undefined | Better HN

0 pointsnijave1y ago0 comments

That's not quite a fair comparison. The issue isn't Google v Apple--it's Google/Apple creating vertically integrated software platforms where they have a monopoly on App Stores.

Imo this is more similar to John Deere creating tractor DRM to lock out other entities from repairs. If Toyota came up with a proprietary motor design such that no other repair shop or parts manufacturer could make repairs, it'd be a similar situation. As it stands, there's 3rd party companies making replacement parts and a secondary market with used parts in addition to varying degrees of interoperability with other parts.

There is no secondary market for apps since they're all sold as licenses and never own anything. They also intentionally put restrictions in place to prevent 3rd parties from creating "replacement" apps

0 comments

fasa991y ago

To build out this metaphor a little more, John Deere makes the tractor (phone OS) which pulls machinery (apps - plow, fertilizer spreader, harvester, etc). This would be John Deere controlling which equipment the tractor may or may not be allowed to pull, only machinery allowed by John Deere who gets a 30% cut for the privilege. This would be a great deal for Johnny D!

rezonant1y ago

This. I'm so tired of people (and Google/Apple themselves) trying to change the narrative and say that this is about Android and iOS competing. It's not. Both companies are effectively saying you have no right to change the upholstery in your car unless you buy the package from them.

This is about the economic freedoms of end users and app developers within a platform, not whether lock in is a feature for consumer comparison when buying a phone.

carlosjobim1y ago

> That's not quite a fair comparison. The issue isn't Google v Apple--it's Google/Apple creating vertically integrated software platforms where they have a monopoly on App Stores.

That's the exact reasoning I'm calling tragicomic: They are competitors, neither of them have a monopoly on app stores. If you say that two competitors have a monopoly, then you can say that for example all car manufacturers are in a monopoly on making cars. Sure, then the word monopoly doesn't mean anything, and we have simply removed a word from the vocabulary and made everybody dumber.

Your points and comparisons are valid, but they haven't anything to do with a monopoly.

mu531y ago

You are being overly semantic. There is a monopoly and duopoly, and regardless of the number of companies involved, antitrust laws can be used to break up these businesses and prevent anti-competitive practices to encourage market growth.

The e-book pricing scandal is an example of antitrust activity against a number of companies forming a cartel. The US government isn't bringing this case under those laws, but effectively for lay person conversations, using monopoly where more technical terms like duopoly is okay

carlosjobim1y ago

In your comment above you've suggested two terms that fit better: "Duopoly" and "cartel".

Anti-competitive actions should be combated, but why do people insist that anything has to do with being a "monopoly"?

To draw a comparison, in criminal cases the courts will not determine if an accused is "a bad hombre" – they will determine if he committed the crime or not.

This is like those people (and lawmakers sadly) who try to define any sexual offense as "rape". Thinking that the severity of the crime is only tied to one single word.

tsimionescu1y ago

You are ignoring the relevant market. Sure, Google and Apple are competitors in the smartphone market (where they have a very dangerous duopoly, but let's leave that aside). But they each have a monopoly in the software distribution market for their respective platforms. Additionally, Google has a monopoly position in the smartphone OS market: if you want to build a smartphone, Google Android is basically the only option in town (Apple doesn't sell or license iOS, so it's not a competitor at all in this market).

Additonally, Google have used their position in the Android software market to cement their position in the smartphone OS market, and vice-versa. For example, they de-list certain apps from Google Play Store is they are offered on certain competitor stores (notably, Amazon's). And they don't allow Google Play to be installed on a phone that doesn't ship with it from the factory. And there are numerous other examples. Plus, they've been foolish enough to discuss a lot of these strategies internally over email as ways of ensuring competitors don't succeed, which came out clearly in the discovery process.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

fasa991y ago

rezonant1y ago

This is about the economic freedoms of end users and app developers within a platform, not whether lock in is a feature for consumer comparison when buying a phone.

carlosjobim1y ago

> That's not quite a fair comparison. The issue isn't Google v Apple--it's Google/Apple creating vertically integrated software platforms where they have a monopoly on App Stores.

Your points and comparisons are valid, but they haven't anything to do with a monopoly.

mu531y ago

carlosjobim1y ago

In your comment above you've suggested two terms that fit better: "Duopoly" and "cartel".

Anti-competitive actions should be combated, but why do people insist that anything has to do with being a "monopoly"?

To draw a comparison, in criminal cases the courts will not determine if an accused is "a bad hombre" – they will determine if he committed the crime or not.

This is like those people (and lawmakers sadly) who try to define any sexual offense as "rape". Thinking that the severity of the crime is only tied to one single word.

tsimionescu1y ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse