Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

This is such a terribly flawed analogy. Roads are a shared utility that are usually built with public money. They are not a matter of personal choice. In addition, roads are largely a commodity, with few points of differentiation beyond fodder for office small talk. Drawing the comparison, even without referring to these specific attributes, is manipulative and misleading.

Most people that argue for your desired outcome can at least see that there are non-zero user-facing benefits to a walled garden. Do you really not have anyone in your life that isn’t an idealistic tech savvy power user? Apple obviously has financial incentive to maintain its 30% transaction cut, and it’s made some silly arguments to try to maintain that. However it’s also raised some very legitimate and well thought-out downsides.

At this point, the conversation has evolved so far beyond the “it’s a road!” analogy that continuing with that line of reasoning feels either ignorant or acting in bad faith, not because of any “won ground” by the pro walled garden lot, but because all that are interested in a legitimate debate know that these misleading comparisons help nobody.




You can pontificate all you want, but the law is pretty clear that what Apple is doing violates antitrust law, and is thus illegal. See the precedent set in US v. Microsoft.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: