Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by FirmwareBurner 837 days ago
Would you also defend Microsoft of the 90's with the same argument for the similar issue?

At least Microsoft had no way of stopping you selling apps for Windows but Apple is a next level of nefarious.

5 comments

Microsoft didn't have competition in the 90s. Apple has plenty of competition, they've just built up a competitive advantage which is their fully-integrated platform. Googles been trying to build one on the Pixel for years and haven't come close to their success.

Apples been doing this "next level of nefarious" since the App Store's introduction in iPhoneOS 3.0, and it's been fine up to this point, otherwise the platform (and consequentially the apps on these platform -- spotify) wouldn't have thrived the way it did.

>Apple has plenty of competition

What competition? Apple has a 87% market share amongst US teenage population[1], Epic's core gamer market. It's basically a monopoly amongst their core demographic which will grow up to be adults with jobs and paycheck and guess what they'll buy? More Apple. With <13% market share Android isn't even in the race.

[1] https://www.barrons.com/articles/apple-stock-teens-iphone-e5...

But is anyone prohibited from going out and buying an Android? I see plenty of Samsung ads on TV.

Does Apple stop you from downloading Signal and communicating with your Android friends that way?

It's called "competitive advantage" in the US.

I find it frustrating when people think something can't be a trust just because one can imagine hoops a consumer could jump through to find an alternative. Switching from iPhone to Android is onerous, and most users are locked into multi-year payments contracts for the device they have.

A healthy competitive environment should have 10+ options. The fact that two massive corporations have the entire space locked up is not sufficiently competitive nor healthy for consumers.

The previously existing competition should have competed rather than completely fucking up. Both Apple and Google started as complete underdogs in the phone market.

Many current Android manufacturers used to built phones running their own platforms or Windows Mobile. Symbian, Windows Mobile, PalmOS, and BlackBerry all died not because Apple or Google somehow hamstrung them but because they sucked compared to what Apple and Google were selling.

I agree that would have been nice. But that is not the consumer's fault; it is however in the consumer's interest to have strong antitrust laws which restore a competitive environment.
> But is anyone prohibited from going out and buying an Android?

Yes, through social pressure.

I think what Apple is doing is more similar to Nintendo I the 80s with their "seal of quality".

There where a couple of companies that circumvented their security mechanisms and went to court. Was that wrong of Nintendo?

My opinion is that, as long as people keep buying and using it, Apple can do whatever they want in their platforms.

They will change when most app devs coordinately delete their apps from the store, in a mass "strike" or when customers stop paying for their shitty phones.

> They will change when most app devs coordinately delete their apps from the store, in a mass "strike" or when customers stop paying for their shitty phones.

(Android user here.)

Apple doesn't make shitty phones, far from it. Solid build quality, performance and stability across the board... there are very few Android devices that can compete with Apple and almost all come from Samsung.

Since Epic is fighting Apple, let’s overlook the fact it is charged by the FTC for using dark patterns to sell virtual costumes for billions; an interesting choice for a champion of consumer rights.
How does that apply here?
It's hard to compare anything else to MS in the 90's because Windows (and Excel) had 90%+ marketshare. MS was able to strong arm companies into doing what they wanted by threatening to withhold Windows licenses.

The MS case and recently lost Google case are closer to each other than anything going on with Apple.

> At least Microsoft had no way of stopping you selling apps for Windows

what are you talking about? microsoft literally created and sold versions of windows that could only access apps sold through their own app store lmao

microsoft also has the exact same policies as apple does on their own "platform", try selling an xbox app without doing it through microsoft's store

they are possibly the worst example you could have given, and yet here you are doing the victory lap. cringe.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39619432