3 ms·

Apple didn't develop a "general purpose computer" either, they developed a cell phone. They entered into an established product market, with a product that was

Apple didn't develop a "general purpose computer" either, they developed a cell phone. They entered into an established product market, with a product that was even more locked down than the current competition (remember, Palm Treos and Blackberrys?). Even "dumb" phones had apps and games (though if you think Apple's fees are ridiculous, you should look up the cost of developing a bejeweled clone for your old sony ericson, "Qalcom BREW" would be a contemporary starting point). Within this market, 3 different competitors (Palm, Microsoft and Google) also threw their hat into the ring, with far more open platforms. Palm and Microsoft eventually gave up, and Google is the majority player with the fully open platform. Yet Apple is somehow so dominant that we're crafting entirely new rules around them doing the same thing they and many other highly integrated hardware/software manufacturer has done for ages. Why?

mthoms 2y ago
Because like it or not, it has become a general purpose computer. For millions it’s their primary (for some: only) gateway to banking, payments, education, government services, personal relations, keeping in touch with family, navigation, healthcare and emergency services. Up next: digital ID and (possibly) online voting. Those things are all pretty important for a society, right? In a sense, they are society. Accordingly, a couple powerful entities controlling all those things ought to expect oversight from said society. It’s not hard to understand. So no, Apple is not doing “the same thing” as other device manufacturers have “done for ages”. Not even close. They are a victim of their own success in a way, but their shareholders have been rewarded handsomely. They’re hardly a victim like you’re proposing.
- tpmoney 2y ago
  It feels to me like the problem here is the government and large institutions only providing access via a single manufacturers single platform, rather than the existence of the platform. That is to say, if education, government services, health care, emergency services, ID and voting are all only accessible via having an iPhone, the solution to that is to mandate that those things be accessible via other options too, not to mandate opening up the iPhone ecosystem. Aside from the fact that the government needs no new laws to actually make its services available on open platforms, there's also the "single point of failure" problem, and the "government services only available to people with $400+ electronic toys with expensive monthly subscription services" problem. Regulating banking vs phone app store markets might be more of a toss up, but it seems like again the "single point of failure" problem should argue much more strongly in favor of forcing banks to not limit access to iPhones, rather than forcing iPhones to change to be something the iPhone consumers don't actually want.
  - rickdeckard 2y ago
    No, the problem is that a critical mass of a market is dependant on a single operator of that market, and that operator is not providing equal access to it but considers itself the owner AND a privileged player there which everyone has to pay to compete with. The audience of iPhone users are that market. - "You have something to sell on my market? Sure, here are the fees, the rules and I take a cut of all your sales" --> "My data shows that people like what you're selling on my market, so I studied all details, decided to build it myself, provide it for less/free and compete with you. Thanks for doing the risky work of proving that potential." "Feel free to stay if you like, your continued success will continue to educate/fund my competing product. If you leave, you have to end business with all customers, as I took measures that they are ONLY able to visit MY market"
    - tpmoney 2y ago
      >You have something to sell on my market? Sure, here are the fees, the rules and I take a cut of all your sales >My data shows that people like what you're selling on my market, so I studied all details, decided to build it myself, provide it for less/free and compete with you. Thanks for doing the risky work of proving that potential. >Feel free to stay if you like, your continued success will continue to educate/fund my competing product. If you leave, you have to end business with all customers, as I took measures that they are ONLY able to visit MY market None of those things really affect the banking, government services, education, ID, health etc apps that the OP was concerned with. They're not selling their apps or even selling any services via their app (except for services which are incidentally forbidden from using IAP in the first place which means the 30% fees don't apply: >3.1.3(e) Goods and Services Outside of the App: If your app enables people to purchase physical goods or services that will be consumed outside of the app, you must use purchase methods other than in-app purchase to collect those payments, such as Apple Pay or traditional credit card entry. https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#goods-and-services-outside-of-the-app https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#goo... Nor are they competing with Apple for their applications. At a stretch, you could argue that the banking apps sort of kind of compete with Apple wallet in the credit card space, but like I said, it's a bit of a stretch.
rickdeckard 2y ago
> Apple didn't develop a "general purpose computer" either, they developed a cell phone. Yeah, like Sony did in the analogy above. They became best-in-class in TV and then started to dictate the rules for reaching every living room with their TV in, made trillions of dollars and then used that position to take control of other industries.

