251–260 of 304 posts
What? I really looked forward to this. Gaming in the apple eco system is horrible already but not even be allowed to stream? Extremely stupid, Outright hostile "Business conflict"? Now Apple suddenly becomes a real obstruction in my life and ultimately an enemy. This is switch to android level of bad.
I think I'll clip and save this comment to demonstrate to my students the definition of an "overreaction."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're willing not only to download sideload apps but also to modify your device so you can have root access, then it works. So not really different from Apple.
You don't need to get root on an android device to sideload apps, unless the app has specific functionality that requires root. You don't need to break anything about the system or your warranty. Its just a toggle in the settings menu.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that iPhones account for just 35% of US mobile phones [1] and only around 15% of phone shipments worldwide [2], this is in no way monopolistic. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/13/ios-and-samsung-market-sha... [2] https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/05/02/apples-iphone-buc...
> Given that iPhones account for just 35% of US mobile phones [1] and only around 15% of phone shipments worldwide [2], this is in no way monopolistic Why do you think that? You are only arguing that "monopoly laws" should be called "oligopoly laws". These laws require abuse of a dominant market position, not a majority share.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that iPhones account for just 35% of US mobile phones [1] and only around 15% of phone shipments worldwide [2], this is in no way monopolistic. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/13/ios-and-samsung-market-sha... [2] https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/05/02/apples-iphone-buc...
> Given that iPhones account for just 35% of US mobile phones [1] and only around 15% of phone shipments worldwide [2], this is in no way monopolistic. What is monopolistic to you? Does it need to be over 50%? I don't think economists define it that way, they only argue that one company has excessive influence in a market, which means more power than the other companies in that market. That does seem to be true of Ap…
It can have a local monopoly of course (and often does in many more rural areas) but that’s not the same.
I think I’ve been to a Walmart once in the last 10 years. I’m not even trying to avoid them: there’s no reason or need for me to go there and I have plenty of other (just as cheap) options.
That’s not a monopoly.
They’re a massive business and a dominant national brand but that’s also not a monopoly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alright, then how about removing Adblock from their stores? Android is a little better, but it's by no means totally free.
You can install android apps or chrome extensions from any source, not just the Google-managed store. This sounds minor, but its absolutely a major reason why the stores aren't monopolies. I find it startling how few people on HN remember the fact that stores have a right to decide what they want to sell and not. We don't live in communist Russia. Walmart doesn't have to sell Whole Foods-branded food, H&M doesn't hav…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Suppose a majority of those users are perfectly fine with it, and enjoy the benefits of a carefully curated system? The fact that Apples policies are widely known and people still buy iPhones in the millions is pretty good evidence that Apple has a much better grip on what their users prefer than you do.
At the same time (as an example) I have something like 150 movies I've bought on iTunes that I cannot bring to any other platform. So Apple locks-in users to their platform (as is everyone else) then they are using the control they have over their user base to lock out competition. This is the very definition of anti-competitive behavior.
If there was then patents, copyrights, trademarks, and fit of licensing, etc would all be wrong to the same degree.
Until a monopoly (or a collaborative effort by members of an oligopoly - in the case of price fixing) abuses these things we don’t care - and rightly so.
Plus, when it comes to media like movies, you really should complain about the movie studios & their licensing. That’s why Apple locks down videos - they have to or they wouldn’t be able to offer the content. You can see their free & easily shareable approach to music purchasing as a counter example to movies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The argument on both sides is around financial burden: * Pay more for delivery because not using Amazon Prime * Pay more to buy an Android phone When making this argument it's obvious that buying a new phone is much more expensive than Amazon Prime but this raises an interesting question; what is the financial threshold at which point one has to be considered a monopoly?
Most people shop on multiple websites, most people don't carry around two phones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're willing not only to download sideload apps but also to modify your device so you can have root access, then it works. So not really different from Apple.
This is absolutely not the case. I can install any app-store app I'd like, and it can install apps on my phone. I can even download raw apk file and install them myself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But Apple doesn't have a significant share of the mobile phone industry - Android (Google) does - with I believe Samsung leading the way. So how can it be monopolistic? The comparisons in other posts is not quite apples - to - apples (no pun intended) because you can't be a monopoly when you're not in a dominant market position. Lastly, whether or not the examples you mention "benefit" customers today is irrelevant,…
Apple has 60% of market-share in high-end phone market (worldwide, it's higher in US). Oh, it is a major player