Comment by pornel | Hacker News Reader

Comment by pornel | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Apple + Google form a duopoly. Apple has locked down iOS to let them do whatever they want and overcharge as much as they like, and Google has no incentive to be any better, because there's no serious 3rd contender*.

For typical users not buying Apple means having to compromise on privacy with Google, which isn't a great option either. Both are trying their best to create vendor lock-in and make it hard for users to leave.

From developer perspective not having access to iOS users is a major problem. Apple inserts themselves between users and developers, even where neither users nor developers want it. Users and devs have no bargaining power there, because Play Store does the same, and boycotting both stores has a bunch of downsides for users and devs.

*) I expect people on HN to say that some AOSP fork with f-droid is perfectly fine, but that's not mainstream enough to make Apple and Google worried, especially that Google has created its certification program and proprietary PlayStore Services to make degoogling phones difficult.

It's an interesting perspective, but as I understand this case, the case is not interested in a developer's bargaining power against their distributor. The case is interested in the impact on consumers (fewer choices, higher prices). There's certainly no argument to make that consumers lack a variety of apps and app features.

I care about you as a developer, but I'm not sure this case does. Maybe I'm thinking about it wrong.

I think these are two sides of the same coin, because ultimately developers must pass the extra costs to users. The devs aren't subsidizing the 30%/15% cut, it's a tax that users pay.

App Store rules and the greedy cut also make certain kinds of apps and lower-margin businesses impossible to create in such environment, so this blocks innovations that could have benefited users.

When Apple bans competitors, blocks interoperability, drags their feet on open standards, and gives their own apps special treatment nobody else can have, then users miss out on potentially better or cheaper alternatives. This helps Apple keep users locked in, not innovate when they don't want to, and overcharge for services users can't replace.

All of that was more forgivable when smartphones were just a novelty, and digital goods were just iTunes songs. But now a lot of services have moved online. Mobile phones have become a bigger platform than desktop computers, and for billions of people they are their primary or the only computing device.

> *) I expect people on HN to say that some AOSP fork with f-droid is perfectly fine

As you explained yourself, it's not a real alternative, because it relies on Google itself, who can always decide to break it. A real alternative is GNU/Linux phones, Librem 5 and Pinephone. And yes, they are very niche and not easy to make.

Google has a huge incentive to compete because Apple has 50% of the US market, which is the most consequential market in the world

Reply on news.ycombinator.com