Extensions are one thing, but I'd also welcome granular permissions to various JavaScript capabilities for every website. I don't like when some websites capture native browser hotkeys (CTRL+F), disable my right mouse button, change scrolling behavior or perform asynchronous HTTP requests. The only solution I found to protect against these practices is disabling JavaScript completely for given site, but more often than not it prevents the page from rendering altogether.
I'm so happy to see it! I had much fun with original OpenComputers, back then I used to wonder if ditching custom Lua OS and running micro Linux VMs would be possible. OpenComputers 2 is the answer, and I'm happy to see it's in active development by OpenComputer's author and most active contributor.
It's early in development, but I see in the source code it comes with some basic networking, with IPs, DHCPs and so on. I think it's possible to build real networks inside the game, or will be possible at some point. Can't wait to try it out later. Very exciting!
It was never about creators or dislike attacks. There's a reason why they didn't adopt an opt-in solution.
It's about corporations complaining about their ads running on unpopular content. It's about making people waste more time on low quality content, scam and disinformation across the platform.
What you hear from them are pure PR lies. They don't care about small creators and they never did. All they want is to make you watch more ads at the expense of your time and welfare.
>In 2001, Microsoft "constituted unlawful monopolization" under Antitrust Act for bundling a web browser with their operating system.
That reductive summary is repeated but isn't accurate.
Microsoft didn't get in trouble for adding its own IE web browser to Windows. (Software companies always add new features and enhancements.)
The key nuance that triggered the government lawsuit was anti-competitive actions such as using obscure/undocumented Windows API functions to cripple Netscape and forcing computer manufacturers to avoid other software when licensing DOS/Windows. All of that is in the long document: https://www.justice.gov/atr/us-v-microsoft-courts-findings-f...
His point still stands, especially on iOS where other browsers isn't even allowed and every browser has to be basically a reskin of safari. That way others can't add features or stability, forcing developers to use the app store and give Apple a large cut.
This is much more serious that the Microsoft case.
> This is much more serious that the Microsoft case.
Even more so when you consider how much larger these companies are set to get yet (Google will double in size again within ~5-7 years). It's the Microsoft case if Microsoft had been allowed to continue to build its power out for another 10-15 years unchecked. In the 1990s a parade of magazines ran stories about how Microsoft wanted to set up a toll road on the Internet, to position itself to take a bite out of all ecommerce. They were of course meant to be scare stories to garner attention as Microsoft wasn't close to accomplishing something like that at that point.
And yet, here we are two decades later, Apple and Google control two big Internet toll roads and are drastically larger and more powerful than Microsoft was in the 1990s. IBM was seven times larger than Microsoft in 1997. Microsoft of the 1990s looks downright quaint by comparison, an emerging big tech company playing at being giant (back then there were still far larger and more powerful corporations); today, Apple and Google - big tech broadly - are the most powerful and largest companies. Caterpillar, GE, 3M, General Dynamics, GM, Ford, Honeywell, etc look like sad jokes standing next to Apple or Google.
Google for its part has three monopolies which have amazingly been left entirely alone: search, YouTube, Android. They must have signed one helluva protection deal with the intelligence apparatus back when PRISM was getting set up, they got a ten year get out of jail free card (it's in the interests of the intelligence community to have these giant intel-hoovering companies that sprawl and span the globe).
Anti-trust cases aren't decided on binary terms. It's the overall act that's illegal. In other words just because the situation with Apple is different from Microsoft's anti-trust case doesn't mean Apple could not be violating the law. Paying or accepting money for the purposes of a company receiving an unfair competitive advantage is also covered under anti-trust laws such as the Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp case.
The problem with that line of accusation is that Apple having a monopoly on the production and maintenance of Apple products isn't a very compelling threat.
In a more reasonable market, like smartphones or phones in total, Apple just does not have a monopoly. There are alternatives.
Keep in mind that the words "reasonable market" and "alternatives" are doing a lot of work here.
From the linked documents:
> If Android competed with iOS on app transactions, the market competition would make Android apps cheaper for users and attract developers to launch their apps first (or even only) on Android. [...] After a meeting involving senior executives of Google and Apple, notes of the meeting were exchanged between the two companies. The notes reflect: "Our vision is that we work as if we are one company."
Epic's lawsuits are alleging that both Apple and Google have engaged in anti-competitive behavior here, albeit sometimes in different ways. Even bolder, they're claiming that Google and Apple engaged cooperative anti-competitive behavior that benefited both companies. What consumer-ready alternatives exist for users outside of Apple and Android? If a developer announces that they're building a smartphone game, and that it won't work on Android or iOS, do you think it's reasonably possible for that developer to make money with that game?
Apple has massive amounts of competitive leverage over the smartphone ecosystem; they control the most profitable app store. And the vast majority of non-iOS phones are running the Google Play Store. In that context, locking down the hardware has much bigger implications than it would in a truly competitive market. I think the question is, do we actually have a competitive smartphone market when it comes to smartphone app stores and OSes?
