Inventing your own “standard” and forcing everyone to use it (lightning and webkit)
It’s like people don’t remember history anymore. WebKit was a joint venture between many groups. It wasn’t “inventing your own standard” any more than any web browser engine. The restriction to WebKit on iOS devices can be frustrating, but this practice is anti-competitive.
And Lightning replaced another proprietary port, the iPod 30-pin connector. That 30-pin connector was born in a time when standards for device-side connections were not very often utilized. Many devices used proprietary connectors. When Apple transitioned away from the 30-pin, the industry at large was operating with both Mini-USB and Micro-USB, which were both straight-up inferior to Lightning.
The problem with Apple and Lightning is that they didn’t drop it when they should’ve. When USB-C became the clear de facto standard, and they began transitioning all of their other devices to it, they should’ve moved the iPhone over and bit the bullet then. Not doing so, and continuing to charge for MFi certification was, again, anti-competitive. But the existence of Lightning wasn’t anti-consumer.
preventing consumers from having their device repaired from anyone else than a “certified technician” at 4x the markup
Right-to-repair is an important issue and Apple are really shitty about it. I agree. They are not unique, and this also needs to be addressed.
Google pixels are not OEM-locked and I can easiely install graphene or any other operating system on them. In the smartphone category, google is the only good vendor, ironically.
Like I said, “in many respects.” For your use-case, one that you must admit is infrequently utilized, statistically speaking, Google makes a better product that fits your needs. The vast, vast majority of smartphone users are not flashing alternate ROMs to their devices. Most people aren’t power-users, and even most power-users don’t bother. That’s not to say your use-case isn’t meaningful; I’m glad there are still solid options available for a world I used to be a part of!
People can damn well choose to not buy an apple device.
Sure, but does that mean Apple should be allowed to get away with anti-competitive behavior? With practices that seek to force others to use their systems, or to keep users they have from exploring other options? I don’t think so. Bad business practices need to be addressed regardless of whether users have an option to look elsewhere. Especially when the company has a sufficiently large percentage of the smartphone market to force developers to work within their walled garden to hit target audiences.
It’s like people don’t remember history anymore. WebKit was a joint venture between many groups. It wasn’t “inventing your own standard” any more than any web browser engine. The restriction to WebKit on iOS devices can be frustrating, but this practice is anti-competitive.
And Lightning replaced another proprietary port, the iPod 30-pin connector. That 30-pin connector was born in a time when standards for device-side connections were not very often utilized. Many devices used proprietary connectors. When Apple transitioned away from the 30-pin, the industry at large was operating with both Mini-USB and Micro-USB, which were both straight-up inferior to Lightning.
The problem with Apple and Lightning is that they didn’t drop it when they should’ve. When USB-C became the clear de facto standard, and they began transitioning all of their other devices to it, they should’ve moved the iPhone over and bit the bullet then. Not doing so, and continuing to charge for MFi certification was, again, anti-competitive. But the existence of Lightning wasn’t anti-consumer.
Right-to-repair is an important issue and Apple are really shitty about it. I agree. They are not unique, and this also needs to be addressed.
Like I said, “in many respects.” For your use-case, one that you must admit is infrequently utilized, statistically speaking, Google makes a better product that fits your needs. The vast, vast majority of smartphone users are not flashing alternate ROMs to their devices. Most people aren’t power-users, and even most power-users don’t bother. That’s not to say your use-case isn’t meaningful; I’m glad there are still solid options available for a world I used to be a part of!
Sure, but does that mean Apple should be allowed to get away with anti-competitive behavior? With practices that seek to force others to use their systems, or to keep users they have from exploring other options? I don’t think so. Bad business practices need to be addressed regardless of whether users have an option to look elsewhere. Especially when the company has a sufficiently large percentage of the smartphone market to force developers to work within their walled garden to hit target audiences.