4 ms·

What you need is REGULATION, because the market is already too skewed for new entrants to meet a level playing field. But yeah...not a popular opinion here, I

What you need is REGULATION, because the market is already too skewed for new entrants to meet a level playing field. But yeah...not a popular opinion here, I know...

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
"Regulation" is a dirty word because most regulations are written by captured regulators. The last thing you want is new rules that permanently entrench the incumbent duopoly while pretending that you can tame Godzilla to keep as a pet if only the right chains are used. You need rules that restore actual competition. Accept no substitute.
- fsflover 2y ago
  > "Regulation" is a dirty word > You need rules that restore actual competition What is the difference between the two?
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    Rules that restore competition are a specific subset of regulations. Undifferentiated "more regulations" not only don't inherently restore competition, they generally do the opposite by increasing barriers to entry and compliance costs for smaller entities, so asking for regulations without specifying which ones is like saying we should solve a problem by using weapons. It's not saying something specific enough to know whether you should agree with it in a given case and in the absence of more details the heuristic for how to answer that question is no.
rickdeckard 2y ago
Almost funny to observe how this comment floats between 1 and 0 points every few hours. Really, I'm in the telco industry for 18 years now. The smartphone market is in a way too unhealthy state, especially to properly compete with Apple. As of today, there is no player in that space who has even remotely the amount of secured income to come up with a similarly specced and volume-scaled device as Apple, and there is little incentive for anyone new to enter this space. A new entrant would be unable to secure the investment, because even if he would produce the exact same piece of hardware with the same quality, the carrier distribution channels, the brand-image and (walled garden) ecosystem of Apple will prevent users to even notice and adopt the product, and the press would jump onto it and rip it to pieces for not being universally better. How would this normally work? --> You disrupt the market by doing something particularly good, while being average in other areas, succeed, then iterate. But this doesn't work in the Smartphone space as: 1.) iOS users are unlikely to leave their ecosystem because they can't take _anything_ with them 2.) the Google ecosystem leaves little room to disrupt and secure return-of-investment, and 3.) for Android (without Google) you need to (re)build your own ecosystem to _match_ Google/Apple from the start. That's why it's not a competitive market anymore, it needs external forces to restore an even competition field for Hardware, Applications and Services. For the benefit of the consumer.

What you need is REGULATION, because the market is already too skewed for new entrants to meet a level playing field. But yeah...not a popular opinion here, I know...

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

"Regulation" is a dirty word because most regulations are written by captured regulators. The last thing you want is new rules that permanently entrench the incumbent duopoly while pretending that you can tame Godzilla to keep as a pet if only the right chains are used. You need rules that restore actual competition. Accept no substitute.

fsflover 2y ago
> "Regulation" is a dirty word > You need rules that restore actual competition What is the difference between the two?
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  Rules that restore competition are a specific subset of regulations. Undifferentiated "more regulations" not only don't inherently restore competition, they generally do the opposite by increasing barriers to entry and compliance costs for smaller entities, so asking for regulations without specifying which ones is like saying we should solve a problem by using weapons. It's not saying something specific enough to know whether you should agree with it in a given case and in the absence of more details the heuristic for how to answer that question is no.

rickdeckard 2y ago

Almost funny to observe how this comment floats between 1 and 0 points every few hours. Really, I'm in the telco industry for 18 years now. The smartphone market is in a way too unhealthy state, especially to properly compete with Apple. As of today, there is no player in that space who has even remotely the amount of secured income to come up with a similarly specced and volume-scaled device as Apple, and there is little incentive for anyone new to enter this space. A new entrant would be unable to secure the investment, because even if he would produce the exact same piece of hardware with the same quality, the carrier distribution channels, the brand-image and (walled garden) ecosystem of Apple will prevent users to even notice and adopt the product, and the press would jump onto it and rip it to pieces for not being universally better. How would this normally work? --> You disrupt the market by doing something particularly good, while being average in other areas, succeed, then iterate. But this doesn't work in the Smartphone space as: 1.) iOS users are unlikely to leave their ecosystem because they can't take _anything_ with them 2.) the Google ecosystem leaves little room to disrupt and secure return-of-investment, and 3.) for Android (without Google) you need to (re)build your own ecosystem to _match_ Google/Apple from the start. That's why it's not a competitive market anymore, it needs external forces to restore an even competition field for Hardware, Applications and Services. For the benefit of the consumer.