Non-sequitor: I hate that it's going to be Epic that really gets this to take hold. If it were anybody else. This is like watching a sports game where you want both teams to loose. There's a lot of Apple iOS policy I don't like, but I also don't like Epic (personal reasons). This would put Epic on a pedestal that I'd rather not see.
I do shudder at the day of seeing websites that only work on Chrome for iOS, an app that I will never use.
Often the measure used for market share is not a linear one but a squared one.
By that measure, there is very little competition in the smartphone segment—it is highly concentrated and so the major players (both Apple and Google) should face greater antitrust scrutiny.
> like smartphones or phones in total, Apple just does not have a monopoly.
A monopoly is not needed for anti-competitive behavior to be illegal. All that is needed is significant market power.
Apple has 50% of the smartphone market. Which is around where courts have stated that anti-trust laws start to apply.
50% of a highly concentrated market is not a slam dunk anti-trust case, by any means, but it is within the realm where courts might rule against it, depending on numerous factors.
> A monopoly is not needed for anti-competitive behavior to be illegal. All that is needed is significant market power.
Have any references where someone was sued for antitrust while having <50% marketshare (of course, using the market determined by the court at the time)? If what you say is true, is the cutoff for antitrust action just "when media outlets report on it long enough to actually be put in sight of regulators/congress"?
The cutoff is as follows "Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors"
If you want statements from a judge, regarding the 50 percent specifically, you can look up the following court cases and read from the primary source.
"See Hayden Publ'g Co., Inc. v. Cox Broad. Corp., 730 F.2d 64, 69 n.7 (2d Cir. 1984) ("[A] party may have monopoly power in a particular market, even though its market share is less than 50%."); Broadway Delivery Corp. v. UPS, 651 F.2d 122, 129 (2d Cir. 1981) ("[W]hen the evidence presents a fair jury issue of monopoly power, the jury should not be told that it must find monopoly power lacking below a specified share."); Yoder Bros., Inc. v. Cal.-Fla. Plant Corp., 537 F.2d, 1347, 1367 n.19 (5th Cir. 1976) (rejecting "a rigid rule requiring 50% of the market for a monopolization offense without regard to any other factors")."
But yes, typically, if a company has less than 50% of a market, anti-trust law does not apply. But the word "typically" does not mean "always". (And Apple has 54% of the US market)
And whether it applies, would defend on "other factors", as according to the quote I linked, and there is a good argument, IMO, that a duopoly would be a reasonable "other factor".
There were cases like that in the pre-Bork era (i.e. when the courts interpreted the law as people who originally wrote it actually intended). Here's one example:
"In 1955, the date of this merger, Brown was the fourth largest manufacturer in the shoe industry, with sales of approximately 26 million pairs of shoes and assets of over $72,000,000 while Kinney had sales of about 8 million pairs of shoes and assets of about $18,000,000."
And even more relevant:
"Another important factor to consider is the trend toward concentration in the industry. It is true, of course, that the statute prohibits a given merger only if the effect of that merger may be substantially to lessen competition. But the very wording of § 7 requires a prognosis of the probable future effect of the merger.
The existence of a trend toward vertical integration, which the District Court found, is well substantiated by the record. Moreover, the court found a tendency of the acquiring manufacturers to become increasingly important sources of supply for their acquired outlets. The necessary corollary of these trends is the foreclosure of independent manufacturers from markets otherwise open to them. And because these trends are not the product of accident, but are rather the result of deliberate policies of Brown and other leading shoe manufacturers, account must be taken of these facts in order to predict the probable future consequences of this merger. It is against this background of continuing concentration that the present merger must be viewed."
In the entertainment industry not having an iPhone literally hurts your career. If you can't use iMessage people look at you weird and you are literally excluded from social circles. I know someone that was in tech and went into music and even though she prefers Android she ended up caving and getting an iPhone.
The problem is what you consider 'talent' to be. 18-25 valley girls are not representative of the actual entertainment industry. Nor are they relevant.
But the contrarian opinion would amount to forcing companies to interoperate, which is a massive endeavour of standards and committees - usually only undertaken for natural monopolies to avoid tragedy of the commons.
Are smartphones a natural monopoly? And at what levels? Hardware (including plugs and jacks, physical button locations and functions?), software, data federation? Like where do you draw the line?
If smartphones must allow alternatives, then why not gaming consoles? It's a similarily integrated device. Would Microsoft be forced to allow unlicenced 3rd party software on the Xbox?
> If smartphones must allow alternatives, then why not gaming consoles?
One may argue that people rarely need a gaming console to pursue job opportunities, for instance. A smartphone, on the other hand, has become practically mandatory in many industries.
It feels like I could find a line, to rationalize what happened or not to MS or Apple.
But in reality, in the wake of 9/11, USA thought it was more important to have extremely large companies, and it let them grow.
(And MS’ EU fine was related to not giving the API doc, and perhaps using fines as a political weapon).
