6 ms·

> Who was forced to buy an iPhone? You are effectively forced to buy either and Android or an iOS phone to participate in society. Since the market for phone

by wasfgwp 1mo ago

> Who was forced to buy an iPhone? You are effectively forced to buy either and Android or an iOS phone to participate in society. Since the market for phone operating systems is not even remotely competitive regulation is necessary just like in all others uncompetitive markets.

carlosjobim 1mo ago
Exactly which unfair market conditions made it impossible for Nokia, Microsoft, Samsung or BlackBerry to compete on phone operating systems? And now you are saying that people were forced to purchase iPhones because of Android?
- wasfgwp 1mo ago
  You are forced to purchase one of them, yes. > which unfair market conditions made it impossible Bank applications depending on various os or device level security features? Good luck getting developers to build applications for your platform in general until you have a very large number of users (even Microsoft couldn’t manage it when the oligopoly was way less entrenched)
  - carlosjobim 1mo ago
    > You are forced to purchase one of them, yes. Well then you aren't forced to purchase an iPhone, are you? Much less forced to develop for an iPhone. If a developer isn't satisfied with having access to billions of Android customers, then they should change careers or stop complaining. Developers also had every opportunity in the world to offer their software for Windows Phone and BlackBerry devices. Or offer their own devices with their software. Which is an easy thing for banks to do. Their laziness and incompetence isn't an excuse for them to turn around and point fingers at Apple for being successful. They made their own bed.
    - wasfgwp 29d ago
      > with having access to billions of Android customers The average Android user is almost worthless economically compared to the average iPhone user. If you calculate the market share based on revenue and not total users Apple has a much bigger proportion of the pie than the raw user base would suggest. > Which is an easy thing for banks to do. The victim in this case are the consumers, not banks. Overall the smartphone OS market is a not very competitive oligopoly, the government’s job is to make sure that markets are competitive. > around and point fingers at Apple for being successful. They made their own bed. To get into the position where you can abuse your position in the market you have to do something right, certainly. That doesn’t mean you should be allowed to do that in perpetuity.
      - carlosjobim 27d ago
        > The average Android user is almost worthless economically compared to the average iPhone user. But how and why is Apple to be blamed for that? > The victim in this case are the consumers, not banks. The culprits are the banks, who aren't offering their customers adequate service. The culprit certainly isn't Apple. They aren't a bank. > Overall the smartphone OS market is a not very competitive oligopoly Some of the biggest companies in the world are competing against each other on smart phones. And customers have a great variety of devices to choose from. Smart phones is a prime example on where the free market worked: Fierce competition between several very large companies resulted in amazing devices being offered to customers. And since customers are free to choose what they purchase, they will choose the best device they can get at whatever price they deem reasonable and affordable. Companies who cannot offer good enough products fall away from the competition by the nature of the free market: Nokia, Microsoft, BlackBerry, Siemens, and more. All of them were powerful corporations. Current hacker ideology has mixed the worst parts of capitalism and communism into weird standpoints which make no sense. Am I supposed to feel sorry that developers (they are mostly giant corporations) can't figure out how to make money without depending on Apple? And that therefore the government should intervene to guarantee the profits of these giant corporations? Enough, already. Apple has no unfair advantage against the competition, except for the incompetence of said competition. Let them have their win, and if they are acting against the interest of their consumers, then they won't have their win for long.

by wasfgwp 1mo ago

carlosjobim 1mo ago

Exactly which unfair market conditions made it impossible for Nokia, Microsoft, Samsung or BlackBerry to compete on phone operating systems? And now you are saying that people were forced to purchase iPhones because of Android?

wasfgwp 1mo ago
You are forced to purchase one of them, yes. > which unfair market conditions made it impossible Bank applications depending on various os or device level security features? Good luck getting developers to build applications for your platform in general until you have a very large number of users (even Microsoft couldn’t manage it when the oligopoly was way less entrenched)
- carlosjobim 1mo ago
  > You are forced to purchase one of them, yes. Well then you aren't forced to purchase an iPhone, are you? Much less forced to develop for an iPhone. If a developer isn't satisfied with having access to billions of Android customers, then they should change careers or stop complaining. Developers also had every opportunity in the world to offer their software for Windows Phone and BlackBerry devices. Or offer their own devices with their software. Which is an easy thing for banks to do. Their laziness and incompetence isn't an excuse for them to turn around and point fingers at Apple for being successful. They made their own bed.
  - wasfgwp 29d ago
    > with having access to billions of Android customers The average Android user is almost worthless economically compared to the average iPhone user. If you calculate the market share based on revenue and not total users Apple has a much bigger proportion of the pie than the raw user base would suggest. > Which is an easy thing for banks to do. The victim in this case are the consumers, not banks. Overall the smartphone OS market is a not very competitive oligopoly, the government’s job is to make sure that markets are competitive. > around and point fingers at Apple for being successful. They made their own bed. To get into the position where you can abuse your position in the market you have to do something right, certainly. That doesn’t mean you should be allowed to do that in perpetuity.
    - carlosjobim 27d ago
      > The average Android user is almost worthless economically compared to the average iPhone user. But how and why is Apple to be blamed for that? > The victim in this case are the consumers, not banks. The culprits are the banks, who aren't offering their customers adequate service. The culprit certainly isn't Apple. They aren't a bank. > Overall the smartphone OS market is a not very competitive oligopoly Some of the biggest companies in the world are competing against each other on smart phones. And customers have a great variety of devices to choose from. Smart phones is a prime example on where the free market worked: Fierce competition between several very large companies resulted in amazing devices being offered to customers. And since customers are free to choose what they purchase, they will choose the best device they can get at whatever price they deem reasonable and affordable. Companies who cannot offer good enough products fall away from the competition by the nature of the free market: Nokia, Microsoft, BlackBerry, Siemens, and more. All of them were powerful corporations. Current hacker ideology has mixed the worst parts of capitalism and communism into weird standpoints which make no sense. Am I supposed to feel sorry that developers (they are mostly giant corporations) can't figure out how to make money without depending on Apple? And that therefore the government should intervene to guarantee the profits of these giant corporations? Enough, already. Apple has no unfair advantage against the competition, except for the incompetence of said competition. Let them have their win, and if they are acting against the interest of their consumers, then they won't have their win for long.