Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by pjmlp 2107 days ago
If I want a store competition I go to shopping mall.

The only store that has a place on my devices is the OS vendor store.

1 comments

No one's stopping you from using only Apple store. Why force your choice on other consumers? Let people decide what's best for them
They have the choice to buy other brands.
They also have the choice to avoid smartphones altogether. What they want, though, is the ability to use apple hardware and non-apple software. The only reason they can't is because Apple won't let them, unless they pay a 30% commission
The only reason the want to use the Apple hardware is because Apple makes it and comes with Apple software and Apple roadmaps.

If being more open magically offered the same quality all kind of third party open platforms would have flourished.

But even in the semi-closed Android you have 95% of mobile malware according to surveys, devices abandoned without updates after 1-2 releases, tons of crap trojan apps, widespread spyware, and so on...

A third party app store can be fine at first. "You can chose whether to use it or not" after all.

Then some major software only comes for that store, and now you don't have either a unified store, or a way not to use 2 stores (since you need the software).

Then each major vendor (Google, Adobe, Amazon, etc) make their own app stores on the platform. Because, why not?

Oh, and Facebook can demand you get their app from their store, where it comes with all kinds of private API abuse and surveillance (some of this might be solvable with stronger sandboxing, if it's not deemed "anti-competitive" itself).

Then there are all kinds of minor stores, luring your less tech savvy parents, siblings, etc, with BS offers, more malware, pirated versions of software, etc.

Oh, and there are "free" stores, you can just install, all kinds of shady stuff that ocassionally roots your iPhone with 0-days and is not revocable.

Suddenly app developers don't feel so good about this ability to have multiple stores. They mainly wanted lower Apple rates, but now they have to ship to different stores, track different vendor rules, and so on. And if they stick to a store or two, they're less discoverable. Now you have meta-services that ship your app to many stores and handle the hassle. But they can not do much for the free stores that give pirated copies of your app, or full title+branding+UI rip-offs of your app by small e.g. Chinese devs.

And if one of the big app stores gets popular, they now have control over the platform too. Apple wants to move forward with an API change? Not so fast, the big app store doesn't agree (similar to how Apple was beholden to the goodwill of Microsoft and Adobe back in the day).

I wish I could up vote your comment more than once.
Apple owns the marketplace on their platform. When they undermine competing payment systems using their monopoly power then they appear to be acting anticompetitively in a manner that is against the consumers best interest.

This is only an issue when they use their monopoly power to undermine consumer interests.

Consumers get their apps, there is no undermining taking place.

Maybe I should complain that Sony abuses the PS4 market so I can't run Switch titles on the PS4.

Exactly, except for Fortnite (very popular ) and other apps tha tApple don't like(Hey,Wordpress) or apps that US does not like ,and the apps that indie developers can't afford to publish(small games that have Win,Mac,Linux and Android version) , and maybe GPL(maybe it changed) apps, but except all those apps consumers can get all the apps they want.

But can you write me a logical phrase about what should happen if a judge declares that Apple can continue locking the phones because there is a duopoly and the next day Google does the exact same thing since now is 100% legal.

Consumers get their apps for ~40% higher prices than if developers could offer them directly (granted, payment processing isnt free anywhere, but Apple charges an order of magnitude more than the alternatives).
This is like if Apple said that you can't download any other software on your Macbook, unless you paid Apple 30% and bought it from their exclusive store.
Why is this any different from Apple saying that you can't download other software on your Macbook, unless you pay Apple 30% and buy it from their store?
One cannot buy a house besides a landing lane and then complain planes are taking off and landing all day long.

If iOS doesn't offer what they want, don't buy Apple, plain and simple, there is nothing more to discuss and the judge will set this straight.

For what it is worth, people actually in the real world do just that: buy property adjacent to a municipal airport and then cause problems for airport users... All the time. (Pilot for almost three decades.)
In developed countries there are laws preventing sale of properties where noise may be so high that it's detrimental to one's health. So if the competition in market is hurting the merchants or consumers, it should be rightfully outlawed.
The market is mobile phones, get a device not produced by Apple and be done with it.
When I bought my iPhone I knew that I could only use the AppStore. I actually bought the iPhone because of the AppStore, the strict rules Apple has for developers and I prefer that no side-loading can occur.

If you or any consumer feels lied to, misled or falsely advertised to, they should return their device to Apple.

If enough people choose non-Apple products then Apple might change its position. Until then, buy a different brand.

Exactly! HN is a small subset of Apple customers. The largest piece of the pie don’t care about any of this stuff besides that it works.

I specifically bought Apple vs Android for these reasons. I run my life and business form my phone, I trust Apple to provide me with a working experience and support when needed.

Imagine having to use another App Store outside Apples control, and an app causes my phone to crash. Who will support me? I have to go digging to the app developer, or the App Store developer, or Apple?

Apple went this route to specifically remove the fragmentation of the PC market, and what you see similar in the Android market. The closed system provides better quality. That is why Apple is where it is today.

>Imagine having to use another App Store outside Apple...

Don't use one, install only Apple approved content from Apple approved stores but don't force everyone to do so. If you want to pay 15-30% more for stuff from the Apple Store then you are free to do so. On PC you can use only Steam, if say you want to buy Fallout 3 today and is 75% of on GOG you are not forced to buy it from GOG, you can buy it from Steam and give Valve their cut.

But you should have bought Android if you want freedom ... I think it does not make sense that a judge should decide if somebody is abusing their power should depend on the market share of Andoid and would include a condition like "When Android market share gets under X or when Google locks down Android then the current Apple good abuses become over night bad).

Why is this any different from Apple saying that you can't download other software on your Macbook, unless you pay Apple 30% and buy it from their exclusive store?