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

41–50 of 60 posts

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

#41

Post by DanielBMarkham »

This is like a political theory intelligence test.

Does Apple have a monopoly that is preventing free and open trade? Perhaps. If so, government has a role to provide an open, honest shot for smartphone developers (and more so for end-consumers) This is because monopolies distort markets, which hurts everybody. But it's important to realize that for 99.9% of cases, having control over your platform, sales, and marketing channels is a good thing for everybody involved.

Should government enforce food labeling? Sure thing, because folks can't make an honest determination of what they're buying unless the contents are clearly labeled. This is back to the free and open market idea.

Should government step in anytime somebody (even a majority) think something is "unfair"? Not so much. People think all kinds of things are fair or unfair, and such distinctions are very emotional.

The key question is whether or not the iPhone is distorting the free and open market for smartphone apps. I think we have a long way to go before we cross that line. Right now it's more a matter of Apple doing wonderfuly well and holding their cards close as to what they want to allow on their platform. But there are a lot of choices out there for app developers and consumers. And the worse Apple acts, the more the market will punish it.

I'm a developer who's thinking about writing some smartphone apps. With all the publicity, I've decided that the iPhone platform isn't for me. Over time, if enough developers feel the same way, there'll be more apps not on the platform than on it. Apple has to be smart enough to see this as a problem, so I think things will be self-correcting.

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

#42

Post by drewcrawford »

TomOfTTB wrote: post #26
drewcrawford wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The tech community couldn't be more riled up then it is now (how many times have "I'm dropping Apple" posts made it to the front page of HN lately?) See, it could be much more riled up than it is. For one, developers could pull their apps from the store. That 50,000 figure Apple published ages ago could be 5,000. If Tapulous or one of the iPhone developers that Apple babies pulled their apps in protest, I guarantee…

Here's my problem with that. The examples you give are never, EVER going to happen. Developers aren't going to pull their applications from the most popular computing environment just to prove a point. Nor are companies like Google going to change their whole computing environment just to prove a point. It would be corporate misconduct to flush all that money down the toilet just to prove some point to Apple that has…

> So if we accept the actions needed for the public to make Apple change are not things that will ever happen

But see, I don't accept that premise. For one thing, the CEO of Google just quit the Apple board, which I read as a little more than just "Too many meetings I can't take part of." For another thing, people aren't blindly loyal (except to themselves, perhaps). A mac wasn't the first computer you ever bought. An iPhone wasn't the first phone you ever made calls on. You woke up one day and decided to purchase one or both. Tomorrow you can wake up and decide to buy into another platform.

Sure, there's some friction. But that is largely for good reason. GV or no, the iPhone is better by and large than most other phones. Macs are (in some people's view, anyway) by and large better than most other computers. If they cease to become as good (or if their competitors become better), Apple will lose business. It's the same as anybody else.

> As a society are we willing to just accept this injustice?"

This is the wrong question. First of all, what's happened is not an "injustice". It might be meanspirited and in bad faith, but injustice is what happens when people are denied their rights. And "we" as "society" are not in the position to decide anything, except whether or not we want an iPhone, and whether or not we want to develop for it. Two years ago the app store didn't exist, nobody put apps on their phones. Now, everybody seems to think it's a god-given right and it has to be run a certain way. There's absolutely nothing illegal about what Apple's doing.

The government can't (and shouldn't) dictate the way it's run any more than they can dictate the plot of a Harry Potter book. Wildly popular, prosperous to many, contentious, and ultimately the product of someone's mind.

Besides, how would you do it? There's no breach of contract; developers sign a document that says that Apple can reject apps for any reason (all the rejections that I've seen actually point to a reason in the contract, which is not, technically speaking, required). The FCC's jurisdiction might extend to protecting jailbreakers, but not what software Apple allows in their own store (and certainly not to iPod Touches). I suppose Congress could increase the breathtakingly-wide interstate commerce clause, but 70% of the apps are free, which I think would give even the most expansionist observer pause. Plus you have to ponder what random nonsense would end up in the bill.

