Hacker News Reader

Comment by anaisbetts | Hacker News Reader

> You don't (and shouldn't) have a "right" to develop for it on anything but Apple's terms.

That's one perspective. However I would argue that Apple is big enough, and the number of alternative platforms is small enough, that it is in the Public Interest that Apple be required by the government (aka, Us, collectively), to play by a different set of rules, rules that are decided by you know, Democracy, rather than by fiat.

View on HN

Yep, apple and google are basically a duopoly, and if you want a "normal smartphone" (basically a device, where you can get apps for your online banking, mainstream games and other content, etc.), there are basically no real alternatives.

If you think that there's enough demand for such a device to justify the expense in developing it, you should have no problems attracting investment to build it, don't you think?

Unfortunately iOS and Android have incredible lock in in addition to more than a decade head start. Just like Oracle is able to continue making $40 billion a year even though their product is ass.

That can be rephrased as "Oracle is continuing to see a return on its investment and innovation in RDBMS from the 80's into the 2000s". Why is this a bad thing?

Cashing in on regulatory capture, punitive licensing, and momentum from their now largely discontinued R&D.

Because their product sucks?

No, I'm sayin that even though it's not a monopoly, but a duopoly, they should be regulated as a monopoly, because there are no real alternatives, and the barrier to entry is really high.

You mean this couldn't possibly be a market failure?

That depends on how you define the term. If you're suggesting things are less than optimal, I'm perfectly glad to agree with you. If you're suggesting we should use the force of regulation to attempt to optimize them, you've lost me.

Who is being hurt here? Users are clearly flocking to this platform because it does what they want. Who cares that app developers are unhappy? There are lots and lots of smartphone manufacturers. It's a thriving market. Most non-technical folks don't perceive the device and the OS as separate things.

If any company wants to disrupt the market, much like Apple itself did with the iPhone, there is literally nothing stopping them.

Edit:

> rules that are decided by you know, Democracy

At what point does democracy overreach? Is there one? Isn't it "democracy in defense of liberty"?

If we are sure people like so much apple services and integration, should be no problem at all to have alternatives not even directly managed by apple (so that it won't cost anything to apple to support it, except for opening some "store api"), still most users would keep using only the integrated apple services...

or not?

Maybe users would like them even more!

The point here is that Apple itself should be able to choose when and how and to whom it open the Apple Store. It should not be compelled to do so by anyone but its own directors and shareholders. If someone wants to sell phones that don't have this limitation, they are free to seek investment and build them.

It's not reasonable to expect other app stores to build their own mobile operating systems, which is why there is momentum among lawmakers in the U.S. to pass a bill that protects the right of users to use alternative app stores and sideload apps.[1] It is unjust for Apple to use its market power in the U.S. smartphone industry (57% market share in Q4 2021)[2] to force users and developers to endure the effects of a 15-30% fee (offset by a 17.6-42.9% price increase) on the majority of revenue generated by app developers, a fee that would not survive a market where multiple app stores were able to compete for iOS users.

Apple's market share is different in the Netherlands, but strong regulations in one major market are all it takes to punch a hole in Apple's monopoly/duopoly position.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30195167

[2] https://www.counterpointresearch.com/q4-2021-us-smartphone-m...

I don't think it's reasonable for U.S. lawmakers to have an opinion on what Apple's competition should or should not be expected to do in order to compete with Apple. As I've said previously, if Apple was able to build it's own phone and OS in order to compete with RIM, and Google built its own phone and OS to compete with Apple, there's no reason why sufficient market pressure wouldn't attract the investment required to do it again. Regulation is simply forcing the situation when this pressure doesn't seem to exist. If users cared that much, they would buy Android. They don't. And since they don't, it's completely unjust for their representatives to apply force.

U.S. lawmakers are elected by U.S. citizens to represent their interests, which are not necessarily aligned with Apple's interests. In the case of Apple abusing its monopoly/duopoly power to extract higher fees from developers that are ultimately paid by users, these interests are not aligned. Lawmakers in any country have an obligation to introduce measures that prevent private companies from denying people the option of taking actions (such as sideloading) that would serve their interests, even if they would be counter to Apple's interests.

Monopolies and uncompetitive markets (such as the mobile app store duopoly in many regions) result in deadweight loss,* which hinders the growth of the economy at large. Lawmakers in any country would do well to increase their country's economic efficiency by limiting the ability of companies with high market power to distort the market. Uncompetitive markets are not free markets.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss

Is there any action taken by U.S. lawmakers that you wouldn't consider an overreach? Apple is also a U.S. company composed of U.S. citizens who should be at liberty to make and sell whatever devices they see fit. U.S. lawmakers should act primarily in defence of that liberty.

> If we will not endure a king as a political power we should not endure a king over the production, transportation, and sale of any of the necessaries of life. -John Sherman

I hardly see how Apple, by taking 30% of revenue from substantially games, is king over the production or sale of any of the necessaries of life.

Apple is just one company among many in the U.S., and there is no legitimate reason for lawmakers anywhere to prioritize Apple's ability to restrict other people's liberties to the detriment of everyone else's liberties, especially liberties that concern everyone else's own property (such as sideloading). Apple will still be able to make and sell whatever devices they see fit, that ability is not in question.

The Commerce Clause* of the U.S. constitution empowers lawmakers to regulate interstate commerce. This clause has enabled the passage of antitrust laws in the U.S., including the Sherman Antitrust Act and hopefully the upcoming Open App Markets Act.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

There are two different things here.

First is the Apple Store, and you are correct you have no right to have your application on it.

Second is the hardware device I paid money for and exists in my pocket. There is no reasonable right that Apple says "Only we can put a program on it, and you will have no ability to run your own programs on it"

We live in a world where hardware makers of all kinds think we own them a permanent rent. It is a poor and expensive path to let them continue.

You can indeed do whatever you want with your iPhone. You can throw it in a blender if it pleases you. That doesn't mean Apple is obligated to make it easy for you. Apple has sold you a device with a given hardware/software configuration, just like Samsung when they sell you a washing machine. If you don't like it, you don't have to buy it.

For right to repair reasons maybe you should have such a right over a washer or tractor or printer

Users have no choice, the market is a duopoly, and Android app store has all the same problems (because it's a duopoly). You can't feasibly escape platform tax on mobile.

You don’t need to use Google’s android App Store on Android.

They make it sufficiently arduous to do otherwise that the bar is higher than what ordinary people can reach. The proof that this is not the case will be when a single store has less than half of the Android app market.

With Android, you can at least enable "Install [insecure] apps from 3. parties" or the like. You can then install whatever you like. Just like on most computers. Remember to disable the option after install .

Why is the expectation that regulations will force Apple to set the bar lower than what Google has already done?

Installing fdroid was really easy. I don't remember it being arduous.

It's a pain to keep FDroid installed apps updated. Silent background updates are impossible. Yet Play Store can do it.

Is clicking on the notification and then clicking install that hard to do?

It's friction. IME the updates often fail too. Then nag again and again.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com