mthoms 2y ago

Because like it or not, it has become a general purpose computer. For millions it’s their primary (for some: only) gateway to banking, payments, education, government services, personal relations, keeping in touch with family, navigation, healthcare and emergency services. Up next: digital ID and (possibly) online voting. Those things are all pretty important for a society, right? In a sense, they are society. Accordingly, a couple powerful entities controlling all those things ought to expect oversight from said society. It’s not hard to understand. So no, Apple is not doing “the same thing” as other device manufacturers have “done for ages”. Not even close. They are a victim of their own success in a way, but their shareholders have been rewarded handsomely. They’re hardly a victim like you’re proposing.

tpmoney 2y ago
It feels to me like the problem here is the government and large institutions only providing access via a single manufacturers single platform, rather than the existence of the platform. That is to say, if education, government services, health care, emergency services, ID and voting are all only accessible via having an iPhone, the solution to that is to mandate that those things be accessible via other options too, not to mandate opening up the iPhone ecosystem. Aside from the fact that the government needs no new laws to actually make its services available on open platforms, there's also the "single point of failure" problem, and the "government services only available to people with $400+ electronic toys with expensive monthly subscription services" problem. Regulating banking vs phone app store markets might be more of a toss up, but it seems like again the "single point of failure" problem should argue much more strongly in favor of forcing banks to not limit access to iPhones, rather than forcing iPhones to change to be something the iPhone consumers don't actually want.
- rickdeckard 2y ago
  No, the problem is that a critical mass of a market is dependant on a single operator of that market, and that operator is not providing equal access to it but considers itself the owner AND a privileged player there which everyone has to pay to compete with. The audience of iPhone users are that market. - "You have something to sell on my market? Sure, here are the fees, the rules and I take a cut of all your sales" --> "My data shows that people like what you're selling on my market, so I studied all details, decided to build it myself, provide it for less/free and compete with you. Thanks for doing the risky work of proving that potential." "Feel free to stay if you like, your continued success will continue to educate/fund my competing product. If you leave, you have to end business with all customers, as I took measures that they are ONLY able to visit MY market"
  - tpmoney 2y ago
    >You have something to sell on my market? Sure, here are the fees, the rules and I take a cut of all your sales >My data shows that people like what you're selling on my market, so I studied all details, decided to build it myself, provide it for less/free and compete with you. Thanks for doing the risky work of proving that potential. >Feel free to stay if you like, your continued success will continue to educate/fund my competing product. If you leave, you have to end business with all customers, as I took measures that they are ONLY able to visit MY market None of those things really affect the banking, government services, education, ID, health etc apps that the OP was concerned with. They're not selling their apps or even selling any services via their app (except for services which are incidentally forbidden from using IAP in the first place which means the 30% fees don't apply: >3.1.3(e) Goods and Services Outside of the App: If your app enables people to purchase physical goods or services that will be consumed outside of the app, you must use purchase methods other than in-app purchase to collect those payments, such as Apple Pay or traditional credit card entry. https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#goods-and-services-outside-of-the-app https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#goo... Nor are they competing with Apple for their applications. At a stretch, you could argue that the banking apps sort of kind of compete with Apple wallet in the credit card space, but like I said, it's a bit of a stretch.

rickdeckard 2y ago

> Apple didn't develop a "general purpose computer" either, they developed a cell phone. Yeah, like Sony did in the analogy above. They became best-in-class in TV and then started to dictate the rules for reaching every living room with their TV in, made trillions of dollars and then used that position to take control of other industries.