5 ms·

> "Apple’s “Watch Policy” annoys me, but not enough to switch to Android. I hope Apple will be forced to improve their compatibility with other watches." The c

> "Apple’s “Watch Policy” annoys me, but not enough to switch to Android. I hope Apple will be forced to improve their compatibility with other watches." The conundrum of "[xyz] annoys me, but not enough to [do anything about it], yet I hope [Company] will be forced to improve [xyz]" So where is that 'force' expected to come from...?

wlesieutre 2y ago
If there are effectively two choices and both of them do things you don’t like, “it’s your fault for not switching to the other one” isn’t a very useful argument
- rickdeckard 2y ago
  The question is more, where is that 'force' expected to come from which should make them change their way? Just hopes and prayers?
  - Nextgrid 2y ago
    Regulation? When a market is stuck in a local maximum, an external force would be beneficial to push it out of it.
    - rickdeckard 2y ago
      Exactly. But who should drive such regulation then, elected representatives which represent constituents who can't be bothered to push for it..? THAT'S the conundrum. The market urgently requires regulation, but it also became so convenient so fast and affects end-users only indirectly, so there is no sufficient momentum to drive this change...
      - briandear 2y ago
        I don’t want Chuck Schumer dictating how tech should work. Most elected officials are idiots outside of the domain of politics.
    - 9rx 2y ago
      Unless regulation is the problem[1], you need the will of the people[2] to see regulation come into force. But if the people had the will, they could just see it through already. No need for regulation. [1] Which it is in the case of computing. Intellectual property law makes direct competition against the law. [2] Assuming a democracy.
      - Pfhortune 2y ago
        > But if the people had the will, they could just see it through already. How does this work in the context of this discussion?
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        9rx 2y ago
        There are a lot of contexts floating around, but you are meaning something like how would the people attain a state where they can buy something almost exactly like the iPhone, but with less restrictions or perhaps some different features, without regulation? Well, how would they do that with regulation? Have the government (i.e. the people) tell Apple remove restrictions/add features else they can no longer sell the iPhone/operate a business at all, praying that they comply – and if they don't you no longer can buy an iPhone? –– Which is exactly the same as the people (i.e. government) telling Apple to remove restrictions/add features else they will no longer buy iPhones/Apple products, praying that they comply – and if they don't you no longer can buy an iPhone. That can be done right now without regulation, if the will is there. But the will isn't there. Nobody outside of tech communities ever thinks about this, and the comparatively small number of tech enthusiasts who do, do not form a democracy. If they people don't have the will, they won't do anything.
      - LeifCarrotson 2y ago
        The idea that if the people had the will they would see it through assumes efficient markets with negligible startup costs and informed and rational consumers, which is not the way the real world works. Microsoft - a multi-trillion dollar company, number 2 in the world by market cap, second to AAPL and several positions above Google - tried really hard for several years to wedge their way into the mobile phone OS game with Windows Phone, adding a third entrant to the market. They had name recognition, an easy win for integration with user PCs, several compelling features, partnerships with huge, vertically integrated hardware manufacturers, and an enormous base of IP for programming. But, in the end, they failed. Just because people have a desire for a thing to exist does not make that thing exist. I'd love it if there were another company - call it Pear or something - that was just like Apple but allowed my Garmin watch to reply to encrypted messages, integrated smoothly with my Windows and Linux PCs, allowed sideloading apps, alternative browsers, adblock, and which gave me a whole lot more customization options. I've got the will. Now where's my phone?
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    The issue is, suppose you want a phone with A, B, C, D and E. In a competitive market, there are a hundred phone OEMs providing every combination of those things for various prices with various trade offs etc. In a duopoly, there is one company providing A, another providing B and C, and nobody providing D or E. If you chose the company providing B and C, but you still want A, D and E, what are you supposed to do? Reward the company providing even less of what you want? What you need is more competition.
    - 9rx 2y ago
      > what are you supposed to do? Reward the company providing even less of what you want? Assuming it isn't regulation (e.g. patents) getting in the way, you pull up your pants and produce [A, D, and E]. If that's too rich for your blood, I suppose rewarding the company that got you something close enough at a tiny fraction of the cost is reasonable. It is hard to deny the value in that. > What you need is more competition. Okay, but if you aren't willing to build [A, D, and E], why would anyone else? These things aren't delivered by angels from heaven.
      - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        The question is, why is it so infeasible to enter the market? In theory it should be possible for someone to do this. Phones are made of modular parts. Some companies make chips, some make screens, some make operating systems, some make app stores, so you go acquire each of the parts, make your modifications and start selling your phone. First problem, the best phone chips are made by Apple and they won't sell them to you for use in a competing phone. Also, they won't sell you their OS or let you use their app store. So it's already not possible to satisfy some of the requirements, e.g. using a chip of that quality or compatibility with existing third party iOS apps. This is hypothetically more possible with Android, but it still isn't. Qualcomm will sell you a chip; it isn't as good, so you can't satisfy "use the best chip", but they'll sell it to you. You can get Android for free. Well, AOSP anyway. But that won't pass Google's Play Integrity system, so you've already lost compatibility with the existing bank apps. Other Android apps have more dependencies on Google APIs that aren't part of AOSP, so you've once again lost widespread compatibility with the only other market for third party apps, unless you ship with Google Play services. At which point you're not satisfying the "doesn't hoover up your data and send it to Google" requirement. So anti-competitive behavior on the part of the incumbent duopolists is why there isn't more competition, and antitrust enforcement would address it. For example, break up Apple into its constituent parts. Then Apple Silicon is a separate company like AMD or Qualcomm and you could buy their chips to use in your own phones, the existing App Store becomes a separate entity with no monopoly on distributing apps to iOS users, etc. At which point someone can feasibly produce a phone that does everything you want, and then someone would.
ianferrel 2y ago
> So where is that 'force' expected to come from...? On the margin, it probably does annoy some people enough to do something about it. And even though Apple's policy on this isn't enough to move me, if you combine it with my other annoyances about Apple products, eventually the sum will be enough. And we vocalize stuff like this because switching does have a cost that I'd rather not pay, so hopefully people who can make a change at Apple will see the discontent and fix it so that I don't have to pay the switching cost.
kevincox 2y ago
Because everyone is on a spectrum. [xyz] wasn't the straw to break this user's back, but it will be the tipping point for some number of users. [xyz] is also moving this user closer to the edge, so when Apple does [abc] the sum of both is now enough to move this user. You can't expect that everyone who is bothered by an issue switch away from a platform. The switching cost is significant (and Apple works hard to make it as high as possible). Not to mention that the platforms (really one notable competitor) that they are considering switching to also have [def] and [ghi] that the user doesn't like which is also counterbalancing the decision.
noname120 2y ago
There is a thing called regulation.
babypuncher 2y ago
I think the problem is that nobody makes a smart watch as good as the Apple Watch, so people already in the ecosystem have no real reason to care that it's their only option. There's a reason Linus Sebastian has been wearing Apple Watches for years despite being a self-proclaimed Android fanboy. This is only getting attention now because these new Pebble devices are offering an Apple Watch alternative people actually want.
- rickdeckard 2y ago
  The article is literally describing aspects where Apple prevents competitors to offer a COMPARABLE experience to an Apple Watch on iOS. There is no equal opportunity to compete in the market of iOS users if you try to compete with Apple. I think that's part of the problem.
  - babypuncher 2y ago
    I'm saying that even without those restrictions, the existing stable of Android Wear devices would still be less appealing than an Apple Watch. There's a reason they aren't even all that popular with actual Android users where those restrictions don't exist.
bmandale 2y ago
There's very little an individual can sensibly do. You can't pick and choose every feature you want; you're given bundles of features and you have to pick which bundle you like best. This sort of bundling is deliberate anti-competitive behaviour, which the EU and other countries have recently taken steps to crack down on. So there is hope that apple will be reigned in here.
jillesvangurp 2y ago
Anti-trust authorities. Non US based government authorities (e.g. in the EU). Etc. The current trade wars might impact Apple the other large Silicon Valley companies pretty soon. Think stricter rules, bigger fines, more restrictions outside the US. When it comes to Apple, there probably is quite a bit of low hanging fruit: - Allowing 3rd party interpreters, browsers engines, etc. on IOS. The OS has sandboxing, there should be no security argument here. Android can manage this, so why not Apple? - Arbitrary app store restrictions and predatory fees on transactions. Apple is getting rich by essentially using mafia style schemes here. Nice App you have there. It would be a shame it got banned. Better implement X, drop feature Y, or else ... Oh and by the way, you need to pay us 30% on every transaction in your app and you are not allowed to link to payment options outside your app. - Repairability issues. Apple products continue to score low here. And Apple makes quite a bit of money charging 3-4x component cost for parts and upgrades. There are probably some more issues.

