6 ms·

This is a little bit overdramatic, given that they only exert that kind of control over the frameworks that they wholly own and control. Nobody ever accused Mi

by RIMR 5y ago

This is a little bit overdramatic, given that they only exert that kind of control over the frameworks that they wholly own and control. Nobody ever accused Microsoft or Sony of "getting to decide what games were allowed to be made" because they strictly controlled what works are allowed on their platforms. There are always other platforms one can publish on. The real problem is that consumers have accepted an Apple/Google duopoly over mobile computing, which isn't defeated by destroying the free choice of corporations, but by creating a viable competing alternative. This currently exists in the form of jailbreaking, the use of third-party app stores and sideloading. Ultimately it should take the form of a competing smartphone OS. Quite frankly, Linux is beginning to look more and more capable of breaking into this scene, and this will fundamentally turn the current broken system on its head when it happens. Android being open source and Unix-based only makes it easier since a ton of the foundations already exist.

nicoburns 5y ago
> consumers have accepted an Apple/Google duopoly over mobile computing Consumers don't have any choice. Apps are typically only available for iOS/Android. The difference with Xbox/PlayStation is that those aren't general purpose platform. Nobody needs an Xbox to access their bank or government functions. But people do (realistically) need to use smartphones. Regulation is absolutely appropriate here. My question to you would be: why not regulate? What concrete harm do you think it would cause?
- sigstoat 5y ago
  > The difference with Xbox/PlayStation is that those aren't general purpose platform. they've been general purpose platforms for years. they just don't look like it because the manufacturers are even more restrictive with access than apple.
  - zmk5 5y ago
    They may have the ability to be general purpose platforms but they are specifically marketed as gaming devices for gamers meanwhile smartphones are marketed to the general populace. The Xbox and PlayStation sell maybe 10 million consoles a year meanwhile the iPhone is 200+ million.
  - nicoburns 5y ago
    They're general purpose from a technical perspective (although really only from a hardware perspective - the software not so much), but they're not sold or marketed as general purpose devices. People purchasing an Xbox are primarily doing so to play games.
- FabHK 5y ago
  But the bank and government apps that one realistically needs do not require in-App purchases or other subscriptions, of which Apple or Google take a 30% cut. Has there ever been a problem that such an app has not been approved? If not, what is the problem that regulation ought to address?
anaisbetts 5y ago
People make the game console comparison, but there are crucial differences that don't make these scenarios comparable - first, there is still a completely open, viable platform to write games for (PC), and much more importantly, I do not run my entire life through my game console, and a game console is not effectively a requirement for modern life like a phone is. Phones are ubiquitous, and the vast majority of businesses have a Compelling Reason to have a presence on these devices. Allowing two companies to make any decision they want regarding what nearly every non-trivial business Can and Can Not Do, is the very definition of anti-competitiveness. When you are a monopoly and you can influence other businesses in such an overarching way, it is Extremely Appropriate that you have to follow a Different Set of Rules than other people, rules that are more closely regulated to ensure that you are not abusing your position
- ericmay 5y ago
  At what point does something pass over from "essential" to non-essential? And why does being essential matter?
  - clusterfish 5y ago
    Essential - adjective - absolutely necessary; extremely important. Game consoles are not. Smartphones are. Obviously.
    - RIMR 5y ago
      There's literally nothing I can do with my phone that I can't do with a laptop. Most people here work in tech and know what I'm talking about. You could carry a laptop and a flip phone and be fine. There's literally nothing essential about a smartphone. It's just a luxury you've become inseparable from.
      - clusterfish 5y ago
        You can't carry your laptop in a pocket. And laptops are also "a luxury you've become inseparable from", doesn't make them any less essential. You'll need a stronger argument to claim that something that almost everyone uses despite significant cost isn't essential.
melony 5y ago
Legislate them into allowing sideloading until the day their market share drops below a quarter. Hell, I would be fine with letting Apple automatically wipe phones with sideloaded apps and revoking the user's warranty post legislation the moment their market share goes below the threshold. They can abuse their customers as much as they want, they just shouldn't be allowed to make the rest of the market unhealthy.
Shoue 5y ago
> This is a little bit overdramatic, given that they only exert that kind of control over the frameworks that they wholly own and control. Would you be fine with being taxed for breathing if two or three companies hypothetically bought all the forests in your town or even state? After all, they own the things producing the oxygen you breathe, it only seems reasonable that you'd pay them. Sometimes, maybe it's not reasonable for companies to justify their bad behaviour simply because they "own" something. > Nobody ever accused Microsoft or Sony of "getting to decide what games were allowed to be made" because they strictly controlled what works are allowed on their platforms. There are always other platforms one can publish on. I often just see the "consoles aren't general purpose" cop-out here but I'd go further and say: we should -- we should accuse them of being anticompetitive too.
- geraldwhen 5y ago
  Completely off topic, but most oxygen comes from ocean plankton, not trees.
daniel-cussen 5y ago
> Nobody ever accused Microsoft or Sony of "getting to decide what games were allowed to be made" because they strictly controlled what works are allowed on their platforms. There are always other platforms one can publish on. Yeah because you could publish a game on tons of different platforms. There was competition. Sega, Nintendo, Atari, Sony, and that was just consoles, they too competed with Microsoft PC, then Microsoft XBox which was the same company but introduced additional competition nonetheless, and on top of all that, you could publish a game for Mac. And then there were the arcades, and gaming moreover competed with games that were electric but analog, like pinball and bowling. And that's excluding gambling. Another popular form of video games that didn't involve the companies I mentioned was watching a single viewer play a video game using a telephone as a controller and watching on a local TV channel, with thousands others watching the kid play, there were more platforms right there. There was competition, and it was culturally accepted that if you wanted to show something to the world, there were many ways to go about it, but you had to go through a publisher, or a distributor, something.

