Hacker News Reader

Comment by CydeWeys | Hacker News Reader

"Whining" is an overly prejudicial word choice for this title. These are legitimate issues people have with what Apple is doing, not mere whining.

This echoes the "if you don't like it so much then just leave instead of speaking up" dismissal that is so commonly used as a lampshade for suppressing dissent. Not sure if that's the intent here but that's what it comes off as.

And this point from the article needs to be strongly rebutted:

> I don’t know, it seems silly to me to cry about monopolies. The solution is obvious. Stop making apps for iOS. Sure, you’re going to take a huge hit without access to those consumers [...]

This guy doesn't understand what monopolies are and how they work. The whole point is that there are no other alternatives, so you literally cannot "just stop using them". "Just stop patronizing the monopoly" is not a strategy that has ever been successful. The monopoly needs to be broken up.

View on HN

Apple is not a monopoly! They have a majority (not monopoly) on a very specific US-based market. They aren't the only US market, and they are a small international market.

Apple isn't even the #1 handset manufacturer (they are #3 or #4 depending on who you ask), and far and away isn't the #1 laptop manufacturer.

The attitude that it is a monopoly is exactly the disconnect between this article and your comment. The article thinks your market will just move without different revenue models. That is difficult, it's probably better to find a different market and revenue model.

Your comment is saying that it's worth trying to get Apple to change. That is difficult, near impossible, where they have no incentive to change unless you threaten change yourself with a different market/revenue model.

It seems like your hand is forced - you must do both. You must have a compelling market outside of Apple somehow, and you must petition Apple to change so you can keep access to their market.

I have strong feelings about Apple & Google making "markets" that are not fair/regulated the way I would like - but this idea that it's a monopoly to be "broken up" is not representative of reality.

I think that's exactly the point and it even applies to Macbooks: Apple just makes some pretty average laptops with poor price-performance ratio (even in the allegedly-high-end segment) and they clearly don't have a monopoly or even significant market share [1] in that category. Apple is just somewhat unique in that there is a very vocal minority of people who have decided that they only ever want to use Apple laptops (some Thinkpad users are similar), and of course Apple has a 100 % monopoly on Apple laptops, obviously. Viewed through this lens a lot of the coverage of Mac hardware makes a lot more sense; it never was about rational decision making.

[1] Apple owns less than 10 % of the laptop market.

I don’t buy Apple laptops or any laptops Any more but it’s interesting that you cite poor price-performance.

15 years ago when I did they had great cost-performance, i.e. they held their value relative to the competition, remained usable for longer for a number of reasons and when sold actually yielded better value over the full lifecycle. Has this changed?

Yes. For one, the keyboards fail.

On some models made in some years and the manufacturer has admitting the fault and extended an extra warranty to cover the fault and made adjustments to the process to avoid that fault in the future.

Surely indicative of the shoddy quality Apple is known for...

I'm not saying the answer is to break them up, but clearly as was shown with Microsoft in the 90s, they could be forced to allow competition on their devices, like Microsoft had to allow for different search engines on their browsers and different default browsers. Apple could be forced to allow alternative app stores or to stop dragging their feet on PWA features or any other number of reasonable regulations like that.

> but clearly as was shown with Microsoft in the 90s, they could be forced to allow competition on their devices

But as the parent comment you're replying to said, the situations aren't comparable.

Microsoft had over 90% of the market in the 90s. You could not stop using Windows, because there was simply no credible alternative for most consumers. That's not true for iOS.

If Microsoft at the time had, say, 50% of the market the outcome would likely have been extremely different.

It depends how you define market. Apple has control over 100% of ios apps.

I doubt ms had 90% of consumer electronics market or even os.

Walmart has 100% monopoly over their store space. Verizon has 100% monopoly over what can connect to their network. Google has a monopoly over the Play Store. Cows have a monopoly over milk production. At which point does this argument stop working?

> I doubt ms had 90% of consumer electronics market or even os.

You should probably look that up then, instead of "doubting": https://www.justice.gov/atr/us-v-microsoft-courts-findings-f...

Yes, but Walmart cannot stop another supermarket from opening in the same area, Verizon cannot stop you from bringing another phone to their network. Android allows other stores. Cows? Oh wait, you've got me there.

