Show HN: Ask anyone for book recommendations or give one - <AUTHOR> I'm a regular visitor of books-related subs on Reddit and my fomo regarding an excellent book goes out of control whenever I see related threads on HN.
I've noticed that a lot of people want book recommendations but they don't want the "best" books in a field. They are looking for something that falls in their area of reading interest and something similar to what they've read earlier and liked.
--> In the absence of any context of what a person has been reading, it becomes difficult to recommend a book to him.
--> On the other hand, if I know someone likes reading biographies, my first reaction on discovering a great biography is to either message them about the book or try to "sell them the idea" of reading this book. Both the approaches are easily forgotten.
So to make asking for book suggestions easy, I've added this feature on ShelfJoy, called Recommend a book.
Now, you can simply share your ShelfJoy profile with your friends/with people whose recommendations you trust and ask them to recommend a book to you.
Example: I am on a reading challenge in 2017 where I am reading a business biography every month.
By sharing my profile here: http://shelfjoy.com/sia_steel/recommendations
I can simply ask for recommendations and friends can browse through my reading list, books that I've liked before and recommend me books they think I'll like.
My entire recommendations stay at the same place and I can simply shift that book to the books that I've read once I finish it.
+ I'm looking forward for some feedback on this feature and whether you find it useful. <comment><USER2> Feels like it needs some selection from shelf & list right on the recommendation page. People are generally lazy and digging through two lists to recommend just one sounds like a lot of work. On the other hand, glancing at random 5 (N) and trying to suggest something similar from your list feels much easier.

You can then share on socials something like "Could you please recommend me something like `title 1`, `title 2`, `...`", so that people know if they can help right after reading your ask. imho.</comment>


Generative Art with CSS - <AUTHOR> https://web.archive.org/web/20190416022012/https://generative-art-with-css.commons.host/ <comment><AUTHOR> The Wayback Machine because `commons.host` is not universally available.</comment>


The most effective way to tackle climate change? Plant a trillion trees - <AUTHOR> https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/17/world/trillion-trees-climate-change-intl-scn/index.html <comment><USER2> For those interested, there's an Ask HN thread about this now too: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20361651](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20361651).

</comment><comment><USER3> Pakistan completed a billion tree plantation project in 2017 [1]. This is currently being followed up with a 5 year 10 billion tree plantation project, at an annual cost of 7.5 billion PKR (~47 million USD) [2]. Planting 989bn trees for the other 200 countries should not be too difficult.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billion_Tree_Tsunami](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billion_Tree_Tsunami)

[2] [http://www.radio.gov.pk/04-07-2019/pms-vision-of-clean- green...](http://www.radio.gov.pk/04-07-2019/pms-vision-of-clean-green- pakistan-getting-intl-acclaim-amin)

<comment><USER4> Does that $47m cost include the price of the land?

If the government doesn't have that much viable tree-planting space available then they either have to seize it which would make some people _very_ unhappy, or compulsorily purchase it which would push the cost up _a lot_. That isn't a reason not to do it, but in order to talk about it you need to be clear about what you're actually talking about.

<comment><USER5> Why only those two options for getting trees onto private land? Why not an incentive system for landowners to plant and maintain trees? Let the government plant trees on your lawn and get a reduction in your land tax.

<comment><USER4> That would still be a significant cost (in lost tax receipts).

<comment><USER6> Tax credit on new greenhouse tax. Revenue neutral if done right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Can't come quickly enough in the UK as we have a significantly lower percentage of tree cover compared to Europe, and I love forests dearly. It was said that after WW1 there was barely a tree left standing in the country, and we've never recovered. It pains me that the average Brit seems to think a green field is nature, whereas many are virtual deserts in terms of biodiversity. I'm just hoping we get a decent mix of trees as part of this planting and that it is not subverted by commercial interests into massive monoculture plantations as was the case in Scotland.

<comment><USER8> Any idea which UK charities would be the best to contribute to to get tree coverage up as quickly as possible? I've looked at the woodland trust, but equally I'm thinking that in terms of reducing CO2 my money might be more effective being deployed in another country.

<comment><USER9> There is Trees for Life in Scotland:

[https://treesforlife.org.uk/](https://treesforlife.org.uk/)

Edit: Most of the Scottish Highlands are a particularly bizarre landscape that people generally think of as natural but is really rather artificial as deer, lacking natural predators and being popular for hunting, tend to eat young trees.

<comment><USER10> Bit like Dartmoor - looks spectacularly wild and romantic, but used to be forested until Bronze Age farmers cleared it for agriculture and the soil turned acidic.

<comment><USER11> The Lakes and the Peaks are in the same boat too, probably the other national parks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> One thing that I rarely see mentioned when tree-planting is suggested is species, biodiversity, and impact of selection of trees to be planted on the environment.

1 tree is not equivalent to 1 tree of a different species.

Reports such as this one[0] hint to the impact of tree choice on things like human health, but I'm curious about the effects it has on climate in general (and sustainabiilty of tree populations: disease resistance, etc.).

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19835537](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19835537)

<comment><USER13> The first few tree planting drives in Tamil Nadu (a southern state of India; it's capital Chennai recently ran out of water) got significant public backlash [0] for this reason: they planted nothing but Acacia trees (due to their short growth term) and the leaves took a long time to degrade, killing all the undergrowth and creating a monoculture.

[0] [https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/Acacia- rem...](https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/Acacia-removal- starts-in-Palayamkottai/article16983121.ece#)!

<comment><USER14> > it's capital Chennai recently ran out of water

This casual statement made my eyes bulge. Like, what does this mean? How does it happen? Is water permanently gone? What are the ramifications?

I found a WaPo article on Chennai, which I see has about half a million more people than NYC.

> The city's reservoirs and lakes are parched and its wells have run dry after > two years of scanty rains here. Local authorities are trucking in water and > desalinating seawater, but the supply is less than half the city's basic > requirement.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/06/28/major- indian...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/06/28/major-indian-city- runs-out-water-million-people-pray-rain/?utm_term=.889860296b61)

<comment><USER14> This reminded me about Yemen. Eight years ago I read that Yemen may be the first country to run out of water. I went to check on where they are. It's not good. Drought is being compounded by conflict and politics.

I can't help but think that this is a harbinger of the future in more places than Yemen as climate change continues.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_Yemen)

[https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/an- update-o...](https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/an-update-on- yemen-s-water-crisis-and-the-weaponization-of-water)

<comment><USER6> Yemen hasn't invested properly because of other pressing concerns. Yemen is a reminder of the past, Africa is a glimps of the future. It is not all terrible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Yes, but not only plant them. You also need to keep them and then you can never let them decompose or burn. Or you have to keep planting a new tree whenever one dies. Basically the "Plant 1T trees" means "increase the total number of trees by 1T and keep it that way". Also we would need to increase that number every time we increase our greenhouse gas emissions. No matter how "green" that sounds, that's just unsustainable. We still need to decrease our fossil fuel extraction to basically zero. And we need some way to put that sequestered CO2 back into ground or somewhere where it doesn't get back to atmosphere.

Just planting 1T seedlings, collecting subsidies, and congratulating each other how we sequestered that calculated amount of CO2 is a totally fake activity.

We really need to do this one right.

<comment><USER16> If the trees are used for wood or paper production, replanting logged trees is economically a no brainer.

<comment><USER15> Yes, but then you still have the same problem when you discard that paper or wood product. It either decomposes or burns, which releases the stored carbon, and you have to catch it again with another fully grown tree.

What I'm saying is that yes, we should plant more trees, but it must not be just about "planting", like this article and many others are trying to portray. Otherwise it will be all for nothing. And we still have to do the other two parts - lowering our overall energy demand and getting off of fossil fuels. We have to do all three.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Philippines law would require students to plant 10 trees if they want to graduate [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/philippines- tr...](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/philippines-tree- planting-students-graduation-law-environment-a8932576.html)

<comment><USER18> Suppose 8 billion people and 1 trillion trees. Each person should plant 125 trees. Neat law though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Bioremediation of carbon is almost certainly the best possible option. Plants are natural carbon-sequestration factories.

Hectare for hectare wetlands are even more effective than forests, and encouraging and protecting swamps, bogs, marshes, wetlands, and mangrove forests would be an even better notion.

</comment><comment><USER20> I like that the headline on this one actually gives a number. 1 Trillion! Something like 139 trees per person.

I read an article similar to this earlier today (not on HN like I posted before I edited this). [https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-07-05/climate- chang...](https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-07-05/climate-change-tree- planting-carbon-dioxide/11267556)

<comment><USER21> It's closer to 129, though that is still a big number.

<comment><USER22> Not so difficult. I'm sure most people could plant 10 trees a month, given the motivation.

Trouble is, how are we going to get people motivated to do this?

<comment><USER3> Make it mandatory (and pay) for schools to ensure that each secondary school or higher kid plants 10 trees a year. The motivation multiplier on the rest of society from this policy will take care of the rest.

<comment><USER23> Used to be a thing in Norway until the 70ies or early 80ies. Now we Norwegians are busily blaming ourselves for planting Sitka spruce instead of native species, but I guess the right answer might not be to stop planting trees but to be a little more considerate in what we plant and where.

<comment><USER10> What's wrong with Sitka spruce?

<comment><USER23> Replaces local species.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Very interesting. I see non-profit orgs advertising 1 planted tree for $1 [1]. Depending on how that scales, and whether this article is true, it should make it possible to effectively combat carbon increase for $1T.

Seems like a rather low number, all things considered.

[1] [https://onetreeplanted.org/products/kenya](https://onetreeplanted.org/products/kenya)

<comment><USER25> I can't speak on the Kenyan project you linked, but I did recently complete a 3000 tree habitat project. Even at bulk rates we purchased our trees at between $0.80-0.90 per tree. It took 3 people about 5-6 hours to complete the actual planting using a tractor and a tree planter. Outside of the actual purchase of the trees, other things to consider are: Labor was unpaid, however the county has a cost-sharing program we could have applied for which would have paid ~$8/hr per person to offset labor costs. I wouldn't be surprised if many of these non-profits use volunteer labor but also take advantage of reforestation grants to offset the cost. We borrowed the equipment and only used a couple gallons of diesel, but normally renting that equipment for the day would have been in the hundreds of dollars. Plenty of hours were spent meeting with state foresters to plan where the trees would go for maximum effect and deciding which species to plant. We had to transport the trees from the nursery and store them until they were planted. There is also a very limited window of time between when they are harvested at the nursery and when they need to be planted. If you wait too long many will die. Also to note that we had to call at least 4 nurseries to get the order we wanted. There is a limited supply of seedlings available each season and you have to plan well in advance if you need more than a couple hundred trees. At about a month out we're noticing about 10% dead loss, which is better than expected. Over the next year that could inflate to 30%. The goal shouldn't be to just plant 1T trees, it needs to be adding 1T new healthy trees to the environment, which means you would have to plant 1T + X0B extra to cover the dead loss.

So $1T in cost is a good ballpark to start with, but don't be surprised if it balloons pretty quick. Tree planting doesn't scale as efficiently as we might like.

<comment><USER26> > which means you would have to plant 1T + X0B extra to cover the dead loss

It depends if the dead trees are in groups that leave large gaps in coverage or random deaths (Alopecia versus thinning).

Also surely the actual number of trees is almost irrelevant - the important factors are: carbon capture per acre per year, and risks of carbon release (fire, conversion back to farmland, milling etc).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Planting trees isn't a viable (complete) solution though for various reasons.

\- Healthy forest has 40-60 trees per acre

This means you need 31,250,000~ square miles which is 15.87% of the Earth's landmass.

\- You need adequate rainfall where you plant the trees

\- For the healthiest trees, and best carbon sequestration, you also need to 'seed' the mycorrhizal networks that work in cooperation with tree roots.

\- You'd have to pick appropriate species for appropriate areas

\- Mature trees, the vast majority of the time, sequester far more than younger trees

\- There is considerable variation in the amount of carbon various trees can sequester in a given time

Some land that actually used to sustain decent tree populations, is now nearly barren. A good example of this is Iceland. When the first settlers reached Iceland in the latter half of the 9th century, forests covered between 25 and 40% of the landscape (nearly 10-16k square miles), it is now around 0.5% with active efforts to reintroduce trees with the reintroduction going very slow. This year they are attempting to plant around 4 million trees but a fraction of those will likely survive.

<comment><USER28> Yes. A tree can be planted when its the size of a bean sprout. I can put a million sprouts in one acre. The target is easy to achieve. Out of those million trees I plant, only 50 will survive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> And then keep on planting trillions more because we keep digging up coal and oil?

It would probably be better to cover 1-3% of our land and coastal areas with solar panels and wind turbines.

<comment><USER30> nuclear obviously, the most effective and green way to produce energy

<comment><USER29> Now show how to build enough reactors in the next twenty years to completely replace fossil fuels. If your strategy doesn't show at least 75% CO2 reduction by 2030 you've likely missed the 1.5° goal.

Building reactors takes a long time. We probably first need to ramp up the industries that manufacture pressure vessels. The forging presses able to produce pressure vessels for modern reactors can manufacture maybe half a dozen a year, and there aren't too many of these massive presses around. You can of course argue that we build a different kind of reactor that doesn't require pressure vessels, but then you need additional time for R&D and proving the design in practice. Don't forget that we also need to train the engineers that staff the new power stations. Nuclear engineering is not a terribly popular major right now.

Wind and solar on the other hand are well suited to reducing our CO2 output starting today. Building a wind turbine doesn't take ten years.

<comment><USER31> Are there any videos of these presses? The process sounds interesting: the entire industrial capacity of the world to produce these is only a dozen a year? How many are there, and how long does each one take? Surely not that long...

<comment><USER32> It's not 12.

France was bringing 4 reactors a year online for 15 years.

France is not 1/3rd of global manufacturing capacity..

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Planting trees is easy. Trees grow from seed. My back yard can have a million trees. What counts is how many survive and what they are used for. Are the trees sustainable or do we just care about the equivalent of lines of code?

Many trees are planted to be used as bio fuel. More are planted to be converted to paper and pulp, others for construction.

All forestry involves thinning weaker trees from the forest. Planting trees shouldn't be what's measured at all but areas of sustainable forest created.

</comment><comment><USER33> Photographer Sebastião Salgado and his wife have re-forested his family's farm, planting over 2M trees over 20 years, and have developed the know-how to make this reproducible at much more granular scales than big government-led projects. [http://www.institutoterra.org/eng/conteudosLinks.php?id=22&t...](http://www.institutoterra.org/eng/conteudosLinks.php?id=22&tl=QWJvdXQgdXM=&sb=NQ==)

</comment><comment><USER34> I would love to have more trees.

But not for reason of sucking CO2. Please understand that forests are CO2 neutral. Any CO2 a tree consumes in its lifetime will be converted to leaves and wood and eventually fall to the ground and be converted by insects, fungi and bacteria BACK to CO2.

To get rid of CO2 from atmosphere we almost need to do the opposite, chop down trees and bury trunks somewhere where the don't decompose.

<comment><USER35> _Existing_ forests are neutral. Growing _new ones_ is not.

<comment><USER36> Exactly. I get very frustrated by these conversations..

Wood sequesters CO2. Growing more wood will, trivially, sequester more CO2. Is that sequester "as good" as sequestering it deep underground? That depends. If it is sequestered by an ecosystem that persists over time - in other words, if it is sequestered in a forest, and that forest remains there even if the individual trees die and decay - then yes. The CO2 that is pulled out of the atmosphere stays out of the atmosphere unless the forest disappears.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> For the briefest moment I just considered buying a forest in Germany, one that I could visit with my son, having some high-minded talk with him about sustainability while feeling very smug.

Then I found a german forest marketplace[1], that has a good FAQ regarding the regulations of owning a forest in Germany.

After reading this I don't want to go anywhere near owning a forest, having to have insurance for the case anyone walking through my forest trips and injures himself, having to pay taxes for the very rain that penetrates the ground and may end up in the sewage system...

[1] [https://www.wald-boerse.de/wald-kaufen/](https://www.wald-boerse.de/wald- kaufen/)

</comment><comment><USER38> Here's my question: which type of trees would be best? I assume the trees that convert co2 to o2 the quickest, which means the trees that grow the fastest, right? Maybe is it better to plant trees that are more disease resistant instead.

</comment><comment><USER39> One of the best resources I've found lately is the book "The Carbon Farming Solution." [1]

If you're interested in how different species of plants and trees compare in terms of carbon impact, different types of land-management, perennial staple crop exploration, etc, it's really well written and researched.

Bottom line: planting trees is great, and there's a ton of ways we can improve the land. But maybe the single biggest impact thing we can do is stop cutting down forests for grazing cattle. At the end of the day the planet needs natural, wild forests, at a massive scale.

