Google and Apple attacked on app store 'monopoly' • Hacker News Board

Re: Google and Apple attacked on app store 'monopoly'

#21

Post by arberx » Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 1:19 AM UTC

bombcar wrote: post #17

c3534l wrote: post #16

I feel like the entire world has forgotten what a monopoly is. Apparently both Apple and Google are monopolies despite being competitors of one another. Programmers clearly talk about developing apps for one platform or another and sometimes give up on developing for one because the approval process was annoying or arbitrary. Consumers have a choice in the phones they buy and whether to even use a phone app for that…

Monopoly is anything that does something that I don’t like. People bitch about Android vs iPhone and ignore the actual local monopolies present in the phone network itself.

Those are called natural monopolies.

It's very difficult to put up network infrastructure.

Re: Google and Apple attacked on app store 'monopoly'

#22

Post by 015a » Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 1:20 AM UTC

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…

I don't even buy the "security" argument; MacOS is a highly secure operating system, produced by the same company, which has no forced walled-garden App Store. There certainly are exploits and scams which happen; just like on iOS. The argument sounds great in theory, but in practice, it simply doesn't hold water; security & privacy can (and should) (and does) happen at the OS layer, not application distribution.

Re: Google and Apple attacked on app store 'monopoly'

#23

Post by RunawayGalaxy » Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 1:20 AM UTC

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…

If I build a shopping center that gets tons of foot traffic, pay to build the amenities and security, and then charge stores rent, it doesn't suddenly become a monopoly when the tenants feel that the rent is too high.

Re: Google and Apple attacked on app store 'monopoly'

#24

Post by cblconfederate » Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 1:20 AM UTC

chii wrote: post #6

cblconfederate wrote: post #3

i think it's not productive to call it a literal/actual/effective monopoly, since it's designed to be monopoly. The problem is not so much that it's a monopoly but that it advertises itself to developers and to users as being an open more or less market, which it isn't since it's by design rigged and censored. There's a legal gap here probably because such situations are unprecedented (where a company builds a market…

> situations are unprecedented (where a company builds a market completely controlled by itself) not really. Malls are in a similar situation. If you own the mall, you get to dictate whether the tenants are allowed or not. They pay rent to remain in the mall, and there's some rules they must follow or they get kicked out (rules which are made clear upfront). The difference between a mall and the app store is that the…

I dont consider that a good analogy - if a mall closes a cinema because it doesn't like a movie, or a bakery because it baked a cake, there would be legal repercusions for them while apple's developer contract doesn't seem to have lots of legal protections for the seller, or the buyer.

Also, a mall doesn't benefit from dictating these decisions in a direct way the way apple does: apps are selected on the basis of improving the value (and price/desirability) of apple's products, not on the basis of giving user satisfaction/choice (when these two conflict)

A closer analogy would be a gas station made by Ford that is the only station that that Fords can use. Or Tesla's charger network where competing companies could be invited , but be at their whims.

Well, pauli's principle allows up to 2 malls in the same place

Re: Google and Apple attacked on app store 'monopoly'

#25

Post by erhk » Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 1:21 AM UTC

eruleman wrote: post #18

c3534l wrote: post #16

I feel like the entire world has forgotten what a monopoly is. Apparently both Apple and Google are monopolies despite being competitors of one another. Programmers clearly talk about developing apps for one platform or another and sometimes give up on developing for one because the approval process was annoying or arbitrary. Consumers have a choice in the phones they buy and whether to even use a phone app for that…

You're right. It's a duopoly, a cartel. A system controlled by two players who move in coordination with one another. techcrunch.com/2021/03/16/google-play-drops-commissions-to-15-from-30-following-apples-move-last-year

Good thing that they all cross into each other's primary fields so that there's never a monopoly. Google makes phones. Windows is a search company.

Re: Google and Apple attacked on app store 'monopoly'

#26

Post by BoorishBears » Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 1:21 AM UTC

eruleman wrote: post #18

c3534l wrote: post #16

I feel like the entire world has forgotten what a monopoly is. Apparently both Apple and Google are monopolies despite being competitors of one another. Programmers clearly talk about developing apps for one platform or another and sometimes give up on developing for one because the approval process was annoying or arbitrary. Consumers have a choice in the phones they buy and whether to even use a phone app for that…

You're right. It's a duopoly, a cartel. A system controlled by two players who move in coordination with one another. techcrunch.com/2021/03/16/google-play-drops-commissions-to-15-from-30-following-apples-move-last-year

Sure chose a bad example... that's Google being forced to drop fees by their competitor.

Those are commissions the stores take not what the developers take. Sure sounds like competition.

Re: Google and Apple attacked on app store 'monopoly'

#27

Post by erhk » Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 1:21 AM UTC

arberx wrote: post #21

bombcar wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Monopoly is anything that does something that I don’t like. People bitch about Android vs iPhone and ignore the actual local monopolies present in the phone network itself.

Those are called natural monopolies. It's very difficult to put up network infrastructure.

So why are they not municipal

Or should we have water and electric monopolies

Re: Google and Apple attacked on app store 'monopoly'

#28

Post by fastball » Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 1:21 AM UTC

015a wrote: post #22

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…

I don't even buy the "security" argument; MacOS is a highly secure operating system, produced by the same company, which has no forced walled-garden App Store. There certainly are exploits and scams which happen; just like on iOS. The argument sounds great in theory, but in practice, it simply doesn't hold water; security & privacy can (and should) (and does) happen at the OS layer, not application distribution.

macOS is definitely less secure than iOS.

Re: Google and Apple attacked on app store 'monopoly'

#29

Post by ghayes » Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 1:22 AM UTC

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.

Re: Google and Apple attacked on app store 'monopoly'

#30

Post by awat » Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 1:23 AM UTC

RunawayGalaxy wrote: post #23

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…

If I build a shopping center that gets tons of foot traffic, pay to build the amenities and security, and then charge stores rent, it doesn't suddenly become a monopoly when the tenants feel that the rent is too high.

It does when you literally can’t operate your store in another mall.

I also don’t think this analogy scales very well since many stores operate both in and out of closed shopping centers. Including Apple’s stores.