You sure about that? Small town businesses have lamented Walmart moving in for ages, Verizon can _absolutely_ prevent another phone from joining their network, they even charge activation fees on top of it all. And Android _is_ the alternative store if you don't like shopping on iOS, and the monopoly holder to boot. I can't run .ipa files on Android either, why can't we sue Google for not supporting that SDK, since they're a smartphone OS monopoly holder?

While I agree with everything you're saying, Google's android literally allows you to install third party app stores and even sideload apps. Google does not behave at all like Apple in that regard.

Sure, but how does that make Apple a monopoly abuser without broadening the definition to the point of it being applicable to damn near everything?

Who is going to do all the work of fighting a Trust when they drag their feet using legal grey area or random excuses?

Government worked out the correct action a long time ago. When you see a trust, you destroy it, when you still get collusion between the separate companies that is manageable since collusion has prisoners dilemmas.

Microsoft was never required to allow multiple search engines. Nor were they required to allow other default browsers in the US.

I’m sure the government has to technical wherewithal to make sure that Apple is compliant with browser standards....

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_09_...

https://www.justice.gov/atr/us-v-microsoft-courts-findings-f...

Care to quote the part where the US government forced the browser choice screen like the EU did?

Did I ever explicitly say the US in my comment? No. However, the entire case against Microsoft was built on its anticompetitive practices against Netscape. And Microsoft lost.

In the US, "The proposed settlement required Microsoft to share its application programming interfaces with third-party companies and appoint a panel of three people who would have full access to Microsoft's systems, records, and source code for five years in order to ensure compliance."

By having full access to the API, MS could no longer give IE special privileges (for example, being the only default browser choice when a link is clicked to be opened). At any rate, it's not a stretch to imagine similar movements towards Apple's app store. The parallels are quite similar.

I specifically said in the comment that you replied to “Nor were they required to allow other default browsers in the US.”

The parallels aren’t similar. Apple has less than 50% market share in the US and even less in Europe. Every console maker does the same as Apple.

There is no percentage-based threshold for antitrust. Price fixing, anticompetitive activities, cornering markets, etc can all trigger antitrust violations. Mobile computing is a far more important and mission critical foundation of modern life than video gaming. This is why there's a big push for net neutrality. The Federal government has all the authority it needs to regulate Apple if they decide it's worth doing. I support reigning in big tech.

I‘m more and more of the opinion that oligolipolies (multi-monopolies) should be treated the same as monopolies. Just because there is more than a single provider still does not mean there is a free market and consumers have actual choice. Google and Apple both pull extremely anticompetitive behavior lately and the excuse of „just switch to the other side“ bypasses reality. There are quite a lot of studies that free markets start working only if there are more than 4 parties left to compete with significant market share.

Citations missing since I‘m on mobile.

So what do you propose the government do?

You don't need to be a monopoly to have antitrust action taken against you, you just need to have sufficient market power and engage in behavior which is anti-competitive.

House Antitrust Committee chairman David Cicilline yesterday:

“Because of the market power that Apple has, it is charging exorbitant rents — highway robbery, basically — bullying people to pay 30 percent or denying access to their market,” said Rep. Cicilline. “It’s crushing small developers who simply can’t survive with those kinds of payments. If there were real competition in this marketplace, this wouldn’t happen.”

https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/18/21295778/apple-app-store-...

Oh it is possible to get Apple to change. Not by asking nicely, but perhaps by carrying a big stick. The arrogance Apple displays today is much the same as Microsoft back in the day. Let's hope for a similar outcome as back then, which fundamentally changed Microsoft for the better. It's possible, but not if we don't try.

Nothing David Cicilline said amounts to anything more than talk. He frequently refers to them as a monopolist in that podcast, but that means a very specific thing in antitrust law. DoJ or FTC would have to prove in court that Apple has "monopoly power" in a relevant market. Since a court will toss it out when Apple moves for a summary judgement if their antitrust theory is that Apple's 45% of the smartphone market gives them monopoly power (based on precedent), they will try to define the market more narrowly to something like "iOS applications".

But again a court is unlikely to accept that reasoning. And if you think about it for 3 seconds it's obvious why: Apple's "monopoly" was established when the App Store was launched in 2008 when the iPhone was an insignificant share of the market. That would also mean that any future product (like the AR glasses, or from any other company) would have "monopoly power" in their platform as soon as they ship 1 unit. This is obviously an absurd outcome.