Clearly, if US applied the anti-monopoly laws, it would shoot its own companies. In my opinion however, no single entity should dominate, govt or enterprise, and we must parcel large ones to keep competition fair, replacements rolling, class mobility high, the american dream possible for new entrants and more importantly, so that governance of our daily life is regularly given to the next generation.
"In the wake of 9/11" is lazy writing. Kinda like businesses saying "we have crappy service, because of COVID."
Antitrust enforcement has more to do with the party in power than anything else. The Bush Administration wasn't interested in suing businesses, and now the Biden Administration is again.
How much does this really matter to the typical user? I’m not using Firefox because it’s JS and rendering engine are significantly better than webkit. Can’t really tell the difference honestly. I’m still getting all the other features of Firefox that actually distinguish it from it’s competitors. The so-called skin is more like the guts from a user value perspective.
The technical reason is that a very powerful system call is blocked on iOS that’s required to build a custom language runtime needed for a browser. This is done to increase security of the device. The trade-off is that the JavaScript engine and renderer must be shared by all browsers on iOS.
But if you can’t tell the difference, does it really matter?
If Apple allowed other browsers beyond Safari, Google (and others) would stop supporting Safari and force people to download Chrome (or FF, their supported also-ran). We'd be back where a giant company 100% sets web standards.
Apple standing against that is important for the open web.
If apple prevented its licensees for the iPhone to bundle Safari rather than another browser... then this would be more applicable.
However, Apple isn't extending its dominance in the smart phone area (Apple has 53% market share of mobile devices, Microsoft had above 90% market share for intel compatible PCs https://www.justice.gov/atr/us-v-microsoft-courts-findings-f... ) to its licensees for iOS.
Apple not forcing Samsung to bundle Safari on the Samsung branded iPhones to the exclusion of Chrome.
Yes, Apple isn't licensing iOS to others and that's a key difference. Furthermore, Apple has half of the market dominance that Microsoft had in its day.
They can be anticompetitive on their platform as long as their platform doesn’t have a lock on the market. So say, if you didn’t need to buy an iPhone and could buy an android instead, and if that actually happened in practice, Apple could reasonably argue they didn’t have a monopoly on the market even if they had a monopoly in their own platform.
Why am I getting downvoted. Are people surprised its hard to compete with apple and android size organizations. You arent entitled to as many sophisticated phone OS's as you want
Libel? It's directly from the material referenced by the tweets that we're talking about:
> 'After another meeting between Apple and Google senior executives, notes showed that the execs agreed: "Our vision is that we work as if we are one company."'
Different times. Today we have more alternatives. iOS users have windows and hundreds of linux distros from which to choose. Back in 2001 there weren't any real alternatives to windows and so it was under greater scrutiny. The walled garden of iOS is a choice rather than a prison. Apple can get away today with things that Microsoft could not in the past. Times change.
None of those had the broad software options of windows. Everyday users who wanted to complete office tasks, use the internet, and play games were locked into windows. (The 2001 ruling also took a while and was based on pre-2001 behavior by MS and likely future behavior.)
In 2001 Linspire had a huge software library you could install from with a single click right from Click N Run (a pretty app store with the app icon, name, description, storage required and user reviews.).
Firefox worked, as did Flash (hello NewGrounds!), Java (RuneScape), you could do a ton and be nigh invulnerable to all the malware on the internet of the early 2000s.
Except when they are. There were windows phones briefly. And linux will run on phones. And Android laptops. Such choices were not around in 2001. PC users in 2001 would have killed for the number of options available to phone users today.
The 2001 decision was comparing desktop options at a time when they weren't any. Today's mobile users have plenty of options, plenty of brands and OSs to choose from.
Windows Mobile may have had the same kernel as the desktop counterpart (but I believe it was heavily stripped down), but the userspace was entirely different because the usage paradigm is entirely different.
Android is Linux under the hood. It just doesn't use any of the cruft that desktop Linux usually has, like Xorg.
Linux wasn’t a viable alternative to windows in 2001 and I don’t think a Linux phone would be considered a viable alternative to google or iOS. There are 2 mobile OS’s, which admittedly is twice as many as desktop OS’s in 2001. As for hardware, there were a ton of options on 2001, probably more major brands than what phones have today, that’s not even including mom and pop custom built PCs.
Did you ever use Linspire? It had a posh, user friendly app store with a ton of useful apps, Firefox, Flash Java and most other things worked without issue. Not a bad experience in the early 2000s on a Pentium 3!
We should still call for breaking up bad busoness practices regardles of whether something is a monopoly or not. We forget that even considering a monopoly to require gov intervention is a somewhat novel concept. Right to repair comes to mind, especially for things like tractors. Im tired of paying for products and not truly owning them in the way I want to. Be it in the literal sense or being locked into iOS' walled garden or otherwise.
which is basically nothing compared to google/apple of today.They are basically forcing you to use them as a middle-man for any app you want. While getting a cut from all transactions.
Non-google app stores cannot automatically update aps, side-loading is hidden in menus behind scary warnings.