1: [http://carbonfarmingsolution.com](http://carbonfarmingsolution.com)

</comment><comment><USER2> Discussed at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20356859](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20356859). But this story has been so popular that we might as well let run again.

<comment><USER40> I twice submitted a great talk that goes into more depth on this and other things, but both times it failed to get many views ([1] [2]), despite my having a hunch that there would be significant interest in it. Any thoughts on how to give the talk some more visibility?

[2] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20150835](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20150835)

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20057134](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20057134)

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> How about creating a simple campaign website, trilliontrees.org, that serves as a rallying call to plant trees and that compares and provides guidance on the myriad of nonprofits involved in planting trees?

Anyone interested to partner on this?

<comment><USER42> I almost think you're joking, since this already exists.

[https://www.trilliontrees.org/](https://www.trilliontrees.org/)

<comment><USER41> Weird. I visited this url earlier today and took me to a godaddy parking page. Maybe I mistyped or tried the .com.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> When we are currently losing (deforestation) 18 million acres of forest per year!

</comment><comment><USER44> You can help by switching your search engine to Ecosia:

[https://www.ecosia.org/](https://www.ecosia.org/)

Each search result generates revenue (through ads) that sponsors tree planting.

</comment><comment><USER45> I think trying to slow the cutting of trees would also help.

How many Christmas trees are cut down every year? I bought a synthetic tree many years ago, and I just keep using that to save on killing a tree every year.

<comment><USER46> You can also look at this the other way round:

By buying a Christmas tree, you create a market for those trees which makes people plant them. This leads to several generations of trees growing at any time, so that there is a net-reduction of CO2.

<comment><USER47> To make the reduction permanent however, the ultimate fate of all those Christmas trees is important. That market also entails more (fuel burning) economic activity surrounding Christmas and transportation of those trees. If they are disposed of in such a way as to be decomposed by microbes, much of the carbon returns to the environment. It's very hard to store carbon in a more permanent way than deep underground, which was where it was before we foolishly started pulling it all up and burning it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> I'm already over 100, way ahead of all you virtue signalers ;)

</comment><comment><USER26> What about 50 years later when the CO2 capture of the forest reaches equilibrium?

Do we then plant another trillion trees?

It's still worthwhile (and I also like trees, although usually not monocultures).

<comment><USER49> Is it really only fifty years? I would have guessed a couple hundred at least. Climate change is really a time problem. Given hundreds of years we'll be off carbon based economies purely for economic reasons. In fact I think that will largely be true in less than a century. So anything like this that buys us time may actually be all it takes.

But how about stopping deforestation? That seems like it would be more effective - pay developing countries based on maintaining their forested areas, policed using satellite data. I think we should also focus on planting trees and basically every other mitigation we can at the same time - doing one thing doesn't preclude others.

This is being done with some success in the rain forests of one of those deforestation happy palm oil producers, Indonesia.

[https://www.wri.org/blog/2019/02/indonesia-reduces- deforesta...](https://www.wri.org/blog/2019/02/indonesia-reduces- deforestation-norway-pay)

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Wildfires and insect infestations will be an issue, and they are very difficult to model. Canada has a lot of trees, but they emit more Carbon than they absorb. [1]

[1] [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/canada-forests- carbon...](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/canada-forests-carbon-sink- or-source-1.5011490)

<comment><USER51> > but they emit more Carbon than they absorb

That's a strange way to put it. The trees form a carbon reservoir. If they burn or decompose then they release carbon. But they cannot grow and release carbon indefinitely. If they emit carbon long enough then there won't be trees left. On the other hand if the total mass of trees grows long enough they will have trapped more carbon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Cool, that's 167 per person alive and our family of 5 already planted 1500 over a decade ago. I am awesome.

</comment><comment><USER53> Planting is only effective when trees are nurtured and watered after planting. I have seen too many planting efforts over the years where, after the initial enthusiasm, there is no care for the saplings and they die off only for people to lament and blame the government.

</comment><comment><USER54> The publication mentioned has now been published, I believe this is it:

[https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6448/76/tab- pdf](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6448/76/tab-pdf)

</comment><comment><USER55> That's quite absurd. Planting 1T trees would be extremely nice to the environment yet we fail to see the big picture. In oceans we have less than half of the phytoplankton than we used to have only a century ago[1].

""The amount of carbon that we can restore if we plant 1.2 trillion trees, or at least allow those trees to grow, would be way higher than the next best climate change solution," Crowther told CNN."

Phytoplankton actually contributes more than trees do to tackle the big construct of "climate change".[2]

In the article, all the climate change action is taken against the CO2 levels in the atmosphere - but I think we can all agree there is more to it than just CO2 (and we can go quite deep on that rabbit hole and slash apart lots of this big amorphous mass of a construct).

On top of that, there are quite some theories on what drives climate change [3] and different views on it [4]. Yet all mediums speak from the same theory which is CO2 is bad. Period.

Now, as said before on a comment by Krageon and Arbalest, it will be the comparable to a person planting 129 trees.

Don't get me wrong I love trees, forest and all that - no question that's beautiful and has more profound effects than climate change alone in our environment and society - but one gets fed up by the `simplicity` we think as a society of these problems.

I guess this is my personal opinion but I think we can do better with technology (which is why we are all in this community anyway) than that. And, again in my opinion, should be the way we lead and liaise with this problem instead of `go plant more trees`.

[1] [https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-shows- oceani...](https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-shows-oceanic- phytoplankton-declines-in-northern-hemisphere)

[2][https://novapublishers.com/shop/phytoplankton-biology- classi...](https://novapublishers.com/shop/phytoplankton-biology- classification-and-environmental-impacts/)

[3][http://climatica.org.uk/climate-science-information/long- ter...](http://climatica.org.uk/climate-science-information/long-term-climate- change-milankovitch-cycles)

[4] [https://www.bettermeetsreality.com/a-history-of-earths- carbo...](https://www.bettermeetsreality.com/a-history-of-earths-carbon- dioxide-levels-over-time-carbon-dioxide-level-timeline-how-fast-c02-levels- are-increasing/)

<comment><USER56> > should be the way we lead and liaise with this problem instead of `go plant > more trees`.

Why should it be one or the other? Let's do both (plus many more things).

Even the authors of this study mention that "planting trees" isn't enough, even for the CO2 issue alone, since planting trees is merely a mitigation for past damage.

<comment><USER55> The point I was trying to make is not that it's exclusive and hence why I reiterated I'm not against planting trees. Or trees in general, in any case I like them quite a lot as I come form the countryside and miss the forest and mountains a lot.

One of the points I was trying to converge is on the danger these types of articles pose and is they are delusional. It makes society think oh well, that's a big problem but we have a readily available solution, just plant more trees and all is solved.

The other is on one of the statements which is dubious.

I do a lot of work on this area hence why I'm saying all of the above and that's what I found when speaking with general public. And also with people with `high educational degrees` which (in theory) take things more critically and think them through.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> I am trying to turn my garden into a small forest by checking out what grows with most leaves and least water. So far that seems to work; some of them die because then are too young and fragile. But most of them survive and keep growing; it's a nice hobby too.

</comment><comment><USER58> I think if only 1% of the global population reproduced for a few generations it would be way more effective than tree planting. It seems like all the environmental "fixes" are external, and not related to our replication rate.

<comment><USER59> To reach the 2030 and 2050 targets (-45%, -100%), this change alone would be very insufficient. It would help during the second half of the century though, when emissions will likely need to be negative.

<comment><USER58> Cool, because I'm trying to plan for humanity's distant future, not just 50-100 years from now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> Turns out trees are great carbon capture devices and oxygen production engines

</comment><comment><USER61> Is there an economical value to that? It will predate a lot of good lands for non-producting results. And probably require some human management. Who will pay for that?

<comment><USER62> It has a similar economical value to having an army.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> Here is a fork:

Plant 1T trees in the defrost areas of the artics ?

<comment><USER64> The light difference between winter and summer get too extreme for most trees far enough north. The soil is also extremely poor. This gets brought up by people who think Canada would be hugely successful in a warmer climate, but even if there's no permafrost, the growing season won't change.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> I wonder if the UN can just divide this number to countries base on mass, GDP, pollution, wealth, etc and mandate them to do it.

</comment><comment><USER66> is that 10^12 or 10^18?

<comment><USER67> Trillion is 10^12 in both British and US English.

<comment><USER56> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trillion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trillion) disagrees and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales#Short_sc...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales#Short_scale) goes into more detail.

<comment><USER68> Oh crap, how are other countries still using this, is that really true?

