5 ms·

> Only in markets with poor competition This is blatantly and obviously false. Mobile has lots of competition, and lots of lock in. Apple's App Store, Google P

> Only in markets with poor competition This is blatantly and obviously false. Mobile has lots of competition, and lots of lock in. Apple's App Store, Google Play Services on Android, DRM on Kindles, DRM everywhere. I can watch Amazon Video on iOS and a Kindle Fire but not on an Android Tablet. I can get a gmail app on iOS and Android but not Kindle Fire. It's lock in everywhere. On Apple's ecosystem, on Google's, on Microsoft's and even on Amazon's.

shmerl 12y ago
> Mobile has lots of competition Not enough really. Current situation of two heavily dominant participants is not called a lot of competition. Other competitors are too much behind, barely making any traction in the market. And it shows. For example getting native drivers from hardware manufacturers is close to impossible, unless they are requested for existing incumbents. That's a perfect example of implicit lock-in caused by the lack of competition in the mobile space. Another example are mobile browsers which are dominated by these incumbents. Again, not enough competition there.
- bellerocky 12y ago
  > Not enough really. Now you're just devolving your argument into a No True Scotsman fallacy. Mobile has a ton of competition, Samsung just lost the top spots in China and India. If anything it's lock in that's preventing it from being more competitive if anything.
  - shmerl 12y ago
    > Samsung just lost the top spots in China and India. And? Samsung's own OS is barely registered on the market (Tizen). Which demonstrates poor competition on the scene dominated by Android and iOS. > lock in that's preventing it from being more competitive if anything. As I wrote above, lock-in can turn around and bite the one who is using it. It's a crooked practice.
    - bellerocky 12y ago
      I don't understand your argument anymore, I think we do agree that lock in is bad, so that's good.

shmerl 12y ago

> Mobile has lots of competition Not enough really. Current situation of two heavily dominant participants is not called a lot of competition. Other competitors are too much behind, barely making any traction in the market. And it shows. For example getting native drivers from hardware manufacturers is close to impossible, unless they are requested for existing incumbents. That's a perfect example of implicit lock-in caused by the lack of competition in the mobile space. Another example are mobile browsers which are dominated by these incumbents. Again, not enough competition there.

bellerocky 12y ago
> Not enough really. Now you're just devolving your argument into a No True Scotsman fallacy. Mobile has a ton of competition, Samsung just lost the top spots in China and India. If anything it's lock in that's preventing it from being more competitive if anything.
- shmerl 12y ago
  > Samsung just lost the top spots in China and India. And? Samsung's own OS is barely registered on the market (Tizen). Which demonstrates poor competition on the scene dominated by Android and iOS. > lock in that's preventing it from being more competitive if anything. As I wrote above, lock-in can turn around and bite the one who is using it. It's a crooked practice.
  - bellerocky 12y ago
    I don't understand your argument anymore, I think we do agree that lock in is bad, so that's good.