4 ms·
> Look it this way. Why an ordinary user would use a phone that they cannot use with their bank or their employer in some cases? Widewine is the defacto and dej
by 5ESS 5y ago
> Look it this way. Why an ordinary user would use a phone that they cannot use with their bank or their employer in some cases? Widewine is the defacto and dejure standard for drm content playback and you must have an explicit google license to create a browser with such capabilities and there are less than half a dozen such browsers on the market.
Users should be suing their banks and Google then for restricting access, not Apple.
> For this same reason you need Google or Apple support to have a range of other enterprise apps/services native to your platform or you need to have another means to convince those developers that they should trust your signing keys.
Nobody actually needs any of that junk. A secure platform/service can be delivered via HTTPS through a simple web browser. No API keys or DRM licenses necessary. It’s unnecessary fluff that users should be suing the respective organizations to remove.
> Add distribution to that, because in order for your platform to reach significant number of users, it should be offered by the mobile carriers with their phone plans. How many companies do you know who are willing to compete with the agreements already done by Apple and Google?
Sue the mobile carriers then for Anti-trust. Not Apple. This isn’t Apples fault, so why should Apple be suffering the consequences?
- tgflynn 5y agoHow do you know Apple has no responsibility for any of that ? Are you privy to all of their strategy and the deals they make with carriers and other participants. Apple is one of the richest companies in the world, it's naive to think that they aren't using their influence to further their market position.
- gostsamo 5y agoYou imagine it like suing them will resolve the issue at hand. What you miss is the concept for barrier to entry. Even without an explicit policy to ban competition (which is imho a libertarian fiction), the capital and man-hours of investment necessary to enter a market could be enormous. Even more if you want to compete with established players there. E.g. you have hundreds of carriers around the world, thousands of banks, and god only knows how many hardware configurations needing support to a 99.995% coverage of user needs. Not even counting the language barrier for dealing with them, this is overhead that nobody can afford without good backup investment and a clear path to profitability.
- 5ESS 5y ago> the capital and man-hours of investment necessary to enter a market could be enormous The point is this isn’t Apple’s fault so they shouldn’t be the ones punished for it. I completely disagree with the idea that if your product gets popular enough by virtue of delivering a superior experience that you then have some kind of obligation to appease the entitlement of users, or to foster growth of competitions, or to be obligated to open up your payment processor gateways to third parties resulting in cuts to your profits.
- gostsamo 5y agoSo, now you don't argue that Apple is not a part of an oligopoly, but that the oligopoly is to be cherished and protected. Think about it. Would we have Apple and Google if AT&T wasn't broken down almost half a century ago? What could we have if we now break Apple and Google?