Hacker News Reader

Comment by kanobo | Hacker News Reader

Apple and Google are similar to China and America. Apple has more restrictive policies within a walled garden. Google gives more freedoms but its platform is wild and open. It's easy for Apple to take advantage of Google's ecosystem and open policies, but very difficult for Google to do the same to Apple. It's similar to how US companies don't get a fair shake in China. And in both, the citizens get taken advantage of and the little people have no power. Did any of what I just said make any sense?

View on HN

While one can draw parallels to all sorts of things the question is whether that makes the original situation clearer or offers any insights. In this case it doesn't, it's just a cutesy yet pointless way of expressing something.

It's not the work of a high intellect, but I don't think it's fair to proclaim it as pointless. Most creative output, such as modern art and especially stand-up comedy is all about making parallels - it's up to the viewer to decide if it provides any insights for themselves or provokes discussion. You might as well disregard all creative activity and thought using your argument.

It certainly forces one to compare personal stances on A and B, possibly leading to a change of stance in order to resolve conflicts.

Fascinating analogy.

Given the fundamental differences between corporations and governments (and the span of control they have over people’s lives) I do not believe this analogy can be used for any useful inference.

It’s almost as if this example with app stores is an incredibly specific, narrow example, and government control in this way is incredibly broad in impact (I.e. life or death, end of the actual world etc).

Did any of that make any sense?

> Given the fundamental differences between corporations and governments

I disagree with that line. I feel like people are desperate for there to be a difference based on some 9th grade civics class, or because an animated anthropomorphic piece of paper sang to them about bills in elementary school.

The British East India company had the power to jail and kill, for centuries.

The Head of the Executive Branch is the CEO of government agencies.

Anything is possible.

Very interesting comment.

The statement was written with the lens of very different goals (corporations maximize profit within the context of selling goods and services where governments - usually, serve the people sufficiently to maintain control & power over its people by being “great leaders”).

Corporations usually sell goods and services, but do not have control over individuals most fundamental rights including those of freedom, health or even life - like governments often do. Corporations also rarely have militaries nor are the final backstop for when disagreements occur.

Your example is interesting because it compares probably the most government like corporation to ever exist (the Dutch East India Company) and the most “nurfed” head of state by most metrics to ever exist (I.e. the least powerful relative to power of the nation - the American President, while being the head of the largest economically and most powerful country, role by role is quite restricted and limited in scope and control by design of the founding fathers).

> Corporations usually sell goods and services, but do not have control over individuals most fundamental rights including those of freedom, health or even life - like governments often do.

And yet in the U.S., your health care and pension is often tied to your employment at a corporation. For some people, for example those on work visa, having employment in a particular corporation is tied to living in the same country.

Vice versa, a democratic government has less control over your life than you might think.

And if we look at things like free speech - I can freely criticize the government but criticizing the corporation is often difficult.

> I can freely criticize the government but criticizing the corporation is often difficult.

What do you mean by this?

Google is a smoking pile of dumpster fires filled with turds.

Should I now expect Google agents to come to my house and disappear my family and I?

I come from a former communist country. Non-existence of free speech didn't always mean that somebody will disappear you. It might also have meant that you lose your cushy job and get a less cushy job. Which is not really all that different from what can happen if you openly criticize the CEO of your corporation, even internally.

The British East India company was a government actor. It’s silly to consider them otherwise simply because it was technically a “joint-stock company.” It was part of the government. Wikipedia even notes:

> Originally chartered as the "Governor and Company of Merchants of London Trading into the East-Indies"

> It was part of the government.

It was not. It did not answer to Parliament, only to its shareholders. It has the best of both worlds though, because many powerful MPs were shareholders. So they got govt protection without govt oversight.

You're definitely focusing on the wrong bit.

There are two important differences:

1) Head of Executive branch is limited by law (constitution, etc). CEO is not limited

2) The Raison d'être of government, at least de iure, is to do good for its citizens, while the raison d'être of corporation is to make money.

That makes them very different - not a lot of people would object to removal of nonproductive employees or customers, but many would (I hope!) object removal (through whatever means) of "nonproductive" citizens.

It's amazing the mental gymnastics people will go through to justify their own beliefs.

If it has the power to jail and kill, that'll make it much more like a government than you like to admit.

so therefore any corporation that has the power to jail and kill is no longer a corporation and cannot pollute the distinction? paradoxical.

US slave trading firms were government agencies folks.

I'm sure we can find some modern example if we dig deep enough.

I would normally agree with you and in fact I do still agree, but the lines are becoming uncomfortably blurred.

The enormous power that these two global corporations - Apple and Google - have over the livelihoods of so many developers and content producers is unprecedented. Each of them can wipe out the value of your professional skills over night.

For many people these corporations are without alternative. It's no longer a voluntary business relationship.

In Apple's case, the side-loading ban interacts with authoritarian government in a way that clearly threatens human rights. But at least on that particular issue consumers still have a choice.

It’s harder to draw a government corporate distinction while replying to a comment specifically mentioning China and the US?

Are the big Chinese tech companies independent of their government? And are the US companies exploring bidding for tiktok etc doing so because the US government is coercing them?

I think you are saying that they are right, but also very, very wrong?