IOS forcing you to use safari no matter what, and there is no way to side-load apps, nor any non-apple app stores.
chrome de facto sets web standards, giving them slight edge over other browsers - and they do use chrome specific APIs to cripple other browsers - like YouTube working worse on Firefox due that reason.
And that's even without taking into the consideration all the tracking in form of telemetry on the devices, coupled with their own ads markets.
Once you do this for the first time, the process reduces down to 4 steps each time after: Open Chrome, Download APK, Open APK, Click Install. Done.
The ZOMG SKERRRY WARNINGS only show up once when you toggle the permission for that app and if you look at the screenshot, it's a reasonable disclaimer.
We have plenty of things to bash on Google here for... the sideloading process, however, is not one of them.
> chrome de facto sets web standards,
Chrome became the most popular browser simply because it is better.
If Mozilla could get their shit together, they could potentially reclaim their number one spot... but Firefox lost that spot multiple times. Not because of subterfuge, but because they continually drop the ball.
Chrome didn't exist in a vacuum and it didn't have the advantage of having a host operating system that had it installed from the start. There's a reason it's the primary engine now. It actually works better.
If that bothers you, use Firefox or De-Googled Chromium. Or if you really hate yourself... Safari.
Chrome had the advantage of having the #1 search engine with 90+% market share show warning modals saying "Works best in Chrome" while they actively gated features or degraded features for other browser users. Swapping user agents would cause G Suite to perform much better in non-Chrome browsers.
> If Mozilla could get their shit together, they could potentially reclaim their number one spot... but Firefox lost that spot multiple times.
Mozilla never had #1.
And I don't know what world you live in, but Google has pushed Chrome with the equivalent of billions in advertising. There's simply no way Mozilla can compete with that considering the kind of budget they're on.
If you want a fair estimate, look the time it took for Firefox to slowly grind market share from IE6, despite an abyssal difference between the two browsers.
Netscape was the dominant browser from at least 1995 to the end of 1998. It overtook Mosaic to become #1 with Mosaic being a very, very distant #2.
At its peak it had 90+% of the market share.
Firefox nearly overtook IE until Chrome was released. If Firefox had not been consistently a dumpster fire, I think it could have maintained at least 50/50 with Chrome.
I switched to Chrome not because Google had good advertising but simply because it was _better._ Firefox has always had issues and Mozilla can't seem to make a browser that doesn't shit itself every now and then.
> If Firefox had not been consistently a dumpster fire, I think it could have maintained at least 50/50 with Chrome.
It took 6 years for Chrome to gain 50% market share. In 6 years, firefox had barely taken 25% from IE.
If you're arguing that this difference in success is explained by the technological gap between chrome and firefox being much larger than the technological gap between firefox and IE, you need a reality check.
Otherwise, you need to acknowledge the fact that Chrome had something firefox didn't have, and it was not a technological advantage.
Chrome took more away from IE initially than it did from Firefox.
And yes, I'm arguing a technical difference. I've used every version of every browser when it was still new, all the way back to Mosaic.
Chrome introduced per-tab instancing which was a HUGE leap ahead of everything else and Firefox took years to catch up to that one feature alone. Firefox was bloated, slow and unstable.
On a perhaps related note, I have noticed that a Google Meet that consumes just over 1Mbps on Google Chrome consistently consumes close to 4Mbps on Firefox. Same settings, same window size, same participants. I cannot help but wonder whether Chrome has implemented some standard browser feature more efficiently, or whether it has special native features just for Meets.
A sibling comment pointed out that you're wrong about the Microsoft case. You're also seemingly under informed about monopolies. One of the core issues in the Microsoft case was that they're a horizontal monopoly. Microsoft's monopoly affects all players in the market because a majority of the players use Microsoft's OS. They used that leverage against Netscape and many other companies.
Apple on the other hand has a vertical monopoly, they control the whole stack from hardware to software. While their influence on iPhones is absolute, they don't have outsize influence on other phone vendors. Also while popular iPhones don't have a majority of really any phone market.
Antitrust considerations are different for different monopoly types. Unless a company with a vertical monopoly also had a market monopoly position and used that position to actively influence/harm other companies it's really hard to legally pursue them. You can't fault a company for building their own products and trying to make money from selling them. If a Samsung washing machine has some cool feature when paired with a Samsung dryer, just because Samsung has a monopoly on Samsung appliances doesn't mean they're violating some antitrust laws.
If anything Google is in bigger danger of antitrust suits since they have a more horizontal position in the phone market. While they have token entries in the hardware market they're an OS and service provider. Which is likely why they're supportive is sideloading and alternate app stores, if they behaved like Apple but with a horizontal monopoly the DoJ would be all over them.
Yes, HN has had to constantly remind itself that a monopoly doesn't mean literally 100% control of the market and is legally defined in terms of market power.
> While their influence on iPhones is absolute, they don't have outsize influence on other phone vendors
Apple isn't exclusively a hardware/OS company. They compete horizontally with digital media services like Amazon (books), Spotify (music), Netflix (video), etc. They use their OS and APIs to squeeze out weak competitors and suck up to stronger competitors. They make more money from apps than hardware.