[edit] however @treerock is correct britain formally switched to short scale since 1974 so english is unambiguous, in all but historical contexts.

Also recommends using SI prefixes just as done in the article which is unambiguous in all languages. I guess translators must be aware of this when converting words from billion and up.

<comment><USER56> German has Tausend (1000), Million (1000 Tausend) , Milliarde (1000 Millionen), Billion (1000 Milliarden), Billiarde (1000 Billionen), Trillion (1000 Billiarden), and there aren't even proposals to change, and why should we?

<comment><USER68> > and there aren't even proposals to change, and why should we?

becaaause.. it's intermediate scales are un-prefixable, because it names adjacent intermediate orders of magnitude with only subtle mutations of the previous name, because it's inconsistent with itself (<x 10^9), and finally because in 2019 it's extremely ambiguous, in all languages SI prefixes have been around since 1960 all of science and engineering uses these. In other words the same reason English abandoned the long scale.

Then again it was probably far easier for Britain to change in 1974 than it is for the remaining long scale countries to change today since the discrepancy will have been built into all software and systems dealing with currency and other things between countries since then... So i guess you are probably stuck with it and all it's disadvantages whether you are aware of them or not.

<comment><USER56> > its intermediate scales are un-prefixable

huh? Mrd, Brd, Trd, ...

> it names adjacent intermediate orders of magnitude with only subtle > mutations of the previous name

million and ten million are also rather close. So what?

> it's inconsistent with itself (<x 10^9)

Those are explicitly named for historical reasons, which is well in line with how names for numbers are handled: we generally work in a decimal system, yet have "eleven" and "twelve", followed by lastdigit-teen while everything above twenty is decimaldigit-y-lastdigit. (German has similar quirks, although the order remains the same. Still: neunzehn, nine-ten vs. neunundzwanzig, nine- and-twenty).

And let's not start with French (ten, twenty, thirty, fourty, fifty, sixty, sixty-ten, four-twenties, four-twenties-ten, hundred). [to be fair, Switzerland and Belgium fixed that in their dialects, using septante, huitante, nonante]

> in 2019 it's extremely ambiguous

It was ambiguous since the 17th century when the short scale was invented.

I'm not sure if the UK officially switched by now, all I see is a random statement by a Prime Minister 45 years ago that I'm not sure is normative ([https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/written- answers/1...](https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/written- answers/1974/dec/20/billion-definition#S5CV0883P0_19741220_CWA_439))

> in all languages SI prefixes have been around since 1960

Sure, and it's used sometimes, but are SI prefixes defined as normative numbering scheme anywhere? That is, which language and which country uses Gigagrams officially?

<comment><USER68> Majority of your arguments against it are that other bad things also exist... really?

Also I am British, i've never come across long scale until now, we definitely don't use it, and haven't in a very long time. I'm also well traveled but apparently not enough in Europe to notice this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> Do trees reduce diesel based particulate emissions? What about nitrogen? Or will this just impact co2

<comment><USER27> >What about nitrogen?

There are several trees are nitrogen fixing species, they're a pretty important part of permaculture. Some of the mycorrhizal networks that exist in many forests also fix nitrogen. Also, some species like pine trees get a lot of their nitrogen from endophytes living in their tissue.

<comment><USER70> Unfortunately the nitrogen fixing species mostly absorb N2. Which I'm fairly sure isn't the compound that OP wanted removed from the atmosphere. They were probably thinking about nitrogen oxides.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> I'm surprised no one has mentioned using robots to automate planting of trees.

<comment><USER72> There are a couple really cool drone tree planter projects out there that are able to plant thousands of trees an hour. [https://www.fastcompany.com/40450262/these-tree-planting- dro...](https://www.fastcompany.com/40450262/these-tree-planting-drones-are- about-to-fire-a-million-seeds-to-re-grow-a-forest)

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> This is better than nuclear? How?

<comment><USER74> Replacing fossil fuels with nuclear helps prevent further CO2 emission but doesn't mitigate past emissions.

What's already been released is enough to have already changed the climate and will continue warming the planet as long as it's in the atmosphere.

Planting trees helps remove CO2 from the atmosphere that we've already released.

We should be both planting trees (to reverse past emissions) and changing our energy sources (to minimize future emissions).

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> Why don't we try making super fast growing, sterile GMO trees to do carbon capture and reduce the cost of wood?

</comment><comment><USER76> Maybe stop cutting trees ?

</comment><comment><USER77> I can't get the whole article to load.. but my hot take is, for the most part, in all the places where the conditions are right for trees to grow, there are trees there already. The exceptions are just those places where the trees have been deliberately cleared by humans, to make room for agriculture or grazing animals (as in pre-Columbian America as I suspect the article points out). But allowing all those areas to regrow cant be sufficient: If it were, could you not make the argument that it was the clearing of all those areas in the first place that caused all the warming we've seen so far?

<comment><USER78> No, trees don't just regrow if you've cut them down on a large scale. The landscape changes permanently.

<comment><USER77> Well, "permanently" on human lifetime time scales perhaps. I'm just saying you probably can't get forests to grow in places where they never occurred naturally pre-civilization.

<comment><USER74> There are enormous swathes of land that used to be forested that no longer are because we cut or burned trees either to use the lumber or to clear the land for agriculture.

Sure, in tens of thousands of years, trees would likely eventually repopulate that land; but that's an extremely gradual process, as most trees' seeds don't disperse very far, and it takes years for each new tree to mature enough to produce seeds to extend the forest's reach.

Whereas if we seed those areas directly, we could have forests again within decades.

<comment><USER77> Ok, that may be true but you're still not really understanding my argument. I'm going to spell it out.

Assume: The land we're reforesting is land that humanity deforested. Hopefully I don't need to make that argument, it should be clear.

Assume: If reforesting land causes cooling, then deforesting the same land caused the same amount of warming.

Let A=the amount of warming you get by deforesting some land, also the amount of cooling you get by reforesting the same land.

Let B=the amount of warming you get from shoving CO2 into the atmosphere.

Let C=the total amount of warming so far.

Then A+B=C

If you're making the argument that A=C, then B=0

But B is not equal to 0.

Therefore A is not equal to C.

That means: reforesting all the land we deforested is not going to cancel out the CO2 we've put into the atmosphere.

Does that help clarify my point? Reforestation BY ITSELF cannot be enough.

<comment><USER79> > Reforestation BY ITSELF cannot be enough.

Of course it's not. That's stated very clearly in the article.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Do Not Use Amazon Linux - <AUTHOR> https://www.exratione.com/2014/08/do-not-use-amazon-linux/

<comment><USER2> I like the Ubuntu Linux distributions not just because of the "lock in" issues, but a lot of things "just work" with Ubuntu that are difficult with Red Hat.

For instance there is a Sun Java installer that "just works" with Ubuntu and will keep your Sun Java up to date when you do your system updates. If you need a Bit Torrent client you can just

apt-get install transmission

but it turns out to be quite an exercise to compile and install any Bit Torrent client for Red Hat Linux.

I remember how Solaris was the center of the open source world in 1991, but by 2001 it was starting to get hard to compile things on Solaris. Red Hat is also diverging from the open source mainstream and it is "just hard" to do things that "just work" with Ubuntu.

<comment><USER3> Sun Java is no longer available on Ubuntu from the official repository as a part of ubuntu-restricted-extra. Installing Oracle Java on any distribution would be same amount of work. Here are my notes[1] on how to install Oracle Java on Fedora 20.

I find it a little weird that you would be using a bittorrent client on an enterprise Linux solution. On Fedora, you just have to do yum install transmission-qt to install Transmission Qt version.

[1][https://github.com/donniezazen/fedora#java](https://github.com/donniezazen/fedora#java)

<comment><USER4> > I find it a little weird that you would be using a bittorrent client on an > enterprise Linux solution.

If you've ever had to run an instance of bitcoind in the cloud (as any web exchange/wallet/etc. product will have to do), you end up either getting your nodes to torrent a copy of the blockchain, or burning it into your AMI. A twenty-hour download/verification step every time you scale up new instances is just impractical.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I didn't get this at first, but the author was saying that CentOS is not a suitable substitute _to emulate Amazon Linux in development environments_. It's very reasonable to use CentOS as both development and production environments on EC2.

</comment><comment><USER6> I've abstained from Amazon Linux for the same reasons: to evade vendor lockin and facilitate cleaner non-EC2 dev environments.

Though I think Docker improves the situation by decoupling applications from their host environment.

</comment><comment><USER7> On the subject of (re)creating Amazon Linux outside of EC2, under the terms of the GNU Public License are they not required to distribute the source code to any paying customer who asks?

