Apple and Google are poor stewards of the mobile app distribution market. It's time that their 13+ year stranglehold on app distribution is disrupted.
Yet here we are, in 2021, and Apple won't even allow you to install software on the device you own without their say-so. There are admittedly other browsers on the app store, but they all must use Safari's rendering engine.
To maintain this monopoly Microsoft employed tactics like offering discounts if OEMs promised exclusivity. Basically punishing any manufacturer that might want to ship another operating system. My read on the browser verdict was that this was what the justice department thought was sufficiently low-hanging fruit to convict Microsoft. But it was far from the only anticompetitive tactic Microsoft used at the time. "DOS ain't done till Lotus won't run"[2]
[1] I'm ignoring exotic stuff like SGI workstations that were priced out of reach of typical consumers.
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10434133
Edit: Here's an example. In 2002 Dell started offering PCs without Windows pre-installed[2] - this was considered a big deal in the linux forums I hung out in. Why? Because until then you had to pay Microsoft to own a PC (practically the only consumer computing hardware available at the time), even if you wanted to install Linux on it. This is like if nearly every phone had to come with iOS pre-installed (and Apple collected a licensing cut), even if you wanted to install/use Android.
[3] https://www.computerworld.com/article/2577666/dell-offering-...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/25/technology/apple-google-s...
You think Google is going to piss off Apple too much with Android? Not likely.
> A forced breakup could mean the loss of easy money to Apple. But it would be a more significant threat to Google, which would have no obvious way to replace the lost traffic. It could also push Apple to acquire or build its own search engine.
So I would definitely argue that the future of Android and iPhone are intertwined.
> an abuse of Microsoft's market position
Apple has no such market position to abuse.
It's perfectly legal to put restrictions on your product. It's perfectly legal to be a monopoly. It's only a problem when you abuse your monopoly position to restrict competitors.
It depends how you want to measure things, in US iOS has more then 50% mobile market share but Apple fanboys will use only this numbers (or how many more purchases are on Apple sore) in the conversations about how cool Apple is, when we talk about the monopoly/duopoly then world wide numbers are used, maybe throw more type of devices in there...
I would say that Apple is clearly anti-competitive, not allowing other browsers, giving their own apps access to private APIs, their own apps ignoring the users firewall and security rules etc, but judges will have to decide on this and if they still consider is legal we might need to update some laws .
IMO the society is more important then a company, so if we decide that we no longer want this bullshit we will advocate and hopefully have the issue corrected.
The Apple situation looks to me similar to when mobile providers would lock phones to their network, then charge you to unlock them, this was made illegal , if you own your phone then the unlock should be possible for free, exception is if you are still renting/paying for the device so you are not owning it fully.
Also judge rejected comparison of open and closed platforms. So she asked Epic lawyers what's the difference between Apple's closed platform and Xbox/PlayStation and Nintendo.
Epic lawyers failed badly without answering. Also failed to answer question when did Apple become monopoly.
That sort of puts it into the realm of a utility; like power or water.
The idea of a utility, is that it is deliberately allowed to become a monopoly, sometimes, with state enforcement. The flip side, is that it is now required to provide a lot of services.
For example, if some old folks can't pay their electric, in winter, the utility might be required to supply them with electricity anyway, and eat the cost, or claim it as a tax deduction.
That's the downside. The upside is...MONOPOLY, BABY! WOO-HOO! PAAAARTAAAY!
So there's a big carrot, as well as stick. People who own utilities tend to get pretty damn rich.
This all kinda breaks down, if the utility is already a monopoly, so the state assigning them monopoly status means nothing. No carrot; only stick. It also breaks down, if the utility manages to corrupt the regulators, thus eliminating the stick.
Facebook is already a monopoly. It doesn't need the state to give it anything; certainly not with a stick, attached. Thus, the "Standard Oil" remedy.
Apple isn't quite like Facebook, but it's getting there. The problem is that a lot of what gives its products value, is that iron-fisted control Apple has over their configuration. If that control is diluted, then it would also reduce the value of Apple products.
Not in any meaningful sense that I can understand. Seems hard to argue that all the people on HN who've plainly stated that they left Facebook can be considered dead or struggling to survive. That's not a sensible definition of survival. Also, Facebook cannot and does not prevent anyone from reaching its users. Facebook users often use other products and platforms as well.
