Hacker News Reader

Comment by ZeroGravitas | Hacker News Reader

Follow the link to his earlier blog post "Google started this":

Bullshit. Google started this. It was Google that turned its sights on the iPhone. [...] They made their bed, now they have to sleep in it.

There’s no question it’s a dick move on Apple’s part. But what’s the argument against it? That Google gets a pass for being dicks to Apple, and Apple ought to just sit there and take it?

What is Gruber suggesting that Google shouldn't get a pass for being dicks about here?

I understand what he's saying Apple are being dicks about, and it's not competing in ads. It's a dick move to begin competing in ads and start by banning your main competitor's product from the market you control.

View on HN

"It's a dick move to begin competing in ads and start by banning your main competitor's product from the market you control."

This has always puzzled me. Why would they NOT do it? Apple does not control smartphone market - they control iPhone market, a subset of smartphone market. They have made the product, the supporting infrastructure for it, how are they obliged to allow competition in there?

For example, some time ago I bought a Canon printer. There was a booklet packed with it, telling me what inks can be used with it - all were of Canon brand. Now, I know there are some third parties selling inks for Canon printers, and without a doubt they would like to be featured in those booklets, preferably with the notice that their ink is of comparable quality while costing far less. But Canon is not including them - is that a dick move too?

Yes, you can happily use X ink in your Canon printer. And you can run X adds in your iPhone apps. But those inks would not be sold in Canon stores. And the same way, Apple can choose not to distribute those apps in their Appstore.

Last time I checked, neither iPhone platform, nor Appstore were public domain :)

Not advertising 3rd party inks: fair enough. Putting stern warnings about how they may not be as high quality as your own: getting dodgy. Installing DRM chips into your ink so that you can't use 3rd party supplies at all, nor refill your own 1st party inks and sue anyone who succesfully works around this under the DMCA: definitely a dick move.

Have you not noticed the widespread uproar about the price gouging on ink supplies? Your example of what's an appropriate business move is a textbook case illustrating the opposite.

The fact that you're more pro-Apple than Gruber on this should be a sign that you're out in the left-field. You'll need better arguments than inkjet manufactures do it too and the iPhone isn't public domain if you want to be convincing. Unless your argument is that not only can corporations do whatever they want but we have to like it too.

Of course you don't have to like it, so vote with your wallet. There is choice in the marketplace whether it be smartphones or inkjet printers.

Is there a choice in inkjet printers that will provide you with a list of 3rd party ink suppliers, and perhaps even encourage use of recycled inks from 3rd parties? If so, how would people know about that until after they'd 'voted with their wallet' and purchased the product?

No sane businessman is going spoon-feed what can be considered the bad facets of his product to potential customers. They call it 'the information age' for a reason: whether it is inkjet printer, smartphone or pickup truck, you can find reviews for it online, in magazines or just find someone using the product that interests you and asking them how is it.

And if you are not doing research before purchase, there are only two options: either the product/sum you are going to spend is not that important to you, or you are about to get a valuable lesson.

Any way, I'm not trying to campaign for Apple, Google or Gruber here - I am trying to point out that this is how the market works. If you would rather have it differently, join/start a political party.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com