Comment by haswell | Hacker News Reader

Comment by haswell | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

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.

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com