Thread

1. apatheticonion · 1790574506 · focus · HN ↗

   I believe it is critical for regulators to force mega-corporations (and software vendors in general) to permit third party clients.

   I use services like YouTube every day, why can I get sued if I write my own YouTube client that's better than the one provided by Google? Why can I get sued if I create a chat client that aggregates the myriad of chat services I use?

   I'd argue that this even extends down the stack. Why is there only Android and iOS? It's because hardware drivers are practically impossible to write for undocumented hardware (which is virtually all hardware). Vendors should be compelled to document their hardware such that drives could be produced for them.

   Asahi Linux is a testament to a team attempting the impossible and making unbelievable progress - but it's still not competitive with first party drivers.

   I want a world where I can run Linux on my MacBook Pro and my phone. I want a world where I can flash a custom firmware to my TV that removes the bloat and spyware. I want a world where I can use the services I depend on in ways that are better than what the vendor can produce. I want a world where I can rebuild applications and games lost to time.

   I have the skills and desire to do these things.

   But nah. Not allowed.

   1. throwaway743950 · 1790578977 · focus · HN ↗

      Maybe I'm uneducated here, but wouldn't this just commoditize the products of companies? Would it disincentivize them from creating their products in the first place?

      1. gspr · 1790579115 · focus · HN ↗

         I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that products with open APIs are commoditized faster than ones without? Why would that be?

         1. chii · 1790579403 · focus · HN ↗

            i think they meant the hardware becomes more fungible. This is what made IBM lose their competitive advantage when it came to PCs, because others were able to make IBM-compatible ones that are cheaper and still able to use the same old software.

            1. gspr · 1790580632 · focus · HN ↗

               Right. But viewed differently, that made everyone have to compete at actually making good PCs, instead of relying on customers unable to escape to another vendor due to lock-in.

               We want this. Software and other modern tech desperately need this! How many companies are stuck with an absolutely terrible suite of MS products because you can't easily rip out and replace just the IM or videoconferencing part, for example?

               1. graemep · 1790584610 · focus · HN ↗

                  Its good for the buyers, and good for broader society and the economy.

                  Its bad for vendors.

                  Why would vendors do something that is bad for them? HN is full for people talking about how to create a "moat" for their products. Why do you expect hardware vendors not to want to do the same?

                  1. chii · 1790586488 · focus · HN ↗

                     > Why do you expect hardware vendors not to want to do the same?

                     of course they want the moat - the point is that society as a whole should force them not to have a moat. Ala, they should not be allowed monopolies.

                     Unfortunately, this sort of legislation has been lacking recently, and in fact, has been failing even enforcing existing ones from yester-century.

                     1. TeMPOraL · 1790592783 · focus · HN ↗

                        This is true about most businesses, hence the dissonance. Pretty much every time a business creates "a moat", it's bad for consumers in some way.

                        1. gspr · 1790594920 · focus · HN ↗

                           Except if the moat is something like "have managed to attract and retain stellar workers who make fantastic products with excellent durability and support at a reasonable price, resulting in such a happy customer base that any upstart will struggle to gain a foothold". The horror!

                           1. TeMPOraL · 1790595302 · focus · HN ↗

                              If only it was possible to have that moat. Alas, optimizing quality of products and employment away is a competitive advantage.

                              1. gspr · 1790598450 · focus · HN ↗

                                 Only because we let it be. I truly believe that we can wield regulations to make it not so.
      2. Xywzel · 1790582165 · focus · HN ↗

         YouTube's product is the commercials it targets with the collected user data, not the web or phone client. So as long as the client doesn't get in the way of showing these advertisements and collecting that user data, it should not matter to them.

         In more general case, you don't pay for the client software (or web page), you pay for the service provided trough it, so it should not matter if you use the service trough different client.

         Of curse, many of these new clients do provide options for getting around the data collection or make it possible to block the advertisement, and that makes the companies so strict about who makes clients and how.

      3. izacus · 1790582947 · focus · HN ↗

         Did TV, VCR, soundbar, monitor, laptop manufacturers end up stop manufacturing their devices because they had to talk to each other with a compatible HDMI format? And the user could swap out the TV device that played media from Apple TV?

         Where do you get those silly ideas?

      4. apatheticonion · 1790585033 · focus · HN ↗

         In a sense, yes - intuitively, you'd think it's bad but historically it's actually a major accelerant to innovation.

         Essentially, if competition entered the market, Apple (and co) aren't going to give up, they'd be forced to innovate in order to retain market share.

         If individuals (like me, some random on the internet) were permitted to create competing services on top of hardware and software that exists, you'd be running SteamOS on your MacBook, you'd be plugging your phone into a USB-C dock or lapdock, you'd be able to export data from your health tracker so you can buy a new one and keep your existing data, etc.

         By contrast, the status quo of permitting corporations to attain functional monopolies by making it practically impossible to compete is a far worse outcome for the general consumer.

         Also, when you consider that the EU is looking at cutting their reliance on US technologies - they are literally not going to make a MacBook or iPhone in this decade - but if Europeans were allowed to install their own software on these devices, the road to sovereignty gets a whole lot less impractical

         Also, as stated below, as long as you don't prevent YouTube (or similar) from making money from ads (ad blocking, etc) - there is no reason to not allow you do to this.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.