3 ms·

The market being the sum of iPhone end-users buying other stuff than iPhones. > The goal isn’t that Apple competes “fairly” on any arbitrary platform, it’s spe

The market being the sum of iPhone end-users buying other stuff than iPhones. > The goal isn’t that Apple competes “fairly” on any arbitrary platform, it’s specifically that Apple competes “fairly” on the platform that Apple puts their best features on. It's about putting features on the platform which are beneficial only to other products of Apple. The goal is that if Apple offers products on the market it is gatekeeping, it does so in a way that doesn't hinder fair competition on that market. Apple competing on headphones for iPhones while offering features that require iOS functionality not accessible to competitors is not fair competition.

tpmoney 2y ago
> The market being the sum of iPhone end-users buying other stuff than iPhones. Which seems a little ridiculously narrow doesn’t it? Why does any hardware vendor have an obligation to open all of their APIs and functionality to all comers just because they open some of them? Why is selling a highly sandboxed product not a valid thing to do? And especially why is that not valid when there is an entire other half+ of the market that is completely open and exactly the sort of free for all people are apparently looking for? Ultimately it always comes down to this. Apple is one vendor, selling one piece of hardware that runs one OS. You can not buy or run iOS on anything other than Apple supplied phones. You can not run anything on an iPhone except an Apple supplied OS. Apple does not force carriers or retailers to exclusively carry Apple phones. They don’t require hardware manufacturers to buy iOS licenses even when they sell a phone without iOS. They don’t require 3rd party iOS developers to sign exclusivity contracts when developing for iOS. They don’t fine developers for making better versions of their software for other platforms. They don’t do those things for accessory manufacturers either. Apple sells Apple phones that run Apple software in a way that Apple feels is best for that phone. Why is this a problem? Yes I understand that iPhone users who want a pebble smart watch are given a worse experience. But they don’t have to use an iPhone. Nothing at all stops them from buying any of the hundreds of Android phones on the market and having the ultimate pebble smart watch experience. This whole thing feels like the equivalent of demanding the government force GM to support CarPlay. GM has decided they don’t want to do that. They think they can sell a better product without it. That might suck for people who want a Chevy and also want to use CarPlay, but is that really unfair competition and worthy of government regulation to force GM to open up their in-car entertainment systems?
- seec 2y ago
  Because competitors do not play the line as badly as Apple does and also because they are not trillion-dollar companies ruling every single thing that a billion-dollar generating platform is doing. I am at a loss when people defend Apple that much. You can prefer their stuff and are free to stick to what they offer only, but there is no reason to prevent others making other choices and allow other manufacturers to compete on features. Apple has to allow access to their OS so that others can interoperate with it, and that's that. If Apple is not happy it can go into other business where interoperability is not required like say frying pan manufacturing or whatever. But they won't because the reality is that Apple has been investing from the large supply chain and innovations of other companies since the late 90's while refusing to play ball in recent years. In the early 2000's Apple was promoting open source and open standard, how time have changed...
  - tpmoney 2y ago
    > there is no reason to prevent others making other choices and allow other manufacturers to compete on features. Who is preventing other people from choosing an open platform and who is preventing other manufacturers from competing on that open platform? Certainly it’s not Apple. There are no requirements that app developers exclusively publish for iOS only. There are no requirements that accessory manufacturers manufacture for iPhones only. Retailers are no required to sell exclusively either iPhones or Android phones and no one is charged any per device fees for iOS even if those devices don’t ship with iOS. How does a single manufacturer with less than half of the market share and no presence on any devices other than their own prevent other people from making different choices? > Apple has to allow access to their OS so that others can interoperate with it, and that's that. Why though? Why is it not a valid choice to sell a highly sandboxed device that limits the access developers of additional software can have to the device hardware? Why should it be illegal to sell a device where 3rd party developers can’t run their software as root?

tpmoney 2y ago

> The market being the sum of iPhone end-users buying other stuff than iPhones. Which seems a little ridiculously narrow doesn’t it? Why does any hardware vendor have an obligation to open all of their APIs and functionality to all comers just because they open some of them? Why is selling a highly sandboxed product not a valid thing to do? And especially why is that not valid when there is an entire other half+ of the market that is completely open and exactly the sort of free for all people are apparently looking for? Ultimately it always comes down to this. Apple is one vendor, selling one piece of hardware that runs one OS. You can not buy or run iOS on anything other than Apple supplied phones. You can not run anything on an iPhone except an Apple supplied OS. Apple does not force carriers or retailers to exclusively carry Apple phones. They don’t require hardware manufacturers to buy iOS licenses even when they sell a phone without iOS. They don’t require 3rd party iOS developers to sign exclusivity contracts when developing for iOS. They don’t fine developers for making better versions of their software for other platforms. They don’t do those things for accessory manufacturers either. Apple sells Apple phones that run Apple software in a way that Apple feels is best for that phone. Why is this a problem? Yes I understand that iPhone users who want a pebble smart watch are given a worse experience. But they don’t have to use an iPhone. Nothing at all stops them from buying any of the hundreds of Android phones on the market and having the ultimate pebble smart watch experience. This whole thing feels like the equivalent of demanding the government force GM to support CarPlay. GM has decided they don’t want to do that. They think they can sell a better product without it. That might suck for people who want a Chevy and also want to use CarPlay, but is that really unfair competition and worthy of government regulation to force GM to open up their in-car entertainment systems?

seec 2y ago
Because competitors do not play the line as badly as Apple does and also because they are not trillion-dollar companies ruling every single thing that a billion-dollar generating platform is doing. I am at a loss when people defend Apple that much. You can prefer their stuff and are free to stick to what they offer only, but there is no reason to prevent others making other choices and allow other manufacturers to compete on features. Apple has to allow access to their OS so that others can interoperate with it, and that's that. If Apple is not happy it can go into other business where interoperability is not required like say frying pan manufacturing or whatever. But they won't because the reality is that Apple has been investing from the large supply chain and innovations of other companies since the late 90's while refusing to play ball in recent years. In the early 2000's Apple was promoting open source and open standard, how time have changed...
- tpmoney 2y ago
  > there is no reason to prevent others making other choices and allow other manufacturers to compete on features. Who is preventing other people from choosing an open platform and who is preventing other manufacturers from competing on that open platform? Certainly it’s not Apple. There are no requirements that app developers exclusively publish for iOS only. There are no requirements that accessory manufacturers manufacture for iPhones only. Retailers are no required to sell exclusively either iPhones or Android phones and no one is charged any per device fees for iOS even if those devices don’t ship with iOS. How does a single manufacturer with less than half of the market share and no presence on any devices other than their own prevent other people from making different choices? > Apple has to allow access to their OS so that others can interoperate with it, and that's that. Why though? Why is it not a valid choice to sell a highly sandboxed device that limits the access developers of additional software can have to the device hardware? Why should it be illegal to sell a device where 3rd party developers can’t run their software as root?