premises and the deals it makes with Coca Cola are about payment terms, branding, and cost of inventory. If Apple wanted to take on development risk for all of the apps on the app store by paying for all that developer time, then we'd be talking about something that is sorta kinda not really the same thing.
koyote 5y ago
A restaurant only sells its own merchandise so this comparison does not make any sense. The App Store is a 'store' in this case (it's in the name) and is the only store where you can buy items for your Apple home. Imagine if Walmart sold homes and you could only put items in it that were bought at Walmart.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  McDonald’s sells other companies’ products too, like Coca-Cola. Also, you actually can buy an entire McDonald’s and I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t be allowed to sell Burger King products there. I’m not sure why you introduced homes to the analogy. That’s a very different scenario.
  - koyote 5y ago
    > I’m not sure why you introduced homes to the analogy. That’s a very different scenario. In what way is a home that you fill with stuff you bought in a store different from a computer that you fill with stuff you bought in a store?