<comment><USER8> No, paying for it is irrelevant. Something along the lines of claiming that keeping the binaries inside the infra means that it isn't distributed. However, they do allow some odd access with authenticated requests called something like 'git-reference-source' which provides some. Details are a little hazy.</comment></comment>


The App Store is a monopoly: Here's why the EU is correct to investigate Apple - <AUTHOR> https://protonmail.com/blog/apple-app-store-antitrust/ <comment><USER2> As a consumer, I am 100% in favor of the way run the app store. I don't want to give random apps my credit card. I don't want to have 18 accounts to keep track of. I don't want to have to call telephone support to cancel my account. I don't want malware in my apps. I don't want apps to have my email if they don't need it. I don't need another middleman for content companies license and distribute. Everything Apple is doing is helping make a better app store for me.

Pro-consumer behavior almost always looks like anti-publisher behavior.

<comment><USER3> The problem isn't how they run their store -- the problem is that they are the only store.

<comment><USER4> It's their product and they can do whatever they want with it. If anyone doesn't like that, they can easily not purchase iDevices. Apple doesn't _force_ people to buy their products.

<comment><USER5> It's my phone, and I can do whatever I want with it. If Apple doesn't like that, they can easily maintain ownership by not selling the device. I don't _force_ Apple to sell iPhones instead of leaving them in a warehouse.

Once I've bought it, it is mine. The entire idea that Apple can do whatever they want on a device that they have already sold is ludicrous.

<comment><USER6> I'm curious, if you didn't like the way it is, why did you buy one? None of these things are new. They've basically been the same since they came out.

You largely had a choice of two products. It sounds like one did what you wanted, and one didn't. You bought the one that didn't and now you're unhappy about it. I don't quite understand that.

<comment><USER7> It doesn't matter why I bought one. Car manufactures can't just do whatever they want. They have to follow rules.

What's wrong with people wanting Apple and Google to follow some rules?

Having a rule that all smartphones should allow sideloading would not be the end of the world for people who like Apple's app store. Those people would still have the choice to us it.

<comment><USER8> No. I actually like the fact there is no sideloading. Why should I be forced to like what you like.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I am a big Apple fan, but seriously, you guys are bending yourselves into pretzels to make up excuses for Apple.

we already know what a market without a mandatory App Store looks like because it is like that for the Mac. I still prefer buying apps through Apple's store. Due to safety, ease of use etc. But I am happy alternatives exist when I need them.

They could follow a similar model for iPhone where non-Apple stores have to be enabled specifically with a security warning.

<comment> jagged-chisel I fear the inevitable end down that path lies people who bought an iDevice, enabled alternative stores, were duped/hacked/otherwise-invaded, visited a Genius only to be told Apple won't help them, and then lawsuits against Apple for their trouble.

<comment><USER7> So this must've happened to Google already since they allow sideloading...

I was not able to find anything.

<comment><USER10> I hate the current situation where you buy a 1000$ pocket-computer and when you want to run your own software on it they call it "sideloading" and it might not be even possible.

<comment><USER11> Fortunately there are a ton of $1000 pocket computers on the market that let you do precisely that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I applaud this. The manufacturer of the device must not control what apps I run on after buying it. Third-party appstores and app sideloading is a must.

(And do not forget third party push-notifications, iOS devices are next to useless without them)

<comment><USER11> > The manufacturer of the device must not control what apps I run on after > buying it.

The manufacturer of the device is within their rights to ship the software/hardware experience they want it to have.

If you do not like it, then there is no obligation for you to buy said device.

You are not entitled to make the device manufacturer pour time and effort into developing support for features like this. It's quite simple - if you don't like the ecosystem, move on.

<comment><USER12> I actually do just that: I don't buy apple's devices, for precisely this reason. And I happen to actually like them.

This argument you make is actually done to the death. If you don't like Jenko's oil (ever read "The Godfather"?), you may just not buy it. It is a monopoly, and it hurts consumers.

I'm actually very surprised that this freedom-loving public here on HN is so happy be restricted by their shiny digital handcuffs. Good that EU and US lawmakers are finally waking up to this abuse.

<comment><USER11> > It is a monopoly,

Apple is a minority player in the mobile device space. If you don't want to use an Apple device no one is making you. It will not impact your daily life in any meaningful way whatsoever.

> I'm actually very surprised that this freedom-loving public here on HN is so > happy be restricted by their shiny digital handcuffs.

I'm actually very surprised that this freedom-loving public here on HN is so happy let governments force private entities to do anything they want under the thinly-veiled guise of antitrust.

<comment><USER13> > I'm actually very surprised that this freedom-loving public here on HN is so > happy let governments force private entities to do anything they want under > the thinly-veiled guise of antitrust.

I don't want Apple and Google taking 30% of my profit. How hard is it as a startup to yield that much of your profit margin for such a stupid reason?

We regressed hard core since the 90s. Distribution was free. The web platform is accessible to anyone without an account or membership fee.

Anyone used to be able to write hardware drivers and innovate to the fullest extent with hardware, to get it to do whatever. Now you have to follow the distributor product roadmap and sanctioned API.

Google and Apple own compute. How the fuck did we let that happen?

The government needs to push these entities aside to ensure further innovation can continue.

<comment><USER14> Depends on what you're comparing against. With the web, as much as I enjoyed those days, your take seems a bit rose-tinted. Generally, finding official binaries wasn't too bad. "This website looks official" was the bar. But that was a crazy low bar then, and even worse today. It's essentially "the domain looks correct and the design looks polished". For some of the more obscure binaries, I recall downloading from the "wrong" sites a handful of times. Rare, but it happened. When I watched my parents use a computer then, there was no check of what was legit, because why wouldn't it be legit?

Comparing against consoles like Nintendo, Sega, and Xbox back then, it was definitely an improvement. No NDAs, no exorbitant upfront costs for dev hardware, no massive take by your publisher. 30% was not much compared to all that, where it likely would have been the other way around (you get 30 [if that], "they" get 70). Today, it does feel steep, and could use another realignment, but "the good old days" weren't exactly that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The ability to communicate by smartphone is so ubiquitous in our society that it has effectively become a basic need on the level of electricity, water, natural gas, and internet access. The utility service that was land-line telephones is becoming obsolete, and it's becoming increasingly harder to participate in society without a smartphone and the ability to install apps on that smartphone.

In light of that reality, the duopoly of Apple and Google are effectively public utilities. They can no longer be considered solely as providers of discretionary consumer goods, and should be subject to additional scrutiny and regulation beyond that applied to ordinary commodity manufacturers.

<comment><USER13> If you support Apple and Google in their claims to 30% of the profit, then you support Comcast charging an additional fee for Netflix.

If you support Apple and Google having locked down authoritative control over the code run on their devices, then you support the Great Firewall.

The only choice of a free and open society, and one mindful of the great benefit of open source and open platforms, is to remove these companies from executive control of mobile platforms. They must become free and open, just like the web.

They're sucking all of the air out of the room. It kills freedom, diversity, and progress. It's rent-seeking.

<comment><USER16> _If you support Apple and Google in their claims to 30% of the profit, then you support Comcast charging an additional fee for Netflix._

And guess what? I don't have to use Comcast.

<comment><USER17> > And guess what? I don't have to use Comcast.

Pretending everyone has that choice not to.

<comment><USER16> They definitely don't have to buy Netflix through Comcast.

<comment><USER18> I'm legitimately curious what your solution is to sign up for Netflix if you can't use your ISP (Comcast, likely a monopoly with no alternatives).

I can't imagine calling up Netflix and attempting to sign up via telephone is feasible, nor is explaining to the average consumer the price is different because they're on wifi instead of data (and only their wifi, or select locations that use Comcast).

<comment><USER16> Someone said that Comcast charges more if you buy Netflix through them. Comcast does offer Netflix as an add on. You don't have to buy Netflix as an add on through Comcast.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Apple doesn't just own the only app store on their platform: They also prevent apps that don't meet their personal moral standards on the store, arbitrarily. As a result, Instagram, tumblr, and many other sites are forced to censor and curtail content on their platforms because of apples perpetual moral consternation.

Apple should be able to do this - but they shouldn't be able to do it without those companies being able to represent themselves independently, through another app store.

<comment><USER20> > Apple should be able to do this - but they shouldn't be able to do it > without those companies being able to represent themselves independently, > through another app store.

