Hacker News Reader

Comment by NeoTar | Hacker News Reader

Isn't the whole point about size of market to encourage openness and competition?

If I'm a five person start-up, compliance with rules can act as a barrier to entry, and keep a market to only established players. If certain rules only kick in when I am established enough to be able to comply, then that's encouraging smaller entities at the expense of larger.

Saying one should encourage open protocols and privacy is all well and good, but how can one do that, and more importantly, how can one enforce it when abusive companies purposefully act contrary to that.

View on HN

Yes, it is about openness and competition. What I'm saying is that the current climate is over-valuing the App Store market when the real openness and competition should be happening on the open web.

I see this caused by the financial world's excitement for the app Store economy. This same "irrational exuberance" happened during the .com cycle.

Developers/entrepreneurs should be focused on the open web as the delivery mechanism which bypasses all app Store rules. This is freedom to me.

Regulators should be watching the "public space" of the internet and worry less about the "private space" of the app Store economy and platform.

The regulators should make it is simple to publish on port 80 and port 443. I think we have that. A five person start up should do everything they can to minimize the amount of regulated data they collect.

I would worry less how an abusive company might act and more on how to delivery a good experience with one's product.

How abusive can a big company be on the internet?(excluding ISPs). My point is that organic communities on the internet is where freedom happens. Anyone expecting to get freedom from a product in an app Store is mistaken. App stores can provide amazing convenience. Apple essentially built a global store that handled taxes and regulations seamlessly for it's developers. The process is so seamless everyone thinks it should be free.

That stance is incredibly naive. Seriously if the FANGs of the world can literally spend billions to keep you addicted to their content do you think it makes an ounce of difference that you can publish your blog on port 443?

It does to me. I don't know why you think FANGs have any effect on technology I may work on. If the world can maintain access to each other directly over 80 and 443 than people who value narrowcasting over broadcasting can freely ignore the FANGs. ISPs on the other hand can be sneaky.

> people who value narrowcasting over broadcasting can freely ignore the FANGs

It is very difficult and costly in time or other resources for most people and businesses to "ignore the FANGs"

Parasitical businesses are generally not just parasitical. They balance providing real value with how much they can extract, in complex ways.

People who want other people to watch their high quality content want to be found by as many people as would benefit from their content. So they post on Youtube which gets them their audience, but now they are helping Youtube funnel their viewers to trash content and to be surveilled.

It is all a sticky rat's nest.

It is a sticky rat's nest.

I know it's off topic, and ycombinator's rules discorage meta discussions, but I just want to say at least once, that in contrast to other discussion boards, here I can trust that somebody will come up with a well versed response to an evenly thought out post, pointing out the gap, if one exists. So kudos to you both.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com