Comment by ggreer | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ggreer | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Apple is what, less than 20% of phone sales? So it's hard to see how that constitutes a monopoly. And if banning 3rd party apps is enough for a lawsuit, then why doesn't that apply to Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo for their game consoles? Why doesn't it apply to Amazon's Fire tablets, or Kindles, or Huawei phones, or Oculus headsets? All of those devices have similar restrictions.

Unless customers are coerced or misled, or returns/refunds are difficult, I don't see the need for government intervention. Apple's software restrictions hurt the iPhone's market share. The same goes for charging high fees for app purchases. Customers and developers can (and often do) choose other devices for being less restrictive about what software can be run on them. If an informed adult chooses a locked down platform because they prioritize other features, why should the government stop them?

I can see an argument for requiring labeling (similar to warnings on cigarettes), but a total ban seems like overreach.

I did some... Googling.... Anyway, it seems many sites estimate iOS as about 57% of the US market, not 20%.

Example: https://backlinko.com/iphone-vs-android-statistics

Since the article is about an Australian court case and comments discussed the US & EU, I was using figures for the whole world, which seems to be 16-18% depending on the source.[1][2] Even if we restrict numbers to the US, 57% is rarely considered monopoly. You'd need significant barriers to entry, and the smartphone market has enough manufacturers that it would be hard to argue that such a barrier exists.

1. https://www.counterpointresearch.com/insight/post-insight-re...

2. https://www.idc.com/promo/smartphone-market-share/

> Customers and developers can (and often do) choose other devices for being less restrictive about what software can be run on them

Well no, there's only two operating system with very similar policies and pricing. If there's any competition there, it's not obvious where.

The only pricing change ever made was made as a reaction of an antitrust lawsuit... Just that fact alone should be enough to raise some eyebrows.

Similar policies and pricing? You can get Android phones for much cheaper than iPhones. And many smartphone manufacturers let you run whatever you want on their devices. The largest smartphone manufacturer in the world (Samsung) ships most of their phones with two app stores, and lets customers enable side loading with a few taps.

If you're talking about policies and pricing for developers, then why not apply that argument to app stores owned by Sony, Microsoft, & Nintendo? Those are much more restrictive than anything in the smartphone world. Heck, even Steam takes a 30% cut.

I'm talking from the point of view of app developers.

Sure I'm open to the idea that there's fierce competition on the hardware, on the software though, there's absolutely zero signs of it.

> then why not apply that argument to app stores owned by Sony, Microsoft, & Nintendo?

We do have signs that there's competition in the console world, if you want to make that parallel, when was the last time Google or Apple paid for an app exclusive similarly to game exclusives?

Apple and Google make apps exclusive all the time. They just do it by acquiring the company that developed the app, then integrating the app's functionality into their OS. Examples for iOS include Siri, Dark Sky, Shazam, and Workflow. Google did it with Waze, and failed with Sparrow, Quickoffice, and a bunch of others. Samsung did it with LoopPay (which became Samsung Pay) and Viv (from the developers of Siri), which they turned into Bixby.

I wouldn't consider most of those exclusives but company titles. They also exist on the console world but are a different concept (like Halo for example)

I'm unaware of a single contract where Google or Apple paid some money to a company to keep the exclusivity like what happens on console.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com