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

Google and Apple attacked on app store 'monopoly'

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 174 posts

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

#31

Post by erhk »

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.

Yes, given the number of articles posted on hacker news that detail apps which circumvent protections on Apple... That's a bold claim

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

#33

Post by erhk »

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.

Make up a new word and fine them all the same. If you engage in anti consumer practices then I, a consumer, highly endorse anti corporate legislation.

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

#34

Post by cj »

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…

> I feel like the entire world has forgotten what a monopoly is [...] we've completely lost the thread on what a monopoly is.

Perhaps what “a monopoly is” deserves to be redefined from time to time.

I agree with you, legally and based purely on prior case law precedence, maybe it doesn’t count as a monopoly as currently defined by law.

But the legal system is designed to be fluid, to adapt to an evolving society. There are no absolutes in any legal system and everything is up for debate, which is the beauty of the system.

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

#35

Post by RunawayGalaxy »

awat wrote: post #30
RunawayGalaxy wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Android exists

> 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.

How is the scalability of the analogy relevant?

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

#37

Post by Guthur »

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

And yet again wrong. Google and Apple have exhibited very little cartel like behaviour at all. If they had there would have been a clear anti trust case by now.

The problem is that everyone seems to have collectively forgot that it's not monopolies in and of themselves that we have to protected against but rather anti trust behaviour.

You could potentially argue that app stores do exhibit anti trust behaviour but in that case one should do so and not throw around words clearly aimed at invoking an emotional response.

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

#38

Post by threeseed »

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

You need to be careful as words matter.

Apple and Google are not a cartel by any definition and they do not in anyway coordinate with each other. Either of these are criminal.

Google reducing their margins to better compete with Apple is no different to how every market works.

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

#39

Post by dilap »

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 win for society.

(I think you could make the argument that the iPhone is one of the most important creative mediums of our time; from that perspective, it's outrageous that it is censored by an unacountable, prude (& often Kafkaesqe) bureaucracy. Imagine if artists had to get each painting approved by the company that manufactured their oil paints? It's absurd.)

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

#40

Post by hayst4ck »

I really like the Apple app store a lot. I like it because I trust it more than alternatives (google play). I like it because it feels more secure. I like the unified purchase interface. I don't think you can say with a straight face that the Google experience is better than the Apple experience for your parents. I moved my parents to Apple devices because it's safer.

I especially like it because apple is using their "monopoly" position to create anti-business, but pro consumer policy that can't seem to get implemented otherwise. The government should be legislating privacy, but is incapable or unwilling. Apple is doing better than the government.

Calling it a monopoly is a dubious claim, because it's not clear apple is enacting anti-competitive practices in an unfair anti-consumer way. If anything they seem to be enacting pro-consumer policies via monopolistic power.

That being said, Apple is doing one thing that should be unacceptable. Apple makes apps that compete with things sold in the store it controls. That is the sole problem with the app store in my opinion. The closed-ness of it is vastly more beneficial than it is harmful, and there are clear competitive alternatives to buying an Apple device if you don't like it.

Even that being bad is questionable. Kirkland Signature? Half life on steam? Amazon basics? There is clearly precedent. I doubt you feel the same way about each of those implementations of similar behavior.

Post reply on HN