5 ms·

So according to you, a company that has about 25% of the global smartphone market, should be _legally forbidden_ from creating a tightly integrated software/har

by donkyrf 9mo ago

So according to you, a company that has about 25% of the global smartphone market, should be _legally forbidden_ from creating a tightly integrated software/hardware bundle. Whereas, a company that has 70% of the global browser market somehow would have no way to take advantage if they had an even larger share. I wonder how our species would survive without the unique market analysis from one-of-a-kind minds like yours.

ivell 9mo ago
Web and Apple ecosystem is not comparable. IE had quite large market share and was brought down by Chrome in quite short time. Firefox challenged IE quite effectively before that. But Windows (desktop) still enjoys quite large market share even though Google, Linux and Apple (macOS) are trying hard. The OS lock-in is much more difficult to break than Web where the standards are openly built and made available. One aspect in favor of Google is the complexity of implementing all those standards. But that is not lock-in, rather an issue of having enough resources to implement a compliant browser.
- troupo 9mo ago
  > The OS lock-in is much more difficult to break than Web where the standards are openly built and made available. Where have you been in the past 10 years or so? Chrome views the web as their own fiefdom, and web devs happily oblige. There are now dozens of Chrome-only non-standards that are presented as "openly built standards" and devs deride other browsers for not implementing them.
  - ivell 9mo ago
    It is the decision of the other vendors to not implement the standards (for good reasons, like for e.g. privacy - but it is still the vendor's decisionand not an inherent limitation). The documentations and specifications are available for free. In case of Windows, there is no spec. There is no possibility of implementing another Windows clone (patents limit such clones). Wine exists, but was reverse engineered with great difficulty.
    - troupo 9mo ago
      > It is the decision of the other vendors to not implement the standards A scribble on a napkin does not a standard make. A feature released in a single browser engine without support, consent, and against objections of other browser vendors does not a standard make. Just because Chrome ships something does not make whatever they ship a standard. > The documentations and specifications are available for free. That's how Chrome abuses its position and relies on gullible devs to assume that just because something is documented it becomes a standard the moment it's shipped in Chrome. That's not how standards work.
well_ackshually 9mo ago
> a company that has about 25% of the global smartphone market, should be _legally forbidden_ from creating a tightly integrated software/hardware bundle. Absolutely not. Most of us are perfectly happy with Apple tightly integrating Safari with their hardware. However, we're going to legally forbid them to prevent users from breaking that tight integration, because it's their device. Apple doesnt "own" the smartphone market: it provides hardware and services, and it shuts the fuck up.

by donkyrf 9mo ago

ivell 9mo ago

Web and Apple ecosystem is not comparable. IE had quite large market share and was brought down by Chrome in quite short time. Firefox challenged IE quite effectively before that. But Windows (desktop) still enjoys quite large market share even though Google, Linux and Apple (macOS) are trying hard. The OS lock-in is much more difficult to break than Web where the standards are openly built and made available. One aspect in favor of Google is the complexity of implementing all those standards. But that is not lock-in, rather an issue of having enough resources to implement a compliant browser.

troupo 9mo ago
> The OS lock-in is much more difficult to break than Web where the standards are openly built and made available. Where have you been in the past 10 years or so? Chrome views the web as their own fiefdom, and web devs happily oblige. There are now dozens of Chrome-only non-standards that are presented as "openly built standards" and devs deride other browsers for not implementing them.
- ivell 9mo ago
  It is the decision of the other vendors to not implement the standards (for good reasons, like for e.g. privacy - but it is still the vendor's decisionand not an inherent limitation). The documentations and specifications are available for free. In case of Windows, there is no spec. There is no possibility of implementing another Windows clone (patents limit such clones). Wine exists, but was reverse engineered with great difficulty.
  - troupo 9mo ago
    > It is the decision of the other vendors to not implement the standards A scribble on a napkin does not a standard make. A feature released in a single browser engine without support, consent, and against objections of other browser vendors does not a standard make. Just because Chrome ships something does not make whatever they ship a standard. > The documentations and specifications are available for free. That's how Chrome abuses its position and relies on gullible devs to assume that just because something is documented it becomes a standard the moment it's shipped in Chrome. That's not how standards work.

well_ackshually 9mo ago

> a company that has about 25% of the global smartphone market, should be _legally forbidden_ from creating a tightly integrated software/hardware bundle. Absolutely not. Most of us are perfectly happy with Apple tightly integrating Safari with their hardware. However, we're going to legally forbid them to prevent users from breaking that tight integration, because it's their device. Apple doesnt "own" the smartphone market: it provides hardware and services, and it shuts the fuck up.