> If is such a killer app, Epic is free to create their own phone OS, it would sell like hot pancakes.
Creating a phone OS wouldn't actually let them compete on the same level, because you can't run anything but iOS on Apple hardware.
The only companies that actually compete at the same level as Apple and Google and Amazon, since they both create the hardware, run an OS on it, and provide a store on it. Any while it's a pain to do (and they take steps to make it not work well, even if it does work), you can install their stores on each other (Amazon Fire store on Android, and Google Play store on Kindle Fire devices).
Not to say that those companies are paragons of openness in their platforms, but Apple is quite it bit farther along the spectrum in locking down their devices, in that you can't run any software other than what they approve on them (unless you jailbreak, but I'm but sure that's legal in many jurisdictions).
> You know, actual innovation.
There are plenty of locations to innovate. Why should epic have to create an OS (which they can't actually run on the hardware the people they are trying to reach are using) just so they can try to provide a better store experience for people. They could "innovate" be being more deterministic in what they accept or reject than Apple and being cheaper. Those are innovations that many customers and developers would welcome.
But you know, arguably the same arguments Epic is making in terms of the app store also apply to the OS, so maybe Apple should be forced to open up IPhones to other OSes as well ;)
I'm sure Apple will be thrilled with this line of reasoning and will definitely argue it (/s).
(In case it's not clear, I'm agreeing with the person I'm responding to, sarcasm over the internet is hard).
> But you know, arguably the same arguments Epic is making in terms of the app store also apply to the OS, so maybe Apple should be forced to open up IPhones to other OSes as well ;)
Yep. That's the argument I've been making for a couple weeks now. Mainly, that Apple's actions are anti-competitive, even if they may not match the current definition of monopoly. If the harm is great enough though, then we should maybe think about extending the definition of monopoly or enacting some more specific laws restricting anti-competitive actions that match the modern market more accurately. It's not like the current laws from the the constitution, they were added in the late 1800's and early 1900's.
At a minimum, some consumer laws that protect us from people locking down hardware to specific software in some instances (and thus allowing competition on Apple hardware) may help in some small ways overall, even if it doesn't directly address the App Store and OS coupling. Being able to (legally) run Android (or something else) on an Apple phone would change quite a lot, IMO, even if it took a while to do so.
This feels like the right compromise. Allow for non-iOS iPhones similar to booting into windows on a MacBook.
How to deal with the warranty is the tricky part. Custom software can degrade the hardware. It seems fair that Apple should provide easier access to dev tools for bare-metal iPhone programming and jailbreaking but is no longer liable for the device.
I thought of this the other week, since it's not a stretch to think Epic will want to go after those marketplaces as well if they can.
It feels a little different, but I'm not willing to let that make me a hypocrite. We should have control over that hardware if we bought it, full stop. If that means we can't get those platforms as cheap anymore because they can't recoup their money from store fees, so be it. The world will be better off.
You can't trust any company to have your best interests at heart. You can barely expect this a miniscule amount of the time with your elected representatives, and that's their whole job. The market is for providing competition and innovation. Laws are for providing safety and security (and that includes keeping the market functioning well enough to provide those legitimately). Let's not forget that.
There's plenty of competition in terms of stores for all those things, except iPhones.
For instance, you can buy games for your switch from amazon or best buy. They have no such restriction where you can only buy games through Nintendo's store
Creating a phone OS wouldn't actually let them compete on the same level, because you can't run anything but iOS on Apple hardware.
The only companies that actually compete at the same level as Apple and Google and Amazon, since they both create the hardware, run an OS on it, and provide a store on it. Any while it's a pain to do (and they take steps to make it not work well, even if it does work), you can install their stores on each other (Amazon Fire store on Android, and Google Play store on Kindle Fire devices).
Not to say that those companies are paragons of openness in their platforms, but Apple is quite it bit farther along the spectrum in locking down their devices, in that you can't run any software other than what they approve on them (unless you jailbreak, but I'm but sure that's legal in many jurisdictions).
> You know, actual innovation.
There are plenty of locations to innovate. Why should epic have to create an OS (which they can't actually run on the hardware the people they are trying to reach are using) just so they can try to provide a better store experience for people. They could "innovate" be being more deterministic in what they accept or reject than Apple and being cheaper. Those are innovations that many customers and developers would welcome.