Hacker News Reader

Comment by Ensorceled | Hacker News Reader

Google has dominate market share in critical technology markets; smart phone, search, online advertising. Apple has minority market share in pretty much all their markets.

Microsoft had over 90% market share at the time they used their free, and really crappy, IE to pretty much destroy all other browser developers.

It's not anti-trust unless it hurts consumers. Being forced to develop on Apple software/hardware affects consumers not at all. What harm is resulting from being forced to use a webkit browser? Being able to load only apps vetted by Apple would also be difficult to show harm given all the malware that keeps popping up on Android.

Apple is only 38% market share, Google is ~60%, it's right in the article. World wide Apple is only 18%.

I know people hate Apple but really, can we stick to hating them for the crap they actually do.

View on HN

> FTC officials have met with technology company representatives who say Google gives priority to its own services on the Android platform, while restricting others

AOSP is Open Source. Starting from that, Google hasn't restricted anything. Going forward from there, Google (with Play, Play Services) has gradually started tightening things up because of harm to consumers. Is your Android phone running the latest security patches. No? Google needed a way to push out critical updates and their behind-the-scenes position means they have more limited control than Apple does. It obviously doesn't solve everything but I'd argue that they're doing their best to protect consumers.

Google Android is NOT open source. If you want to use Google Android you are restricted. You can FORK Android and build your own but that is a massive undertaking.

This isn't about software products anyway, it's about services, search in particular.

But this is irrelevant, I'm not attacking Google, I'm disputing the "Apple is the bigger anti-trust violator" idea, which is just silly.

I'm lost, isn't THAT what open source means? Having access to source code? (Witch you do on Android)

To compete with "Google Android", I would need to fork the android source, market and brand this new "EnsorcelOS", develop my own backend services for updates and registration, negotiate with Bing or some other search and services company, develop my own app store, ...

Saying that Android is Open Source doesn't actually make competitors to "Google Android" viable or numerous.

> Saying that Android is Open Source doesn't actually make competitors to "Google Android" viable or numerous

Tell that to Chinese Android manufacturers.

Apart that your comment has nothing to do with Android being open source or not. it is irrelevant if a fork is competitive or not, AOSP is still open source

ITs open source in the same way OSX and iOS are open source (although more open, i will admit) the core is open, but a very large proportion of the key services are closed and difficult to replace.

> ITs open source in the same way OSX and iOS are open source

I can give you a link to the AOSP repository.

If iOS and OS X are open source in the same way than Android, then you can give us a link to the repositories, isn't?

Can I fork OS X and make another operating system based on it?

Yes, you can get the XNU kernel and many of the frameworks (including the Objective-C 2.0 runtime) from http://opensource.apple.com. Feel free to fork it and let us know how you get on.

So no,it is not the same, you don't have the source code for OS X, you have source for SOME parts

So if you include a builtin search box on Android, AOSP wouldn't be considered open source unless Google gave away the source go Google Search itself, and the transitive dependency of all of that, including all of the secret data center stuff? After all, you need to be able to build and deploy it, otherwise it doesn't count.

There's a limit to how many turtles you stack.

Google Services are not open source. Android IS open source

> Starting from that, Google hasn't restricted anything.

Google has made all manufacturers who use the official Google version of Android sign a contract that forbids them from shipping devices any other forks of AOSP. They've restricted plenty.

The restriction is for forks that don´t pass the compatibility test, not for AOSP

The compatibility test is not an open standard, and Google unilaterally excludes anything that it doesn't like: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-...

Relevant bit: > Switching to Skyhook's service meant Google would not be able to collect location data from users. This was bad for Google, so Skyhook was declared "incompatible." OEMs that wanted the Google Apps were not allowed to use them. Skyhook sued, and the lawsuit is still pending.

> Microsoft had over 90% market share at the time they used their free, and really crappy, IE to pretty much destroy all other browser developers.

IE 6 fell way behind because Microsoft just stopped caring about it (and because Netscape comitted suicide by refactoring, thus leaving IE without any competition to drive it forward), but comparing IE versions to their contemporary Netscape versions, it's really hard to call it "crappy."

Hah! Yeah, you're right. In my mind I'm rewriting history, it was good at the time. It just became a support nightmare later.

Three things happened at about the same time. IE got better (it had been behind Netscape), Netscape went into the never-ending re-write, and Microsoft tied the OS to IE.

