4 ms·

I think even this is a little unfair. Almost no one buys Android because they are a horizontal operating systems provider, and OEMs don't use it because of same

I think even this is a little unfair. Almost no one buys Android because they are a horizontal operating systems provider, and OEMs don't use it because of same, because the former don't care and the latter already know the reality. People use it because it's their best option, and not due to any monopolistic practices excluding alternatives. It's just the best option.

LargeTomato 3y ago
Agreed. If Google locked down their app store more aggressively they'd be legally in the clear. They played nice, just not nice enough, so they got anti-trusted.
- jonhohle 3y ago
  They didn’t play nice. They made back channel deals with privileged partners. Love or hate the Apple arrangement, but they seem consistent on giving everyone the same terms. That’s what makes one anti-competitive and the other not.
  - amadeuspagel 3y ago
    > Love or hate the Apple arrangement, but they seem consistent on giving everyone the same terms. They can do that, because there's no other choice. If a company wants to offer their apps to iOS users, they have to go through the App Store, so they're in no position to bargain for better terms.
    - shwouchk 3y ago
      Indeed. And if a company wants to deal with US consumers, they need to comply with US law. That’s reasonable. And if/when some companies get referential treatment, you get (justified) uproar.
      - smoldesu 3y ago
        Apple has received preferential treatment from US lawmakers, for almost a decade now. One could argue that's why the DMA and Japanese legislation exists in the first place.
        shwouchk 3y ago
        Can you substantiate this claim? And explicitly, the OP is not a valid example, since it is the subject of debate and that would lead to circular reasoning - I don’t see the current ruling as preferential in the least.
        smoldesu 3y ago
        It's not circular reasoning if multiple municipal states are coming around to it. It's controversial, but the demand for regulation is self-evident. Take the example how you'd like, but they're still independent markets and the legislative demands hold water. As for examples of preferential treatment, there's pretty obviously the 2013 Obama ITC intervention that overrode Samsung's complaint despite a fully substantiated prosecution (and now the Masimo case). In the Trump administration, Apple was one of the few companies operating in China offered specific tariff exemptions for their manufacturers. And then speaking generally, you have the lack of interest in regulating the progress of mobile experiences. Software is moving forward, and the technology to facilitate things like multiple app stores, payment processors and browser options have existed since the 90s. Apple and Google's objections to these features are obviously both petty, and their inability to negotiate is why we're seeing nuclear-option legislation in non-US markets.
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        > the demand for regulation is self-evident That doesn't mean it's evidence of a general need. We have groups of people who believe all sorts of things. The things are what we should be discussing, not the fact that there are groups that believe said things.
  - mcny 3y ago
    > Love or hate the Apple arrangement, but they seem consistent on giving everyone the same terms. Previously on hacker news: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36882467 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36882467 From the article: > Today, there are more than 2.4 million mini-programs that can be run within WeChat. If this trend continues, there will come a time when developers will concentrate on developing new useful mini-programs to run on WeChat instead of stand-alone apps which have to abide by certain rules before it becomes available on the App Store. > If Apple cracks down on WeChat’s practices, Chinese customers will have little reason to ever buy an iPhone. > So, if Apple wants the Chinese to continue to buy iPhones, they have to let WeChat – one of the most privacy-invasive and censorship driven apps on the planet, continue to ignore its App Store rules. back home [uber] skirts the boundaries of the law if not outright crosses it several times and it is still available on the app store. Not that any of this excuses anything Google does but just wanted to point out that Apple most definitely does NOT give everyone the same terms. [uber] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14178397 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14178397 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/23/technology/travis-kalanick-pushes-uber-and-himself-to-the-precipice.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/23/technology/travis-kalanic... https://archive.ph/uJ0vm https://archive.ph/uJ0vm
  - echelon 3y ago
    One was a jury trial, the other was not. Apple's overall behavior is worse and far more anti-competitive. There's no reason Apple should tax dating, yet they do for over 50% of Americans who date online. They tax all communication and commerce by dictatorially controlling the most essential device of our century and being one of only two primary vendors. I'd say I'm glad Apple and Google don't control the Internet, but they kind of de-facto do control it for most people.
  - pkphilip 3y ago
    Apple is known to have shared even secret APIs with companies like Uber. I am guessing they didn't share this with other companies in the same industry vertical as Uber. That would definitely constitute an unfair advantage to Uber. https://www.entrepreneur.com/business-news/apple-gave-ubers-app-unprecedented-access-to-a-secret/302310 https://www.entrepreneur.com/business-news/apple-gave-ubers-...
andyferris 3y ago
Umm, some people like Samsung phones and some people like Pixels and there are lots of other popular handset makers. A small number of purchasers want to side load and therefore exclude Apple as an option. I think it’s not right to say the horizontal ecosystem isn’t a reason for Android’s commercial success. In reality it is a driving reason why Android succeeded over (and completely obliterated) Nokia/Microsoft/RIM - the variety of OEMs innovating rapidly meant they just couldn’t keep up. In the early days people frequently upgraded their Android phone with a better one, often from another Android manufacturer. So, Google knowingly created an open market and now is (or at least appears to be) abusing it.
- echelon 3y ago
  > A small number of purchasers want to side load and therefore exclude Apple as an option. An overwhelming majority of consumers don't even know what side loading is. These decisions are not things lay consumers think about at all. The fact is that both Apple and Google set too many rules on a platform that is now essential for operating in modern society. These devices and platforms need to be opened up to competition. These companies are collecting tax on all innovation happening because of their gatekeeper positions.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    Postulate: I don't believe they are essential for operating in modern society. They're a nice convenience, but not essential.
    - fsflover 3y ago
      Do you also believe that tractors should run closed software?
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        Er, I don't have an opinion. I don't know nearly enough about tractors to have one.

