I strongly dislike this argument against modern tech companies that they are anticompetitive for not supporting other marketplaces. It feels to me like suing a Chinese restaurant and saying they don’t offer other menus. It’s tough because Google and others are huge, they buy out competitors, it’s not anything like the restaurant market. But this particular argument is so weak imo.
The analogy doesn't work: there's a low barrier to entry for restaurants, and there are many to choose from.
In mobile phones it's basically iOS-Android duopoly. The barrier to entry was too high even for Microsoft. To compete you need to write a compelling OS, attract millions of app developers, and survive against competitors who subsidize their OS development with their bigger businesses.
So it's more like complaining that "Panda Corp." and "Chopstick Inc." control the entire food supply chain, block sales of food for dishes they don't like, and force all restaurants to pay them 15%-30% of all their revenue.
> It’s tough because Google and others are huge, they buy out competitors, it’s not anything like the restaurant market.
Not just that, they go to great effort to lock you into their ecosystem so that the difficulty of changing becomes a big part of the calculation.
If I had to make a comparison, instead of a restaurant, I'd suggest a company town. When you buy a Company X phone, you're moving to Xville, where everything is sold with predatory prices and low variety by the company store.
Their lock-in amounts to “be more appealing in some ways”.
Is there anything you couldn’t replace switching from your platform of choice to a different one? I have a lot of 3rd party software it would be difficult to replace and it would be a quality of life hit, but software is software, I could replace what they do with something else if I was forced to.
The way their payment system and marketing rules are designed--and I know this isn't some complex-to-solve problem as I actively ran a popular app store that did not have this user-and-developer-alike-hostile feature--prevents "porting" purchases, so if you buy a bunch of apps on iOS you are forever locked into iOS unless you want to repurchase all of them for Android: this is purposeful lock-in.
You said it yourself, switching would be a complication, and manufacturers are happy to maximize that complication as much as possible. I consider it unethical to impose artificial hurdles to switching upon consumers, especially when they most likely aren't familiar with vendor lock-in.
iMessage is a good example for me. It replaces a federated, universally-compatible service with a centralized service that works only on Apple devices. The upgraded features are nice enough to be alluring, and now a significant portion of American smartphone users feel compelled to remain with Apple so that they don't experience any difficulties communicating. This is a sticking point for me in particular; I used to be a heavy user of multi-protocol messengers like Trillian, during the time when multiple providers offered mutually incompatible messaging services.
> You said it yourself, switching would be a complication, and manufacturers are happy to maximize that complication as much as possible.
Actually I said it would be a quality of life hit. I’m convinced that what I use are already the best choices, so switching to something else would feel like a quality of life hit. Bet you I’m not the only one that uses something just because I like it the most.
It would also be a complication, but for me, personally? Somewhere between a day and a weekend to bootstrap and I would replace things as I go. Actually I’ve done this at a few points in my life.
I feel your pain on the multi-protocol front. I used to be a heavy user of Adium, but at some point that wasn’t sustainable. Sticking mostly with iMessage does feel like a quality of life downgrade in many ways, but it’s also an upgrade in a few other ways, so call it it a wash? Sidegrade maybe?
Usually vendor lock-in actually amounts to "smart and well paid people think of clever, evil, but technically legal ways to make it as difficult as possible to leave the ecosystem".
It's not just the work. Money is a factor too. Accessories as well. The Apple Watch needs an iPhone to work for example, dongles, cables, software. Even stuff that works on multiple platforms may not work as well or be limited on others (e.g. Airpods) so you have to decide is it worth switching to lose X and gain Y?
I think a lot of people don't care once they switch, but thinking about switching, the costs etc. makes it seem daunting and not worth it.
What an excellent analogy! You can’t put chocolate sauce on the rice you bought because outside food and drink are always prohibited. You’ll be politely, but firmly, asked to leave. So, in a word, yes, because the owner of the restaurant says no.
If this is true then Epic should definitely be punished. The mechanism by which this has been brought to widespread scrutiny doesn't indemnify Apple, either.
The idea that Apple should have app store monopolization written into law (their words) because of the tactics Epic used is ridiculous.
I don't really see why. Epic has to show harm to have standing for a lawsuit, so there was always going to be some planning in terms of "when do we do this so Apple shuts it down so we can sue".
Apple is also very good at PR. I don't think it's particularly malicious to try to get out ahead of Apple's PR department. The "Small Business Program" was a brilliant bit of PR on Apple's part, that does indeed try to undermine Epic's case from a public perception standpoint.
I'm not enthused that this is how things get done, but I take Epic's actions as a symptom of a flawed system rather than some kind of character flaw in the company.
This is a ridiculous. I dont think you can take on some behemoth with near limitless (financial, legal and otherwise) resources without planning. An ad-hoc lawsuit DOES NOT stand chance against Apple. The united states gov took 8 years to file antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. So I think we can give some benefit to Epic here.
I've defended Epic's actions in the past; and that evidence does exist in my comment history. I've come around though: they should have filed a lawsuit instead of breaching contract. Apple is now using their breach of contract to justify codifying their blatant monopoly.
Apple's retaliation was infinitely worse and extremely telling about the company. Make no mistake: privacy is a feature that sells. If circumstances change, Apple has shown capacity to turn on a dime (in the form of banning Unreal Engine apps). They aren't the good guys, not by a long shot.
Patents have an expiry date because the patent office agrees that monopolies are bad. The purpose of a patent is to allow an inventor to establish their market, not to establish a monopoly.
What is the chance that Apple kept their 30% policy unchanged anticipating that one day they need to make this argument in court. This company doesn't stop to impress me.