A house member can say anything they want. It means absolutely nothing legally. If small developers can’t live off of 70%. They need to raise their prices by 43% to account for the 30% cut.

They are indeed a monopoly in a certain market segment - aka, those who are more than willing to pay for apps.

https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-users-spend-twice-apps...

Their existing monopolistic actions like “preventing interoperability at any cost” feeds this viscous cycle where high school kids are embarrassed to send text message to iPhone from an Android device.

I own Apple stock, would love then to crush competition, but let us not twist facts.

Perhaps the apps are higher quality in iOS due to the App Store policy, and consumers are more likely to invest in that quality.

Remove the gate, the quality dips. I'd imagine the amount willing to pay goes down too.

> Apple is not a monopoly! They have a majority (not monopoly) on a very specific US-based market

In the video "Competition is for Losers with Peter Thiel", Peter Thiel discusses this. The problem here is in how you define "monopoly". If you're a large company, you want to say that the market is a lot larger than what you are operating in. To take this to an extreme, you could say that you're a technology company and if people dont like cell phones, they can use tablets/laptops/desktops. Conversly, if you narrow the definition of monopoly, there are tons of them. E.g. how many supermarkets are there within a 4 block radius of my house?

Because of this, instead of simply looking at scope, a common method is to look at what sort of behavior is the company taking. Is the supermarket lowering its prices below profitable to not allow another supermarket to survive in my neighborhood? In the case of Apple, I think people see the behavior of controlling the App Market as a monopolistic behavior which prevents others from competing.

That’s “common” based on what judicial precedent. What makes Peter Thiel’s opinion more relevant than any random HN poster who doesn’t know what a monopoly is?

Their app store is on their devices. They forbid any other similar service.

So they creted a platforn and enforce service. Thats creating playground, rules and playing the game.

Remember microsoft was subjected to antitrust regulations for providing web browser with the os. This was considered unfair practice. Forcing people to give up 30 of revenue goes much much further.

By giving customers no choice, it's limiting hardware capabilities of your device.

> Remember microsoft was subjected to antitrust regulations for providing web browser with the os. This was considered unfair practice. Forcing people to give up 30 of revenue goes much much further.

This only became an issue when their market share was far greater than the competition, which is simply not the case.

This is just developer sour grapes. You want more money. Just say it.

But 95% of computers sold ran windows then. 10% of computers run MacOS now and maybe 20% of phones. Just buy a different computer, or don't... Or if you are a developer, make software for Windows or Android instead.

>maybe 20% of phones

Sure, if you're just counting units sold. But by total app store revenue, the metric that actually matters, they account for well over two thirds of the market.

because people care about the ecosystem and that has real monetary value to all three (consumer, seller, marketplace)

The fact that Microsoft was a subject to the anti-trust investigation for giving away their browser for free is not an indicator of a just law and its correct application. The law is flawed and that case was simply a hint to MS that they should've lobbied proper people in the government. "Pay us or else" - a typical practice of any government with unreasonably wide powers over country's economy.

> Their app store is on their devices.

Their users devices.

In fairness to Hey, they didn't plan to be in this situation. They thought they did everything apple wanted them to, and they spent years building this service, only to then find out apple won't allow it.

If you're going to exclude all potential products where you have to go through apple to be a major player (given the competition), you're excluding most of the software market. Maybe developers don't really have a choice?

And yeah, apple is not a monopoly, but apple/google for sure is a duopoly, and google is only incrementally better than apple.

Google tolerates exactly the behavior Hey wants for its app.

The monopoly in this case is the distribution of iOS applications and payment within them. Breaking that up means allowing other payment options within apps and potentially allowing side loaded applications.

And Amazon has a monopoly on Kindle apps and Spotify has a monopoly on music that can be played on its platform.

That’s not how monopolies work.

Apple absolutely has a monopoly on phone apps. You can either get an app on the Apple App Store or the Google Play store in practice. Both charge 30% fees for every dollar spent on digital products, that they did nothing to provide. They have absolute authority on what apps can and cannot be used on phones.

Not sure why everyone has rose colored glasses for Apple's hardware enforced software monopoly.

