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

Poll: Do You Have A Problem With This Statement

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 60 posts

Re: Poll: Do You Have A Problem With This Statement

#11

Post by moe »

jacquesm wrote: post #9
diazamet wrote: post #7

I see no reason why the government should get involved. It's an free market, if people don't like Apple's practices regarding the App store, they are free to go elsewhere or buy a phone from a different manufacturer.

I think you are missing the point regarding the acceptance of applications, it's not an end-user issue. It's mostly the app store developers that are setting themselves up for trouble because of this. So that should read 'if developers don't like Apples practices regarding the App store they are free to go elsewhere', only there is no 'elsewhere', the only way to the Iphone leads through the app store.

This might come as a shock to you: There actually is an 'elsewhere' beyond the iPhone. Last time I checked apple didn't go around forcing people to become app developers.

Don't like their rules? Don't play on their lawn.

Re: Poll: Do You Have A Problem With This Statement

#12

Post by jrockway »

I agree that the government should not be able to tell AT&T and Apple what to do ...

... as soon as Apple and AT&T deliver phone service without using any public infrastructure. As long as they want to use the public airwaves, though, the public should have some oversight into what goes on.

(Remember, "the big bad government" isn't telling them what to do, the people that own the infrastructure, us, are telling them what to do. It's just that the process is very, very indirect.)

Re: Poll: Do You Have A Problem With This Statement

#13

Post by diazamet »

jacquesm wrote: post #9
diazamet wrote: post #7

I see no reason why the government should get involved. It's an free market, if people don't like Apple's practices regarding the App store, they are free to go elsewhere or buy a phone from a different manufacturer.

I think you are missing the point regarding the acceptance of applications, it's not an end-user issue. It's mostly the app store developers that are setting themselves up for trouble because of this. So that should read 'if developers don't like Apples practices regarding the App store they are free to go elsewhere', only there is no 'elsewhere', the only way to the Iphone leads through the app store.

Ok, point taken but equally, nobody is forced to develop for the iPhone. Develop for Android or Symbian. Ultimately, so many developers have succumbed to Apples practices and they are responsible for giving Apple the power they have. This is still no reason for government involvement.

Re: Poll: Do You Have A Problem With This Statement

#15

Post by jacquesm »

apsurd wrote: post #10
jacquesm wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really, he's showing that the government already has 'full disclosure' rules for some industries and suggests that the digital world might benefit from that same principle. You could easily trivialize this by suggesting that the food supply is a critical resource, but if a company gets large enough to employ a bunch of people living in Apples 'eco-system' and Apple decides to pull the plug the results for those p…

I understand your point. But very simply, that is not what Capitalism entails. Capitalism is like biology's natural selection. You don't arbitrarily go determining rules of engagement and codes of conduct within the animal kingdom, so as to even things out. Why? Because those things are taken care of naturally . I'm not saying I know what's best for anyone. Rather, it's just not the American/Capitalistic way. And Ame…

I don't think it has to do with whether or not it is the American/Capitalistic way either...

It's about whether it is right to have a platform that is closed without specifying clearly and unambiguously what the rules are for access to that platform.

Imagine you're an Iphone developer, you build your application, you get it accepted. Business is good. Then you hire some more people and you improve your application. Business is even better. Sooner or later you have an office full of people, and then one day your application gets rejected. Not only that, you'll have to pay back to the users that bought your application what they paid for it.

And all this without so much as an explanation why or a public rulebook where you could see for yourself why you were not in the clear.

Capitalism or the American way does not enter in to it. Think about a real-world analogy (and which like all analogies is broken) where the toll-keeper on a road would decide retroactively that the goods that you transported on their road did not meet their criteria, and that you have to reverse your business for the last N months, without any recourse on your part.