No, if there's anything to be done, Apple has to see enough pressure to change. With Google and Apple in divorce proceedings, it would be perfectly reasonable to stop serving map tiles when the contract's up. Already you see the signs: Latitude can't be a native app, GV can't be a native app, how much ad revenue does Google get from serving Youtube to phones again? That relationship's going to get sour fast.

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

#43

Post by bmelton »

I would personally have a giant problem with government intervention in a private matter. This is a market issue. If customers don't like how Apple is behaving, they are free to take their business elsewhere. If they don't, they are either offering a more compelling product than the other guys, or are serving the majority of their customers satisfactorily.

I can see the argument that developers for the App Store are akin to contractors for Apple, but I don't believe that's the case either.

If the developers really want government involvement, the first step WOULD NOT BE regulation, rather it should be arbitration. The slighted developers have the courtrooms available to them, and potentially have contract dispute claims they could file suit on. (I don't know, I don't develop for the iPhone at all.) If they don't, then they've obviously entered into a one-sided contract they shouldn't have, and shame on them. That said, there might also be a claim for that as well. One of the primary tenets for contract law is that there is mutual consideration -- a contract without mutual consideration can often be considered valueless on its face. I am uncertain whether or not the potential for profit by app store sales counts or not, honestly.

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

#44

Post by drewcrawford »

stanleydrew wrote: post #29
drewcrawford wrote: post #18

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 becaus…

The problem is that a handicap doesn't have to be a physical or mental disability. There are serious asymmetries of information that handicap all of us, even the smartest. To take your example, I'd say that ingredients are listed on food so that consumers have the same information as the producers. People with allergies are just a particular subset of consumers who benefit from the level information playing field. An…

I carefully framed the world "disability" above to mean some disadvantage you were either born with or acquired very young, something that's fundamentally unfair or injust. You can't choose to be allergic, you can't work very hard and eventually overcome your allergies. Fate just struck you, and that's that.

I'm not sure I view 'information asymmetries' in the same light. Clearly some information (like passphrases or source code) are asymmetrical by design, and there's nothing fundamentally wrong with that. I'm "disabled" in the sense that I can't read SJ's e-mail; forcing him to open his inbox would probably be "leveling the playing field" for a lot of people, but none of this is unfairness or injustice. Quite the contrary, forcing his inbox open would be an injustice. Sure, there are cases when you're investigating something else and you need to, but there's warrants and process and all that. There's a fundamental understanding that it's very very bad and only if we absolutely have to.

Similarly, meddling in the app store, private property of apple, would be an injustice. Sure, I think it needs work; what apple's doing is meanspirited. But it's their sandbox, and they need to be the ones to clean up the mess. Boycotts, nonrenewing contracts, etc., all put legitimate pressure on a company, governments work with illegitimate pressure (which can be useful if something really really bad is happening. But that isn't this situation).

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

#45

Post by mcav »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #41

This is like a political theory intelligence test. Does Apple have a monopoly that is preventing free and open trade? Perhaps. If so, government has a role to provide an open, honest shot for smartphone developers (and more so for end-consumers) This is because monopolies distort markets, which hurts everybody. But it's important to realize that for 99.9% of cases, having control over your platform, sales, and market…

In time, the market will self-correct if Apple behaves poorly enough. But I think it's important to remember that self-correction might take a long time.

We're dealing with platforms -- large systems to which people commit their data. We're also dealing with a two-faced community: developers and consumers. It's going to take a lot more than unfair developer treatment to get many people to switch away from iTunes.

Apple generally makes excellent products; combine that with the iTunes ecosystem to get a combo bonus. People aren't likely to switch to a platform they perceive as inferior; Apple won't drop the ball on creating good combinations of hardware and software any time soon. Even if a superior product arrives, consumers must commit to migrating their applications, data, music, etc.