I dont think they should. They should only do enough to comply with the law. eg. child pornography

Each human being has its own moral standards and should be allowed to choose and not let others choose for them, unless as stated before, its considered illegal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'll put it on the first level , because most Apple defenders say exactly same thing: "Why should Apple who created the iPhone sell it like it prefers to? If you don't like it buy another phone".

In fact, there was a business in US that did just that. Hollywood's Studio System. Movie studios were vertically integrated with theater chains, and you could only see Paramount or MGM movies in the theaters that that owned. And you know what? Customers were really unhappy, because studios made all kinds of bad tricks like forcing to buy a week pass to see just one movie. Of course, you could refuse to watch other 15 crap movies that were bundled with High Noon, or, like Apple defenders here say, go watch some other movie.

I imagined some arguments that some HN commenters could make:

 _" It's not a monopoly if you can watch other movies in other theaters"

"Paramount movie chain is just 15% of total number of theaters"

"They made this movie and they should decide how you are allowed to see it"_

It all ended with an court decision [1] that ended this monopoly abuse.

[1]: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_P...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc).

</comment><comment><USER21> The local cinema has an exclusive right on selling popcorn within its own walls. Far from being the only game in town, this cinema represents only 25% of the market and thus does not qualify for the Sherman Act definition of "monopoly". Punters, however, believe that _once they enter the establishment_ they are now in the clutches of the monopoly, and so demand competing popcorn stands and reject the suggestion of walking over to the competing theater.

Sorry folks, that's not how Sherman Act works. So long as there are enough movie theaters in town it's not a "monopoly", and a non-existent monopoly cannot be abused.

The US congress could, of course, rewrite the law (as they did to pass the Sherman Act in the first place), but until such day Apple is not a monopoly in the US.

<comment><USER22> This is not really an apt comparison because the commitment to a movie theater is pretty minimal. If you spend $1000 on a phone, you're stuck there for a while. Most of these issues don't become immediately obvious right when you buy the phone either, it's things that might take you a few years to realize are happening (if ever).

Additionally, the network/ecosystem effects might make it such that you are really disincentivized to switch.

\- For a lot of people, the idea that they would show up as a "green bubble" means they will never consider moving off of Apple \- If you've purchased a lot of apps that you will now lose, you're not going to just move off of Apple

If you don't like a movie theater chain, you just go to another one, or don't go to the movies. Not having a phone isn't a realistic option for most people, and neither is switching (this applies in the Google -> Apple direction as well).

People are very narrowly focused on whether Apple (or Google) are monopolies, and the fact is that you can have very imperfect competition[1] in a market that can seriously harm consumers, without anyone being a monopoly.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperfect_competition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperfect_competition)

<comment><USER23> Would a better comparison be a cruise ship? You pay thousands to board, and you literally can't leave at will.

While you're aboard you can only purchase food, drink and entertainment from the cruise company. I don't think a cruise ship would ever allow competing companies to provide those services.

I'm personally a little mixed on the App Store. I don't a have fundamental issue with the App Store model, and as an Apple customer I personally see it's limitations as an advantage.

However I do agree that Apple using its App Store to harm competitors in other industries, like Spotify and Netflix, as very harmful. Although I don't know how fix that without fundamentally changing the App Store, or banning Apple from competing with App Store services like Spotify and Netflix.

<comment><USER16> How is Spotify and especially Netflix being harmed? If I search for a movie on either my iPhone, iPad, or AppleTV and the movie is available on Netflix, I'm told that I can watch it for free instead of being guided toward Apple's movie store.

Spotify whined for years that they couldn't stream music to the Apple Watch or download music to the Watch. Apple allowed third party integration over a year ago. Pandora added the feature - Spotify didn't.

Spotify also doesn't allow in app purchases so Apple doesn't get a cut.

<comment><USER23> > Spotify also doesn't allow in app purchases so Apple doesn't get a cut.

This is how Spotify and Netflix are harmed. They have to pick between funding their competitor, or not providing simple signups and subscriptions on one of the worlds largest computing platforms.

This directly harms either their revenue stream or cost-of-acquisition. Both to the advantage of one of one of their largest competitors who has artificially introduced this barrier.

<comment><USER16> So can we also regulate Spotify for taking a much larger cut from artists? Spotify has a much larger share in streaming music than Apple has in phones.

Also. I can't sign up for a Netflix subscription on my Roku either.

<comment><USER23> Spotify isn't using their market dominance in another industry to squeeze either artists or competitors.

Nothing is stopping another streaming service from offering a bigger cut to artists (indeed Tide purports to do exactly this).

If Spotify started pushing artist contracts that prevented artists from getting a better deal else where, then they should be regulated. But they don't, and there's plenty of artists that don't sell on Spotify because they don't like the deal they offer.

<comment><USER16> Spotify isn't using their market dominance in streaming to give artist a pittance?

 _Nothing is stopping another streaming service from offering a bigger cut to artists (indeed Tide purports to do exactly this)._

A bigger cut of a tiny pie? In the same vein nothing is stopping app developers from ignoring iOS or users from buying iPhones, using Google, FaceBook, or Amazon.

<comment><USER23> > Spotify isn't using their market dominance in streaming to give artist a > pittance?

What evidence do you have back this up? There's every suggestion that Spotify are struggling to defend themselves against artists who demand bigger payments.

Additionally there's every suggestion that Apple Music now have a larger portion of the market than Spotify, and if it hasn't happened yet, it will soon.

All of that is ignoring other competitors like Google Music (or YouTube, wherever they're calling it today) and Amazon Music.

Simply put, your assertion fails on multiple fronts.

<comment><USER16> _There's every suggestion that Spotify are struggling to defend themselves against artists who demand bigger payments._

So you're okay with Spotify "defending themselves" against artist who want more of a cut?

It takes 180,000 plays to make minimum wage.

[https://help.songtrust.com/knowledge/what-is-the-pay-rate- fo...](https://help.songtrust.com/knowledge/what-is-the-pay-rate-for-spotify- streams)

Spotify also takes a 30% cut.

Artist are also complaining about Spotify's payout.

[https://www.businessofapps.com/data/spotify- statistics/](https://www.businessofapps.com/data/spotify-statistics/)

 _It has drawn criticism from recording artists, who complain that it pays too little. Claims to democratize the music industry_

Maybe Spotify needs to remember that whole "those in glass houses".

Actually Apple Music pays artists _more_ per stream than Spotify.

<comment><USER23> > So you're okay with Spotify "defending themselves" against artist who want > more of a cut?

Yes, there's no god given right to be paid for your art. Just because I put some tones together and throw it on the Internet doesn't mean I deserve to paid significant amounts of money. Or indeed any money at all.

> Actually Apple Music pays artists more per stream than Spotify.

That only proves my point, competition is driving up payments to artists, the system works. Not only that but Apple Music may soon be the dominant streaming platform, and if they can do that would resorting to anti-competitive behaviour then is show that artists can make a living, and consumers can continue paying ~$7/month for music.

<comment><USER16> _Yes, there's no god given right to be paid for your art. Just because I put some tones together and throw it on the Internet doesn't mean I deserve to paid significant amounts of money. Or indeed any money at all._

But there is a God given right for software developers to get more than 70%?

 _Not only that but Apple Music may soon be the dominant streaming platform, and if they can do that would resorting to anti-competitive behaviour then is show that artists can make a living, and consumers can continue paying ~$7 /month for music._

How do you propose that Apple becomes more dominant than Spotify worldwide when Apple only has a 15% market share? Are people really signing up for Apple Music on Android or are the few Android users who use Apple Music doing so only as part of a Family Plan where the other member of the household is an iOS user?

 _That only proves my point, competition is driving up payments to artists, the system works._

It's only "working" because Apple, Amazon, and Google don't need for music streaming to be profitable - unlike Spotify. They can operate at break even. Artists aren't choosing one over the other.

<comment><USER23> > But there is a God given right for software developers to get more than 70%?

No, but the market clearly values developer time significantly more than artist time.

If you wanna have a debate about the relative worth of people professions to society vs their pay. Then talking about the difference between a sports persons pay and doctors pay tends to make for a better argument.

> How do you propose that Apple becomes more dominant than Spotify worldwide > when Apple only has a 15% market share? Are people really signing up for > Apple Music on Android or are the few Android users who use Apple Music > doing so only as part of a Family Plan where the other member of the > household is an iOS user?

Apple own almost 20% of the streaming market to Spotify's 35% and show no signs of slowing down. Apples hardware market clearly hasn't been a limitation so far. But again that isn't a surprise when you consider that core markets for streaming are mostly western. And Apple have very high HW market share there, such as almost 50% of the US mobile market.

