Hacker News Reader

Comment by simonh | Hacker News Reader

Who says the iPhone is a general platform? It’s not, it’s a closed platform with specific features designed and implemented by its manufacturer. One of those features is a mechanism for installing additional software modules.

What is an open platform and how does it get defined? Installing software is a feature implemented by the manufacturer. Should we really be requiring Apple or any manufacturer, by law, to implement specific defined features to support and enable side loading and management of external apps. Who gets to define those features and say which products should or shouldn’t have them? Who gets to certify compliance? Who gets to specify open as a technical standard that can actually be implemented?

If this had been done in the 80s, we’d probably still be stuck with consoles having an 80s style cartridge slot on them, with specs written in legislation and updatable only by government committee.

View on HN

I think this is a great point. We could be opening pandora's box here from a number of perspectives including the security aspect of things. This issue of app stores is not as cut and dry as people are making it out to be.

Secondly, you can "side load" iOS apps as well. You just have to go through a process of jailbreaking your iPhone which is not illegal but it may void the warranty.

When you buy the iPhone you are also buying into the platform. If having multiple options for app stores is a necessity for you then an iPhone is the wrong device to purchase. Buy something else. There is nothing wrong with voting with your wallet as there are other phones on the market for people to buy.

I have no problem with people jail breaking their devices, which they own. In fact I did exactly that on several phones and an iPod touch back in the day when I handed down some of my devices to relatives in China.

This isn't really an option if you actually want iOS apps. It's an all-or-nothing play by Apple: accept all our rules, including the ones that greatly limit you, or get none of the benefits of iOS, including the large collection of high-quality apps. And the option of jailbreaking really isn't an option either. Apple does its best to prevent jailbreaking: they'd stop it outright if they could. This is their way of keeping that market unpleasant, small, and marginal.

The argument is that that approach is anti-competitive and unfair, especially since Apple itself gets a large cut of app sales.

I'm not coming down hard on either side, just yet. But I don't like the feel of this sort of lock-in, and almost no one would question the use of a term like "lock-in." Some lock-in is surely legal, even if almost always unpleasant. But it's only a hop, skip and a jump to full-fledged antitrust.

You go to Target looking to buy a Walmart-brand bottle of bleach. Is that anti-competitive?

Heading out but you pick up a few PC games. By the way, Target was paid to put those up on the shelf.

Grab a Sony Playstation gift card. They get a percentage of that as well.

At checkout, you sign up of the Target bank card save 10%. They get a nice initial chunk from that and the bank running that card pays a monthly percent to Target for sending them over their customer.

(don't look into the publishing companies' tactics cause that will send you over the edge)

> Who says the iPhone is a general platform? It’s not, it’s a closed platform with specific features designed and implemented by its manufacturer. One of those features is a mechanism for installing additional software modules.

Apple themselves? Part of their marketing is literally that you can do everything on their devices.

> Should we really be requiring Apple or any manufacturer, by law, to implement specific defined features to support and enable side loading and management of external apps.

I can't see why not, the mobile app market has terrible competition, there's a big market issue here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com