Most of the apps on those stores don't have to be OS Apps, they can be Web Apps, accessbile from any device connected to the Internet.

> This echoes the "if you don't like it so much then just leave instead of speaking up" dismissal

It's even worse than that. Even if you leave Apple ecosystem, you are still subject to it. Consumers don't like paying different prices based on the platform they are using. They will feel cheated. For this reason, app and service developers almost always price their products the same across all platforms. If a service developer estimates that 50% of the service's customers end up signing up through Apple Pay and pay the Apple tax, which one of these scenarios do you think will happen:

1) The developer will just eat the loss and will not take Apple's cut into their calculations of what the pricing should be at all;

2) They charge users who sign up through Apple 30% more;

3) They charge everyone the same. In order to negate the effect of Apple tax, their prices end up being higher than they otherwise would have been. Everyone, Apple user or not, ends up paying 15% higher.

I would wager that number 3 is what happens in almost all instances. You cannot not pay the Apple tax, even if you never use Apple.

On a side note, I am so surprised that so many people see this as a fight between Apple and developers. They view the Apple tax as something developers pay and thus is developers' problem, not theirs. Like any tax, ultimately, we the consumers end up paying it. It may be indirect, but it is coming out of our pocket. And it leaves a bad taste in my mouth that I would have to pay more than $1000 to buy a device, and then get nickel-and-dimes by Apple to actually use the said device.

Then don't buy the device. Bad taste in your mouth is not going to accomplish anything.

I don't have an Apple device. I put my money where my mouth is. But I am sure that some of the services I am buying are more expensive because of the Apple tax and I am paying Apple tax anyway.

Bad taste in my mouth is not going to accomplish anything. Simply not buying an Apple device does not accomplish anything either. Speaking out, raising awareness, asking for regulations, etc. is the only way to accomplish anything.

> But I am sure that some of the services I am buying are more expensive because of the Apple tax and I am paying Apple tax anyway.

Imagine how much more you could save if companies wouldn't have to include corporate tax burden into prices of their products. And what if you were exempt from income tax too? Just a food for thought.

I do benefit from corporate an income taxes, in the form of services from the government. I also have a say in them, via elections. What equivalent benefits and voice do I have regarding Apple tax?

If you open it up, what you end up with is, no one pays for your app, because there is 20 other free ones that are good enough.

Developers all want into the walled garden because it is a great walled garden, consumers are very happy, they trust it more, they spend more. But when you let everything in, it becomes a dumpster fire of crapware, and people overall spend less.

https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-users-spend-twice-apps...

I'd argue Apple's walled garden is better for good quality developers. There are cases that suck - but that is an exception to the rule.

I always saw sources like yours to be a bit of "confirming the obvious". Of course the average iphone user spends more, the average iphone user has a more expensive phone, and therefore more disposable income. Android has cheap handsets, Apple does not.

Don't be so certain - if you add up the top competitors to the iPhone (just as expensive Samsungs, Huawei, etc), they're about the same amount as iPhones. Do these people not have disposable income?

The gap is quite obvious - because of the multitude of free alternatives on android, users are far more likely to not spend. The competition is way higher.

Developers want to destroy the walled garden but the fact is their product will be instantly devalued.

Even if you leave Apple ecosystem, you are still subject to it. Consumers don't like paying different prices based on the platform they are using.

Manufacturers sell things at different prices all of the time. Spotify even sold subscriptions at different prices when they did allow in app subscriptions.

Yes consumers pay retailers mark up and not wholesale. News at 11

Agreed. There's a false dichotomy here. You can use a product, and as a stakeholder demand change. Refraining from using the product entirely is one way to achieve that, but it's not the only way. Many products evolve because of user-feedback.

> Many products evolve because of user-feedback.

And regulation. See GDPR and CCPA.

Yes, but those two examples don't have a particularly great track record. Regulation tends to be a very blunt hammer that might only partially address the problem while introducing a bunch of others (e.g. cookie banners).

Support better regulation. More effective than complaining.

You’re not a stakeholder for buying a computer.

You seem to have a very confused view of the consumer role legally and historically.

Giving them money for a product does not give you a real voice.

Argue for that first. Otherwise you may as well argue you’re a stakeholder to a tree.

A customer is an external stakeholder. They do have a voice, but at a large scale / low % of revenue, it may be not be very loud.

