5 ms·

Yeah we get to choose between google and apple. Lucky us...

by tjoff 3y ago

biscuitech 3y ago
Would you rather have no choice? I get the sentiment, but it's nice to finally have lawmakers and regulators standing for what's right - for once.
- tshaddox 3y ago
  Aren’t regulators by definition establishing regulations which make all choices more similar to each other?
  - dwattttt 3y ago
    More similar in that they force them to obey the regulations, yes. But regulations cover things like interoperability & anti-competitive behaviour, and here retaliatory actions. I'd very much like _all_ choices to be forced to behave the same w.r.t. not being able to retaliate against protected action, or all be forced to follow the same laws.
  - wredue 3y ago
    Sure. In the same way that all sports are similar in that most have regulations against fighting.
    - tshaddox 3y ago
      But we’re not in a situation where there are very few sports, where many people complain about the lack of choice in sports, and where regulators are attempting to eliminate one of the very few meaningful differences between the existing choices.
  - kelnos 3y ago
    There are plenty of ways to differentiate in a competitive market. Good regulations set baselines for fair play, both toward customers and competitors. Whether or not that makes some aspects of those choices more similar isn't really relevant. Or if it is, it's because it makes them similar in good ways. Ways that are pro-customer and pro-competition, but they won't do unless legally required.
    - tshaddox 3y ago
      I agree that there are plenty of ways competitors could differentiate themselves. But in the current market, I think there are very few competitors, and even fewer ways they currently differentiate themselves. And the most notable recent regulations would eliminate one of the more meaningful differentiations.
      - ethbr1 3y ago
        Differentiating on percent of app / subscription price taken by app store?
        tshaddox 3y ago
        That’s not what I had in mind.
  - harkinian 3y ago
    [dead]
- burnerthrow008 3y ago
  I would rather that developers do not have the choice to choose an app store where anything goes. It’s funny how when Apple threatens a European company the EC can act within days, but when a German company is violating the GDPR, it takes 4 years for them to act. What a strange coincidence.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > I would rather that developers do not have the choice to choose an app store where anything goes. That's not up to you. What you get to decide is which stores you're willing to install apps from. If lots of people refuse to install apps from unrestrictive stores then developers who want to reach those users will have to meet the requirements of more restrictive stores. You would only not have this choice if the app has a dominant market position, and then can force you to get it from a store you don't want to use. But then your problem isn't an overabundance of trust busting, it's an insufficiency of it.
- zakki 3y ago
  No Apple nor Google doesn't mean no other. Someone/something will step in.
johnnyanmac 3y ago
Other titans tried, they all failed to capture. Blackberry lagged for too long and Microsoft simply lacked the network effects since early advertisement was based on how large the app stores were. The only solace is that you can modify Android to the point where there's almost no Google interference whatsoever. But of course some apps choose to rely on that (e.g. Banking).maybe one day Apple will begrudgingly get to that point.
- znpy 3y ago
  > Microsoft simply lacked the network effects Microsoft execs had their heads buried too deep in their own asses to be able to understand what was needed at the time. They pushed a platform (Windows phone) that lacked interesting features out of the box, lacked cloud services integration to fill the gap left by the lacking base features, and required Windows as a development platform (and, iirc, C# as well?). It didn't even have any particular windows-ecosystem speciality: no special exchange integration, no special windows pc integration, nothing. Microsoft could have exploited the same reasons they exploited with Azure, Office365 and the general enterprise: microsoft phones should just integrates perfectly with other microsoft stuff. It could have been the no-brainer choice: we use ActiveDirectory and Office365 as a suite, we'll get a Windows Phones as everything just works immediately. No, nobody had thought of that. The value proposition was just not there. So basically another walled garden, but dumber. And the hardware didn't have anything special to make it "worth".
  - amluto 3y ago
    I think there’s more to it than this, and it’s subtle: The iPhone was cool. Seriously, the original iPhone had little going for it technically. No GPS, poor data bandwidth, no apps, and minimal ability to make phone calls. (It took the combined efforts of Apple and AT&T a couple generations before you could reliably place a call.) But it had a touch screen that felt nice, and you could watch videos and play music! The web browser actually performed well despite the low bandwidth. It could zoom. And Steve Jobs marketed it well, whereas Steve Ballmer was terrible at marketing. IMO the iPhone was considerably worse for business use than Windows Mobile, and neither one held a candle to the BlackBerry. But it didn’t matter.
fsflover 3y ago
There are also GNU/Linux phones. Sent from my Librem 5.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
  Speaking of.. how is Librem these days as a daily driver? I am genuinely debating trying to make a jump again.
  - fsflover 3y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39451467 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39451467

Yeah we get to choose between google and apple. Lucky us...

by tjoff 3y ago

Yeah we get to choose between google and apple. Lucky us...

