Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

S.Korea parliament committee votes to curb Google, Apple commission dominance

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 114 posts

Re: S.Korea parliament committee votes to curb Google, Apple commission dominance

#71

Post by shuckles »

mathverse wrote: post #57
lunarboy wrote: post #45

This itself I support, but I still think Korea favors its internal tech companies a little too much. One example: my experience using Google in the states is so much better than Kakao maps here, only because Google was barred from collecting geo data. I get a similar feeling that other foreign companies/services fail to stick here not due to inferior technology, but legal barriers.

Success of South Korea was built on protectionism and dogfooding its companies.It worked for them, it worked for China and again it worked for Singapore. That pattern is clear and only those incompetent or weak were unable to resist big corporations.

Can you share more about industrial protections used by Singapore? And didn’t China grow as an export manufacturer long before it had any homegrown industrials? In fact, IP from the former was likely an input to the latter in my understanding.

Re: S.Korea parliament committee votes to curb Google, Apple commission dominance

#72

Post by cma »

mc32 wrote: post #42
Clewza313 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

South Korea has been regulating its Internet with an iron fist for a long time, with dubious results. For many years, IE was de facto the only browser because the only authorized sign-in method for govt services relied on an ActiveX plugin, and to this date the functionality of eg Google Maps in Korea is crippled because laws regulating maps force all map data and associated services to be in Korea.

Perhaps if more counties required corps to house their citizens’ data locally, they would be better served. The EU is requiring this, though it EU wide, Russia, and China when it allows them to operate at all. Coca-cola needs to follow local laws, so why should Facebook or Google etc. be exempt?

Shouldn't each country in the world be forced through network effects to export 30% of its purely local taxi revenue to the US (Uber's end game)?

Re: S.Korea parliament committee votes to curb Google, Apple commission dominance

#73

Post by Avamander »

oshiar53-0 wrote: post #54
oever wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would go further: software should always be optional in any hardware purchase and the price of hardware with software should be higher than the price of the hardware alone. Discount bundles with software + hardware should not be allowed. So no iPhone + iOS or laptop + Windows as one item. Selling hardware and software separately ensures that the hardware can be repurposed with independently sourced software. That g…

The real issue here is DRM and nonstandard/undocumented* platform interface (e.g. fixed attestation keys and tamper-protected chips preventing efficient RE work). Even if they manage to comply, competitors (even free software options) would still be locked out of market and the no-OS option would be next to useless to average users. *edit

> The real issue here is DRM and nonstandard platform interface

Undocumented hardware, really. It's very hard to run anything if you can't even init the chipset.

Re: S.Korea parliament committee votes to curb Google, Apple commission dominance

#74

Post by Avamander »

fsflover wrote: post #51
oever wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would go further: software should always be optional in any hardware purchase and the price of hardware with software should be higher than the price of the hardware alone. Discount bundles with software + hardware should not be allowed. So no iPhone + iOS or laptop + Windows as one item. Selling hardware and software separately ensures that the hardware can be repurposed with independently sourced software. That g…

So basically what Pine64 is doing.

One vendor who can ship a product that is very old and still not truly-fully supported. It's a tremendous task that takes more than enthusiasts for great results.

Re: S.Korea parliament committee votes to curb Google, Apple commission dominance

#75

Post by Popegaf »

Will this set a precedent for other countries or economic regions to follow suit? I could see France for example pointing to SK as a successful model and implementing it. Probably other EU powers will disagree, but they seem like the most like EU contender to limit Apple and Google.

Re: S.Korea parliament committee votes to curb Google, Apple commission dominance

#76

Post by ericmay »

echelon wrote: post #69
ericmay wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not arguing that all tech companies are or are not monopolies. I think Google and Facebook are specifically candidates for anti-trust regulation. But I don't see it with Apple at all, especially around this App Store issue, and I'm not really convinced that Amazon is either.

50% of Americans use jPhone, and many as their primary computer device. You can't reach them without paying Apple tax. You can't write software and be done with it - you have to make their arbitrary reviewers happy and wait for releases. No matter what your business is. They also keep you from forming a relationship with the customer. You don't get an email or anything. You're on their payment rails most of the time,…

> 50% of Americans use jPhone, and many as their primary computer device.

Isn't this article about Korea? Anyway.

> You can't reach them without paying Apple Tax

And? If it's that bad just don't do business with iPhone users. Can you not make money on the other 50% of users who use Android? If so that's kind of telling on its own. Or is it that you want your own business to be more lucrative? The thing is what is happening is that Apple is passing costs on to developers instead of consumers, and as a developer you don't like that. As a consumer, I love it. If they stop passing those costs and stop collectively bargaining against developers for me then the cost of the iPhone goes up.

> Margins are tight as it is. Apple makes it substantially harder. Before Apple, people were satisfied with websites and Windows programs. Now everything has to be an App.