LargeTomato 3y ago

Agreed. If Google locked down their app store more aggressively they'd be legally in the clear. They played nice, just not nice enough, so they got anti-trusted.

jonhohle 3y ago
They didn’t play nice. They made back channel deals with privileged partners. Love or hate the Apple arrangement, but they seem consistent on giving everyone the same terms. That’s what makes one anti-competitive and the other not.
- amadeuspagel 3y ago
  > Love or hate the Apple arrangement, but they seem consistent on giving everyone the same terms. They can do that, because there's no other choice. If a company wants to offer their apps to iOS users, they have to go through the App Store, so they're in no position to bargain for better terms.
  - shwouchk 3y ago
    Indeed. And if a company wants to deal with US consumers, they need to comply with US law. That’s reasonable. And if/when some companies get referential treatment, you get (justified) uproar.
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      Apple has received preferential treatment from US lawmakers, for almost a decade now. One could argue that's why the DMA and Japanese legislation exists in the first place.
      - shwouchk 3y ago
        Can you substantiate this claim? And explicitly, the OP is not a valid example, since it is the subject of debate and that would lead to circular reasoning - I don’t see the current ruling as preferential in the least.
        smoldesu 3y ago
        It's not circular reasoning if multiple municipal states are coming around to it. It's controversial, but the demand for regulation is self-evident. Take the example how you'd like, but they're still independent markets and the legislative demands hold water. As for examples of preferential treatment, there's pretty obviously the 2013 Obama ITC intervention that overrode Samsung's complaint despite a fully substantiated prosecution (and now the Masimo case). In the Trump administration, Apple was one of the few companies operating in China offered specific tariff exemptions for their manufacturers. And then speaking generally, you have the lack of interest in regulating the progress of mobile experiences. Software is moving forward, and the technology to facilitate things like multiple app stores, payment processors and browser options have existed since the 90s. Apple and Google's objections to these features are obviously both petty, and their inability to negotiate is why we're seeing nuclear-option legislation in non-US markets.
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        > the demand for regulation is self-evident That doesn't mean it's evidence of a general need. We have groups of people who believe all sorts of things. The things are what we should be discussing, not the fact that there are groups that believe said things.
- mcny 3y ago
  > Love or hate the Apple arrangement, but they seem consistent on giving everyone the same terms. Previously on hacker news: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36882467 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36882467 From the article: > Today, there are more than 2.4 million mini-programs that can be run within WeChat. If this trend continues, there will come a time when developers will concentrate on developing new useful mini-programs to run on WeChat instead of stand-alone apps which have to abide by certain rules before it becomes available on the App Store. > If Apple cracks down on WeChat’s practices, Chinese customers will have little reason to ever buy an iPhone. > So, if Apple wants the Chinese to continue to buy iPhones, they have to let WeChat – one of the most privacy-invasive and censorship driven apps on the planet, continue to ignore its App Store rules. back home [uber] skirts the boundaries of the law if not outright crosses it several times and it is still available on the app store. Not that any of this excuses anything Google does but just wanted to point out that Apple most definitely does NOT give everyone the same terms. [uber] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14178397 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14178397 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/23/technology/travis-kalanick-pushes-uber-and-himself-to-the-precipice.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/23/technology/travis-kalanic... https://archive.ph/uJ0vm https://archive.ph/uJ0vm
- echelon 3y ago
  One was a jury trial, the other was not. Apple's overall behavior is worse and far more anti-competitive. There's no reason Apple should tax dating, yet they do for over 50% of Americans who date online. They tax all communication and commerce by dictatorially controlling the most essential device of our century and being one of only two primary vendors. I'd say I'm glad Apple and Google don't control the Internet, but they kind of de-facto do control it for most people.
- pkphilip 3y ago
  Apple is known to have shared even secret APIs with companies like Uber. I am guessing they didn't share this with other companies in the same industry vertical as Uber. That would definitely constitute an unfair advantage to Uber. https://www.entrepreneur.com/business-news/apple-gave-ubers-app-unprecedented-access-to-a-secret/302310 https://www.entrepreneur.com/business-news/apple-gave-ubers-...

andyferris 3y ago

Umm, some people like Samsung phones and some people like Pixels and there are lots of other popular handset makers. A small number of purchasers want to side load and therefore exclude Apple as an option. I think it’s not right to say the horizontal ecosystem isn’t a reason for Android’s commercial success. In reality it is a driving reason why Android succeeded over (and completely obliterated) Nokia/Microsoft/RIM - the variety of OEMs innovating rapidly meant they just couldn’t keep up. In the early days people frequently upgraded their Android phone with a better one, often from another Android manufacturer. So, Google knowingly created an open market and now is (or at least appears to be) abusing it.

echelon 3y ago
> A small number of purchasers want to side load and therefore exclude Apple as an option. An overwhelming majority of consumers don't even know what side loading is. These decisions are not things lay consumers think about at all. The fact is that both Apple and Google set too many rules on a platform that is now essential for operating in modern society. These devices and platforms need to be opened up to competition. These companies are collecting tax on all innovation happening because of their gatekeeper positions.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  Postulate: I don't believe they are essential for operating in modern society. They're a nice convenience, but not essential.
  - fsflover 3y ago
    Do you also believe that tractors should run closed software?
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      Er, I don't have an opinion. I don't know nearly enough about tractors to have one.