Google and Apple attacked on app store 'monopoly'

Post by zepto » Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 2:09 PM UTC

dTal wrote: post #91

dilap wrote: post #39

I don't care or know if it counts as a "monopoly" (I guess I can use Android...), but as a consumer and human being, I would love it if governments compelled big companies to act more in the public interest and less in their own. In particular, I would love to be able to install 3rd party app stores and software w/o having to resort to jailbreaks or weird certificate hacks. To me, it seems obvious this would be a net…

So much this. Let's keep our actual utility functions in view. Who cares whether or not it's technically a "monopoly"? It sucks ! Worth remembering that "monopoly" wasn't a bad word until we decided it was in the early 20th century. We can decide other things are bad too.

Post by zepto » Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 2:15 PM UTC

ghayes wrote: post #29

geenew wrote: post #15

It's hard to argue with the claim - if you have an iOS phone or tablet, for example, it is a monopoly, since it's the only place you can buy a program for your computer. The walled garden has real benefits in security and privacy, but seems to require centralized control, and comes at the expense of user freedom. A solution to the monopoly pricing problem could be to treat app store controllers (currently A & G) to t…

Sure, and Keurig has a monopoly on coffee if you own a Keurig machine and don't buy from Starbucks. While these corporate actions *are* anti-consumer, they do not generally fall in line with the standard definition of a monopoly, which includes looking at the the whole market, not just a sub-section of it. E.g. my local golf course also has a monopoly on golf balls while I'm in their pro-shop.

Post by zepto » Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 2:18 PM UTC

toyg wrote: post #88

easton wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much do you consider an OS? Because right now Apple could say “fine”, create “The Darwin and XNU Foundation”, and just keep their closed source window manager / core apps (SpringBoard/Finder calendar, mail, App Store). As long as they donated enough to the foundation to keep open builds coming for other platforms (even if you just get a shell with really old coreutils, although I bet it’d be better than that), th…

Nope, the definition of OS would have to cover at least the window manager and the equivalent of win32/cocoa libs, so that developers can build first-class “windowed applications”. I know it wouldn’t be a trivial effort to define it in legal terms, but even in imprecise terms it would lay the foundation for a body of law that could keep OS developers honest.

Post by zepto » Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 2:20 PM UTC

dzonga wrote: post #105

to the people that have experience designing Operating Systems - how difficult is it to have proper application sandboxing ? If everything is user level sandboxed. app can only access it's data. then apple | google wouldn't need to charge 30% to vet apps. if data is to be shared - it has to be explicit.

Post by maxwell » Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 2:26 PM UTC

ghayes wrote: post #29

geenew wrote: post #15

It's hard to argue with the claim - if you have an iOS phone or tablet, for example, it is a monopoly, since it's the only place you can buy a program for your computer. The walled garden has real benefits in security and privacy, but seems to require centralized control, and comes at the expense of user freedom. A solution to the monopoly pricing problem could be to treat app store controllers (currently A & G) to t…

Sure, and Keurig has a monopoly on coffee if you own a Keurig machine and don't buy from Starbucks. While these corporate actions *are* anti-consumer, they do not generally fall in line with the standard definition of a monopoly, which includes looking at the the whole market, not just a sub-section of it. E.g. my local golf course also has a monopoly on golf balls while I'm in their pro-shop.