3 ms·

Between Uber and Lyft you can make your choice every day. And at least here in this country taxis are still a realistic choice, not sure whether that applies to

Between Uber and Lyft you can make your choice every day. And at least here in this country taxis are still a realistic choice, not sure whether that applies to the US. Between Apple and Android you have the choice only every couple of years. The rest of the time there is zero competition. It maybe that the antitrust law is not well-written for this case. But nobody can claim their is a functional app market at the moment. Market meaning choice for the customer where to buy.

parasubvert 4y ago
The issue is the definition of that market is fictional, and the nuances are in people’s heads. As soon as you write it down in legal terms, it becomes clear that it’s a very difficult thing to circumscribe without enormous government mandated regulations. Like to me, the market IS functional - people can choose their mobile platform and get the apps available for that platform. More than that and we are legislating software distribution as a publicly regulated utility. Which to me is an overreaction to current market dynamics. Like we’ve not even had 20 years of smartphones and app stores out there and people act as if they’ve been around for a century.
andsoitis 4y ago
> Between Apple and Android you have the choice only every couple of years. The rest of the time there is zero competition. This is incorrect in two ways: a) any particular individual (e.g. you) can switch between alternatives at any time. Nothing forces you to wait years… b) there are new first time mobile users all the time and they can choose between these two alternatives (or smaller, much less successful platforms), and in the case of Android, between different device manufacturers Seems like lots of freedom to me. If you’re thinking is that even given that there are only two reasonable options to choose from from a software point of view (Android and iOS), I’d be curious to know your solution. Is it to force some company to create a third alternative? Is it for the government to subsidize Microsoft to make Windows phones?

parasubvert 4y ago

The issue is the definition of that market is fictional, and the nuances are in people’s heads. As soon as you write it down in legal terms, it becomes clear that it’s a very difficult thing to circumscribe without enormous government mandated regulations. Like to me, the market IS functional - people can choose their mobile platform and get the apps available for that platform. More than that and we are legislating software distribution as a publicly regulated utility. Which to me is an overreaction to current market dynamics. Like we’ve not even had 20 years of smartphones and app stores out there and people act as if they’ve been around for a century.

andsoitis 4y ago

> Between Apple and Android you have the choice only every couple of years. The rest of the time there is zero competition. This is incorrect in two ways: a) any particular individual (e.g. you) can switch between alternatives at any time. Nothing forces you to wait years… b) there are new first time mobile users all the time and they can choose between these two alternatives (or smaller, much less successful platforms), and in the case of Android, between different device manufacturers Seems like lots of freedom to me. If you’re thinking is that even given that there are only two reasonable options to choose from from a software point of view (Android and iOS), I’d be curious to know your solution. Is it to force some company to create a third alternative? Is it for the government to subsidize Microsoft to make Windows phones?