Hacker News Reader

Comment by germandiago | Hacker News Reader

I am against regulations but I still find these practices anticompetitive.

Not sure what the conclusion should be here.

On one side this runs on Apple platform:"it is my platform, I rule it".

On the other hand, they have a de-facto position to abuse by just kicking out companies at will to enlarge their businesses and monoplolize them...

I wish there was choice beyond Apple and Android. I am myself starting to look for alternatives. Espcially because of privacy concerns. Things like these at the end go against us customers.

View on HN

> I am against regulations but I still find these practices anticompetitive

I really don't know how anyone can see this sort of crap and say they're against regulations. The market obviously isn't fixing itself, do you have any other solution?

Whats the point of market fixing itself in this situation?

"Market fixing itself" describe relationships between consumer and supplier. In this case "consumer" is better off so seems like market works as intended.

Developer's being f-ed over is sad thing but unless the situation for developers is so bad that they abandon App Store in troves then nothing will fix anything.

Also one could argue that overall situation is pretty-pleasing for everyone, apps that do not go into Apple's territory (system stuff) seem to be thriving and don't complain too much.

I'd rather them not to regulate it because they start with Apple and end up killing shareware and everything else. Who knows what kind of crazy stuff they'll invent for open source, can they outlaw it? I'd rather them to not even start.

> In this case "consumer" is better off so seems like market works as intended.

How is the consumer better off when a choice for them has been removed? If Apple's keyboard is superior, then consumers will automatically chose that and not buy this guy's software. How is this "nanny state" behaviour by Apple justified?

I assumed that they get this option for free instead of buying an app and less stuff to install generally.

If Apple's option is worse (which I doubt, at least for English) and/or original app is free then probably consumer suffers a bit. But if consumer is worse off then it is better because AFAIK American anti-monopoly system focuses on consumer's well-being so the more examples of consumer being worse off the easier to attract courts and regulators, isn't it?

But I get a warm fuzzy feeling if the market does fix itself!

then the topic would shift to who regulates the regulator.

And there are very EVIL incentives in having regulators. More free market is a way better solution.

I agree it is a shitshow.But it is also true that these companies created products. What does a regulator do? Regulate and having incentives to regulate in certain directions (come on we all have seen that). However they bring zero value to people (unlike Apple, for example, with all its defects)

There are sooo many absurd regulations that prevent people from building businesses or even working that Ithink we should start there. And later, and only later talk aboutthe rest.

Just my two cents.

Besides the rain of negatives I am getting, something I expected, it seems I got a negative in this last reply.

It seems that regulators would be kind of gods where there is nothing else to say about it.

I am still waiting for a real, logical reply to who regulates regulators.

After all, we live in an overregulated world where people always complain about corporations.

However, much of this power is accumulated through lobbying to legislators. Do you people really think that regulating MORE is better?

I bet this is not the good way to go...

Again, just my two cents from my intellectually honest (I can be wrong, of course) analysis by seeing what I see day by day.

Also another note is that I believe sooner or later regulators will come after them.

And after what they've shown today they'll have only themselves to blame and what they've shown today.

Unfortunately whole community will suffer because of them being insufferably arrogant.

I see it another way: It's already got regulations to protect powerful people. Either remove those, or grant protections to everyone else, too.

What those people are really saying is that the regulations that exist are the ones they want, and no more.

For me "The market will fix itself" is just a neoliberal lie, no amount of repeating it will make it true. <edit>Sadly many people believe people who speak with conviction. A family member shared similar crap (oh noes, i will have to pay more for gas) in a private group</edit>

History has shown over and over that left to their own devices people will act in their own self interest. And from a biological point of view it would even be the correct thing to do IMHO. But we ain't running hungry through the wilderness no more. A win-win would be better for everyone.

I think inequality creates fear. Even in those who profit, the fear of loosing their wealth. There was a case of a town in the US, were the population was pretty homogenous, their culture forbade the flaunting of wealth, so everybody acted humble and even dressed the same. Then the younger generation went to college out of town, came back with a differnt mindset. Pools were built, cars bought, inequality made obvious for everyone to see. What happenend? Cases of heart disease were low before, but rose afterwards. Found a link: https://www.unimedliving.com/living-medicine/illness-and-dis...

(edit) formatting

it is not my position. Nothing to do with neoliberalism the fact that regulating also has evil incentives. We live in a regulated world where many corporations have de-facto privilege because of overregulation yet people ask for more regulation.

It is as if I am a soldier and hit you and you ask for an army to feel safer on the basis that "soldiers should be good in theory, they are here to protect us"and u see it again and again and ignore the facts.

Sorry if i gave you the impression i accuse you of that. That was not my intention.

Well, even if regulation has loopholes for bad actors, is it better to live in a world without it?

a world with fewer regulations makes way more difficult monopolies and privileges through more free competition. The problem is when someone pretends to be capitalist and regulates for friends (crony capitalism). What if they did not have the power to do it? Then it would be clearly better. Our world reached development in an environment with very little regulation. Now they are trying to regulate everything. Later we need welfare blabla and lots of stuff. Some people pay and others take it. Bc u have all kind of rules. Derregulating means let people do. If people can earn a life without this creators of scarcity I am prerty sure that we would need far fewer social helps and would have cheaper services. This uswd to be the trend. We are breaking it... Bad news.

This is not what we want? I want that.

Doesn't the market fix it? I don't have such issues on Android, that's why I don't buy Apple.

Most customers just don't care about any of that, so they continue to buy Apple.

because alternatives are even more evil. Just go to socialist countries and told me what they achieved besides oppression and poverty.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com