Hacker News Reader

Comment by NoblePublius | Hacker News Reader

I think it’s super unfair that I am not allowed to set up a lemonade stand inside of Walmart for free. Monopolistic, even.

View on HN

Would this change at all if Walmart was the only store allowed to operate in an area corresponding to about half the US population?

Would it change at all if that half of the population chose to live there, knowing Walmart was the only store allowed to operate?

Would it change even further if people moved there BECAUSE Walmart was the only store that was allowed to operate?

And since someone will ask "why would you want that?". The analogy won't completely work, but I'll go with it. When my son wants to buy a bike, they go off and bike a bike. I can be sure that they bought it at Walmart, and that Walmart has done some work to make sure the bike is safe for my son.

If I don't have that, then maybe he buys a bike at "Joe's bike shop". Maybe that bike was made poorly in China. I don't know that the bike he bought was safe.

I mean, https://www.cnet.com/news/just-as-critics-feared-fortnite-fo.... And, what do you know, Sweeney was mad at Google for finding it.

It's definitely a valid point. I've made the comment before that one of the problems of a more open App platform is that Facebook would replicate their malicious app advertising business on iOS and millions of people would have worse experiences with their phone because of it. It's ridiculous the stuff they're willing to push ads for on Android and Google are willing to host on their store, and it's no loss to iOS that suchs apps aren't available.

But a lemonade stand in a Walmart wouldn't necessarily harm consumers, and lots of things Apple blocks or requires a cut of wouldn't either if things were changed.

I apologize in advance for stretching the analogy so far here. But going back to my example, my son now goes into Walmart for a lemonade. The Lemonade stand is half the price, so he goes there. How do I know the lemonade isn't poisoned? Made with peanuts and not labeled as such? etc.. The argument would be that he doesn't have to go there, but that's easier said than done. I go to Walmart because I know that they verify their products.

Going back to an iPhone, the answer is usually "you don't have to use any other app stores". But what about if I _do_? What if I have to use the new Coronavirus test that requires an app? And the only way to get the app is to install Abbott's app store? Are you guaranteed that they aren't also consuming all your health information?

My view would be different if Android didn't exist, or if iPhone had a much higher market share. But for now, I'm happy to pay extra to be in the walled garden, because I trust the king of the castle to try to protect me (as opposed to figuring out who to trust out on the street).

This analogy implies that when you buy a thousand dollars phone, you don't actually own it. Which is kinda true and it's depressing.

The difference is "relevant market" concept.

For physical marketplace we should define relevant geographic market. A relevant geographic market is the area where they the conditions of competition are sufficiently homogeneous. For buying lemonade it's not the case that consumers can reasonably only shop inside Walmart.

I agree.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com