> It's only "working" because Apple, Amazon, and Google don't need for music > streaming to be profitable - unlike Spotify. They can operate at break even. > Artists aren't choosing one over the other.

That just shows that Spotify's cut isn't unreasonable, they're barely making a profit.

Ultimately artists choose to make art, they aren't forced into. They, like any small business owner, takes a gamble. They trade a stable income for the opportunity to do some they love, and do something that has unbounded upside. If they strike a cord with popular society then they stand to make millions, an opportunity that a software developer earning a salary doesn't have.

If they don't like that deal, they get a salaried or wage job like the rest of us.

I started my own business for the reasons above, it didn't pan out, and now I have a salaried job. But you don't see me gripping about how someone else should have paid me more to run my business.

Simple fact of the matter is that society just doesn't value artists that much. Neither Spotify or Apple is gonna change that.

<comment><USER16> _Ultimately artists choose to make art, they aren't forced into. They, like any small business owner, takes a gamble._

You could say the same about app makers. In fact, I am sure that I made more as "mobile developer" in 2008 working for a company that developed Windows CE apps for field services than most indy app makers make in 2020.

<comment><USER23> Yes you can. It what happens when the barrier to entry for an industry collapses, costs of goods also collapses.

But the positive impact of the pie growing, more people being employed, and cheaper goods is hard to argue with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> If you purchase the hardware for the product, no company should be able to stop you from installing whatever you like on the product.

<comment><USER24> Yeah, I very much side by this view. It's not coming from a monopoly standpoint but from a ownership standpoint. I bought something, so artificial barriers to installing/tinkering with it must be removed.

<comment><USER25> All barriers in this case can only be artificial. Think of the court case where FBI tried to make Apple develop software to their specs: it's hard to justify this order even though it seemed like it had legal standing.

Apple doesn't have to develop what you want them to develop. But it could be in their interest to avoid being labeled as an abusive monopolistic power. In won't make them any less abusive or monopolistic, but it knocks out some detractors.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> It's funny to see tribal reactions to these news.

Apple and other large tech companies have obviously arrived at a dominant position that would trigger these sort of investigations. You could say it's an attack on their success, and it is ironic that: success obviously has to do with it.

What apple and other tech companies have are not natural monopolies so it's not always easy for everyone to understand why anyone could claim they wield monopolistic powers.

But the point of these "platform businesses" is and has always been about gaining quasi-monopolistic strength so you can extract value from the margins of everyone involved in the platform ecosystem.

Is a monopoly illegal or necessarily undesirable to society? It depends on how society sees and regulates it. Depends on what society interprets as a NET win or net loss to itself.

And I can definitely think of several aspects of this state of affairs (handful of platforms sitting at nodes of large chunk of digital economy) that present as triggers for society to question the value of the ongoing monopolistic powers of these companies.

But if anything is to be taken from Google's case with EU, Apple will just pay a headline-grabbing fine and continue doing whatever they are doing.

</comment><comment><USER26> Some of the arguments here reminds me of "Unauthorized Bread" ([https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/01/unauthorized- bread-a-...](https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/01/unauthorized-bread-a-near- future-tale-of-refugees-and-sinister-iot-appliances/)) where, take a fridge. Why would any fridge be allowed to not accept certain brands of milk? But, it is the manufacturer's product and right to do so right?

<comment><USER27> You mean like how I can only play Sony approved games on a Playstation, install Tesla approved apps on a Tesla, watch TV shows that a cable company has approved etc. The standard for most products that have addons since the beginning of time.

Forcing companies to build an open ecosystem around every feature is a pretty unprecedented and unworkable concept.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> The article states that Apple is extorting users. Is Apple forcing anybody to use their services?

<comment><USER29> By not allowing alternate app stores, yes.

<comment><USER30> Nobody forces anybody to buy an Apple product...

In fact, Apple charges more, so it makes it even more difficult to buy them than an Android phone -- which also has multiple app install options. Why not use that?

<comment><USER31> From a practical point of view, if you're a developer and you don't target iOS you're going to lose. It's a duopoly and Apple really controls the affluent segment (ie the users willing to buy apps or pay for in-app services) pretty strongly. And the user base is very sticky. If some big app owner like Facebook or AirBnb came out and said "We're only supporting Android now, so please switch phones to use our service" they'd just go out of business. That's the essence of monopolism.

<comment><USER14> So is it a duopoly or a monopoly? I'm fine with just throwing around words in casual conversation, but the closer the conversation moves towards the orbit of law, the more words will matter.

> If some big app owner like Facebook or AirBnb came out and said "We're only > supporting Android now, so please switch phones to use our service" they'd > just go out of business. That's the essence of monopolism.

I think that's just called bad decision making, which vendors are completely free to make. There are plenty of apps that are Android only, and I'm sure they fully realize their revenue will be less as a result. There are also plenty of third party game developers making exclusive titles for Playstation or Xbox all the time. They're roughly neck and neck outside of Japan, but in Japan, it's no contest, Playstation is completely dominant. Assuming we ignore Nintendo, would you then suggest that Sony has a monopoly on consoles there? One could claim that if you're a developer in Japan and you don't target Playstation in Japan, you're going to lose. But if the goal is maximum revenue ...that's just bad decision making. If the Xbox market in Japan just isn't coughing up dollars, how is that Sony's problem?

Rather than continuously trying to compare Apple to a monopoly, which it isn't, I think the more effective comparison would be with RAND and FRAND. I don't know what kind of legal hoops would need to be jumped through to make the legal justification work, but it seems like Apple has an essential technology (the App Store), and must be obligated to license it (arguably reflected via the fee it charges), but that is an extant example of government regulation where the fee could be legally managed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I'm a iOS tweak developer and the way the App Store is ran is fantastic as it prevents people like me from posting our tweaks to the main store as in my opinion a regular person shouldn't be installing tweaks or jailbreaking their device as if they install a bad tweak or fuck up their device they should know how to navigate the command line to fix it. Jailbreaking is cool but if you don't know what you are doing you shouldn't do it.

There are plenty of 3rd party app stores for the iPhone/iPad that anyone can access with out jailbreaking, Ignition ([https://ignition.fun](https://ignition.fun)), TuTuApp ([https://tutuapp- app.org](https://tutuapp-app.org)), TweakBox ([https://www.tweakboxapp.com](https://www.tweakboxapp.com)), I'm probably missing more but they do exist. But they're sketchy and ad filled. They do how ever allow anyone to install semi-untethered jailbreaking software like Unc0ver and Electra.

That being said Apple taking 30% cut in revenue is way too much in my view and the way it's set up could be better.

</comment><comment><USER14> I'm guessing Apple's defense will be very similar to the author's own words, except a little less emotional:

> Apple is using its monopoly to hold all of us hostage

> Apple's iOS controls 25% of the global smartphone market (the other 75%, is > largely controlled by Google's Android). This means that for over a billion > people (particularly in the US where their market share approaches 50%), the > only way to install apps is through the App Store. This gives Apple enormous > influence over the way software is created and consumed around the world.

25% is indeed "enormous influence" but it's not a monopoly. It feeling like one isn't enough. The telcos in the States seem like a comparable example. There are three major players, so it's roughly 33% control for each (differs per region I'm sure).

With ISPs, it feels even worse. In most areas you can't even choose another provider with the same technology type (if you want fiber in my area, it's only Verizon. If you want cable, it's only Spectrum; DSL, AT&T; etc). But the rationale is, it's still internet at the end of the day, so I can technically choose.

<comment><USER33> 25% market share is a misleading statistic. Since iPhones dominate the higher end of the market, where the real money flows, they actually make twice as much money as Google: [https://www.statista.com/statistics/296226/annual- apple-app-...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/296226/annual-apple-app- store-revenue/).

So it's more like a 70% share, in practice.

<comment><USER34> One dollar, one vote!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> The only monopoly here is Apple's monopoly on designing its own products. The iPhone, iOS, it's development tools and the App Store are all Apple products, so Apple gets to decide what features they have.

It's also not unusual for companies to make deals with third parties to include their technology and software in their products, often as optional chargeable extras. That's all the App Store is, it's a way to add optional features to your phone, offered by the phone manufacturer. There is nothing illegal or abusive about this.

What's the alternative. Are you going to mandate what features Apple, or any manufacturer of devices with embedded software, can or cannot implement? Are you going to mandate by law specific features for side loading that all manufacturers have to implement in all devices containing software? What features, who gets to specify them, how will this be enforced?