Keep in mind, it's not just current competitors. It's also the potential competitors that don't even bother to start due to Apple's predatory practices.
> In 2001, Microsoft "constituted unlawful monopolization" under Antitrust Act for bundling a web browser with their operating system.
You're forgetting how that ended. Remember, the DOJ threw the book at Microsoft. It was an intensely publicized trial, with pretty much all the country hating Microsoft and Bill Gates. Waffling over the word "ask", the infamous "knife the baby" email, the Halloween documents and Embrace-Extend-Extinguish. That all came out as part of the DOJ antitrust suit. It's hard to remember how visceral the hate for this was. During the height of that, The Simpsons decided to portray Bill Gates on the show, not positively [0]. A game developer released a title called "Microshaft Winblows 98" to positive reviews and very good sales [1].
The judge makes their final verdict. Microsoft clearly stepped over the line, there were no easy answers. They were too big a company, the only possible remedy is to break them up. Into at least two companies, but probably more; at the very least, the apps and OS needed to be split up into the "Baby Bills", they were going to be called.
Then George W. Bush comes in, guts the DOJ to a fifth of their size, and basically all but tells them "never do that again, please". The case quickly and silently went to appeal, where it was reduced from "Microsoft needs to be broken up" into a small fine [2]. And after other tragedies in the early 2000s, the nation quickly forgot.
So, no, despite the fanfare, despite the judgement and ruling, the DOJ antitrust case had very limited effect on reality. And the message from above seems to be "try that again, and get your budget demolished even more". That's, uh, why antitrust isn't a thing anymore.
Except, well, it did have one effect. In the midst of everything, Bill Gates was basically forced to resign and go into philanthropy to clear their image, resulting in Ballmer taking over. Some believe that was the true punishment for Microsoft.
This kind of glosses over the fact that they were found guilty of anticompetitive behavior in the EU.
They got a massive fine and were and forced to do things like open up the client server protocol used between Windows Domain Controllers and Windows Clients.
They came pretty close to being forced to open up the Office document formats, but the EU backed down from that one.
People both inside and outside the company have also asserted that Microsoft was quite gunshy, both during and after the trial. It seems to have had a pretty dramatic impact on their behavior.
I cannot find any references online to the DOJ budget being slashed by George W. Bush let alone by 80%. That sounds quite outlandish to me. Do you have any more information on what you're referring to?
Ironically this is the only thing preventing a chromium monopoly with probably >90% of marketshare (Although this restriction is still not that great for the user)
Look I'm fine punishing Google too, but it has to happen either after Apple or at the same time.
Apple literally has banned competitors. Google at least allows them, even if they make every effort to keep them out, it's still possible to install them without hacking your phone (which hasn't really been possible on iPhone for years).
I just hate that they're grouped together as if it's equivalent.
The different is crystal clear. Microsoft was considered a monopoly. You really had no good choice but Windows.
Apple and Google aren't. You have a choice between iOS and Android, both vibrant and thriving.
It really is that simple. And it's not just the legal but common sense definition of monopoly too -- do you control the market or not?
Now you might have other criticisms of app stores, but basing them on the Microsoft-monopoly-argument isn't going to be helpful or useful. You're going to need a different legal foundation for that.
The monopoly criterion is so outmoded. Anti-trust laws were enacted to counter organizations that cornered basic things like steel, railroads, power, communications, etc. 100 years ago, almost everything they could imagine was a commodity that was easily replaceable.
But app platforms are not commodities. There is considerable vendor lock-in, by design. It's not like one just takes an iOS app and instantly ports it over to Android when Apple's terms no longer suit; there is considerable sunk cost. Platforms cleave the market into captive audiences that can and are abused.
And what to do if you are little guy who invested everything in one of those two platforms and didn't have the foresight to write your app in a way that it was easily ported? Well, screw you.
So these platforms actually compete with each other to offer "value adds" which are really just like traps for vendor lock-in.
Anti-trust laws are full of flawed and antiquated reasoning that is unable to deal with the realities of the 21st century marketplace. And there is precious little understanding of these technological issues in courts and legislatures.
An oligopoly (i.e. a business cartel) it's just as bad as a monopoly. Even worse, I would say, because on the outside it gives you the illusion of business competition, while with a monopoly you kind of know loud and clear what you're dealing with.
The tying claim eventually got dropped from the case, though, since the govt couldn't prove that the harm to competition outweighed the benefits of having a browser built in to the OS.
I was really excited about the "browser ballot" when that judgement came through. In the end though it appeared on tragically few installs. I never even saw it in the wild.
It was a mess for other reasons too, but it felt at the time like it represented a turning tide against anti-competitive behaviour in software.
> Google and Apple compete against each other, so there is no monopoly.
They effectively have a monopoly over their customers from other customers and can leverage that monopoly to control their vendors.
And Google and Apple secretly working together as "one company" literally defines trust behavior:
'After another meeting between Apple and Google senior executives, notes showed that the execs agreed: "Our vision is that we work as if we are one company."'