Re: Poll: Do You Have A Problem With This Statement

#17

Post by diazamet »

jrockway wrote: post #12

I agree that the government should not be able to tell AT&T and Apple what to do ... ... as soon as Apple and AT&T deliver phone service without using any public infrastructure. As long as they want to use the public airwaves, though, the public should have some oversight into what goes on. (Remember, "the big bad government" isn't telling them what to do, the people that own the infrastructure, us, are telling them…

"the public should have some oversight into what goes on", the public do have some oversight. The public could stop buying AT&T and Apple products/services.

Re: Poll: Do You Have A Problem With This Statement

#18

Post by drewcrawford »

Here's where the analogy breaks down:

Ingredients listed on food are provided so that people who have allergies can see what's in the food, and not die. In a universe where foods don't have to list ingredients, foods without the ingredient label will be cheaper, meaning allergic people have to pay more to find out what's in the food. Meaning that allergic people ("disabled", if you will) are forced to pay more because of a from-birth (or from-young-age) disadvantage through no fault of theirs.

I'm republican and libertarian as the day is long, but I support government regulation that puts this sort of disadvantaged people on equal footing with everyone else. That means elevators have to be in buildings, handicapped people should get free parking, learning disabled should get special classes in school, etc.

You can't be allergic to an iPhone app. Being open and transparent about an app market is one of those things that should be competitive advantage. Sprint or MS or whoever's building their app store should be able to say "Look at our app store, it's open! Come over here!" as a selling point even when their software stack is inferior (no flamewars please).

I'm an iPhone developer and I am pissed at apple. What they are doing is wrong and evil. But developers are perfectly capable of staging a coup and changing Apple's mind (we did with getting them to release the app store in the first place). I'm open to discussing why that doesn't happen (too many people are making too much money is my theory).

But what shouldn't happen is the government stepping in and saying "Too lazy to stand up for yourselves? Don't worry, we'll do it for you!" That's so dumb I don't even know where to begin. It sets an awful precedent. Software developers are fiery and passionate, generally speaking, and I've seen way too many professions lose that because they outsource their righteous indignation to their government, and then become dependent. And then there's regulation written for yesteryear affecting today's tech companies, and in about fifty years tech becomes the auto industry or the banking industry: one-brilliant people who gave their battles away to someone else to fight, and everybody paid the price for it.

Maybe that's a bit overdramatic for one government intervention. On the other hand, for want of a shoe...

Re: Poll: Do You Have A Problem With This Statement

#19

Post by apsurd »

jacquesm wrote: post #15
apsurd wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand your point. But very simply, that is not what Capitalism entails. Capitalism is like biology's natural selection. You don't arbitrarily go determining rules of engagement and codes of conduct within the animal kingdom, so as to even things out. Why? Because those things are taken care of naturally . I'm not saying I know what's best for anyone. Rather, it's just not the American/Capitalistic way. And Ame…

I don't think it has to do with whether or not it is the American/Capitalistic way either... It's about whether it is right to have a platform that is closed without specifying clearly and unambiguously what the rules are for access to that platform. Imagine you're an Iphone developer, you build your application, you get it accepted. Business is good. Then you hire some more people and you improve your application. B…

Morally: yes. Good business: yes. Legislated: why?

I bring up Capitalism because this is about business. All of your points are rock-solid data points of why NOT to do business with Apple's App store. Yet developers insist.

I am going start a company that manufactures pagers. Is this a bad business decision? Maybe ... Is it my choice ... yes...

Of course there's a difference. Your point is about retroactively pulling the plug for no disclosed reason. I get that - but again all the more reason that its a bad business decision.

Re: Poll: Do You Have A Problem With This Statement

#20

Post by TomOfTTB »

radu_floricica wrote: post #16

I voted Yes, I'd have a problem with this. Sounds like a common sense idea, but the implementation would be horrific. How exactly do you set the standards for this? You can't make a law especially for Apple, so you have to legislate ... what exactly?

I'm not sure I see why this would be hard. I'd say the law could look something like this...

"Companies who create computing environments that are not open to all applications must clearly define the acceptance criteria for developers wishing to create applications for those environments"

I guess there will always be some ambiguity (What's "clearly " for example) but anything is an improvement over what we have now.

Post reply on HN