Hacker News Reader

Comment by Aushin | Hacker News Reader

I don't think this holds up. WalMart choosing not to stock a product doesn't mean that the product won't be made at all. WalMart doesn't decide to stop stocking Hanes underwear because Hanes ships boxers to KMart and Target too.

Now maybe in some cases WalMart does demand exclusive right to sell something. But imagine they did it for EVERY. FUCKING. PRODUCT. I think people would get pretty pissed off. And rightfully so.

View on HN

How does Apple demand the exclusive right to sell anything? There are plenty of Android apps that integrate with Pebble, and plenty of apps that are available across iOS, Android, even Windows, Blackberry, FireFox OS, Cyanogen, etc.

Apple can set rules for apps in their app store, just like Walmart can control the stock on their shelves. Walmart doesn't carry what you want? Go to Target. Apple doesn't allow an app you want? Go to Android.

I always hear that the choice you present is what allows anti-competitive behavior.

But does that hold true even when the costs of switching is enormously high?

With Target/WalMart you don't have to re-buy a $650 phone to switch. You don't need to (maybe) switch carriers depending on needs or offers with all the hassle and fees that might entail.

You might have to re-learn an entirely new OS. How much time does that cost someone in lost productivity or just time in life?

I think its entirely possible for a product to depend single handedly on WalMart for distribution in order to get economics of scale benefits to even be profitable in the first place.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com