wlesieutre 2y ago

If there are effectively two choices and both of them do things you don’t like, “it’s your fault for not switching to the other one” isn’t a very useful argument

rickdeckard 2y ago
The question is more, where is that 'force' expected to come from which should make them change their way? Just hopes and prayers?
- Nextgrid 2y ago
  Regulation? When a market is stuck in a local maximum, an external force would be beneficial to push it out of it.
  - rickdeckard 2y ago
    Exactly. But who should drive such regulation then, elected representatives which represent constituents who can't be bothered to push for it..? THAT'S the conundrum. The market urgently requires regulation, but it also became so convenient so fast and affects end-users only indirectly, so there is no sufficient momentum to drive this change...
    - briandear 2y ago
      I don’t want Chuck Schumer dictating how tech should work. Most elected officials are idiots outside of the domain of politics.
  - 9rx 2y ago
    Unless regulation is the problem[1], you need the will of the people[2] to see regulation come into force. But if the people had the will, they could just see it through already. No need for regulation. [1] Which it is in the case of computing. Intellectual property law makes direct competition against the law. [2] Assuming a democracy.
    - Pfhortune 2y ago
      > But if the people had the will, they could just see it through already. How does this work in the context of this discussion?
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - 9rx 2y ago
        There are a lot of contexts floating around, but you are meaning something like how would the people attain a state where they can buy something almost exactly like the iPhone, but with less restrictions or perhaps some different features, without regulation? Well, how would they do that with regulation? Have the government (i.e. the people) tell Apple remove restrictions/add features else they can no longer sell the iPhone/operate a business at all, praying that they comply – and if they don't you no longer can buy an iPhone? –– Which is exactly the same as the people (i.e. government) telling Apple to remove restrictions/add features else they will no longer buy iPhones/Apple products, praying that they comply – and if they don't you no longer can buy an iPhone. That can be done right now without regulation, if the will is there. But the will isn't there. Nobody outside of tech communities ever thinks about this, and the comparatively small number of tech enthusiasts who do, do not form a democracy. If they people don't have the will, they won't do anything.
    - LeifCarrotson 2y ago
      The idea that if the people had the will they would see it through assumes efficient markets with negligible startup costs and informed and rational consumers, which is not the way the real world works. Microsoft - a multi-trillion dollar company, number 2 in the world by market cap, second to AAPL and several positions above Google - tried really hard for several years to wedge their way into the mobile phone OS game with Windows Phone, adding a third entrant to the market. They had name recognition, an easy win for integration with user PCs, several compelling features, partnerships with huge, vertically integrated hardware manufacturers, and an enormous base of IP for programming. But, in the end, they failed. Just because people have a desire for a thing to exist does not make that thing exist. I'd love it if there were another company - call it Pear or something - that was just like Apple but allowed my Garmin watch to reply to encrypted messages, integrated smoothly with my Windows and Linux PCs, allowed sideloading apps, alternative browsers, adblock, and which gave me a whole lot more customization options. I've got the will. Now where's my phone?
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  The issue is, suppose you want a phone with A, B, C, D and E. In a competitive market, there are a hundred phone OEMs providing every combination of those things for various prices with various trade offs etc. In a duopoly, there is one company providing A, another providing B and C, and nobody providing D or E. If you chose the company providing B and C, but you still want A, D and E, what are you supposed to do? Reward the company providing even less of what you want? What you need is more competition.
  - 9rx 2y ago
    > what are you supposed to do? Reward the company providing even less of what you want? Assuming it isn't regulation (e.g. patents) getting in the way, you pull up your pants and produce [A, D, and E]. If that's too rich for your blood, I suppose rewarding the company that got you something close enough at a tiny fraction of the cost is reasonable. It is hard to deny the value in that. > What you need is more competition. Okay, but if you aren't willing to build [A, D, and E], why would anyone else? These things aren't delivered by angels from heaven.
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      The question is, why is it so infeasible to enter the market? In theory it should be possible for someone to do this. Phones are made of modular parts. Some companies make chips, some make screens, some make operating systems, some make app stores, so you go acquire each of the parts, make your modifications and start selling your phone. First problem, the best phone chips are made by Apple and they won't sell them to you for use in a competing phone. Also, they won't sell you their OS or let you use their app store. So it's already not possible to satisfy some of the requirements, e.g. using a chip of that quality or compatibility with existing third party iOS apps. This is hypothetically more possible with Android, but it still isn't. Qualcomm will sell you a chip; it isn't as good, so you can't satisfy "use the best chip", but they'll sell it to you. You can get Android for free. Well, AOSP anyway. But that won't pass Google's Play Integrity system, so you've already lost compatibility with the existing bank apps. Other Android apps have more dependencies on Google APIs that aren't part of AOSP, so you've once again lost widespread compatibility with the only other market for third party apps, unless you ship with Google Play services. At which point you're not satisfying the "doesn't hoover up your data and send it to Google" requirement. So anti-competitive behavior on the part of the incumbent duopolists is why there isn't more competition, and antitrust enforcement would address it. For example, break up Apple into its constituent parts. Then Apple Silicon is a separate company like AMD or Qualcomm and you could buy their chips to use in your own phones, the existing App Store becomes a separate entity with no monopoly on distributing apps to iOS users, etc. At which point someone can feasibly produce a phone that does everything you want, and then someone would.

ianferrel 2y ago

> So where is that 'force' expected to come from...? On the margin, it probably does annoy some people enough to do something about it. And even though Apple's policy on this isn't enough to move me, if you combine it with my other annoyances about Apple products, eventually the sum will be enough. And we vocalize stuff like this because switching does have a cost that I'd rather not pay, so hopefully people who can make a change at Apple will see the discontent and fix it so that I don't have to pay the switching cost.

kevincox 2y ago

Because everyone is on a spectrum. [xyz] wasn't the straw to break this user's back, but it will be the tipping point for some number of users. [xyz] is also moving this user closer to the edge, so when Apple does [abc] the sum of both is now enough to move this user. You can't expect that everyone who is bothered by an issue switch away from a platform. The switching cost is significant (and Apple works hard to make it as high as possible). Not to mention that the platforms (really one notable competitor) that they are considering switching to also have [def] and [ghi] that the user doesn't like which is also counterbalancing the decision.

noname120 2y ago

There is a thing called regulation.

babypuncher 2y ago

I think the problem is that nobody makes a smart watch as good as the Apple Watch, so people already in the ecosystem have no real reason to care that it's their only option. There's a reason Linus Sebastian has been wearing Apple Watches for years despite being a self-proclaimed Android fanboy. This is only getting attention now because these new Pebble devices are offering an Apple Watch alternative people actually want.

rickdeckard 2y ago
The article is literally describing aspects where Apple prevents competitors to offer a COMPARABLE experience to an Apple Watch on iOS. There is no equal opportunity to compete in the market of iOS users if you try to compete with Apple. I think that's part of the problem.
- babypuncher 2y ago
  I'm saying that even without those restrictions, the existing stable of Android Wear devices would still be less appealing than an Apple Watch. There's a reason they aren't even all that popular with actual Android users where those restrictions don't exist.

bmandale 2y ago

There's very little an individual can sensibly do. You can't pick and choose every feature you want; you're given bundles of features and you have to pick which bundle you like best. This sort of bundling is deliberate anti-competitive behaviour, which the EU and other countries have recently taken steps to crack down on. So there is hope that apple will be reigned in here.

jillesvangurp 2y ago

Anti-trust authorities. Non US based government authorities (e.g. in the EU). Etc. The current trade wars might impact Apple the other large Silicon Valley companies pretty soon. Think stricter rules, bigger fines, more restrictions outside the US. When it comes to Apple, there probably is quite a bit of low hanging fruit: - Allowing 3rd party interpreters, browsers engines, etc. on IOS. The OS has sandboxing, there should be no security argument here. Android can manage this, so why not Apple? - Arbitrary app store restrictions and predatory fees on transactions. Apple is getting rich by essentially using mafia style schemes here. Nice App you have there. It would be a shame it got banned. Better implement X, drop feature Y, or else ... Oh and by the way, you need to pay us 30% on every transaction in your app and you are not allowed to link to payment options outside your app. - Repairability issues. Apple products continue to score low here. And Apple makes quite a bit of money charging 3-4x component cost for parts and upgrades. There are probably some more issues.