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

How Apple Cheats

marksands.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 235 posts

Re: How Apple Cheats

#171

Post by CocaKoala »

jacquesm wrote: post #154
Iftheshoefits wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Nobody makes an alternative" is demonstrably, empirically false. Android, BlackBerry, Windows, Tizen, etc. In fact, my entire household uses Android phones, as do all my family and with the exception of three individuals (2 Apple, 1 Windows), all my friends.

Did you purposefully misunderstand that sentence or was it simply not clear? To complete the sentence in an unambiguous way 'alternative os for apple mobile hardware'.

Right, but so what? If there's alternative hardware, then there's an alternative OS; nobody is forced to use Apple mobile hardware, nobody is forced to use iOS. The fact that you can't use arbitrary operating systems on arbitrary hardware doesn't mean that Apple has a monopoly.

Re: How Apple Cheats

#172

Post by maaku »

dilap wrote: post #42
jacquesm wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Microsoft did the same thing in Windows it was grounds for anti-trust lawsuits to be brought against them: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/101947/microsoft-used-undocument... The idea here is that if you are supplying both the operating system and the applications that your applications should not benefit from being made by the same company as the OS, in other words, that it should be a level playing ground without…

Yeah, in a monopoly situation I see where you're coming from, but Apple has very healthy competition from Android. It's not currently in Apple's interest to hobble 3rd party apps; quite the opposite.

Please show me where I can get Android installed on my iOS device.

Re: How Apple Cheats

#173

Post by AnthonyMouse »

headShrinker wrote: post #146
rando289 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple has a monopoly on operating systems which work on apple hardware.

While it's comforting to apply the word's meaning to all different kinds of things, the word "monopoly" is by definition tied to a size and scope of entire markets, types of goods, and services. It doesn't really apply to services within services unless those services are entire markets, and even then it's iffy at best. To say 'I have a monopoly on my toilet', while technically I control all access to it, is incorrec…

Ask this question: Can you identify a group of customers who cannot reasonably obtain the product or service (i.e. distribution of software) from anyone other than Apple? The answer is yes. People who already own Apple iOS products. Because Apple prohibits anyone from selling to them other than through its own store and having to replace the customer's entire device to change that is not reasonable.

This is different from your toilet because other toilets are fungible with yours. You can't use an Android app store on an iPhone, they're not fungible.

This would not be the case if there were competing app stores for iOS and competing (or modifiable) operating systems for Apple hardware. That is why it hasn't been relevant in most other markets. You don't have to buy all your water from Delta after installing one of their faucets and you didn't have to buy all your music from Sony after buying a Walkman. Apple wanted to change the rules, that changes the scope of the market.

Re: How Apple Cheats

#174

Post by Consultant32452 »

reidrac wrote: post #52
dilap wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, in a monopoly situation I see where you're coming from, but Apple has very healthy competition from Android. It's not currently in Apple's interest to hobble 3rd party apps; quite the opposite.

If Apple is a abusing his position as OS provider by using in their apps APIs that are not available to other app developers, I'm not sure if the right answer is "go and develop for Android instead". What I think it may be different in Apple's case is that they don't usually build apps that compete with apps from other developers like Microsoft did.

I haven't checked into it lately but Apple certainly used to ban any competing apps from its app store. So if you had an iTunes competitor, you weren't going to get it released for iOS. http://www.cnet.com/news/apple-blocks-competitive-products-f...

Re: How Apple Cheats

#175

Post by sheetjs »

dilap wrote: post #42
jacquesm wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Microsoft did the same thing in Windows it was grounds for anti-trust lawsuits to be brought against them: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/101947/microsoft-used-undocument... The idea here is that if you are supplying both the operating system and the applications that your applications should not benefit from being made by the same company as the OS, in other words, that it should be a level playing ground without…

Yeah, in a monopoly situation I see where you're coming from, but Apple has very healthy competition from Android. It's not currently in Apple's interest to hobble 3rd party apps; quite the opposite.