If no one enjoyed the shade of a tree, it wouldn’t cease to exist. If customers stopped paying a business, they likely would.

>A customer is an external stakeholder.

Customers used to have more choice, this made them highly valued stakeholders.

Before the era of permanent rolling mandatory updates and new releases customers (And IT managers) had to be convinced a new version had more value than the software it was replacing.

Windows Vista, DOS 4 And numerous other software failed to get traction because the value of new features was too low vs the pain points.

Now days the focus is on shareholder value not customer needs.

Locking in customers and maximising revenue is far more important than marking software better for the end user or IT teams.

We are stakeholders in our role as citizens of democratic governments.

If holding a giant private corporation accountable is the battle you want to take before the government, aside from all the other problems society faces, go for it.

I’d never be caught dead complaining about how I “got screwed over” by entering an arrangement I knew about up front.

I would complain about government deciding the way the world worked decades before I was born as if that’s how it must work forever.

You emit whatever syntax your limbic system pushes your cortex to supply motor agency to, what’s useful inside your little bubble.

I’ll argue in mine. Aside from time/place of our body, it’s all we can do anyway.

EU might solve this for you, I remember how it was years back, with mobile phone providers, there was no monopoly just a few companies that split the market and hold the users captive. So EU does not care that Apple and Google are not monopolies or that a large potion of citizens are busy watching football, if there are enough people complaining they will investigate and if you see what happen in the past force interoperability and true choice.

Sure…

So, how many different word processors and spreadsheet providers does the EU bureaucracy itself use?

I don't know, do you know and what is this relevant? They get complaints and they look at them, apply the laws for the benefit of the citizens and not for companies, like when the mobile phone companies were regulated lot of people complained that this big companies will lose too much money but still I see Vodafone and the rest thriving and us the consumer can move to other companies without any pain.

Of course its relevant: you said the EU intervenes when people complain to stop corporate dominance and abuse.

Lots of people complained. The EU did nothing. Truly - Microsoft office is as dominant as it ever was. It the EU has an anti-monopoly/dominance purpose, if MS Word/Excel/Powerpoint isn't its white whale, its hard to imagine what would be.

And the GDPR is being similarly defanged.

But are you ignoring other laws from EU or country specific that worked ? If you do not know let me give you some example "web browser" the reason you are not commenting this from IE is because of law makers that stopped Microsoft abuse, the reason Intel is not a monopoly and charge you 2 times more for 10 times less is because lawmakers prevented it.

For GDPR you need to wait before you conclude, it is similar to laws that force companies to label the food and drinks, now the websites are labeled if they contained shit and how many tons of shit contain but some people instead of complaining that there is too much shit in the website they complain that the labels are too big and would prefer a cool shiny logo instead of informative text.

>"web browser" the reason you are not commenting this from IE is because of law makers that stopped Microsoft abuse, the reason Intel is not a monopoly and charge you 2 times more for 10 times less is because lawmakers prevented it.

Did you even try to be honest? In no way Microsoft did ever prevent competitor browsers from being installed. Nobody forced, forces or will force you to use IE, no matter the EU. It was typical EU bureaucratic socialist bs, doing the thinking for the user and of course in the end just sucking rich American tit by fining because they create nothing and just want to run those who do. Just like Soviet Union.

Also, I don't need "Mother EUSSR" telling me who collects data/uses cookies and ruining overall browsing experience. It's funny how their efforts are actually counter productive, because it's near impossible to browse the net in private mode (the one thing that ACTUALLY prevents data collection, not the useless cookie agreement pop-ups).

Dude MS and Intel got in trouble with US too. What MS did with IE is the same anti competitive thing they are doing now and what Google does, they offer free stuff runining smaller competitors, they can offer free stuff because they use their dominance in one market to force their products on other market.

So if I want to make a good video hosting platform I need to compete with Google, but Google is using their search dominance to offer YT for free so I can't compete fair with them. Same if I want to make an IDE or web browser, I am forced to compete with Chrome and Visual Studio Code, free stuff paid with money from other markets, so when all competition is killed you get the IE case where shit stagnates because there is no competition.

Telling people to handle their beef "in the market" is basically saying we aren't a self-governing people any more.

The hubris and contempt for democracy emanating from tech bros is astounding. It's not going to be fashionable forever.

> This guy doesn't understand what monopolies are and how they work. The whole point is that there are no other alternatives, so you literally cannot "just stop using them". "Just stop patronizing the monopoly" is not a strategy that has ever been successful. The monopoly needs to be broken up.

I'm all for breaking up Apple for being a bunch of abusive jerks, but they really aren't a "Monopoly" in any useful definition of the term. Android is a drop-in replacement and it has a massive amount of marketshare (sure it sucks too in different ways, and sure more competition would be better, but you certainly don't have to buy any Apple products).

The point of this article, as I read it, is that people have bought into the Apple ecosystem so hard (due to that carefully manicured Apple reputation) they fail to even consider switching to anything else or dropping support for Apple. Even developers! When I see the 1000th blog post about how crappy Macs are and how garbage Apple's walled garden is on the front page of HN, I know that countless people here will toss it an upvote and comment in agreement, but many will still tune in breathlessly for the next WDC and go purchase the next Apple device to hit the shelves.

You don't need Apple. Nobody needs Apple anything. Complaining about their practice while buying their products... well, that's basically the definition of "whining."

Switch to Linux (or Windows, if you really prefer locked down / closed source solutions). Switch to Android. Stop paying if you don't like the terms.

I agree. I also hate the sentiment "vote with your wallet". By all means, send them a message by not buying their products, that surely will do something. However, it's also important to give feedback in written form either directly or by publishing editorials.

I disagree that Apple has a monopoly. The iPhone doesn't even have 50% marketshare in the US, and globally it's significantly less.

https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh...

Not only are there alternatives, the alternatives are extremely similar to the iPhone.

Another interpretation for users who complain loudly but never switch: it just doesn't bother them that much. It bothers them enough to tweet and blog about it, but not enough to actually inconvenience themselves by switching phone platforms.

Apple knows this, and that's why it doesn't change. And it won't change until people actually act instead of just talk.

I assume it refers to this: https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/how-antifragile-apple-inc-re...

Basically: Apples competitors marketshare concentrates on the lower cost market part while sharing the infrastructure. Apple has it's users locked in to their environment and controls the upper part of the market. Making it not only hard to switch the infrastructure but also keeping the price always as up as necessary/possible to dominate the upper price region of the market.

Edit: why am I getting downvotes?

How does Apple “control” the market? Is Apple forcing users to pay an average of three times more for an iPhone than an Android device? Is it Apple’s fault that Android manufactures+Google can’t come up with a device that people are willing to pay more for?

No, they are creating an locked in environment where switching is hard while switching is easy on Android. So you end up with 2 different groups/(markets?). One ready to pay more but locked in and another group wanting to pay less for more with a variety of hardware choices and companies betting against each other for a lower price on same hardware/specifications.

Apple therefore controls the price for their locked in environment. Rising prices for hardware, fees, accesoirs, repairs,...

At least this is how I understand this theory but since I'll probably get downvotes again, this will be my last comment on this. Sorry.

How is switching “hard”? I can pick up an Android device, sign into all of my subscription based services and everything just works. My photos are already synced with Google Photos, music I bought back in the day is DRM free and Apple Music is available on Android.

The author changing "Hey" to "Yo" was also a poor choice considering: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yo_(app)

I thought this was actually about Yo again! Had me tricked out they were relevant again.

Maybe he should have used "Let's go" instead...

It's fine, you did understand it was Hey didn't you?

I understand it today with the knowledge of current events fresh in my mind, but it won't age well.

Agreed. I feel as though it's akin to saying "if you don't like America, leave!" Voiced legitimate concern can bring positive change.

With that small caveat that "legitimate" is solely defined by the powerful.

Touche, but the truth of your point made me sad.

Not just about this title for this particular subject but dismissing people by telling them to just stop using or go elsewhere is also bad for almost everything else in life.

Applying the same logic for: - "Whining" customers: just go use someone else product; you are going to miss new ideas and paint points that you can solve - "Whining" about country or politics - imagine the phrase "if you don't like your leaders of your country, just leave the country and go somewhere else"; it's absurd. - "Whining" about family and friends: just stop hanging out with them; most people have no choice to change who they are with... - "Whining" about social media fake news: just stop using it. ...

We don't need to go to all variations but this is not the right mindset.