That's actually quite exactly the behavior you expect from a competitive duopoly. In a duopoly, I know that if I lower prices, you'll match. Operating at the Nash Equilibrium isn't anticompetitive.
I'm not disagreeing with the conclusion -- I agree that they are colluding -- but the logic isn't right.
I'll tell you a secret. Game theory and economics is mostly voodoo wrapped up in statistical mumbo-jumbo. In other words, if economists could explain what is happening, why are they poor and have to go to work to make living?
I'll tell you another secret: Basic economics works pretty well and isn't very hard.
Economists are poor because there isn't any competitive advantage. Any competently-run business of any significant size should have plenty of people able to apply basic economics. Engineers who don't learn basic econ are at a disadvantage, on the other hand.
What is basic economics for you? The supply and demand model which only works if you assume 2 to 10 things (depending on the author), where atleast 1 of them is completely irrational or doesn't reflect reality?
> have been caught colluding before on trying to keep software engineer salaries low.
Wow they are really bad at this then. 200-400k without even requiring a college degree is pretty wild. It’s about what my brother made as a doctor and he had an undergraduate degree, medical school, an internship, a residency program…
Without the price collusion engineers might make 600-800K. Not sure why you are defending a Trillion dollar company illegally working with another Trillion dollar company to lower worker wages. The reason software engineer salaries remain high despite big tech collusion is that startups not in on the deal were willing to pay higher, which forces big tech to continue paying for talent.
not sure why doctor wages are brought up, supply and demand determines prices. Google and Apple tried to artificially distort the labor market
I judge compensation based on what value people bring to society. I look around at the world created by software engineers and I'm not impressed. For every dystopian nightmare being foisted upon us, you have an "engineer" saying "Yes sir and what else would you like us to do to them?" to their higher ups at these trillion dollar companies. I'm sure hitman pays well also but I don't have to root for them to get higher wages.
The people that are archetechting the dystopian nightmare are capturing the excess value here, not sure why you think that's somehow a better situation.
Every former co-worker who I've talked to when they left Google did so for at least a 20% bump in total comp. The few Googlers I've talked to who left for Apple got equal or even a little less total comp.
Anecdotal, but once you get some years of Big Tech experience under your belt, I do think you become comparatively more valuable to smaller companies.
The law is interpreted according to different standards over time. NPR has a really interesting 3 part podcast series that explains how antitrust laws have been applied over time. Marketshare was the significant metric at one time but more recent judges have used impact/harm to consumers based on price. Under recent case law, if the consumer is still able to get the good cheaply, you can basically own the entire market.
"The Law" is pretty patchy, inconsistent and self contradictory. A lot of them are old. A lot of definitions are sketchy. There aren't many precedents, and the normative precedent of what doesn't get prosecuted is vast and confusing.
>> You don't need a monopoly for antitrust, but it sure makes for a stronger case.
The realities of being a primary OS, App Store, or browser vendor today are both more significant, and more well known than in the 90s. They have financial consequences many times greater.
I don't see how you can come to an intelligible concept of monopoly, market power and such with a general, legal-friendly theory of monopoly. The logic needs to be reversed.
NEW UNDERPANTS PLAN:
0. Forget about proving a monopoly exists to strengthen your case that X is acting as a trust.
1. Use evidence that X is acting as a trust, as to make the case that monopoly exists instead.
2. ???
3. Profit.
The problem is that we don't have a step 2. What happens when markets mature into an monopoly dynamic? We need an answer, because some have.
You should read the actual page before you comment!
From the article: After another meeting between Apple and Google senior executives, notes showed that the execs agreed: "Our vision is that we work as if we are one company."
I've once worked for a large corporation that got hit hard by antitrust. Think a few tens of billions of dollars. Why? A seller was caught giving freebies if they bought their products. That's it. That's all it took.
I know because due to that incident we had to follow online formation every god damn month about antitrust. You don't have to have a "monopoly" to trigger antitrust legislation. The mere mention of "deals" or "cooperation" or "understanding" in the same conversation that involves competitor can be enough evidence to cause huge trouble.
What? Antitrust isn't solely about marketshare and having a monopoly. You can behave in anticompetitive ways that break antitrust laws without having a monopoly.
They both offer a highly integrated platform for mobile computing. One offers devices as well, the other relegates that part to other companies, but anyone in the market for a mobile phone today effectively will pick between those two options that do pretty much the same things with similar UX. That totally looks like competition to me.
They do indeed compete but doesn't Apple have a monopoly on IOS with it's app store and Google on Android with PlayStore?
At least on Android you can install you own market if you're so inclined. I have yet to find an alternative app store for ios though(might be just me not knowing where to look though).
Edit: Forgot to add that when you're talking about Apple vs G I don't see it as 1 big "smartphone" market. It's 2 different ones. Apple hardware running iOS vs generic hardware running Android.
The law sees it as they have been paid and blackmailed to see it.