Maybe you just don't have a good enough business model? If it comes to having fewer apps on the Apple App Store or having multiple stores, as an iPhone user I prefer fewer apps for sure.

Re: S.Korea parliament committee votes to curb Google, Apple commission dominance

#77

Post by rrrrrrrrrrrryan »

fsflover wrote: post #51
oever wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would go further: software should always be optional in any hardware purchase and the price of hardware with software should be higher than the price of the hardware alone. Discount bundles with software + hardware should not be allowed. So no iPhone + iOS or laptop + Windows as one item. Selling hardware and software separately ensures that the hardware can be repurposed with independently sourced software. That g…

So basically what Pine64 is doing.

Basically what a large chunk of the PC world was for a few decades.

Re: S.Korea parliament committee votes to curb Google, Apple commission dominance

#78

Post by dantheman »

flavius29663 wrote: post #50
misnome wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I dont know a single person outside of the SV bubble who is buying 'mah free market!' argument so prevalent here. Most of the arguments I've seen here, that you are probably classifying under this aspersion, are probably some variant on: - This doesn't look illegal under current (US) laws - New laws to restrict this are hard to write constitutionally (in the US) - If this happens a lot of the good parts of the ecos…

Everything was legal until it wasn't. It was the same for Standard oil before 1911: they said it's all legal to have such a monopoly on oil. For some people at the time, it was obvious this was an unfair advantage on the market, so they fought to make it illegal. It's the same now. Of course Google and Apple mostly respect the laws of the land, but if a large swath of the population/industry thinks they are unfair, t…

You should actually look at Standard Oil - it lowered prices, increased access, and by the time it was broken up was already losing market share and was not nearly as dominant. As with most anti-trust arguments -- market domination is temporary unless granted by the government, e.g. AT&T. In general it is sour grapes from those who can't compete.

Re: S.Korea parliament committee votes to curb Google, Apple commission dominance

#79

Post by echelon »

ericmay wrote: post #76
echelon wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

50% of Americans use jPhone, and many as their primary computer device. You can't reach them without paying Apple tax. You can't write software and be done with it - you have to make their arbitrary reviewers happy and wait for releases. No matter what your business is. They also keep you from forming a relationship with the customer. You don't get an email or anything. You're on their payment rails most of the time,…

> 50% of Americans use jPhone, and many as their primary computer device. Isn't this article about Korea? Anyway. > You can't reach them without paying Apple Tax And? If it's that bad just don't do business with iPhone users. Can you not make money on the other 50% of users who use Android? If so that's kind of telling on its own. Or is it that you want your own business to be more lucrative? The thing is what is hap…

I wish Apple fans would see the world outside their bubble and empathize more.

> Isn't this article about Korea?

The choice Korea is making is the same one the EU, Japan, etc. should be making. And ultimately, the same one to make right back at home.

> If it's that bad just don't do business with iPhone users.

I'm pissed that I could write software for everyone pre-App store. This is all artificial nonsense that Apple invented. There's no cost to run instructions on your mobile CPU.

I hope Tesla starts charging businesses when Tesla customers arrive. Or maybe your clothing brand can charge stores because they keep you from being nude so you can safely buy things without being obscene. It's the same analogy.

> The thing is what is happening is that Apple is passing costs on to developers instead of consumers

What costs? Their cartel is pure margin.

They don't charge websites, because it would be impossible and they'd never have been able to bootstrap their device. (Yet they certainly bar browser runtimes so that they maintain complete control.)

> the cost of the iPhone goes up.

No it doesn't. They want more people on their hardware platform so they reap services revenue and can cross sell other devices. They're already making a killing.

Apple can innovate new products and revenue streams with all that money and all those engineers. If the only innovative business they can do is imposing an artificial tax, then they're simply a market distortion.

> As a consumer, I love it.

You love our pain?

> Maybe you just don't have a good enough business model?

And you blame me?

Ugh.

Re: S.Korea parliament committee votes to curb Google, Apple commission dominance

#80

Post by AnimalMuppet »

dantheman wrote: post #78
flavius29663 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything was legal until it wasn't. It was the same for Standard oil before 1911: they said it's all legal to have such a monopoly on oil. For some people at the time, it was obvious this was an unfair advantage on the market, so they fought to make it illegal. It's the same now. Of course Google and Apple mostly respect the laws of the land, but if a large swath of the population/industry thinks they are unfair, t…

You should actually look at Standard Oil - it lowered prices, increased access, and by the time it was broken up was already losing market share and was not nearly as dominant. As with most anti-trust arguments -- market domination is temporary unless granted by the government, e.g. AT&T. In general it is sour grapes from those who can't compete.

You should look at Standard Oil. Yes, it lowered prices and increased access. And it did things that were clearly blatantly unfair competition.

For one example, it demanded kickbacks from railroads on oil shipments - all oil shipments, including competitors'. It's pretty hard for a competitor to be able to compete in that environment.

Post reply on HN