Hacker News Reader

Comment by plandis | Hacker News Reader

One would think that if there is truly a Europe wide market for such an unlocked device a competitor should be able to challenge Apple and Google dominance. Europe could even subsidize it.

But instead, it’s more engineering by bureaucrats. Why is Europe so afraid of competing in the open market?

View on HN

The "invisible hand of the free market" doesn't work when manufacturing a device requires such a huge infrastructure around it, and benefits so much from economy of scale. "Exploitative business practices must not be that bad or the free market would step in" is a painfully naive take.

You're totally right. How ever will a tiny company like Apple compete against Blackberry with their massive marketshare advantage and extensive supply chain...

Blackberry was never "massive" in the same way that either Android or Apple are today. Blackberry had about 85 million users at its peak and while that sounds like a lot, it was essentially a fancy phone for checking emails and such, and is nowhere near the pervasive penetration in all aspects of society that have happened since then. All sorts of daily activities are harder – or even outright impossible – without an Android or iPhone.

Thats not the argument though. The argument was about the ability for smaller companies to compete with larger incumbents. Specifically, around the impact that advanced manufacturing and supply chain relationships have on that competitiveness. Blackberry certainly had all those advantages at the time.

You're talking about features, of which a company can also develop themselves. There is no app so pervasive on either platform that makes owning an Android or iPhone such a requirement that automatically disqualifies any competitor. Unless of course you mean the UX provided by the OS.

It may be a pain to switch to some new phone or start up, but thats the job of a business. To convince me that their product is worth paying them money for.

Love the username :)

> Thats not the argument though.

Yeah sure, fair enough. I agree that manufacturing isn't key; a small group of hobbyist managed to make the Pine64 phone, which is not "world class" but certainly not bad either, and if some hobbyists can do it then a "real" business can certainly do it (and in fact, many have).

> There is no app so pervasive on either platform that makes owning an Android or iPhone such a requirement that automatically disqualifies any competitor.

I don't know about that; the lack of things like WhatsApp can be a huge downside for your social life. This is not true for everyone of course, depending on where you are in your life, your location, and what kind of friends you have (if any), but it is true for many people. I moved to a different country a few months ago and making friends without WhatsApp is doing it on hard mode.

If I compare this with using FreeBSD and Linux back in the early 2000s when Microsoft was omni-dominant, it's actually much worse. Proprietary formats like .doc and drivers were annoying, but can be reverse-engineered and the only thing really stopping anyone from building something that works for them was just a time investment. Now, it's pretty much impossible because much useful functionality requires access to severs and networked protocols.

That is fair, WhatsApp could be a blocker. Although I think that speaks more about Facebook's Monopoly than Apple's.

However, I would argue that it's the same answer to the hardware problem. You start small, by offering a limited product to a segment of the population that believes in the same features that you care about. As you grow, you then become a target for Facebook to develop a native app for your OS.

I'm not saying it's easy, but the Apple/Android market was built over decades. The iPhone was terrible when it started, but it could call, message and email people. Seems like a good starting point.

Assuming BlackBerry's annual sales were trending up YoY prior to the start of the graph in this article [1] (IMO a safe assumption), then Apple sold more iPods [2] than Blackberry every year starting at least by 2004, 3 years before the first iPhone. They were never a "tiny company" in comparison to BlackBerry.

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/blackberry-phone-sales-decli...

[2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ipod_sales_per_quart...

Because it is not "one market".

There is free movement of good, services, money and people. But it is still 28 similar markets with different cultures, different languages, different bureaucracies and sometimes different currency.

It is 400 million people but comparing the EU to the US is wrong on so many levels.

Also calling the US an "open" market is like saying China is a "free" democracy.

"One would think that if there is truly a US wide market for such an affordable healthcare service a competitor should be able to challenge the current market dominance. The US could even subsidize it."

Also it doesn't matter if the EU could do it themselves. Our market, our rules. If you don't like the rules, don't play.

> our market, our rules

Do you really believe the EU would be better off if all US businesses left?

That won’t happen

That's an ironic take given that these rules are there to take away monopoly power and have an actual open market.

How does Apple have a monopoly? The only thing that comes close is the App Store, which requires you buy an iPhone, which is not the most common mobile device.

