4 ms·

There's a tragic irony to the fact that Google lost to Epic while Apple won. I choose Android over iOS precisely because there aren't barriers to installing wh

There's a tragic irony to the fact that Google lost to Epic while Apple won. I choose Android over iOS precisely because there aren't barriers to installing whatever I want. I give up a lot of creature comforts and integrations that iOS users take for granted in order to be a part of an ecosystem where I can count on always being able to install apps that I write for my own use without getting approval from a gatekeeper. And yet, here we are, with Apple getting a free pass from the US court system because they were completely locked down, while Google's systems get ripped open by a court because they were open enough that they could be anti-competitive. I worry that decisions like this will backfire horribly—that they'll create an environment where something like Android can never happen again, because no company can take the risk of accidentally creating a market that they might be deemed to monopolize later.

jncfhnb 2y ago
The writing is on the wall for Apple either way
- lolinder 2y ago
  Which is also a shame, because I believe that consumers should have the right to choose a locked-down ecosystem if that's what they want. It's not perfect, but we've had a pretty good thing going in the mobile phone space from a consumer perspective: There's an option that's extremely intuitive, tightly integrated, and secure, at the necessary expense of being locked down. A walled garden in the best sense—a curated environment that's designed to provide a specific experience and keep out things that aren't welcome. Then there's the option that works okay-but-not-perfectly out of the box but really shines for power users. That system provides all the flexibility you could want (especially when you get into custom ROMs) at the necessary expense of placing a higher maintenance burden on the user. These efforts to dismantle this balance don't seem at all designed to help consumers—they're exclusively focused on the needs of other, typically large companies, and I strongly suspect that the fallout is going to hurt consumers quite a lot.
  - stale2002 2y ago
    > should have the right to choose a locked-down ecosystem if that's what they want You will continue to have that right. Simply don't install other app stores. What you won't be able to do is force other people to do what you want them to do, with their iPhones. It has nothing to do with you choosing what you want to do with your own phone. Instead, you want to force restrictions onto other people's phones. > this balance don't seem at all designed to help consumers It's designed to give those who want it, the ability to control all phones that they own. Few people would have a problem with you being given the option to lock down your phone if that's what you want.
    - arrosenberg 2y ago
      > What you won't be able to do is force other people to do what you want them to do, with their iPhones. A bit of a nit, but what they won't be able to do is use their market power to lock competitors out or extract monopolistic taxes for access to their large segment of the mobile market. It has nothing to do with consumers per se - we could be back here in 3 years because all of the app stores have formed a cartel to decide the vig for apps, same way Amazon and Apple did for e-books.
      - halostatue 2y ago
        Amazon and Apple did not decide such a thing. Apple and the publishers had worked out an agreement to raise the price of ebooks to be closer to that of new releases to counter the monopolistic cheap-to-the-point-of-failing-authors approach from Amazon. The US Government got involved in that agreement and declared it illegal because it hurt Amazon's bottom line…and the publishing industry is in a much worse situation with Amazon controlling even more of the income than ever, while now diverting revenue to shitty LLM-publishers and away from humans who try to write things that people want to read. Basically, that decision by the government was wrong, and we’re all suffering for it. Upcoming decisions and the DMA are different, but they are making many of the same mistakes as the US Government did with the publishing agreement, in that these intervention will: - reduce overall security on devices that must be more secure than personal computers because they often act as payment devices, personal IDs, and other matters (this is not guaranteed, but many of the moves being advocated are going to lead to bad actors getting to pretend that they are equivalent to the operating system, or provide access to Secure Enclave data in ways that encourage large criminal and nation state attacks on the ecosystem) - reduce overall payment security and convenience for real people (you think that cancelling a NYT subscription is hard, let Tim Sweeney design a payment flow and it will take a personal visit to Epic to cancel a subscription, and even then it will take more time than it should) Everyone focuses on the 30%. It should be lower; there should be wider access and less gatekeeping‡. But if you want it to be zero, start taking on the PlayStation, Xbox, and Nintendo Switch monopolies, too as they charge as much and sometimes more. ‡ I think that Apple (and probably Google) need to get over their American prudishness. This would require having better categorization and parental controls that could be enabled by device owners and even providing applications ways of applying parental controls (let Tumblr bring its adult-oriented content back, but enable the Tumblr app to apply parental controls via an API). There are other changes that I would like to see, but absolutely none of them involve letting Tim Sweeney / Epic get involved in taking payment details, because I trust him far less than I trust Tim Cook / Apple (or even Google).
Workaccount2 2y ago
Apple's case was decided by a jury, Google's by a judge.
- EMIRELADERO 2y ago
  The other way around.
  - Workaccount2 2y ago
    Oops, yes, I typed it backwards
h_tbob 2y ago
How in the world does an open source platform that can be freely copied get hit so hard!

