←back to thread

1704 points ardit33 | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0.331s | source
Show context
throwaway140820 ◴[] No.24153297[source]
Apologies for the extreme swearing that ensues.

Wow, I would have hoped for better support from the HN community. Instead there are apologists after apologists. So what if Epic is big. Really, seriously shouldn't we have had alternative app stores available form the official ones. Why is this even a point of debate? All the time we hear stories of people one of our own getting fucked by these app stores and their lordship and now that we have an opportunity to make some noise, this is the response? Fuck that. Maybe we deserve these lords.

Fuck your security and fuck your walled gardens. Fucking no alternative browser allowed. Fuck that, fuck you apple and fuck you google. Fuck your monopoly and chokehold on the devs.

replies(25): >>24153305 #>>24153322 #>>24153323 #>>24153339 #>>24153354 #>>24153395 #>>24153400 #>>24153514 #>>24153554 #>>24153819 #>>24153823 #>>24153867 #>>24153888 #>>24154019 #>>24154102 #>>24154121 #>>24154241 #>>24154254 #>>24154261 #>>24154272 #>>24154353 #>>24154427 #>>24154531 #>>24154951 #>>24158174 #
throwaway6000 ◴[] No.24153339[source]
1. Apple establishes rules that EVERY app publisher follows for YEARS.

2. Fortnite doesn't follow rule.

3. Apple kicks Fortnite out of the App store.

What were they expecting?

replies(7): >>24153342 #>>24153345 #>>24153352 #>>24153556 #>>24153586 #>>24153822 #>>24154046 #
1. dj_mc_merlin ◴[] No.24154046[source]
1. Pharaoh says everybody who speaks against the royal family has their tongue cut out.

2. Seth says there should be less taxes as the pharaoh is too rich.

3. He gets his tongue cut out. What did he expect?

Unfair rules should not always be followed.

replies(3): >>24154177 #>>24154351 #>>24155091 #
2. Silhouette ◴[] No.24154177[source]
Unfair rules should not always be followed.

This is probably the most important question: what is fair in a world where there are technological platform providers that are essentially creating two-sided markets of vast size and value? If the platform provider is in a dominant position, their actions or inaction could significantly harm participants in the market. Should they then be permitted to impose their own terms and charges on one or both sides of that market arbitrarily, or should there be some form of regulatory intervention in the interests of the participants in the market (from either side)? And to what extent should competition in whatever form be a factor in this?

There are many examples of harm where a single platform has a kind of quasi-monopoly and/or quasi-monopsony status. Aside from the current topic, consider Google's dominance of web search, and the corresponding effects it can have on web developers, advertisers and searchers. Other online marketplace services might qualify as well if they have come to dominate their niche. Then we have the manufacturers of many other types of device, such as cars or smart home control systems, which are also relatively high value purchases and "sticky", but where clearly there will be an ecosystem building up around them. It may not be in the interests of either the purchaser or those who would provide related products or services to be locked into whatever arrangements the manufacturer wants to impose.

We already have precedent for overriding the wishes of manufacturers in some instances in order to protect more vulnerable parties to the arrangements. For example, various regulatory authorities have acted to prevent car manufacturers from restricting their vehicles in such a way that only approved dealers can repair or service them, and of course there is the wider "right to repair" movement that is based on a similar principle.

But as ever, the law has not necessarily kept pace with the rapid evolution of technologies, and even if certain actions may be legal today as a result, that doesn't necessarily mean they should remain so.

3. throwaway_2047 ◴[] No.24154351[source]
Well, Pharaoh is Pharaoh because they born to be Apple is Apple because Apple earned it.

Not disagreeing your point though

replies(1): >>24154503 #
4. lajawfe ◴[] No.24154503[source]
Well, Apple were at the right place at the right time. There is quite a bit of input from their side, but don't underplay the huge role of luck. And there is also network effect, once they had healthy numbers, people flock to them, so it is also due to network effects they are huge.
5. imtringued ◴[] No.24155091[source]
You can choose a different royal family. If you don't like your current royal family then don't let your tongue be cut out voluntarily and then complain about it while still wanting to support the royal family that cut your tongue out.