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/europe

Further, other phone companies start from nothing and become quite successful in market place, and some fail, but consider OnePlus - they decided to make a "Flagship Killer" and are still delivering high quality devices.

> How does Apple have a monopoly?

They have monopoly power and control over app developers' access to iPhone users.

If supermarkets offered a loyalty card program that made it physically impossible for you to shop at another supermarket, then this would be a monopoly/anti-trust issue too, even if no supermarket had a majority share of the market.

The usual response of Apple fans is "You can just buy a second phone", but asking app developers to give away free Android phones to their iPhone-using potential customers is not really a viable competitive strategy.

That example only works if you were denied using the actual loyalty card for shopping at another market, which is actually the case? Nothing about the Apple ecosystem means you can't buy an Android and continue using it

As expected, this is the "Just buy an extra phone, 4Head" suggestion that we always hear. (I'm assuming users would still want to access the apps and media they bought on their iPhone).

If switching from an iPhone to an Android device required the user to jump through literal hoops, on camera, Apple fans would probably complain about governments forbidding hoop-jumping clauses in EULAs.

I mean I also can't use the app I bought for my iPhone on my Windows desktop.... why would I expect two separate operating systems to interoperate?

I'm not suggesting that the government should require all OSes to provide identical APIs for apps to run on them, for example, as obviously that sort of "interoperability" would place an unreasonable burden on companies.

However, there are anti-competitive policies of Apple which burden not just app developers and users but Apple themselves, and it's really hard to justify their existence other than "monopolies are very profitable".

https://www.reddit.com/r/swift/comments/3d8koa/apple_rejecte...

I wasn't saying "Just buy an extra phone, 4Head" - I was pointing out how your analogy was actually the equivalent of "Just buy an extra phone, 4Head", because loyalty cards can't be taken and used at unaffiliated stores, and yet people are more than welcome to open multiple loyalty accounts, one with each store.

Monopoly power is not the same as a literal monopoly. The FTC has a pretty good definition of it:

https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...

Apple is not even close to a monopoly, especially in Europe, where they have less than a third of the mobile market. That said, the rest of the market is divided up between several different Android phone companies, so Apple is in fact the largest single mobile vendor in the EU (Samsung is neck and neck with them though, and may have overtaken them since I last checked).

So from a regulatory standpoint, Apple is the problem child even if it isn't a monopoly. The EU sees a third of its phone-using population as being "captured" by a uncompetitive foreign corporation that is far more restrictive and locked down than any of its competitors. Apple has also tenaciously resisted any attempts to open its platform by citing user security as a reason for its draconian level of control over the iPhone platform, so it became necessary for the EU to resort to powerful big-guns legislation to act. Well the big guns are here, and I don't think Apple's "user security" defense is going to be aegis enough against them.

> where they have less than a third of the mobile market

Its amazing how some people are SO obsessed with their favorite brand that they cant see outside its limits: Apple controls ~30%, Google controls ~30%, thats pretty much majority of the 'market'. And that 'market' is actual people, having to daily use these devices.

There being 3-4 companies implementing exactly similar business practices does not make an 'open market'. It makes uncoordinated, non-conspiratorial monopolies.

> One would think that if there is truly a Europe wide market for such an unlocked device a competitor should be able to challenge Apple and Google dominance.

The problem is that such a device doesn't really have a chance because it's not compatible with existing infrastructure such as WhatsApp, Instagram, your banking app, what-have-you. It could be the best device in the world, but there's always a catch-22 problem with software that's fundamentally closed and can't be implemented by a third party.

Talking about "free market" when the gatekeeping megacorp selects winners in multiple downstream markets is ridiculous.

I thought it's common knowledge that consolidation and cartels cripple free markets to the point of not functioning and benefiting society anymore?

This is opening the market. A few megacorps have created walled gardens that prevent competition. EU finally says "no more".

> Why is Europe so afraid of competing in the open market?

Because they haven't been winning. It's not a coincidence that the revenue thresholds for this bill is conveniently higher than any Europe-based companies.

>Why is Europe so afraid of competing in the open market?

The open market employs children to work in coal mines. No one should trust the open market.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com