• conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    It has nothing to do with the OS. It’s for the play store. But again, a limitation of the OS would be something that the OS can’t do, not the OS just refusing to allow hardware for business reasons.

    Your opinion on rational is just as flawed. People should be able to make their own products. It’s specifically pretending to be open to form a standard that multiple independent companies join in on, then unilaterally controlling that standard to make decisions for the entire market that’s abusive.

    There are many companies that do what Apple does and run closed operating systems on their own hardware. Apple built their market share on the strength of their walled garden providing an excellent development environment. It’s not what a monopoly is. Controlling the behavior of hundreds of competing products is a monopoly.

    • helenslunch@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      People should be able to make their own products.

      Of course they should. You’re intentionally missing the point. They should not be allowed to make their products anti-competitive and anti-consumer by preventing the user from installing the software they want to use, in order to funnel more money into their pockets and essentially extorting it from businesses that want to write software for its’ customers with exorbitant fees.

      There are many companies that do what Apple does and run closed operating systems on their own hardware.

      And they shouldn’t be allowed to do that either. And especially not if they become one of the top 5 wealthiest companies on the face of the Earth in the process.

      Apple built their market share on the strength of their walled garden providing an excellent development environment.

      And absolutely nothing about allowing users to install whatever software they want without paying extortionate and exorbitant fees to Apple impedes that strength.

      It’s not what a monopoly is

      Fucking el oh ol. There’s simply no world where Google is a monopoly and Apple isn’t, and the insinuation of such can only be described as fanboyism.

      • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Controlling what happens on your systems is not anti-competitive. You can’t just re-define words to mean something that’s the exact opposite of what they are. The locked down system of Apple and consoles is their biggest value add. It’s not “something I tolerate to buy an iPhone”. It’s why I buy an iPhone. They make so much money because their control of their own product makes it better. There is no such thing as a “monopoly” on your own hardware. It’s literally impossible.

        Google is a monopoly because they are controlling the behavior of competitors with their market position. That is always a monopoly. Controlling your own product never is.

        • helenslunch@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Controlling what happens on your systems is not anti-competitive.

          That entirely depends on what part of “your systems” you’re controlling. When you control how users of “your systems” can interact with other businesses, it absolutely is. When you say “if you want to create software that runs on our hardware, you have to adhere to all of our guidelines, no matter how absurd, and pay us 30% of any revenue received through this software” that’s anticompetitive…

          The locked down system of Apple and consoles is hair biggest value add.

          LOOOOOOOLOLOL okay so you’re not just a fanboy, you’re a shill!

          Good talk. Bye bye now.