Hacker News Reader

Comment by tw04 | Hacker News Reader

So Microsoft should be able to kill off Steam/etc. and then and force all publishers to post to the Microsoft Store?

After all, you're free to install MacOS or BeOS if you don't like it.

That's ignoring the fact that forcing Apple to allow other App stores in NO WAY makes you less secure. Just because you CAN use another app store doesn't mean you HAVE TO.

View on HN

That’s a bit extreme... Microsoft also shouldn’t start killing people, but that’s aside from the point. Let’s unpack some of the differences between Apple here and the MS example:

Apple always had this model. From the start... So people who bought into the ecosystem did it fully able to understand the system. This isn’t some creepy unexpected recent change... if someone doesn’t like this system then they should (past/present/future) put on their person pants and buy a different phone. I use Linux and Mac specifically because I didn’t like the way Microsoft was doing things. I didn’t start a movement to somehow legislate handcuffs to force Microsoft to address my whims, I just voted with my time, attention, and wallet.

And yes, do think others are free to chose too and should own their choices. If Apple stops providing me the best avenue to the things I want then I will switch. But right now I want ease of use, and the most confidence that things will just work and work well. I want this in the hardware, the OS, and the apps... and I think Apple provides that best. If my needs change, or their ability to meet those needs changes, then I will move to the place that does it best then...

Regarding the “don’t HAVE to use it” argument... I humbly suggest it’s irrelevant. They don’t have a monopoly so we don’t have a public overriding interest in messing with them. I’m saying that I don’t give a hoot about them having a side store: I want to quickly and confidently find the best apps to fill the needs I have. I will pay for the ability to do it as time has value. After that need is met, not much else has value and so I’m (personally) happy in the store. I’ll also suggest that Apple’s success says that a healthy number of people agree. This leads me to think that all the people who want to better sell crap to me that I don’t want are showing a bit of a case of “sour grapes”.

So your reasoning is: there's a duopoly, not a monopoly, so each of the players should be able to act like a monopoly?

That's maybe the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. And saying "well they've always done this bad thing so there's no reason they should stop" is ridiculous on its face. There are countless examples in history of a company taking an action that was permitted when they were a minor player that is banned as they grow.

The fact that the US government has become criminally complicit in their refusal to enforce the Sherman act doesn't suddenly make the behavior they're ignoring OK.

This is literally textbook violation: Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony

You don't have to strictly have a monopoly to break the law.

Every one talks about MONOpoly, not DUOpoly, for a reason. But lets back up and just use the more generally used “anti-trust”. The law (in the US) is basically if you either a) collude with competitors to price-fix or restrict trade, or b) own so much of the market that your price is price fixing and there is no/little unrestricted trade, then you a violating anti-trust law. There is a similar intent in other places and the bar is placed higher or lower.

If you have the choice to buy phones which use one of several app stores, then you have choice in app stores. You also can’t install a Corvette engine in a Toyota Corolla but I don’t see everyone screaming about that. If you want a Corvette engine I do know the car you can chose in order to get it.

And yes, two non-colluding choices is choice. People aren’t suggesting that Apple and Google are all buddy buddy so there is choice. I suggest we all make one we are happy with and move on. =)

For the Corolla vs Corvette example, Toyota allows you to open the hood and take the toyota engine out. The screws are all standards and tools are available to get parts you need to take the engine out. If you had the tools to fit the Corvette engine in place, you are allowed to do it. You could build your own custom engine as well and put it there. We can put a lot of after market stuff in our cars, replace tires, wheels or even engine if we want to. WE own the car fully.

With the App Store case, they don't allow you to open the hood, unscrew and take out the apple app store and put an alternate app store. While Jailbreaking is legal, you need to use a hack to open up your iPhone and Apple actively plugs those holes in the next versions.

I'm not seeing how a market with 2 choices is dramatically more competitive than one.

You say people don't talk about duopolies, but they certainly talk about oligopolies.

You are proving my point. I actually CAN install a Corvette engine in a Toyota Corolla (and it's been done), in fact I can install literally any engine I want. TOYOTA won't do it FOR me, but they'll let me do whatever I want because it's my car. I don't know why people such as yourself defend manufacturers from restricting what you can do with a device bought and paid for. It's not theirs, it's yours.

https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a30777891/ls1-v8-sw...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com