undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbrookst27d ago0 comments

I’m generally with you, but I am not prepared to say companies should be forced to host and distribute content they believe reflects badly on them.

That and I don’t see how Google and Apple can both be monopolies in mobile. Is this the “Ford has a monopoly on Mustangs” argument? Never found that persuasive.

Now, reframe as duopoly, and maybe layer in that a platform owner who curates their App Store must allow alternative app stores on equal footing, and I’d be with you.

0 comments

lxgr27d ago

> That and I don’t see how Google and Apple can both be monopolies in mobile.

Why not? Monopolies can be market-specific, and Apple does indeed fully control the market of iOS app distribution.

Whether they also are a monopolist on mobile operating systems, smartphones etc. is a separate question.

> I am not prepared to say companies should be forced to host and distribute content they believe reflects badly on them.

Me neither, but in turn I don't think they should be allowed to act as the sole distributor for their respective platforms.

wat1000027d ago

I don't think companies should be forced to do that in general, but there are some circumstances where I think they should.

A local printing company should not be forced to print things they don't want. But an ISP should be required to transport everything, with exceptions for legal requirements and legitimate network health measures, or get out of the ISP business.

App stores feel more like the latter to me. Especially Apple's where there's no way around it for the average user.

brookstOP27d ago

Agreed on the free speech versus common carrier aspects.

But I lean the other way with app stores. The companies hire reviewers, the listings appear in the App Store trade dress, it feels more like a museum or magazine than an ISP. But I get how reasonable people can disagree.

Maybe we need some formal choices: is this a curated App Store that reflects editorial judgment (in which case it must be possible to ship alternatives on equal footing), or is it a common carrier (in which case you can be the only game in town).

The ambiguity doesn’t help, and of course megacorps love shifting the frames depending on context.

wat1000027d ago

I think your proposed choice would be a good way to go. If you really want to screen out malware or whatever by maintaining exclusivity over the distribution channel, then you need to otherwise provide an equal footing for all apps. If you really want to exercise editorial control and put your name front and center and reject apps that don't fit your brand, then you need to let other distributors exist.

GoblinSlayer27d ago

It's more like Matrix, it may be a private property and takes resources to run, but it's still big.

vman8127d ago

> I’m generally with you, but I am not prepared to say companies should be forced to host and distribute content they believe reflects badly on them.

If Apple and Google are hell-bent on killing sideloading, and they control 99% of the mobile market, I think they have an obligation to host things they don't like, as long as it is legal.

kstenerud27d ago

Remember the days when you could just run whatever software you wanted on your hardware?

perbu27d ago

I feel like this is captures the point very well. Google removing this software, means that for 99% of the users on the platform, the choice to play this gets taken away from user.

brookstOP26d ago

I remember when you had to build the hardware before you could run anything. But I’m not sure that’s super relevant to app stores.

nancyminusone27d ago

people under 25: no

mastermage27d ago

Pepperidge Farm Remembers

Neikius27d ago

Well they are big enough to be called infrastructure now. Similar to payment providers. Them removing things essentially removes them from existence for 99 percent.

alterom27d ago

>I’m generally with you, but I am not prepared to say companies should be forced to host and distribute content they believe reflects badly on them.

There's platforms, and there's Apple and Google.

You don't need to say "platforms" when you talk about the two companies that control the 99.99999% of the mobile ecosystem.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

lxgr27d ago

> That and I don’t see how Google and Apple can both be monopolies in mobile.

Why not? Monopolies can be market-specific, and Apple does indeed fully control the market of iOS app distribution.

Whether they also are a monopolist on mobile operating systems, smartphones etc. is a separate question.

> I am not prepared to say companies should be forced to host and distribute content they believe reflects badly on them.

Me neither, but in turn I don't think they should be allowed to act as the sole distributor for their respective platforms.

wat1000027d ago

I don't think companies should be forced to do that in general, but there are some circumstances where I think they should.

App stores feel more like the latter to me. Especially Apple's where there's no way around it for the average user.

brookstOP27d ago

Agreed on the free speech versus common carrier aspects.

The ambiguity doesn’t help, and of course megacorps love shifting the frames depending on context.

wat1000027d ago

GoblinSlayer27d ago

It's more like Matrix, it may be a private property and takes resources to run, but it's still big.

vman8127d ago

> I’m generally with you, but I am not prepared to say companies should be forced to host and distribute content they believe reflects badly on them.

If Apple and Google are hell-bent on killing sideloading, and they control 99% of the mobile market, I think they have an obligation to host things they don't like, as long as it is legal.

kstenerud27d ago

Remember the days when you could just run whatever software you wanted on your hardware?

perbu27d ago

I feel like this is captures the point very well. Google removing this software, means that for 99% of the users on the platform, the choice to play this gets taken away from user.

brookstOP26d ago

I remember when you had to build the hardware before you could run anything. But I’m not sure that’s super relevant to app stores.

nancyminusone27d ago

people under 25: no

mastermage27d ago

Pepperidge Farm Remembers

Neikius27d ago

Well they are big enough to be called infrastructure now. Similar to payment providers. Them removing things essentially removes them from existence for 99 percent.

alterom27d ago

>I’m generally with you, but I am not prepared to say companies should be forced to host and distribute content they believe reflects badly on them.

There's platforms, and there's Apple and Google.

You don't need to say "platforms" when you talk about the two companies that control the 99.99999% of the mobile ecosystem.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse