4 ms·

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?
    - 9rx 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. The idea is that if the will of the people is there, they can threaten companies like Apple (or whatever business) to shape up to their expectations or see sales come to an end. Which is also all the government is going to do. After all, (democratic) government and the people are the exact same thing. There is no magic. But if the will isn't there... > tried really hard for several years to wedge their way into the mobile phone OS game with Windows Phone They never tried building an iPhone clone, which should have had no trouble finding a market fit. They couldn't do that because regulation doesn't allow it, but without that regulation there is no go reason why they wouldn't have been able to become a viable competitor. Microsoft's attempt at a phone, and even Android devices for that matter, only compete with the iPhone in the same way Soylent Green competes with hamburgers. It kind of ticks the same boxes if you look at it through a narrow enough lens, but that is not true competition.
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.

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?
  - 9rx 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. The idea is that if the will of the people is there, they can threaten companies like Apple (or whatever business) to shape up to their expectations or see sales come to an end. Which is also all the government is going to do. After all, (democratic) government and the people are the exact same thing. There is no magic. But if the will isn't there... > tried really hard for several years to wedge their way into the mobile phone OS game with Windows Phone They never tried building an iPhone clone, which should have had no trouble finding a market fit. They couldn't do that because regulation doesn't allow it, but without that regulation there is no go reason why they wouldn't have been able to become a viable competitor. Microsoft's attempt at a phone, and even Android devices for that matter, only compete with the iPhone in the same way Soylent Green competes with hamburgers. It kind of ticks the same boxes if you look at it through a narrow enough lens, but that is not true competition.

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.