There was a report yesterday that showed Apple's lawyers threatening to pull out funding of a minority education school if the state considered any sort of App store laws.
Wouldn't that be Apple's prerogative? There's no reason to do business in a state that's hostile to your interests or pursuits. That's not blackmail anymore than the attempted Hollywood boycott over Georgia's abortion laws a few years ago. There are plenty of well-documented violations of integrity to accuse Apple of, but using its philanthropic investments as a leverage isn't one of them.
You can definitely replace Google's app store, see Chinese phone providers, Samsung App store, sideloading, etc... You can also make any browser the default.
It's a lot more damning than the MS case because internet impact and integration in ones life was minimal. Today society is hybrid and appstore/googleplay are the digital interface to a boatload of public and private services.
> In 2001, Microsoft "constituted unlawful monopolization" under Antitrust Act for bundling a web browser with their operating system.
Microsoft got out of that, though. They barely paid a fine. I don't disagree that there are antitrust concerns with all sorts of big company behavior. But this is the world we live in. If you want the government to regulate this stuff for you you need to elect a government willing to do that (or rather, willing to appoint judges willing to do that).
>>I don't know how the law sees it, but it's simply illogical from the common sense standpoint.
Let's make a point of starting here. There's room for the legalistic standpoint, especially if we're trying to understand legal processes... but this isn't a law forum. It's near impossible to discuss antitrust usefully from a mostly-legalistic perspective. The laws, precedents, legal doctrines and economic doctrines they relate to are extremely patchy, flimsy and often barely exist.
I think a core part of the problem is a weak, badly grounded antitrust framework in the first place. Key definitions like "monopoly" use contradictory conceptual frameworks, from different eras. Generalizing from one instance to another is difficult. A lot of key concepts don't have definitions at all, or really wishy washy ones.
I think the nature of monopolies has a lot to do with this. One possible definition of monopoly is an singular market entity... IE not generalizable, by definition. Are courts supposed to be punishing violations, or structuring markets and doing industrial policy? Are they supposed to be regulating monopolies, preventing them, or declaring their existence so that a different set of regulations kick in? Is monopoly a normal occurrence in market maturity, or market failure?
At some point, Peter Thiel gave away the game when he said that "monopoly is the goal." If you read microeconomics basics, but conceptualize it as software companies instead of a auto manufacturing... you tend to think of monopoly, rather than commoditization as the equilibrium point that's never quite reached. Successful tech companies don't try to make money by competing in a level field with lots of competitors. That's for appstore app developers, salesforce plugin consultants, spotify artists and such.
The whole premise of the tech miracle is that monopolies are the bull case. How else to expect/justify/realize tech company valuations.
Imagine pitching an investor like Thiel on your idea to spend a billion dollars making youtube content for ad revenue? That's all wrong. Your bull case is that you'll temporarily profitable, if successful. Even if you're very profitable, its temporary. There are zillions of youtubers and squillions who could be. They'll copy you, or maybe your content will just get stale over time. A youtube policy change could wipe you out. In the turbulence of youtube's free market for online videos, profits don't last at scale. To get Thiel's attention, you need to go for your own monopoly.
"Commoditize your compliments" has long been a tech motto. Well... what's the corrolorary? Monopolize your market segment.
Yes, exactly. The law needs to be updated to account for this new world of "platforms".
By platform, I mean an ecosystem a private entity creates which they monetize through content created/uploaded/deployed by external parties.
AWS and others fall under this definition too. The truth is, cloud computing should be a low margin industry in the long run. Yes, software has close to 0 marginal cost of production, but the same is true of your competitors. Basic economic principle implies that in a competitive market, the price to customers should be close to the cost of production.
In the old days, the economy was largely physical goods based, so it was very easy to simply buy a competing product if you don't like the one you have now. That by and large didn't entail becoming entrenched in a whole ecosystem.
Laws need to be updated to tackle the inherent monopolistic elements of platforms, social and so on. China is taking this path, so it will be interesting to see how that develops.
It's important to recognize too, that leveraging a monopolistic position to produce excess profit is effectively a direct transfer of wealth from the littler guys to the bigger guys.
e.g. Apple taking a 30% cut on the app store directly takes from app creators, who may raise prices 30%, which ultimately hits customers.
>> The truth is, cloud computing should be a low margin industry in the long run.
The free market ethos, IIRC, suggests that all industries should be low margin in the long run, no? Innovators and shuch are supposed to be compensated with high margins, but not perpetual high margins. The whole idea is that 25%> margin do not exist in perpetuity.
Yes, exactly. If the market is perfectly competitive, and cost to switching is low, margins trend towards 0.
The same should be true in software, regardless of how cheap it is to produce an additional unit. Of course, because it's cheap for anybody else to produce that additional unit too.
The reason we see such high margins in software is a combination of "first mover advantage", pseudo-monopolistic like elements to the business, and the fact that industry is so new, VC money does not tend to go towards creating direct competitors as there is ample opportunity elsewhere.