On a side note: I wonder why they hard coded the 4 names rather than grant access to all apps with bundle identifiers starting with "com.apple."

Re: How Apple Cheats

#176

Post by AnthonyMouse »

valarauca1 wrote: post #138
rando289 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple has a monopoly on operating systems which work on apple hardware.

I don't think your understanding how a Monopoly applied in the situation with Microsoft. Microsoft's Anti-trust suite was because of its web browser's dominance, IE was during the anti-trust suite upwards of 95% of all browsers on the Internet, this was because of bundling and defaults. While other OS's may not execute on Apple's own hardware, other hardware exists (other smart phones) that directly compete with Appl…

> This is how Sun didn't get involved in trust litigation over the fact that Solaris was the only OS that ran on Sun SPARC hardware

There is also the fact that Sun didn't prohibit other operating system or application vendors from making operating systems or applications for its hardware by locking the boot loader.

Re: How Apple Cheats

#177

Post by enraged_camel »

vanderZwan wrote: post #129
abhigupta wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find that such relative comparison put things in perspective.

My problem with it is that it tends to put things in the wrong perspective. Should we judge things by comparing them to other crappy products, or by a reasonable expectation of what things should be like independent of that? If it's the latter, then what's the point of comparing it with the former? It just gives a false sense of "it's not so bad after all."

Companies don't operate inside a vacuum. They are part of an ecosystem that they share with their competitors. If a competitor does X, the company in question must respond with Y. It's just how things work.

Re: How Apple Cheats

#178

Post by Pinwheeler »

sheetjs wrote: post #175
dilap wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, in a monopoly situation I see where you're coming from, but Apple has very healthy competition from Android. It's not currently in Apple's interest to hobble 3rd party apps; quite the opposite.

On a side note: I wonder why they hard coded the 4 names rather than grant access to all apps with bundle identifiers starting with "com.apple."

Haha, that is a good observation! Bring that up at an Apple interview!

Re: How Apple Cheats

#179

Post by ctdonath »

jacquesm wrote: post #47
chaz72 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft had a monopoly position at that time, and Apple does not.

Is it possible to run Windows Phone or Android on iPhones now? They may not have a monopoly on smartphones (they wished they did, and maybe they even think they deserve one), but that's not for lack of trying and as far as systems software on hardware supplied by Apple goes they do. You can't buy an iPhone without iOs and nobody makes an alternative. Anti-trust law does not require a monopoly per-se, 'market power' i…

You're missing the key point that Microsoft makes an OS designed to run on hardware they don't make. Apple makes the iP* hardware and the entwined OS to run on it, much like PlayStation, Xbox, etc. Apple isn't trying to elbow other people off someone else's hardware - but Microsoft did, and got slapped down for it.

Yes, somebody does "make an alternative". There are hundreds of smartphones which are, at base specs, little different from an iPhone and run a variety of viable competing operating systems.

A monopoly occurs when nobody else can compete via resources the monopoly company doesn't ever own, either because the monopoly buys out every option (usually at a loss) for the sole purpose of denying access, or by conspiring to otherwise block fair competition. MS was in violation because (to at least a significant degree) they made everyone buy Windows (or, in a somewhat misguided case, mediaplayer), even if the hardware manufacturer was deliberately not installing Windows on a machine which the customer did not want Windows on; MS was interfering in a transaction they had no right to. Apple, on the other hand, makes the hardware and OS, and has every right to not sell one without the other - and if you don't want one or the other, there are plenty of fairly competing alternatives.

Re: How Apple Cheats

#180

Post by wannabee »

maaku wrote: post #172
dilap wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, in a monopoly situation I see where you're coming from, but Apple has very healthy competition from Android. It's not currently in Apple's interest to hobble 3rd party apps; quite the opposite.

Please show me where I can get Android installed on my iOS device.

Since you asked: http://lifehacker.com/5693309/how-to-install-android-on-an-i...
Post reply on HN