To be fair, the IE we see as really crappy today was revolutionary in what features it gave web developers back when Microsoft had over 90% market share.

> Microsoft had over 90% market share at the time they used their free, and really crappy, IE to pretty much destroy all other browser developers.

They also give away a free text editor and have never been taken to task for "destroying" that market.

Comscore actually pegs latest U.S. market share at 51% for Android and 44% for iOS. http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Market-Rankings/comScore-Re...

What about Facebook, which not only has 1 billion users, but owns WhatsApp and Instagram, 2 of their largest competitors. In terms of dollars, given most other social networks aren't really monetizing yet, I'm guessing Facebook's market share would be >90%.

Yes, but being a monopoly isn't, by itself, bad. You have to be abusing that monopoly to harm consumers.

Not saying that Facebook isn't harming consumers, just that that harm isn't necessarily related to their monopoly position.

Twitter and Linkedin are huge competitors.

Twitter maybe, but LinkedIn really isn't, unless you define the market to be "connecting anybody with anybody else on the Internet".

The market is selling ads. I thought that was pretty plain.

You should look into LinkedIn's revenue sources. Ads are actually a smaller part of the pie.

I'm curious what "market share" should actually be used? units sold, unique users, revenue or profits? If Apple is getting 90% of profit maybe it's the platform where the other software devs lose the most too.

Profit share is irrelevant to consumer harm. Damage to software devs is not necessarily consumer harm.

I'm not saying Apple is a blameless company, as a dev who has had years old apps suddenly rejected I have a definite love/hate relationship going. I'm saying it's not a big anti-trust problem.

I think the person you responded to was hating on Apple for stuff they actually do, like limiting your choice to one crappy browser.

And %38% of the market is enough to force any any app maker to deal with Apple, so it might as well be 51%.

It's not about market share or dominance or even monopoly.

It's about the question of engaging in anti-competitive practices and Apple is guilty of those despicable practices.

However, I must say that I am not totally sold on all the examples cited in the ancestor comment esp. that developers having to work exclusively on Mac machines to build for iOS devices because that's on the business side of the equation and mostly motivated by financial gains.

On the other hand, as a consumer I'm severely affected negatively by the restrictions Apple imposing on the browser engines available on their mobile devices and the monopoly Safari WebKit enjoys there and I'm really frustrated by that and by the fact that no one yet went after them for this but when you take into consideration that a lot of the big guns in the system are investing in this evil corporation, things become very obvious to you.

Not going to argue about despicable practices, I don't think Apple is worse than other companies (they are certainly better than most) but the corporate climate world wide right now rewards despicable.

Curious, how are you "severely affected" by the Safari WebKit monopoly. I keep hearing people say this and I literally have no idea why this is such a massive problem.

Apple is definitely one of the worst transgressors in that regards since its business model is based on "bait & switch" strategy where they fleece their suckers they call customers of their money whether initially in overpriced devices or afterwards in after-sales servicing and parts.

Safari WebKit is limited in comparison to Chrome's Blink or FF's Geiko in terms of features available and sadly it accumulated a lot of bugs that are waiting to be fixed since Apple opted to a slow release cycle model unlike the other evergreen vendors.

Also worth mentioning that web devs are usually considered power users when it comes to browsers and that's why our use profile and needs differ from that of the ordinary user

I'm a sucker. Never had any problems with apples prices. Certainly NEVER had any problems with the after-sales services.

Huh, I'm a web dev and never really had any extraordinary problems with Mobile Safari. Oh, there have been bugs, but that's true of all browsers. Plus, as a web dev, what I install on my devices is irrelevant.

Your entire thesis flies in the face of the 95%+ customer satisfaction ratings Apple carries for essentially all of the devices they sell. People aren't getting fleeced. They buy Apple products because Apple products repeatedly and consistently satisfy them.

No. That is simply not the case.

Companies are free to engage in 'anti-competitive' practices if they don't have too much power over the market. Think about it – how many businesses will offer you a discount if you buy multiple services from them? That's basically the same thing, right?

Companies are free to engage in 'anti-competitive' practices if they don't have too much power over the market.

That's completely untrue. If the shop owner around the corner in your hood colluded with other shop owners to fix prices and they're caught, they will be in a lot of trouble. So, anti-competitive behavior is not about monopoly or market dominance, it's about the act itself.

That's collusion not anti-competitive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices

You linked to a page that lists "collusiom" under the heading "anti-competitive practices".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com