In the short run, first movers and innovators will be able to generate high margins of course. And sometimes business X really does produce a better product than the rest, as some would say Apple does. But given that software is cheap to maintain once built, you would expect many viable and roughly equivalent competitors to be built in the long run.
At the end of the day, legislation should be written to foster "competitive capitalism", as that produces the best result for the public at large.
For example, it should be as easy to switch between SaaS providers as the flick of a button. Apple should have to allow competing app stores and not give preferential treatment to their own... And so on.
If you think about the App store example in isolation, the fee they charge is a direct transfer of wealth from app creators and app buyers to Apple. Would they be able to charge 30% if there were competing app stores? Maybe, but I doubt it over the long run. Certainly at least they wouldn't be able to charge Epic that amount, as Fortnite is big enough to entice people through side channels for loading the app.
Looking at it as choice of Apple or Android is not an appropriate level of granularity for anti-trust IMO.
We must recognize that markets created within a platform also must be competitive, not just the gateway into that ecosystem. Cost of switching becomes high, which leads to de facto Monopoly power by the platform owner.
> I don't know how the law sees it, but it's simply illogical from the common sense standpoint.
In these cases, generally, the law acts when other parties push it. Mainly big actors. The app stores are generally build by those major actors. May be regulations will happen in several years.
Maybe intent matters. Until now, maybe, there's been nothing demonstrating intent like the "cut off Netscape's air supply" quote the DOJ used in the Microsoft antitrust case.
Fair enough. Merely bundling some software was not a violation by itself, but that bundling was also additionally reinforced with "concerted series of actions designed to protect the applications barrier to entry", which caused "consumer harm by distorting competition" [1].
You can only explain this by corruption. I think three letter agencies slept on that one...
Edit:
Not sure why accusation of corruption is downvoted? It's a very difficult crime to prove and requires resources to pursue, so there is no appetite to prosecute. Big companies and civil service know that. If these companies pay off developers, they would have no reason to pay anyone else in their way and that would unlikely result in any consequences.
It matters because you could sue a domestic seller for trademark infringement. It's much harder to do so if the seller is under jurisdiction where US trademark law does not apply.
You can still use BitLocker completely without TPM, but it needs an explicit change in Group Policy. If opted in, BitLocker setup will behave much like well known TrueCrypt/VeraCrypt, offering encryption options with a password or a keyfile.
It's weird to see the term "App" in relation to anything before iOS era. Back then such software used to be mostly called applications or just programs. [1]
I definitely remember hearing the phrase "killer app" plenty of times in the early 2000s, and Macworld definitely shortened "application" to "app" frequently in the late 90s and early 2000s.
I heard app the first time in connection with "killer app", before I only remember the term "program". If my memory serves me right I heard "killer app" the first time in the late 90s
RISC OS was using the term App from around 1987 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RISC_OS), to describe an executable collection of files wrapped up in a folder. The folder had to start with a "!" to distinguish it as an app rather than a standard folder.
It’s weird. They were called programs. Startups were called businesses.
I find it weird how generations need to change words. I guess Startup was new, and unconventional? For a few seconds they were? Then they got real slick with MBA’s?
It's good, it shows that the newer generation is invested in the same things, and they want to build their own culture. However, i m afraid the "app" culture is all about marketing, addictiveness and locking-in users, not about making faster bicycles for the mind
Yeah now even microsoft has renamed "programs" to "apps" in windows. On the one hand it s bad because they are all programs made by programmers who know programming, and it's all that people need to know. OTOH , it's kinda good that the status of mobile apps is equated with ordinary desktop apps, because it makes users realize that their walled garden is needlessly walled.
Microsoft is inconsistent with this. At one point, based on my understanding, "programs" meant traditional Windows apps and "apps" meant those "Modern" Windows 8 apps that they tried to foist on us. Then, at some point, it seems "apps" came to mean any application. Of course, Microsoft hasn't had consistency for a long time.
In some ways, I miss the Microsoft of the 80s and 90s. Sure, they were totally evil, but at least they made good UIs.
The lack of typeahead in GtkFileChooser is my biggest annoyance that I've ever come across. Ever since I started using computers nearly 25 years ago I used typeahead to navigate through directories and I can't imagine doing it otherwise. The idea of removing typeahead is anti-human to me, I couldn't adapt even though I really tried to.
Which makes me think the biggest problem with the file selector as described is not that it's flawed, but that it's hard to replace.
One of the thing I loved about the Amiga was that because of how the API was structured, it was easy to replace things like this, as you could patch every API endpoint. As a result, it took very little time before more advanced replacements for the standard file requester appeared. You "just" had to patch (via OS-provided functions) a couple of library calls.
Disappointing? At first, I was thinking that this designer was just a junior designer and they didn't know better, maybe learning how to implement designs so it's fine, we can't all be pros for day one.
But now when I realize that this was made from someone at Google's UX team, it all makes sense. Interacting with this site feels exactly like interacting with the typical Google property, where all standards and expectations gets thrown out for something that probably looks pretty on the designers screen but is 80% off for everyone else.