by RIMR 5y ago

nicoburns 5y ago

> consumers have accepted an Apple/Google duopoly over mobile computing Consumers don't have any choice. Apps are typically only available for iOS/Android. The difference with Xbox/PlayStation is that those aren't general purpose platform. Nobody needs an Xbox to access their bank or government functions. But people do (realistically) need to use smartphones. Regulation is absolutely appropriate here. My question to you would be: why not regulate? What concrete harm do you think it would cause?

sigstoat 5y ago
> The difference with Xbox/PlayStation is that those aren't general purpose platform. they've been general purpose platforms for years. they just don't look like it because the manufacturers are even more restrictive with access than apple.
- zmk5 5y ago
  They may have the ability to be general purpose platforms but they are specifically marketed as gaming devices for gamers meanwhile smartphones are marketed to the general populace. The Xbox and PlayStation sell maybe 10 million consoles a year meanwhile the iPhone is 200+ million.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  They're general purpose from a technical perspective (although really only from a hardware perspective - the software not so much), but they're not sold or marketed as general purpose devices. People purchasing an Xbox are primarily doing so to play games.
FabHK 5y ago
But the bank and government apps that one realistically needs do not require in-App purchases or other subscriptions, of which Apple or Google take a 30% cut. Has there ever been a problem that such an app has not been approved? If not, what is the problem that regulation ought to address?

anaisbetts 5y ago

People make the game console comparison, but there are crucial differences that don't make these scenarios comparable - first, there is still a completely open, viable platform to write games for (PC), and much more importantly, I do not run my entire life through my game console, and a game console is not effectively a requirement for modern life like a phone is. Phones are ubiquitous, and the vast majority of businesses have a Compelling Reason to have a presence on these devices. Allowing two companies to make any decision they want regarding what nearly every non-trivial business Can and Can Not Do, is the very definition of anti-competitiveness. When you are a monopoly and you can influence other businesses in such an overarching way, it is Extremely Appropriate that you have to follow a Different Set of Rules than other people, rules that are more closely regulated to ensure that you are not abusing your position

ericmay 5y ago
At what point does something pass over from "essential" to non-essential? And why does being essential matter?
- clusterfish 5y ago
  Essential - adjective - absolutely necessary; extremely important. Game consoles are not. Smartphones are. Obviously.
  - RIMR 5y ago
    There's literally nothing I can do with my phone that I can't do with a laptop. Most people here work in tech and know what I'm talking about. You could carry a laptop and a flip phone and be fine. There's literally nothing essential about a smartphone. It's just a luxury you've become inseparable from.
    - clusterfish 5y ago
      You can't carry your laptop in a pocket. And laptops are also "a luxury you've become inseparable from", doesn't make them any less essential. You'll need a stronger argument to claim that something that almost everyone uses despite significant cost isn't essential.

melony 5y ago

Legislate them into allowing sideloading until the day their market share drops below a quarter. Hell, I would be fine with letting Apple automatically wipe phones with sideloaded apps and revoking the user's warranty post legislation the moment their market share goes below the threshold. They can abuse their customers as much as they want, they just shouldn't be allowed to make the rest of the market unhealthy.

Shoue 5y ago

> This is a little bit overdramatic, given that they only exert that kind of control over the frameworks that they wholly own and control. Would you be fine with being taxed for breathing if two or three companies hypothetically bought all the forests in your town or even state? After all, they own the things producing the oxygen you breathe, it only seems reasonable that you'd pay them. Sometimes, maybe it's not reasonable for companies to justify their bad behaviour simply because they "own" something. > Nobody ever accused Microsoft or Sony of "getting to decide what games were allowed to be made" because they strictly controlled what works are allowed on their platforms. There are always other platforms one can publish on. I often just see the "consoles aren't general purpose" cop-out here but I'd go further and say: we should -- we should accuse them of being anticompetitive too.

geraldwhen 5y ago
Completely off topic, but most oxygen comes from ocean plankton, not trees.

daniel-cussen 5y ago

> Nobody ever accused Microsoft or Sony of "getting to decide what games were allowed to be made" because they strictly controlled what works are allowed on their platforms. There are always other platforms one can publish on. Yeah because you could publish a game on tons of different platforms. There was competition. Sega, Nintendo, Atari, Sony, and that was just consoles, they too competed with Microsoft PC, then Microsoft XBox which was the same company but introduced additional competition nonetheless, and on top of all that, you could publish a game for Mac. And then there were the arcades, and gaming moreover competed with games that were electric but analog, like pinball and bowling. And that's excluding gambling. Another popular form of video games that didn't involve the companies I mentioned was watching a single viewer play a video game using a telephone as a controller and watching on a local TV channel, with thousands others watching the kid play, there were more platforms right there. There was competition, and it was culturally accepted that if you wanted to show something to the world, there were many ways to go about it, but you had to go through a publisher, or a distributor, something.