4 ms·

We need to re-evaluate what "rights" mean in a digital age. Apple should not have a monopoly on digital stores on iOS. "Apple made it so they can do anything th

We need to re-evaluate what "rights" mean in a digital age. Apple should not have a monopoly on digital stores on iOS. "Apple made it so they can do anything they want. Take it or leave it" - is not an acceptable position (in my opinion). >By that logic costco has no competitors whatsoever that sell kirkland signature products. Can you explain how you came to that conclusion and what 'that logic' is?

gruez 5y ago
>Can you explain how you came to that conclusion and what 'that logic' is? Because the parent poster was applying arbitrary restriction on it (apps, but only ios) to make a point. I replied with the equivalent example for costco (grocery store products, but only kirkland signature).
- ksec 5y ago
  Because you have both Costco AND Walmart Stores selling their own brand within the same state which allows heavy Store competition within the State along with dozen of others Stores? The iOS state has 65% of users and 75% of App spending and it has one Store. You can perfectly have your own retail brand when there are plenty of competition within the market. If you argue there is still another state with diverse choices, you are either hit with a Duopoly argument, or a monopolistic power argument where iOS have too much power within market economy. People have been using these over simplify analogy with Xbox and Retail and there are not even the same. Either way, there should be no denying there is something wrong with the way things are currently being handled.
  - ElFitz 5y ago
    > The iOS state has 65% of users 65% may be the shares in devices sold in Q4 2020, in the US. From what I’ve gathered, actual devices market share, in the US, is closer to (and less than) 50%. Doesn’t invalidate your points though.
    - heavyset_go 5y ago
      > From what I’ve gathered, actual devices market share, in the US, is closer to (and less than) 50%. iOS has 60% of the market in the US[1]. [1] https://www.pcmag.com/news/ios-more-popular-in-japan-and-us-android-dominates-in-china-and-india https://www.pcmag.com/news/ios-more-popular-in-japan-and-us-...
      - ElFitz 5y ago
        Made me realise how much it depends on who you ask Here, 50% [1] There, 59% [2] Intriguing that there isn’t any reliable statistics on the topic [1] https://www.emarketer.com/content/iphones-gaining-us-market-share-losing-uk https://www.emarketer.com/content/iphones-gaining-us-market-... [2] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-sta...
ElFitz 5y ago
Honestly, if I were to make a platform and someone else were to come by and somehow force my hand regarding what should be allowed on it and how they should be ranked in it, I’d just shut it all down, even the company if need be, give their money back to whatever investors there may be, and walk away. Let them have fun building it themselves if they want it to run any other way. But that’s just me, and it probably speaks volumes about some of my flaws.
- kelnos 5y ago
  I mean, sure, that's fine. Most laws around what things people and corporations are and aren't allowed to do are trade offs. You can build a company and make lots of money, but you have to obey a set of restrictions. If you're not ok with those restrictions, then you don't build a company. That's fine. There are certainly other people who will accept somewhat lower profits (due to these restrictions) in exchange for having the opportunity to make money at all. The pretty well-known examples of these sorts of restrictions are things like minimum wage laws, child labor laws, anti-discrimination laws, etc. Antitrust law is on there too, and in my opinion it should be expanded to cover some of the stuff we're talking about here. You seem to not agree, and that's fine. But personally I think we should be doing more to protect customers, even from things they may not realize are hurting them. Right now the only serious choices for a smartphone are iPhone or Android, and while they both have a lot of good things going for them, they also both have significant negatives. I don't want the future to be a techno-dystopia where there is only one "choice", and the manufacturer dictates how we use our devices. It really feels like that's where things are going, though, unless we start requiring platforms be more open. Customers won't demand it, because most of them don't understand the issues around it, so it's likely the only solution is legislation.
  - ElFitz 5y ago
    Totally and wholeheartedly agree.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  As a member of a society there are ground rules you are obliged to abide by in order to participate. The upshot is Apple makes 10s of billions per year while abiding by those standards. It's a pretty fantastic deal if you can get it and I don't think if regulations on manipulation of the app market is tightened up it would be an undue burden. You seem to be imagining that a trillion dollar business is just a really big version of a small business so you imagine storming off in a fit of pique but it's really not a bigger version it's a different animal because it's wealth gives it so much power it is in need of greater restraint internal or external and it's massive payroll and base gives it greater obligation to it's customers and staff. Anyone who would do such a thing would just find themselves looking for a new job after the stockholders fired them.

gruez 5y ago

>Can you explain how you came to that conclusion and what 'that logic' is? Because the parent poster was applying arbitrary restriction on it (apps, but only ios) to make a point. I replied with the equivalent example for costco (grocery store products, but only kirkland signature).

ksec 5y ago
Because you have both Costco AND Walmart Stores selling their own brand within the same state which allows heavy Store competition within the State along with dozen of others Stores? The iOS state has 65% of users and 75% of App spending and it has one Store. You can perfectly have your own retail brand when there are plenty of competition within the market. If you argue there is still another state with diverse choices, you are either hit with a Duopoly argument, or a monopolistic power argument where iOS have too much power within market economy. People have been using these over simplify analogy with Xbox and Retail and there are not even the same. Either way, there should be no denying there is something wrong with the way things are currently being handled.
- ElFitz 5y ago
  > The iOS state has 65% of users 65% may be the shares in devices sold in Q4 2020, in the US. From what I’ve gathered, actual devices market share, in the US, is closer to (and less than) 50%. Doesn’t invalidate your points though.
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    > From what I’ve gathered, actual devices market share, in the US, is closer to (and less than) 50%. iOS has 60% of the market in the US[1]. [1] https://www.pcmag.com/news/ios-more-popular-in-japan-and-us-android-dominates-in-china-and-india https://www.pcmag.com/news/ios-more-popular-in-japan-and-us-...
    - ElFitz 5y ago
      Made me realise how much it depends on who you ask Here, 50% [1] There, 59% [2] Intriguing that there isn’t any reliable statistics on the topic [1] https://www.emarketer.com/content/iphones-gaining-us-market-share-losing-uk https://www.emarketer.com/content/iphones-gaining-us-market-... [2] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-sta...

ElFitz 5y ago

Honestly, if I were to make a platform and someone else were to come by and somehow force my hand regarding what should be allowed on it and how they should be ranked in it, I’d just shut it all down, even the company if need be, give their money back to whatever investors there may be, and walk away. Let them have fun building it themselves if they want it to run any other way. But that’s just me, and it probably speaks volumes about some of my flaws.

kelnos 5y ago
I mean, sure, that's fine. Most laws around what things people and corporations are and aren't allowed to do are trade offs. You can build a company and make lots of money, but you have to obey a set of restrictions. If you're not ok with those restrictions, then you don't build a company. That's fine. There are certainly other people who will accept somewhat lower profits (due to these restrictions) in exchange for having the opportunity to make money at all. The pretty well-known examples of these sorts of restrictions are things like minimum wage laws, child labor laws, anti-discrimination laws, etc. Antitrust law is on there too, and in my opinion it should be expanded to cover some of the stuff we're talking about here. You seem to not agree, and that's fine. But personally I think we should be doing more to protect customers, even from things they may not realize are hurting them. Right now the only serious choices for a smartphone are iPhone or Android, and while they both have a lot of good things going for them, they also both have significant negatives. I don't want the future to be a techno-dystopia where there is only one "choice", and the manufacturer dictates how we use our devices. It really feels like that's where things are going, though, unless we start requiring platforms be more open. Customers won't demand it, because most of them don't understand the issues around it, so it's likely the only solution is legislation.
- ElFitz 5y ago
  Totally and wholeheartedly agree.
michaelmrose 5y ago
As a member of a society there are ground rules you are obliged to abide by in order to participate. The upshot is Apple makes 10s of billions per year while abiding by those standards. It's a pretty fantastic deal if you can get it and I don't think if regulations on manipulation of the app market is tightened up it would be an undue burden. You seem to be imagining that a trillion dollar business is just a really big version of a small business so you imagine storming off in a fit of pique but it's really not a bigger version it's a different animal because it's wealth gives it so much power it is in need of greater restraint internal or external and it's massive payroll and base gives it greater obligation to it's customers and staff. Anyone who would do such a thing would just find themselves looking for a new job after the stockholders fired them.