Would you rather have no choice? I get the sentiment, but it's nice to finally have lawmakers and regulators standing for what's right - for once.

tshaddox 3y ago
Aren’t regulators by definition establishing regulations which make all choices more similar to each other?
- dwattttt 3y ago
  More similar in that they force them to obey the regulations, yes. But regulations cover things like interoperability & anti-competitive behaviour, and here retaliatory actions. I'd very much like _all_ choices to be forced to behave the same w.r.t. not being able to retaliate against protected action, or all be forced to follow the same laws.
- wredue 3y ago
  Sure. In the same way that all sports are similar in that most have regulations against fighting.
  - tshaddox 3y ago
    But we’re not in a situation where there are very few sports, where many people complain about the lack of choice in sports, and where regulators are attempting to eliminate one of the very few meaningful differences between the existing choices.
- kelnos 3y ago
  There are plenty of ways to differentiate in a competitive market. Good regulations set baselines for fair play, both toward customers and competitors. Whether or not that makes some aspects of those choices more similar isn't really relevant. Or if it is, it's because it makes them similar in good ways. Ways that are pro-customer and pro-competition, but they won't do unless legally required.
  - tshaddox 3y ago
    I agree that there are plenty of ways competitors could differentiate themselves. But in the current market, I think there are very few competitors, and even fewer ways they currently differentiate themselves. And the most notable recent regulations would eliminate one of the more meaningful differentiations.
    - ethbr1 3y ago
      Differentiating on percent of app / subscription price taken by app store?
      - tshaddox 3y ago
        That’s not what I had in mind.
- harkinian 3y ago
  [dead]
burnerthrow008 3y ago
I would rather that developers do not have the choice to choose an app store where anything goes. It’s funny how when Apple threatens a European company the EC can act within days, but when a German company is violating the GDPR, it takes 4 years for them to act. What a strange coincidence.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > I would rather that developers do not have the choice to choose an app store where anything goes. That's not up to you. What you get to decide is which stores you're willing to install apps from. If lots of people refuse to install apps from unrestrictive stores then developers who want to reach those users will have to meet the requirements of more restrictive stores. You would only not have this choice if the app has a dominant market position, and then can force you to get it from a store you don't want to use. But then your problem isn't an overabundance of trust busting, it's an insufficiency of it.
zakki 3y ago
No Apple nor Google doesn't mean no other. Someone/something will step in.

johnnyanmac 3y ago

Other titans tried, they all failed to capture. Blackberry lagged for too long and Microsoft simply lacked the network effects since early advertisement was based on how large the app stores were. The only solace is that you can modify Android to the point where there's almost no Google interference whatsoever. But of course some apps choose to rely on that (e.g. Banking).maybe one day Apple will begrudgingly get to that point.

znpy 3y ago
> Microsoft simply lacked the network effects Microsoft execs had their heads buried too deep in their own asses to be able to understand what was needed at the time. They pushed a platform (Windows phone) that lacked interesting features out of the box, lacked cloud services integration to fill the gap left by the lacking base features, and required Windows as a development platform (and, iirc, C# as well?). It didn't even have any particular windows-ecosystem speciality: no special exchange integration, no special windows pc integration, nothing. Microsoft could have exploited the same reasons they exploited with Azure, Office365 and the general enterprise: microsoft phones should just integrates perfectly with other microsoft stuff. It could have been the no-brainer choice: we use ActiveDirectory and Office365 as a suite, we'll get a Windows Phones as everything just works immediately. No, nobody had thought of that. The value proposition was just not there. So basically another walled garden, but dumber. And the hardware didn't have anything special to make it "worth".
- amluto 3y ago
  I think there’s more to it than this, and it’s subtle: The iPhone was cool. Seriously, the original iPhone had little going for it technically. No GPS, poor data bandwidth, no apps, and minimal ability to make phone calls. (It took the combined efforts of Apple and AT&T a couple generations before you could reliably place a call.) But it had a touch screen that felt nice, and you could watch videos and play music! The web browser actually performed well despite the low bandwidth. It could zoom. And Steve Jobs marketed it well, whereas Steve Ballmer was terrible at marketing. IMO the iPhone was considerably worse for business use than Windows Mobile, and neither one held a candle to the BlackBerry. But it didn’t matter.

fsflover 3y ago

There are also GNU/Linux phones. Sent from my Librem 5.

A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
Speaking of.. how is Librem these days as a daily driver? I am genuinely debating trying to make a jump again.
- fsflover 3y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39451467 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39451467