Ask HN: Why force Apple to make changes when you can just use something else? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Why force Apple to make changes when you can just use something else?

2 points5ESS14 comments

If you don’t like Apple’s payment processing system/ App Store 30% cut, why don’t you just use a different platform? Why should Apple have to be forced by government interference to change its systems to accommodate your demands when numerous competing platforms exist? If you don’t like something, use something else. No one one this planet is being forced to use Apple products or operating system when many alternatives exist.

View on HN

Oh, I didn't know that they are that numerous. Which numerous can you name? How many of them are mature and could be used with the modern expectations for usage with popular apps and services? How many of them have terms that are significantly different from the Apple's ones?

I could name two dozen Linux distos that can support a 4g modem, a touch screen, a desktop environment with an app launcher, a web browser, and the capability to install arbitrary software packages. but it would be a waste of time because anyone reading this is probably already familiar with several popular Linux distros. PinePhone is the proof of concept that first comes to mind and there is no reason it’s software for SMS/telephony cant be ported to most any other disto.

> usage with popular apps and services

Isn’t a fair question, because the onus of supporting these “popular apps” isn’t on the operating system maintainer, it’s on the app’s developer to release packages that are compatible. There’s no real reason popular app (Facebook, WhatsApp, Netflix etc) maintainers can’t release a working version for Linux, they just choose not to.

Look it this way. Why an ordinary user would use a phone that they cannot use with their bank or their employer in some cases? Widewine is the defacto and dejure standard for drm content playback and you must have an explicit google license to create a browser with such capabilities and there are less than half a dozen such browsers on the market. For this same reason you need Google or Apple support to have a range of other enterprise apps/services native to your platform or you need to have another means to convince those developers that they should trust your signing keys.

Add distribution to that, because in order for your platform to reach significant number of users, it should be offered by the mobile carriers with their phone plans. How many companies do you know who are willing to compete with the agreements already done by Apple and Google?

Linux distributions need lots of money in development to reach the polish of Apple and Google, they need the sales channels to be truly accessible to the mass user, and they need additional formal agreements to have their code recognized as trustworthy by big content providers who are big part of the user experience on the modern phone.

> Look it this way. Why an ordinary user would use a phone that they cannot use with their bank or their employer in some cases? Widewine is the defacto and dejure standard for drm content playback and you must have an explicit google license to create a browser with such capabilities and there are less than half a dozen such browsers on the market.

Users should be suing their banks and Google then for restricting access, not Apple.

> For this same reason you need Google or Apple support to have a range of other enterprise apps/services native to your platform or you need to have another means to convince those developers that they should trust your signing keys.

Nobody actually needs any of that junk. A secure platform/service can be delivered via HTTPS through a simple web browser. No API keys or DRM licenses necessary. It’s unnecessary fluff that users should be suing the respective organizations to remove.

> Add distribution to that, because in order for your platform to reach significant number of users, it should be offered by the mobile carriers with their phone plans. How many companies do you know who are willing to compete with the agreements already done by Apple and Google?

Sue the mobile carriers then for Anti-trust. Not Apple. This isn’t Apples fault, so why should Apple be suffering the consequences?

How do you know Apple has no responsibility for any of that ? Are you privy to all of their strategy and the deals they make with carriers and other participants. Apple is one of the richest companies in the world, it's naive to think that they aren't using their influence to further their market position.

You imagine it like suing them will resolve the issue at hand. What you miss is the concept for barrier to entry. Even without an explicit policy to ban competition (which is imho a libertarian fiction), the capital and man-hours of investment necessary to enter a market could be enormous. Even more if you want to compete with established players there. E.g. you have hundreds of carriers around the world, thousands of banks, and god only knows how many hardware configurations needing support to a 99.995% coverage of user needs. Not even counting the language barrier for dealing with them, this is overhead that nobody can afford without good backup investment and a clear path to profitability.

> the capital and man-hours of investment necessary to enter a market could be enormous

The point is this isn’t Apple’s fault so they shouldn’t be the ones punished for it. I completely disagree with the idea that if your product gets popular enough by virtue of delivering a superior experience that you then have some kind of obligation to appease the entitlement of users, or to foster growth of competitions, or to be obligated to open up your payment processor gateways to third parties resulting in cuts to your profits.

So, now you don't argue that Apple is not a part of an oligopoly, but that the oligopoly is to be cherished and protected.

Think about it.

Would we have Apple and Google if AT&T wasn't broken down almost half a century ago? What could we have if we now break Apple and Google?

I doubt that's a realistic solution for 99+% of the population. I've long used Linux exclusively on laptops/desktops and in the past I've been a Linux/Unix sysadmin but I have no idea how to go about getting a smartphone that runs Linux and works with the major carrier services or how much it would cost.

Even getting root on an Android phone is far from trivial. The last time I looked into the possibility of rooting the cheap Android phone I have I couldn't find any evidence that there was a known way to do it.

> I've long used Linux exclusively on laptops/desktops and in the past I've been a Linux/Unix sysadmin but I have no idea how to go about getting a smartphone that runs Linux and works with the major carrier services or how much it would cost.

You aren’t doing enough research or trying hard enough then. PinePhone exists. Raspberry pi+4g modem and accompanying software for SMS/telephony exists. You can find Linux phones with a simple Google search (I find Purism and PinePhone on the first search results page for ‘Linux phone’. Also plenty of Android phones can be rooted. I managed to root every Android phone I owned since I was a teenager with limited technical expertise by following some simple tutorial or another.

It isn’t Apple’s fault that the average person isn’t doing their research or trying hard enough, so why should they be suffering the consequences? This line of thought stems from entitlement. Just because Apple’s solution is so good users feel entitled to other solutions being just as good, and when they aren’t up to par, initiate litigation against Apple for providing such a high quality solution that makes others pale in comparison.

> I managed to root every Android phone I owned since I was a teenager

I suspect it depends a lot on how much you can afford to spend. The higher end models can often be rooted but have you tried rooting a sub $200 phone from Samsung or LG ?

We’re getting off topic here. This isn’t Apple’s fault and has nothing to do with them. No one is forced to use Apple products because alternatives DO exist, so they are NOT a monopoly, and therefore antitrust laws should NOT apply to them.

A duopoly is nearly as bad as a monopoly and niche solutions that < 1/1000 people actually use don't change the big picture either.

If someone doesn’t like Apple‘s system, there are at least dozens of different phone manufacturers to choose from. Anti-trust laws are written to bust monopolies, which Apple doesn’t fit the definition of in any way, shape, or form. It is a bad-faith misinterpretation/misapplication of Anti-trust laws. Just because they are a popular choice doesn’t mean that users have no other choice. If you think they are a monopoly it means you think users are forced to use their product and have no other choice. How can anyone say with a straight face that users have no other choice but to use Apple? It’s just objectively incorrect.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com