[ClaraForm]

I have disorganized thoughts about this, but it's not just a debate about vertical isolation vs not.

1. The size of Apple/Alphabet/Samsung makes it difficult to enter the market (see: factories having ridiculous MOQs for small-batch phone manufacturing), pushing everyone else out.

2. The size of the smartphone market makes it impossible to not have to deal with one of the above companies for certification, market penetrance or such. This makes them kingmakers. If a company somehow manages to become Facebook, Netflix, or Amazon, then the phone companies slide them a secret deal under the table. Everyone else gets a market-limiting set of terms that makes sure "tech" stays one of the "top" industries.

Combined, with no entry allowed, and with forces exerted outwards, we see broad social structures orienting /around/ how we use our phones, rather than the other way around, and that includes ad-monetized-absolutely-everything.

Phones and social media, today, are where TVs and broadcasts were in the 1950s/60s. Ubiquity and centralizing forces. If someone told us in the 1950s a TV manufacturer was exerting pressure on our forms of information distribution and was choosing which voices get a seat at the table, we'd rightly call that archaic and wonder why people would accept a technology provider as a market-shaping force. But today we accept it nonetheless. I refuse to believe the argument that the world's largest company can't figure out how to build a secure pipeline without making plenty of my decisions on my behalf...

[pjc50]

Exactly. All the free market logic assumes that barriers to entry are low. They are incredibly high and the market is naturally prone to converging on a single solution. There's basically room for two smartphone ecosystems. Microsoft/Nokia couldn't sustain a third. Android-adjacent things like Amazon Fire and Tizen have little market share.

> factories having ridiculous MOQs for small-batch phone manufacturing

Ironically in the contract manufacturing area the market is actually efficient. Small batches just cost more as an intrinsic fact about manufacturing. I guarantee you could get a quote for any quantity of manufacturing above 1, you just wouldn't like it.

[mjevans]

Laws need to be revised to make it easier to remix off the shelf components.

I argue, default compulsory license fees should be a feature of copyright and patent. A 'reasonable' cap to the maximum it costs to reuse an existing device / idea. (Also that it should be a LOT tougher to patent things, maybe 1 patentable thing per expert examiner's work week, which would be the cost of filing for a patent. That only individuals should be able to own a patent. That companies could create 'prior art' with academic detail releases.)

[pjc50]

I don't think it's so much patent or copyright as iPhone sits on a huge stack of technology which is proprietary by contract as well. It's very, very vertically integrated.

New Android startups appear now and then. The sort of thing that's achievable with a few tens of millions of dollars of funding. But Android as a whole represents a huge pile of work .. sitting on top of Google Play Services and the App Store, as we can see by the relative non-success of Amazon Fire.

(I was actually involved in the development of a phone-like handset device that was built around phone SOMs from Sierra Wireless. The first minimum order for assembly was ten units, scaling to a thousand after alpha test.)

[whywhywhywhy]

Remixing off the shelf isn't really the issue if you want to compete, it's the fact that you wont even be able to buy the competitive components at all because they wont sell you them even if you ask and have the money.

[dcow]

That’s covered by the compulsory license part of the comment. Say Apple has a patent on the iPhone, Apple must license the iPhone itself to me at a reasonable fee. Then I can go sell jPhones all day to compete.

[mjevans]

I don't think you could compete with the exact same product... the advantage of scale would still give Apple more than sufficient edge.

However if you happened to like E.G. Apple's screen, or camera, or another component that was better than what else could be selected it could be part of a design which competed on other merits. E.G. maybe the touch digitizer is just that much better, so it might make sense on some models of Android or some Libre phone more closely based on Linux or BSD. Or some company that makes an iPhone like device but to GOV spec standards for a given country. (In my mind, I'm thinking US Gov, but IP laws tend to be International too, so maybe Germany wants it's own secure phone.)

[dmitrygr]

In that world, why invest in R&D? Wait for someone else to, and then demand the fruit of the work…

[saghm]

Who are you demanding from if there's no incentive to invest? Either the option is there, in which case the incentive clearly must have been there for someone, or it's not, in which case the incentive is the same for wanting to have it in the first place.

[dcow]

You get to charge royalties and license fees.

[pjc50]

Hmm. Depends what you're referring to - iPhone is indeed a closed system, by contractual arrangement, but Android isn't, and it absolutely is feasible for third party Android devices to exist. Occasionally someone does a new phone startup.

Not especially a matter of patent, just good old fashioned contract exclusivity.

[kevincox]

> the market is naturally prone to converging on a single solution

Not only that it is "naturally prone" to it (with thinks like bulk efficiencies) but also that it is economically prone to it. A free market with no monopolies drives profit towards zero. No company wants this so the logical response is to become a monopoly (or as close as possible) by putting up barriers to entry and competition.

[immibis]

Note: There's room for more smartphone ecosystems, but not mainstream ones. There are a few nonmainstream phones out there, from Linux phones (Pine, Librem, MNT I think now?) to more openish Android phones (Fairphone) to completely different platforms (that I'm pretty sure exist but I don't remember any of).

[mysteria]

> If someone told us in the 1950s a TV manufacturer was exerting pressure on our forms of information distribution and was choosing which voices get a seat at the table, we'd rightly call that archaic and wonder why people would accept a technology provider as a market-shaping force. But today we accept it nonetheless.

A smartphone from Google or Apple is also pretty much required for certain government apps, banking/financial services, and so forth. I wouldn't call it a stretch to say that in the future it would be mandatory to have these duopoly controlled devices on your person at all times, like how you need to carry an ID card.

Many of those apps don't work on rooted phones or custom ROMs without workarounds and doing so is a TOS violation in many cases as well. Also imagine what it would be like if your Google or Apple account got banned by accident with no human support to sort it out.

[pjc50]

South Korea managed to tie their government ID system to ActiveX for many years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_compatibility_issues_in_So...

Entire country was stuck on IE6 for far too long.

The UK e-visa system worries me for similar reasons: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/online-immigration-status-evisa

[andrepd]

That's an excellent point. I use Android LineageOS with no google apps. The amount of bullshit that I, a literal computer science PhD, have to put up with to somewhat avoid the more pernicious parts of the monopoly, is insane. Critical and even mandatory parts of my life (banking, government services) require me to engage with google in one way or another.

Non-technical people have absolutely no hope.

[mysteria]

I actually put up with Lineage for many years before it got so bad that I had to switch to an iPhone. Before 2020 many apps still worked fine with it. All my computers are Linux and I self host everything, but I just couldn't risk an account lockout or a broken bank app.

Honestly I wish there was a legal requirement for those services to provide full access via a relatively open platform (like a web site), not a mobile app.

[hamilyon2]

Apple and Google censorship of apps not getting nearly as much attention and publicity as it deserves.

[MangoToupe]

Because of the close tie to services, there is no smartphone market. There is an android market and an iOS market.