It's going to take a lot more than a restrictive and unfair developer platform to get the market to correct itself. Look at the Windows Vista debacle: despite many unhappy consumers, I don't see a whole lot of people switching away for that reason alone. Anecdotally, the only time I see people switch away from Windows is when they're enticed by buying a Mac instead -- and they cite Apple's software more often than Windows's flaws.

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

#46

Post by zeckalpha »

I would be for government intervention, but your reasoning I see as flawed. It is hypocritical.

If you believe Apple should be required to list its requirements for applications, then you should also believe that governments should be required to list their requirements for corporations.

That is all.

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

#47

Post by DanielBMarkham »

mcav wrote: post #45
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #41

This is like a political theory intelligence test. Does Apple have a monopoly that is preventing free and open trade? Perhaps. If so, government has a role to provide an open, honest shot for smartphone developers (and more so for end-consumers) This is because monopolies distort markets, which hurts everybody. But it's important to realize that for 99.9% of cases, having control over your platform, sales, and market…

In time, the market will self-correct if Apple behaves poorly enough. But I think it's important to remember that self-correction might take a long time. We're dealing with platforms -- large systems to which people commit their data. We're also dealing with a two-faced community: developers and consumers. It's going to take a lot more than unfair developer treatment to get many people to switch away from iTunes. App…

Absolutely. These things take a long time to work themselves out.

There's also a case to be made, which is made by every monopoly, that having a single player actually advances things in the public interest. In other words, by having Apple control so much, the future of smartphones in general is actually advanced much farther than if they didn't. I don't buy this argument as a general rule, but parts of it do seem to make sense. After all, getting 40 individual players to agree on a standard is a lot harder than getting one company to do so.

Perhaps the natural state of the technology industry is to slowly swing between monopolies and openness. During times of monopolies, de facto standards get adopted and interfaces stabilized. During times of openness, innovation rules and paradigm changes are made.

I'm not saying this is a good thing, just that it looks like a pattern might be setting up.

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

#48

Post by jrockway »

diazamet wrote: post #17
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.

With a $200 termination fee, I doubt this would be much incentive for AT&T to "do better".

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

#49

Post by jrockway »

randallsquared wrote: post #38
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…

"Airwaves" are not infrastructure. Apple and AT&T do have government-granted privileges (such as limited liability and the huge swath of regulations which assist larger and existing corporations against their customers and smaller competitors), but regulations for and against don't "balance"; handing someone a candy bar does not give you the right to tell them what to do.

handing someone a candy bar does not give you the right to tell them what to do

OK, let's stop giving away candy bars then. What's in it for me?

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

#50

Post by TomOfTTB »

drewcrawford wrote: post #42
TomOfTTB wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's my problem with that. The examples you give are never, EVER going to happen. Developers aren't going to pull their applications from the most popular computing environment just to prove a point. Nor are companies like Google going to change their whole computing environment just to prove a point. It would be corporate misconduct to flush all that money down the toilet just to prove some point to Apple that has…

> So if we accept the actions needed for the public to make Apple change are not things that will ever happen But see, I don't accept that premise. For one thing, the CEO of Google just quit the Apple board, which I read as a little more than just "Too many meetings I can't take part of." For another thing, people aren't blindly loyal (except to themselves, perhaps). A mac wasn't the first computer you ever bought. A…

A few things...

The CEO of Google quitting the Apple board is way different from what you describe. The actions you described would cost companies thousands if not millions of dollars and that's not going to happen.

Injustice is the denial of justice and justice is defined as "the quality of being just or fair". Denying people their rights is an injustice but only because it's unfair to do it. In the end the issue is still fairness.

Again, you use the example of dictating the plot of a Harry Potter book as why the Government shouldn't intervene. But that would be the Government telling a company HOW to run. I specifically said this isn't about that. It's about making the company define how they interact with the public. A better analogy would be the government making it illegal to put the cover of the new Harry Potter book on copies of older ones to sell copies (which in fact is illegal)

Post reply on HN