Here's something many HNers might be unaware of. China has several App Stores for Android, but only Chinese companies are allowed to list apps. Yup, completely closed to outside competition.

The only appropriate response really is to close markets to Chinese companies until they open up theirs (without unreasonable restrictions on free speech).

Do you have any proof for that? I have a Huawei App Gallery account for mainland china and I can find apps from American companies that have access to the Chinese market (Microsoft, Apple). The Microsoft Teams app is not region locked since I can use it with my UK university account.

https://imgur.com/a/m0UpsKt

I think the western world hoped China would open up over the past 20 years.. unfortunately that strategy has become a spectacular failure

Would it have been such a failure without the election of Trump?

I do think the underlying problems existed before him. For instance, the west allowed all manufacturing eggs to be put in China's basket for over 30 years without diversifying sourcing. Another example is that China insists you venture with a local company to do business there yet I htink it's very rare (or non-existent) in other countries.

It seems to me that failure and a real reversal of the course China was on started from 2012 when Xi got power, so yes. Could have happened anyways of course but the change was drastic and clear from that point on.

I agree with your timeline.

Do you not think that the second half of that period, when Trump has been president, that he may have contributed to the problem by providing an opportuniy for Xi Jinping?

I don't think Trump (or anyone, really) would have had much impact on China's internal politics during that period, and opening up is very much an internal matter. It's generally hard at this point to see external pressures (small as they are) having much impact at all.

I don't deny that Trump has potentially enabled Xi to make some moves faster and bolder. But those moves would likely have happened anyway and on the bright side it's maybe easier for the world to see what's going with the lies being so obvious nowadays.

Xi Jinping's actions are only minorly influenced by Trump. China are on a 100 year strategy. Trump's Presidency is a tactical curiosity at best.

Yes. China didn't change its behaviour toward more openness before Trump. Trump forced the conflict about this into the open in his usual charming way. But there was no opening process that Trump interrupted.

So you don't think China became more open at any point between Nixon and the present day?

Trump has only been in power for a few years, so it’s really nothing to do with him. There are enough things we can legitimately lay at his door without making stretches like that.

So strange to be downvoted for asking a question, where a generous reading would be that I was genuinely asking it.

I think the aggressive stance of China coincides with the election of Xi Jinping in 2013, seven years ago. Trump has been in power for 3.5 years, so that's half of this time period. So it certainly _could_ be something to do with Trump.

My question was whether if would have been _such_ a failure.

It seems to me that both Trump and Xi Jinping have benefitted from the trade wars and diplomatic arguments between the countries. There seems little doubt that the Trump administration has given Xi Jinping a window of opportunity where he has been able to consolidate power and conduct aggressive foreign policy... so I genuinely wonder: how important has Trump's disastrous leadership been in the failure of this policy?

Yes, I dislike and disagree with him but it's ridiculous how everything is automatically his fault and a wrong position just because Trump supported it.

So you're saying that Trump takes no share of the blame for the failure of this policy?

Pretty much, it was obvious it faied before he even got in to office.

yes

> The only appropriate response really is to close markets to Chinese companies until they open up theirs (without unreasonable restrictions on free speech).

No, putting up your own barriers doesn't help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holly_smoot_tariff_act

Barriers are barriers, it doesn't matter who put them up, you should do your best to reduce them.

The idea that a person’s country of origin, where all laws and political dynamics are compulsory at birth, is somehow equivalent to the luxury item that is an iPhone is... bananas. Me thinks you stretch too far.

Edit: ‘equivalent‘ should be ‘comparable’... obviously the OP is not saying they are equivalent.

" is somehow equivalent to the luxury item that is an iPhone"

A mobile phone is not a 'luxury' - it's almost an essential good these days.

Even without that, an iPhone doesn't meet the criteria of 'luxury good'. It's just a little more expensive.

Android and iOS have an important market locked down, it's time for some basic regulation.

A little more expensive isn't an accurate description.

I have a 200€ xiaomi phone (redmi note 4) that works very well and I have little to no complaints.

An iPhone costed 4-5 times that amount when I bought my phone, and does essentially the same things. But it's shinier.

Yes, the iPhone is a luxury good.

Edit, just to clarify: I have used an iPhone for an extended period of time (company issued): yes, the iPhone pretty much does the same thing as an android phone, maybe a little less.

Products or services that are consumed in quantities by broad classes of individuals, generally are not a luxury goods.

A more specific definition [1]

FYI there are tons of mobiles in the iPhone price range.

Ferraris, yachts, bespoke suits, exclusive trips to Antartica, private engagements with former Presidents, a closet full of Gucci - luxury goods.

Due to the sophisticated nature of mobile tech, there are really no such thing as 'luxury goods' in that category, because he market size would be far too small to support the massive R&D effort. Which is why Bang & Olufsun don't make phones.

Of course Apple definitely takes cues from luxury good makers in their marketing.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_goods#:~:text=In%20econ....

For starters it shares less data with Google by default and is not subsidised by privacy invasion.

> Did any of what I just said make any sense?

No.

We don't need bizzaro metaphors when the situation is easy to discuss on its own terms.

lol, Googles platform is "wild and open"? Oh boy, you have never experienced the Windows phone/mobile app store...

Yes.. You're right.

Maybe.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com