I ran an open-source initiative for ten years, barely making headway.
Then I set up a Facebook group for it.
Within a few months, its reach had exploded worldwide, it became the de facto world standard, and a huge new team had taken it over.
It was not all Facebook, but the Facebook presence was a big part of it. It’s the most active hub for that effort by far.
Also, due to the nature of that particular effort, I guarantee that there are people (probably many) that are alive today, because of Facebook.
It’s entirely possible to hop in a sailboat, and get to Hawai’i, but most people would prefer flying there.
It can be said that Hawai’i requires air travel to “survive” (but I suspect that there are a number of native Hawai’ian folks that feel as if this ease of access has been anything but a blessing).
I appreciate your story but open source projects don't inherently deserve to survive. Businesses don't inherently deserve to survive.
More importantly, the fact that Facebook can and has saved lives doesn't make it necessary for survival either. I'm sure a Taylor Swift song has brought someone back from the brink of suicide and indirectly saved lives by some definition, but it would be absurd to consider Taylor Swift songs to be a public utility necessary for survival.
But, the project I worked on is definitely not something to be compared to a Taylor Swift song, and I understand that this comes from a position of unfamiliarity. That's fine, but I'm happy to elucidate, offline, if you wish.
It's the kind of thing that is best left relatively "uncredited," and is important only to a certain demographic; but within that demographic, it is very, very important.
Like what Spotify is suing them over, for example.
Anyone is free to buy an iPhone, install apps on it, and resell it.
The point was that Microsoft were giving Internet Explorer away for free, pre installed with Windows. This abused the market dominance of Windows to expand use of Internet Explorer.
The other anti-trust claims against MS were I think largely credible and reasonable, but that one really has not aged well.
It's not though. Chrome OS is literally Linux. You can install Firefox.
Do all chromebooks support linux apps now? AFAIK that's not true, and only a subset of them support it.
It's not rebadged Debian. The default Linux in Chrome OS is literally Debian. It has apt, bash, Wayland, X11. And of course the Linux kernel is there. What more do you want before you call it Linux?
> Do all chromebooks support linux apps now?
According to this page all 2019+ Chromebooks support Linux apps: https://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/chrome-os-systems-suppo...
I agree, but I don't think that you're making the point you wanted to.
An open ecosystem does have advantages, but reducing scam apps and malware is not one of them.
People are complaining about a small number of bad apps getting through and at the same time we have quite a few stating that not allowing people to load up anything they want is bad. Can you imagine trying to sort through the mess if there was no gate keeper because there is an actual chance if people get their legislative wish list through.
Even if you could get an independent system up and running who is going to pay for it? The staffing is going to be very large and who determines what is a good app and what is not?
I am all for Apple having and managing their store by their rules. While I think it is dumber than all get out to allow for people to install any app they find I am certainly not going to stand in their way as long as the companies which make the phones and provide the software are fully protected from such a choice. After all if a rogue app does something bad who do you think the lawyers will come for?
[0]https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/09/24/app-store-rejecte...
Since it seems that Apple can't handle the problem they've delegated to themselves exclusively, and they prevent parties that might be better suited to solve it from solving it, they should allow the power of markets and competition to develop better, more efficient solutions. That way, consumers don't have to suffer while Apple insists that they're the only company allowed to serve the app distribution market as their customers are being scammed to the tune of several million dollars, or more, each month.
Is this a serious question? The answer is: by hiring people. Lots of them. Apple has over $200 billion just in cash in the bank.
There's this area that can only be reached by crossing one of two bridges. The first bridge you encounter when you leave the starting town is guarded by a rude and aggressive troll. The bridge is a mess, falling apart, and he charges an expensive toll if you want to pass.
But if you explore for a bit instead of paying, you'll find another bridge with another troll, except this troll is super polite, soft-spoken and friendly, the bridge is very neat and tidy, and his toll is like 10x cheaper. He even thanks you for your patronage when you pay him.
When you encounter the mean troll again, he'll offer you a reward if you kill the other troll.
Apple charging 30% for a scam/malware-infested store, and keeping the profits rather than reinvesting them to try and actually improve the store makes them the first troll in this story.