That logic is usually used by monopolies, dictators and so on to shut up people. Don't fall into that argument trap.

Apple isn't a monopoly as per law, there are plenty of other device manufacturers to choose from, and in some markets iDevices aren't even available.

The traditional understanding of monopolies does not seem so useful in this case.

We live a world where there are two walled gardens that control everything you do. They are both lovely and nice, and you can choose which you pick, but in both, everything you do owned by the landlord. Even how we communicate is controlled, and talking to people in the other garden is degraded. (iMessage and FaceTime).

Even if both walled gardens have 50% marketshare, there is no monopoly, but is that really the world we want to live in? Taking your business to the other walled garden is not an incentive to either company to build shorter walls.

It seems we need to be talking about regulating vertical integration and walled gardens, not monopolies.

Seems to work quite alright on game consoles.

Maybe it’s not the “traditional understanding” that’s the problem. Maybe it’s HN users understanding that’s flawed.

I'd imagine significant changes in the market is the best way to get Apple to do anything. If people keep buying and using all their products then they will keep doing what their doing.

Could you make some sort of generic app for push notifications, kind of like the old school Growl for the Mac?

Then web apps could be bookmarked within iOS, and push notifications routed through the mini-Growl app?

But people have been speaking up for years.

At what point do the people speaking up just stop using the thing that they dislike so much?

There is another alternative - Android. The same alternative that 80%+ of the market chooses.

Yes. Why would I complain about an option when I have another option? I think the entire Android ecosystem is janky. So I don’t buy Android devices.

Stop whining, just stop buying from the company store.

You fail to define what the legitimate issues are.

They have no real hardware or store monopoly, Android still out numbers them in install base.

Legally it’s undecided at all. This is essentially complaining Walmart and Target use different means of revenue generation for placing product.

Maybe Microsoft can get a phone and store off the ground that has a bigger install base. Oh wait. Maybe app sellers should have heeded the warnings when app stores launched about this exact problem!

Just because you and others don’t feel good about it doesn’t mean it’s legitimate.

App sellers have a legitimate issue with Apple after choosing to go all in knowing how it works.

They choose to go "all in" because it is literally the only option to get an app on the devices of ~58% of smartphone owners in the United States. They don't have a choice, they literally have to accept it in this market. Even in other markets where they don't control the majority, it's still a massive portion of the market.

It's hard to imagine how the precedent established by not forcing change here would be desired by anyone. We're not far from a world where basically all of the software you can consume, how you can consume it, and even the price of it, is effectively determined (or at least heavily influenced) by one of 3 companies. We're not talking about just the services those companies offer, we're talking about all of the software services that any company wants to offer.

The cost of building a new operating system in the modern age is incredibly prohibitive, such that we're unlikely to see any meaningful competition in the form of alternatives here. Even if such a project were to happen, they'd have to overcome the incredible inertia secured from walled garden that the major players have built for their own ecosystems.

They do have a choice, it's called a Web App.

If I want to be on “Survivor”, I don’t have much choice but to apply to CBS to be on “Survivor”. They control the whole show, I’m literally a pawn in their game. I wish I wasn’t born into this. Oh woe.

Apple sells you hardware, but then tries to upsell, by offering apps through AppStore. The solution here seems to be:

Jailbreak your iPhone and start installing applications from other sources. If Apple tries to stop that then you can sue them that they deny you rights to use something that you legally own (the iPhone).

The only downside here is: I would have a hard time trusting an app from outside the AppStore.

"Whining" is always prejudicial. You can define it as "Complaining about something you refuse to take steps to remedy" but that doesn't make it any less prejudicial. It's like "reasons" versus "excuses": Do you have a reason or are you trying to give me excuses? I know that I always have reasons even if the same words coming from you would be excuses.

> This echoes the "if you don't like it so much then just leave instead of speaking up" dismissal that is so commonly used as a lampshade for suppressing dissent.

Apple is suppressing dissent by not caring what their users and developers are saying. There is no path forwards from speaking up other than a boycott, because Apple isn't going to listen to you.

Apple has a monopoly on iOS. Google has a monopoly on Android. Neither has a monopoly on PostmarketOS.

I doubt you'll be successful in convincing the DOJ that Apple needs to be broken up on that basis.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com