Hacker News Reader

Comment by paulpan | Hacker News Reader

It boils down to the fact that iPhone is a pervasive computing device and similar to a "public good" should be regulated tightly.

For millions of people, it's their main/sole computing and internet access device so should be a neutral platform - with clear evidence as cited that Apple has not maintained its neutrality. As a neutral platform, customers should have the freedom to use their devices without undue interference or restrictions from Apple.

These are similar arguments made in the Microsoft vs. Netscape case. The lone example of being unable to install non-App Store apps is enough to justify the DOJ's case. Question is what would the verdict be? Similar to the EU's DMA rules would be a likely starting point.

View on HN

> It boils down to the fact that iPhone is a pervasive computing device and similar to a "public good" should be regulated tightly.

Extremely authoritarian / communist take.

A $1000 luxury phone is not a "public good" just because many have FOMO and feel like they need one. There are many cheap alternative Androids that are just as good with virtually identical features. Nor is it a device that is absolutely necessary to function in society, like say other real public goods like running water or electricity.

> Extremely authoritarian / communist take.

that's how you know he's right

Apple sells several different models of phones which, in fact, are not $1000

Ha, my point is iPhone has become so ubiquitous that is has created a natural monopoly for Apple (50%+ US market share).

Like it or not, there are different rules for the biggest players who wield market power. If you want an iPhone, then Android is not an alternative option. DOJ's argument is that Apple has added artificial disincentives to enable switching to a non-iPhone and also favor its own apps/services.

This is verbatim the argument against Microsoft and how it was wielding its Windows monopoly to stifle competition like Netscape. Easy to forget that Microsoft had closed APIs for 3rd parties and dictated how OEMs installed its OS before the US government judgement. You could've made the same counterpoint at the time that there's theoretical alternative OSes like Linux and Unix.

Which part is “verbatim”? Citation?

> Extremely authoritarian / communist take.

What's authoritarian is Apple's lockdown of the iPhone. I should be able to run whatever application I want on my own device. Not the governement telling Apple, "Hey, people should be able to run what they want on their own device".

If you want to run a non-default os, an iPhone is not for you. There are several other options out there for you to choose from.

If you want to run a non-default OS, don't install one. Blocking competitors for competition's sake is a regulatory tightrope walk, the exact same mentality that nearly annihilated Microsoft.

Some calibration is needed here.

“Authoritarianism is a _political_ system characterized by the rejection of democracy and political plurality.” - Wikipedia

When a company _sells_ you a device (that you choose to buy or not), it is _not_ about political freedom.

There are countries that are actually authoritarian. Let’s not blur the lines between that and a corporation. I can appreciate the free software movement as well as the right to repair and so on, but let’s keep things in perspective here. There are governments that jail people for dissent.

If it is used by a high % of the population, it is not a luxury good regardless of price. Luxury implies exclusivity imho.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com