jncfhnb 2y ago

The writing is on the wall for Apple either way

lolinder 2y ago
Which is also a shame, because I believe that consumers should have the right to choose a locked-down ecosystem if that's what they want. It's not perfect, but we've had a pretty good thing going in the mobile phone space from a consumer perspective: There's an option that's extremely intuitive, tightly integrated, and secure, at the necessary expense of being locked down. A walled garden in the best sense—a curated environment that's designed to provide a specific experience and keep out things that aren't welcome. Then there's the option that works okay-but-not-perfectly out of the box but really shines for power users. That system provides all the flexibility you could want (especially when you get into custom ROMs) at the necessary expense of placing a higher maintenance burden on the user. These efforts to dismantle this balance don't seem at all designed to help consumers—they're exclusively focused on the needs of other, typically large companies, and I strongly suspect that the fallout is going to hurt consumers quite a lot.
- stale2002 2y ago
  > should have the right to choose a locked-down ecosystem if that's what they want You will continue to have that right. Simply don't install other app stores. What you won't be able to do is force other people to do what you want them to do, with their iPhones. It has nothing to do with you choosing what you want to do with your own phone. Instead, you want to force restrictions onto other people's phones. > this balance don't seem at all designed to help consumers It's designed to give those who want it, the ability to control all phones that they own. Few people would have a problem with you being given the option to lock down your phone if that's what you want.
  - arrosenberg 2y ago
    > What you won't be able to do is force other people to do what you want them to do, with their iPhones. A bit of a nit, but what they won't be able to do is use their market power to lock competitors out or extract monopolistic taxes for access to their large segment of the mobile market. It has nothing to do with consumers per se - we could be back here in 3 years because all of the app stores have formed a cartel to decide the vig for apps, same way Amazon and Apple did for e-books.
    - halostatue 2y ago
      Amazon and Apple did not decide such a thing. Apple and the publishers had worked out an agreement to raise the price of ebooks to be closer to that of new releases to counter the monopolistic cheap-to-the-point-of-failing-authors approach from Amazon. The US Government got involved in that agreement and declared it illegal because it hurt Amazon's bottom line…and the publishing industry is in a much worse situation with Amazon controlling even more of the income than ever, while now diverting revenue to shitty LLM-publishers and away from humans who try to write things that people want to read. Basically, that decision by the government was wrong, and we’re all suffering for it. Upcoming decisions and the DMA are different, but they are making many of the same mistakes as the US Government did with the publishing agreement, in that these intervention will: - reduce overall security on devices that must be more secure than personal computers because they often act as payment devices, personal IDs, and other matters (this is not guaranteed, but many of the moves being advocated are going to lead to bad actors getting to pretend that they are equivalent to the operating system, or provide access to Secure Enclave data in ways that encourage large criminal and nation state attacks on the ecosystem) - reduce overall payment security and convenience for real people (you think that cancelling a NYT subscription is hard, let Tim Sweeney design a payment flow and it will take a personal visit to Epic to cancel a subscription, and even then it will take more time than it should) Everyone focuses on the 30%. It should be lower; there should be wider access and less gatekeeping‡. But if you want it to be zero, start taking on the PlayStation, Xbox, and Nintendo Switch monopolies, too as they charge as much and sometimes more. ‡ I think that Apple (and probably Google) need to get over their American prudishness. This would require having better categorization and parental controls that could be enabled by device owners and even providing applications ways of applying parental controls (let Tumblr bring its adult-oriented content back, but enable the Tumblr app to apply parental controls via an API). There are other changes that I would like to see, but absolutely none of them involve letting Tim Sweeney / Epic get involved in taking payment details, because I trust him far less than I trust Tim Cook / Apple (or even Google).

Workaccount2 2y ago

Apple's case was decided by a jury, Google's by a judge.

EMIRELADERO 2y ago
The other way around.
- Workaccount2 2y ago
  Oops, yes, I typed it backwards

h_tbob 2y ago

How in the world does an open source platform that can be freely copied get hit so hard!