4 ms·

Not without a patent + legal funds warchest to take on Apple, Microsoft, and the other tech giants they're not.

sergiotapia 5y ago
Hell you can't even start a website to compete with these giants or you get smeared through their very long reaching tentacles or even banned at the DOMAIN LEVEL!
- 5ESS 5y ago
  Ummm, you’re being ridiculous, and not supported by evidence. there are plenty of open source OS’s with accompanying hardware platforms wherein this doesn’t happen. Take PinePhone for a example. They aren’t being sued by any top players, and they certainly aren’t being banned at the domain level.
5ESS 5y ago
How about PinePhone then?
- commoner 5y ago
  I support Pine64’s ongoing efforts to make the PinePhone into a viable Linux phone. But the existence of the PinePhone doesn't justify Apple's anti-competitive actions. If you want to exclusively download apps from the App Store and exclusively make in-app purchases through Apple's payment system, you are 100% free to do so, even if others are able to choose differently.
  - 5ESS 5y ago
    I don’t think Apple should be forced to make changes to their own platform at behest of government orders. Today it’s forcing them to open up payment gateways, tomorrow it’s forcing them to put a police backdoor in iMessage. I don’t agree with the sentiment at all. And if I owned a company, I wouldn’t like to be forced by the government to make changes to MY software. It is completely antithetical to the notion of this being a free country. My point with PinePhone is that if someone wants to make their own platform that uses a different payment processing system, they are free to do so, much like PinePhone has done. This isn’t comparable to the railroad monopolies of the 1800s like these anti-trust laws were intended to effect. Because no one is forcing anybody to use Apple products. If you don’t like it, simply use something else. No one anywhere is being forced to use Apple products. The idea that the government should force Apple to make changes to its systems both sickens and disgusts me.
    - commoner 5y ago
      > Today it’s forcing them to open up payment gateways, tomorrow it’s forcing them to put a police backdoor in iMessage. There is no U.S. antitrust provision that would force Apple to place a backdoor in iMessage. And if iMessage is compromised in certain countries where secure messaging apps are banned (such as China: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-apple-icloud-insight/apple-moves-to-store-icloud-keys-in-china-raising-human-rights-fears-idUSKCN1G8060 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-apple-icloud-insigh...), iOS users would benefit from having the option to sideload apps like Signal and use them to communicate securely. Forbidding one company from taking anti-competitive actions against smaller companies that increase the prices its users pay for products and services is not taking away from your rights. If you don't want to download or purchase anything through means not endorsed by Apple, you're not being forced to do so. The App Store and Apple's payment system are still available to you. The idea that others should conform to and pay for your preferences is antithetical to the notion of freedom.
      - 5ESS 5y ago
        But why should Apple be forced by the government to make changes to its platform under anti-trust laws when they aren’t even a monopoly? If someone doesn’t like Apple‘s system, there are at least dozens of different phone manufacturers to choose from. Anti-trust laws are written to bust monopolies, which Apple doesn’t fit the definition of in any way, shape, or form. It is a bad-faith misinterpretation/misapplication of Anti-trust laws. Just because they are a popular choice doesn’t mean that users have no other choice. If you think they are a monopoly it means you think users are forced to use their product and have no other choice. How can you say that with a straight face that users have no other choice but to use Apple? It’s just plain wrong.
        commoner 5y ago
        Your questions are answered in the filing: https://www.scribd.com/document/555427906/22-01-27-Utah-Et-Al-Acb-Iso-Epic-Games-Against-Apple https://www.scribd.com/document/555427906/22-01-27-Utah-Et-A... U.S. antitrust law does not require the existence of a monopoly for a violation, just sufficiently anti-competitive behavior. High market power strengthens an antitrust claim, and iOS being part of a duopoly fits the mold.

Hell you can't even start a website to compete with these giants or you get smeared through their very long reaching tentacles or even banned at the DOMAIN LEVEL!

5ESS 5y ago
Ummm, you’re being ridiculous, and not supported by evidence. there are plenty of open source OS’s with accompanying hardware platforms wherein this doesn’t happen. Take PinePhone for a example. They aren’t being sued by any top players, and they certainly aren’t being banned at the domain level.

5ESS 5y ago

How about PinePhone then?

commoner 5y ago
I support Pine64’s ongoing efforts to make the PinePhone into a viable Linux phone. But the existence of the PinePhone doesn't justify Apple's anti-competitive actions. If you want to exclusively download apps from the App Store and exclusively make in-app purchases through Apple's payment system, you are 100% free to do so, even if others are able to choose differently.
- 5ESS 5y ago
  I don’t think Apple should be forced to make changes to their own platform at behest of government orders. Today it’s forcing them to open up payment gateways, tomorrow it’s forcing them to put a police backdoor in iMessage. I don’t agree with the sentiment at all. And if I owned a company, I wouldn’t like to be forced by the government to make changes to MY software. It is completely antithetical to the notion of this being a free country. My point with PinePhone is that if someone wants to make their own platform that uses a different payment processing system, they are free to do so, much like PinePhone has done. This isn’t comparable to the railroad monopolies of the 1800s like these anti-trust laws were intended to effect. Because no one is forcing anybody to use Apple products. If you don’t like it, simply use something else. No one anywhere is being forced to use Apple products. The idea that the government should force Apple to make changes to its systems both sickens and disgusts me.
  - commoner 5y ago
    > Today it’s forcing them to open up payment gateways, tomorrow it’s forcing them to put a police backdoor in iMessage. There is no U.S. antitrust provision that would force Apple to place a backdoor in iMessage. And if iMessage is compromised in certain countries where secure messaging apps are banned (such as China: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-apple-icloud-insight/apple-moves-to-store-icloud-keys-in-china-raising-human-rights-fears-idUSKCN1G8060 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-apple-icloud-insigh...), iOS users would benefit from having the option to sideload apps like Signal and use them to communicate securely. Forbidding one company from taking anti-competitive actions against smaller companies that increase the prices its users pay for products and services is not taking away from your rights. If you don't want to download or purchase anything through means not endorsed by Apple, you're not being forced to do so. The App Store and Apple's payment system are still available to you. The idea that others should conform to and pay for your preferences is antithetical to the notion of freedom.
    - 5ESS 5y ago
      But why should Apple be forced by the government to make changes to its platform under anti-trust laws when they aren’t even a monopoly? If someone doesn’t like Apple‘s system, there are at least dozens of different phone manufacturers to choose from. Anti-trust laws are written to bust monopolies, which Apple doesn’t fit the definition of in any way, shape, or form. It is a bad-faith misinterpretation/misapplication of Anti-trust laws. Just because they are a popular choice doesn’t mean that users have no other choice. If you think they are a monopoly it means you think users are forced to use their product and have no other choice. How can you say that with a straight face that users have no other choice but to use Apple? It’s just plain wrong.
      - commoner 5y ago
        Your questions are answered in the filing: https://www.scribd.com/document/555427906/22-01-27-Utah-Et-Al-Acb-Iso-Epic-Games-Against-Apple https://www.scribd.com/document/555427906/22-01-27-Utah-Et-A... U.S. antitrust law does not require the existence of a monopoly for a violation, just sufficiently anti-competitive behavior. High market power strengthens an antitrust claim, and iOS being part of a duopoly fits the mold.