Hacker News Reader

Comment by SeanLuke | Hacker News Reader

I don't think he's saying that it'd be good if Apple and Google did that. He's saying they should have done that if they had had their strategic thinking caps on.

View on HN

The fact that these two things are different is the problem with corporate America. The morally correct thing is always the better thing for shareholders in the long-run, but corporations don't see it that way.

> The morally correct thing is always the better thing for shareholders in the long-run

Are you asserting that this is the case in reality, or that we should strive for a society and economic system in which this would be true?

Both. I think that when corporations do exploitative things, they are being short-sighted, and will eventually suffer in the long run.

And really what I would advocate for is stricter regulations so we don't have to rely on the good will of corporations in general. Their track record is terrible.

The thing is this "long run" is a hypothetical for investors and their finite lifetimes and finite windows of return.

Companies aren't accountable to some infinitely long running algorithm or timeless dynasty of shareholders, they are accountable to living breathing greedy humans who want to make a buck NOW, not when they are dead or for their heirs.

Right, hence we need to regulate the hell out of them.

That's my take too on what poster is saying.

Yet, it's not out of the ordinary to presume apple and google have good strategists among the management ranks... so what gives? What do we not know?

Presumably, that they already do volume discounts/sweetheart deals with certain vendors. Apple allows Microsoft to publish packages through their App Store that install non-sandboxed apps, for example. I’m sure they’re giving them a discount as well. They’re a “strategic partner.” Epic is not.

Which apps does MS do this with? Office is a bundle, right?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com