Hacker News Reader

Comment by lumb63 | Hacker News Reader

I agree with your position regarding Apple’s statement being bogus. That said, I don’t understand the monopoly comparison. Complaining there is only an Apple App Store is like buying a Ford and complaining Chevy parts don’t fit. Or a Samsung dishwasher only accepts Samsung parts. Or a PC only accepts the user’s password. Or a lock only accepts one key. Or a pet fish cannot fly.

If you buy or use a product that has constraints, you will be subject to those constraints. If you do not want to be subject to those constraints, do not buy or use those products.

The people who argue for antitrust action against Apple seem to badly misunderstand anti-trust, at least compared to my own understanding. For instance, the above poster says “if I have a MacBook” - the fact that there are other products for consumers to buy besides MacBooks, without the constraints of a MacBook, is testament to the fact that Apple’s position is not monopolistic.

View on HN

Aftermarket car parts is a thing, so I don't really see your point.

Actually, you don't seem to be arguing in good faith. If apple just allowed it, 3rd party app stores would spring up over night.

Homebrew is a perfect example of 3rd party app store.

And open-source and free, at that.

> Complaining there is only an Apple App Store is like buying a Ford and complaining Chevy parts don’t fit

Isn't a more apt comparison be that Ford does not allow Chevy to make and sell parts that fit to one of their vehicles.

Nintendo's store is the only one available on a Switch. That is almost a congruent comparison.

Except that you can buy games in a local store and play them on your Switch. When was the last time you bought an app in a convenience store and then installed it on your phone?

Ah, good point.

How exactly? You can still only run applications approved by Nintendo. Also besides this the Switch is still massively more restrictive than the iOS appstore

The store itself is the point I had in mind as compared to the App Store as a means of distribution. I agree that these things seem anti-competitive but it is a good point on that topic that Switch games can be distributed without the software store.

> but it is a good point on that topic that Switch games can be distributed without the software store.

Perhaps, yet despite that the Apple app store is considerably more open in almost every other way.

This is true of the switch, but there are versions of both the PS5 and Xbox Series that don't have the ability to play physical media.

Do they skate because users can pay more to get a version of the hardware that has that capability?

The method of distribution isn’t the point at argument here, is it?

For this argument to participate we have to assume it implies that people could develop, compile and deploy Switch games to commodity memory cards and then install them.

Otherwise it is the same behavior, from the perspective of prohibiting competition.

What makes you think that I'm arguing the method of distribution rather than the number of independent sellers?

What are you arguing about then? Nintendo controls the Switch platform much more strictly than Apple does, it’s cheaper and much easier to ship a game on iOS

Games for which Nintendo has chosen to grant licenses and manufacturing to produce the cartridges and been paid for the privilege. It's exactly as limited as the online store, but sold as plastic instead of bits. There's no homebrew Switch games at your Best Buy.

What does that change? Only advantage I can think of is that you can share/resell physical copies

Good point, and maybe that should scrutinized in the same way

I'm pretty sure Chevy could make 3rd party parts if they wanted to, but that really isn't their economic imperative.

> The people who argue for antitrust action against Apple seem to badly misunderstand anti-trust, at least compared to my own understanding.

It is your understanding that is bad.

It really hinges on two simple facts: in modern life, smartphones are essential, and Apple is one of only two players in that market. This gives them absurd amounts of leverage vs other parties.

Yeah, the ideas expressed by the person above seem to lead to a lazy and incorrect argument that there's aren't any things to argue anti-trust. Google doesn't have one android store, they have 57, across 57 countries with different arguments. And in the they even have two, one focused on English and one on Spanish or something. Divide their total revenue by 100, see it is not so much!

And cars aren’t essential? Further, Apple is not one of two players there are a handful of manufacturers of phones for sale in the US. The comparison to ford, and ford parts, maps directly to apples situation and it is instead people like you trying to change the historical understanding of anti-trust with arguments about how this tech is different because you don’t seem to grasp said history.

Cars are essential, but there are 14 companies controlling some 54 brands. If you don’t like what the Volkswagen Group is doing, you can go to GM. Or Fiat Group. Etc;

Conversely, if you don’t like iOS your only other option is Android. Two players.

Technically you have alternative means of installing apps on both those platforms, but none of those have been commercially viable.

> Conversely, if you don’t like iOS your only other option is Android. Two players.

To be fair Google’s control over Android is far more limited. Manufacturers can make significant modifications to it if they wish.

> Complaining there is only an Apple App Store is like buying a Ford and complaining Chevy parts don’t fit.

More like Ford preventing you from using 3rd-party parts, and thus locking you into Ford's (more expensive) parts and service.

> The people who argue for antitrust action against Apple seem to badly misunderstand anti-trust, at least compared to my own understanding.

The US is moving forward with Antitrust against Apple. Previous discussion:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38883393

You have the wrong analogy. It's not that you bought a Ford and Chevy parts don't fit. It's that you bought a Ford, and can now only buy parts for it from Ford.

> buying a Ford and complaining Chevy parts don’t fit

No, it would be like Ford locking all parts so you can't buy anything other than a Ford-branded part from a Ford-branded dealership.

Fortunately I can buy parts from all kinds of aftermarket vendors, ranging from worse to better quality.

> ...is like buying a Ford and complaining Chevy parts don’t fit.

Actually, many car companies source all sorts of parts from elsewhere. Not just tyres, though you'd be pretty pissed if your new Ford could only use Ford tyres. It's also under the hood (literally (literally)); Bosch is pretty big in that space, for example.

Are you a lawyer, by chance? Because this is the exact argument I keep making and the part that I really don't understand at all at the anti-Apple positions people take. If they were truly a monopoly, I'd be all for breaking it up but they're really not and I don't see how this falls into that definition for exactly the reasons you've stated.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com