5 ms·

I think HN and similar value free (as in freedom) and openness of a system a lot more. So "walled garden" is a bit of a buzzword against those ideals. > bespok

I think HN and similar value free (as in freedom) and openness of a system a lot more. So "walled garden" is a bit of a buzzword against those ideals. > bespoke curation...purposefully tended and safe These ideas are antithetical to what many on HN seem to want. I personally love Apple products, but walled gardens are great when you don't bump into the walls all the time, which a lot of other people seem to do. In these cases (wall bumping) I think it's reasonable to want alternatives. But there are fanatics and anti-fanatics that I think skew any discussion about Apple.

simondotau 5y ago
I realise this is a controversial view here, but in my opinion the real question is really whether you value Apple’s freedom to build what they believe is the best version of their product. You might not care about that, and that’s fair. Personally I think they should have that freedom. If Apple really had no competition, I would absolutely change my mind. But so long as Android exists, my view is that consumers deserve the right to choose Apple’s garden if they want. And they can choose to leave it. Millions of people do every year. Let the market decide.
- ece 5y ago
  If it's anti-competitive at 95% market share, it's anti-competitive at 50%. Your position is hypocritical and wrong. Everyone should follow the same rules, not make up their own.
  - simondotau 5y ago
    Apple did follow the rules as they currently exist. There is presently no rule against operating a walled gardens in the manner Apple does. If such a rule existed, we'd all know about it. You would have cited it. Apple's critics would be able to quote the rule verbatim. And Epic's case against Apple would have been a slam dunk. Don't be embarrassed to admit that you're the one wanting to make up new rules. It's okay to want new rules. Be honest about it. If you are interested in having your perspective challenged, the commentator for whom I most agree with on this is Hoeg Law, who has published extensive commentary on the Epic vs Apple lawsuit. If you are interested in hearing a view that differs from your own, I can commend his publications to you: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1zDCgJzZUy-TrSXpg6irNK7kbZt-NY0O https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1zDCgJzZUy-TrSXpg6ir...
    - movedx 5y ago
      Really well said. I believe Apple are doing what they think is best for everyone, including their shareholders, within the rules (which sometimes aren't clear and can be easy to break without realising it.)
    - ece 5y ago
      The Epic case is a slam dunk, Apple has monopolized the iOS app distribution market since the beginning of the iPhone. Epic is just the first one with motive and the money to bring a challenge against Apple. Yes, after a couple of decades of large companies which have consolidated platforms to a handful of sites and services that the majority of the population uses, yes it's time for some additional rules. I completely support the Cicilline bill. If you'd like to get out of your bubble, I'd read the open markets institute's briefs in the Epic case and the Cicilline bill. https://www.openmarketsinstitute.org/publications/epic-games-antitrust-suit-against-apple-reveals-again-the-harms-of-tying https://www.openmarketsinstitute.org/publications/epic-games... https://cicilline.house.gov/sites/cicilline.house.gov/files/documents/American%20Innovation%20and%20Choice%20Online%20Act%20-%20Bill%20Text.pdf https://cicilline.house.gov/sites/cicilline.house.gov/files/...
      - simondotau 5y ago
        > The Epic case is a slam dunk This belief suggests that perhaps you might be the one stuck in a bubble. I've been greedily consuming alternative views on this case but seen very few legal analysts describe the case as being anything other than an uphill climb for Epic. I have read numerous amicus briefs from the Open Markets Institute, but I'm not aware of them issuing an amicus brief in the Epic vs Apple case. If this exists, can you please offer a link to that? The latter is a proposal to change the rules and is therefore not relevant to the question of whether Apple were "follow[ing] the same rules," as you put it. Needless to say, I don't agree with the Cicilline bill or any other attempts to frame competition on a platform level. Most egregiously, they almost always carve out special interest exceptions and protections for video games on televisions, but not video games on mobile devices. Have you got anything else you think I should read?

simondotau 5y ago

I realise this is a controversial view here, but in my opinion the real question is really whether you value Apple’s freedom to build what they believe is the best version of their product. You might not care about that, and that’s fair. Personally I think they should have that freedom. If Apple really had no competition, I would absolutely change my mind. But so long as Android exists, my view is that consumers deserve the right to choose Apple’s garden if they want. And they can choose to leave it. Millions of people do every year. Let the market decide.

ece 5y ago
If it's anti-competitive at 95% market share, it's anti-competitive at 50%. Your position is hypocritical and wrong. Everyone should follow the same rules, not make up their own.
- simondotau 5y ago
  Apple did follow the rules as they currently exist. There is presently no rule against operating a walled gardens in the manner Apple does. If such a rule existed, we'd all know about it. You would have cited it. Apple's critics would be able to quote the rule verbatim. And Epic's case against Apple would have been a slam dunk. Don't be embarrassed to admit that you're the one wanting to make up new rules. It's okay to want new rules. Be honest about it. If you are interested in having your perspective challenged, the commentator for whom I most agree with on this is Hoeg Law, who has published extensive commentary on the Epic vs Apple lawsuit. If you are interested in hearing a view that differs from your own, I can commend his publications to you: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1zDCgJzZUy-TrSXpg6irNK7kbZt-NY0O https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1zDCgJzZUy-TrSXpg6ir...
  - movedx 5y ago
    Really well said. I believe Apple are doing what they think is best for everyone, including their shareholders, within the rules (which sometimes aren't clear and can be easy to break without realising it.)
  - ece 5y ago
    The Epic case is a slam dunk, Apple has monopolized the iOS app distribution market since the beginning of the iPhone. Epic is just the first one with motive and the money to bring a challenge against Apple. Yes, after a couple of decades of large companies which have consolidated platforms to a handful of sites and services that the majority of the population uses, yes it's time for some additional rules. I completely support the Cicilline bill. If you'd like to get out of your bubble, I'd read the open markets institute's briefs in the Epic case and the Cicilline bill. https://www.openmarketsinstitute.org/publications/epic-games-antitrust-suit-against-apple-reveals-again-the-harms-of-tying https://www.openmarketsinstitute.org/publications/epic-games... https://cicilline.house.gov/sites/cicilline.house.gov/files/documents/American%20Innovation%20and%20Choice%20Online%20Act%20-%20Bill%20Text.pdf https://cicilline.house.gov/sites/cicilline.house.gov/files/...
    - simondotau 5y ago
      > The Epic case is a slam dunk This belief suggests that perhaps you might be the one stuck in a bubble. I've been greedily consuming alternative views on this case but seen very few legal analysts describe the case as being anything other than an uphill climb for Epic. I have read numerous amicus briefs from the Open Markets Institute, but I'm not aware of them issuing an amicus brief in the Epic vs Apple case. If this exists, can you please offer a link to that? The latter is a proposal to change the rules and is therefore not relevant to the question of whether Apple were "follow[ing] the same rules," as you put it. Needless to say, I don't agree with the Cicilline bill or any other attempts to frame competition on a platform level. Most egregiously, they almost always carve out special interest exceptions and protections for video games on televisions, but not video games on mobile devices. Have you got anything else you think I should read?