Hacker News Reader

Comment by foobarian | Hacker News Reader

I kinda still don't see the problem. If you don't like it make your own phone.

The interesting thing about this argument is that if taken all the way, Apple shouldn't see the problem with the new EU rules, i.e. "if you don't like it, sell it in your own country".

For the most part, I have defended Apple's approach because I personally prefer a locked down environment for my phone. I've put up with some of the things I dislike about this walled garden because of the benefits and simplicity it affords me.

But their stance here is impossible for me to defend. It makes me wish it was possible for competition to exist in this space beyond the duopoly. The reality is that "make your own phone" is not viable, and because it is not viable, these kinds of policy decisions are extremely impactful.

I've never been under any illusions about Apple's benevolence, i.e. I know they're a company out to make money like the rest and not some force for good. But I've respected what they've accomplished. This latest move has made me lose quite a bit of respect. They're barely attempting to hide the maliciousness of their "compliance".

I hope the EU takes it to them at this point.

It's not impossible to defend. Here's the former head of Microsoft's Windows division defending it easily:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39194445

My comment was focused on how I personally feel about this as an Apple user.

I know that there are people in the industry who will agree with Apple on this.

I see Sinofsky's defense split into these

a) Defending the industry's interests b) Defending US interests c) Defending capitalism

I'd say (c) is the highest calling for someone like Sinofsky. His worldview is that companies like Microsoft should be free to do what they want, as long as they play by (weakly regulated) US rules.

Europe's DMA, like China's Great Firewall, changes the fundamental rules of the playground and put in question the ascendancy of capitalist views and US interests.

Thanks for that. That was a great read. It's really interesting to see a perspective from someone that understands that the current state of systems came from years and years of intentionally working within a paradigm and that changing regulations rarely, if ever, consider that paradigm. It really does fundamentally break the "brand promise" as he calls it.

Here's a guy that agrees with the other guy that taking authority away from users is lucrative and desirable. Wow. Shocking.

My only hesitation with these rules is that I feel like Apple, as a business, has a right to do whatever they want with their business so long as there are alternatives and I do consider Android to be a viable alternative. I wouldn't want the government forcing my business to do anything that I felt devalued my brand or my product so I do understand the "maliciousness of their compliance".

Let's say that I created some kind of device, not as complex as a phone, but something that was like a little portable video game system or something. If the government can tell Apple that they have to allow third-parties to be able to do whatever they want to these devices, then it may hurt my business if third-parties don't have the same standards of quality as I do. Apple's standard is really, really high (insanely high by some accounts) and I feel like mine is too.

That's the only reason that I would oppose this type of legislation. The people complaining about Apple's behavior are the people that have become successful off of Apple's ecosystem and customer base. They want the benefits of having access to Apple's highly curated customer base without the downsides of having to develop and foster is themselves. It feels entitled in a way that I only begrudgingly support because of Apple's size and resources. If it was any other large corporation, I'd feel the same way. I wouldn't feel this way about any regular company, though. I would be rallying against the governance.

That's like saying "if you don't want to pay taxes, renounce your citizenship and live on a yacht in the ocean". You can, at huge cost, but a lot of stuff you're relying on just doesn't work any more because the people who made them have no interest in servicing you, e.g. your bank accounts.

A better option is "use Android", which already does support multiple stores.

The retort makes more sense if you think of it as being addressed to someone like Epic, who frankly could take Android and build it into something more competitive, which would benefit us more than just deciding Apple has won.

Valve perhaps, but I don't think Epic could manage it. Microsoft, despite (or because of) the head-start with windows, managed to fail with their own phone OS, but they do have the XBox+store for games.

Amazon would be my next bet, followed by Samsung… but then, why would either bother starting from scratch when they already have an app store and a phone/tablet platform? Sticking with Android makes it easy to get more apps because developers don't need to learn yet another platform.

Does Epic have their own hardware? Has Epic even managed to make a successful app store of their own on Android, where they wouldn't need their own hardware?

The problem with this is that you'll never get every 3rd party service to support it. Everybody I've talked to who had a Windows Phone really liked the OS, but with so many apps missing compared to Android and iOS it was dead in the water.

PWAs could bring some improvement here, but there are also plenty of services (ie Dropbox) that are essential to people and need to be integrated into the system more than that.

The moat of 10000 other companies saying "we already maintain our app for two platforms" is basically insurmountable to new entrants.

Many things about Apple phones annoy me:

* App store restrictions.

* I want a phone I can use one-handed. 4 inches is the largest screen I could tolerate.

* No removable battery?

Why is it that no manufacturer will come along and make something better? Every year I look at other options. There are none that meet even one of my requirements.

I get that normal people want the app store Apple made. One where draconian requirements on developers make it hard to sneak in malware. But why can't I have a phone that fits in a normal sized human hand?

Maybe the EU can force Apple to do these things too.

There are dozens of us!

Because Apple is too big to bother catering to a 2-3% segment of their customers. Doesn't matter that 3% is still a couple million devices, it's too little for Cook.

> I want a phone I can use one-handed. 4 inches is the largest screen I could tolerate.

I also prefer smaller phones, but over the last five years I've found it increasingly difficult to find software whose UI are designed with even 4.7 inches in mind, let alone 4.0 — and in at least one occasion that has included the UI design I was given to implement by the design team of the place I was working.

Can't wait for Microsoft to start saying this about PCs/Windows. Gonna be a "great" future. We'll look back at the "open" PC era like some kind of fabled golden age.

Edit: Actually the more relevant point is that it already is my phone. I paid Apple for it. Why can't I install anything I want on it?

>> the more relevant point is that it already is my phone. I paid Apple for it. Why can't I install anything I want on it?

Because Apple controls your phone:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag1AKIl_2GM&t=57s

The flipside of that is: If you want to sell your product in a nation, you must comply with the nation's rules.

I can't make my own phone, I'm too busy building my steel mill.

Oh bravo, is that how you respond to all anti-competitive practices?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com