So now we're going to have governments design the software in our phones, enshrined in law?

Finally, how does this serve my interests as an iPhone user or developer? Is fragmented app stores going to make it easier to find software, make it easier for developers to connect with customers and increase software revenues? I don't see it.

Android has had tons of app stores over the years, the public converged on the Play Store because they want to go to one place to get apps and have one company to deal with. Users like consolidation, it serves their needs.

All this does not mean I'm against any regulation. I thing there's a reasonable case for oversight of these things and a dialogue between law makers and tech companies about how they manage their products and customer relations. That's fine, but chopping up the market and products arbitrarily does not serve the public interest.

<comment><USER29> If the government forces a platform open and hands it over to a consortium of industry leaders, as well as associations of independent developers and open source foundations... sure why not?

<comment><USER30> > _If the government forces a platform open and hands it over to a consortium > of industry leaders, as well as associations of independent developers and > open source foundations... sure why not?_

Because the platform only exists because somebody created it, somebody specific not some consortium.

I don't want my iPhone OS to be created by a consortium, I want it to be run by Apple...

<comment><USER36> And because if that happens I would promptly go find a phone with a curated locked down store again. If I wanted otherwise I would have bought an Android phone, with my _choice_.

<comment><USER29> And, if the unlocked store charges independent app developers lower fees, and if market trends favor the non-locked down store over the locked down store- say in the example of Android vs. BlackBerry OS- then the apps would flock to the former over the latter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> > This is virtually indistinguishable from a protection racket: It is a fee > that developers must pay if they want to stay in business. And it is a fee > which ultimately harms consumers because these fees are indirectly passed on > to users, either through higher prices, or through fewer competing products > in the marketplace.

I guess this would be great, if it were true. There are over two million competing apps in the market [1], and the vast majority are priced ridiculously competitively at _less than a dollar each_ [2]. That's the _average_ cost, not the median, which would be significantly lower.

I'm sure proton isn't happy about this, but considering the ridiculously high salaries app developers are able to command [3] but the market doesn't seem to agree with their assessment.

Now, this may be more true about app _companies_ , but the numbers there tell a different story. Based on this analysis [4], the thing killing them isn't the developer fees, its that its ridiculously hard to make _any_ sort of living if your only product is a phone app. The majority of apps simply make no money at all. Adding 30% to 0 doesn't do much for anyone.

[1]: [https://www.statista.com/statistics/263795/number-of- availab...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/263795/number-of-available- apps-in-the-apple-app-store/)

[2]: [https://www.statista.com/statistics/267346/average-apple- app...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/267346/average-apple-app-store- price-app/)

[3]: [https://www.businessofapps.com/app- developers/research/ios-a...](https://www.businessofapps.com/app- developers/research/ios-android-developer-salary/)

[4]: [https://medium.com/@sm_app_intel/a-bunch-of-average-app- reve...](https://medium.com/@sm_app_intel/a-bunch-of-average-app-revenue-data- and-why-you-should-ignore-it-2bea283d37fc)

</comment><comment><USER38> Genuine question: Why does this matter? I see 0 problems with Apple having a "walled garden." It's their product and their platform so they should be able to decide what gets supported and developed for it.

I personally don't like how Apple conducts their business so I just don't use Apple products and that's that.

<comment><USER39> I think the article explained that reasonably well. One example is that they also make their own apps, so you potentially have to pay your competitor 30% of your income which is more than your own margins. And then they surface their own app and hide your's. Cannot compete against that.

<comment><USER38> My issue with the article is that despite acknowledging that Android market share overall they are acting as if Apple is the only game in time. Maybe my thought process is just overly simplistic and I'm missing something because every time the app store gets brought up my general feeling is just don't use Apple. If enough developers abandon the platform they will be forced to change.

<comment><USER39> A consumer can somewhat choose freely. A developer though has to go where the market is. Not being on the app store is a huge blow to many businesses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Apple sells an experience, it's hard to find a common ground to those single store monopoly issues without compromising this experience and tarnishing Apple's precious image.

Suppose Apple standardizes jailbreaking: say they allow you to turn on a switch that creates a sandbox on your device for you to do whatever you want. Your device would then be running freestyle without warranty, fair enough for me as a first mockup. What's going to happen next is a handful of illiterate or unaccountable users will deface Apple's reputation by bombarding news sites with their misfortune. Apple would be cancelled overnight. I'm barely exaggerating.

Now I guess some EU negotiations could help to have some in-app purchases without fees (like buying a book in the Kindle app), avoid getting their app rejected for a shady reason (because rules can be changed whenever Apple sees fit) and, above all, allow me to set my morning alarm to some radio app (this one is ridiculous). The tragedy is that no "developers union" could ever succeed at this.

The last issue, about supporting authoritarian regimes, is probably the most difficult to solve. This is politics, there are no companies or governments that can have it all every time. China is a huge market: you cannot hope staying in business if you try to impose all your rules everywhere. That's the exact same idea behind having the EU make a stand on the single store issues. Also, the most intolerant wins [1].

[1] [https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the- dict...](https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship- of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15)

<comment><USER41> > What's going to happen next is a handful of illiterate or unaccountable > users will deface Apple's reputation by bombarding news sites with their > misfortune.

Many Android phones already allow you to gain access to root or to replace the OS that the device ships with (and even more of them allow for indiscriminate sideloading, even without rooting). Has Android's reputation been "defaced" over this opportunity for users to run custom software on their devices?

<comment><USER40> I was being satirical with my wording but the issue with Apple is different. Android is fragmented by design, there is Google, Samsung, Huawei, etc. companies which sell a lot of other things, so Android image may be less of an issue for them. Apple literally is iDevice, it's more than 2/3 of their revenue.

But indeed "reputation" is more about marketing and at the end of the day the only thing that matters is the margin they can extract from aftermarket sales. As the recent antitrust inquiry shows, we were short of having 40% fee on app store sales.

[https://twitter.com/HouseJudiciary/status/128856728139671142...](https://twitter.com/HouseJudiciary/status/1288567281396711426)

I think 30% made sense back then when the platform was tiptoeing. Now it may look as an abuse of dominant position, the classical shareholders vs workers game. I wonder how the appstore operating costs and profit have evolved over time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I am not sure why people continue to redefine the word "monopoly" to the point where it becomes meaningless.

Claiming that Apple has a "monopoly" on app sales _on its own devices_ might be _technically_ true but is not a meaningful statement when there are plenty of alternatives to Apple devices on the market.

It is about as meaningful as claiming a gas station has a "monopoly" on gas sales _in a three block radius_ , or that a bar has a "monopoly" on cocktail sales _in its own building_ , or that I have a "monopoly" on lemonade sales _on my front lawn_.

If you have to apply an arbitrary constraint to eliminate the consideration of meaningful alternatives that the consumer has access to, then you're not dealing with an actual monopoly.

<comment><USER25> Another poster already mentioned that legal definition varies. And not only that. It's not that it's "wrong" or illegal to be a monopoly. It's what you do with those powers.

Natural (and legal) monopolies exist and are regulated so that there's a perceived net benefit to society for having them. The EU will investigate is (to Europeans) Apple's monopoly is net beneficial to them.

And I imply to agree with labeling Apple a monopoly precisely because, unlike the gas station on your example, a iPhone user cannot drive 3 miles to buy Spotify without having to pay Apple's 30% fee.

Is Apple obliged to make their phones available to other app stores? No. But not doing so AND profiting from 30% AND having a large marketshare is precisely why the EU is investigating them for abusive monopolistic behaviour.

<comment><USER42> > And I imply to agree with labeling Apple a monopoly precisely because, > unlike the gas station on your example, a iPhone user cannot drive 3 miles > to buy Spotify without having to pay Apple's 30% fee.

They can choose a non-Apple phone. There is an alternative product on the market.

<comment><USER25> That is not what the case is about. The case is about Spotify not having fair access to Apple customers.

<comment><USER42> Spotify is no more entitled to Apple's customers than Nike is entitled to Walmart's customers. If Nike wants to sell shoes in Walmart they will have to accept Walmarts terms, or find another store to sell in.

<comment><USER25> Walmart customers are not hostages being prevented to buy in other shops. Analogy doesn't hold.

<comment><USER42> Just like you can choose not to be a Walmart customer, you can also choose not to be an Apple customer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> A lot of people think their iPhone is a general purpose computer, it isn't.

If Apple is forced to allow other app stores etc, shouldn't MS, Sony and Nintendo be forced to open their platforms as well?

</comment><comment> daniel-s There is no definition of monopoly. People complain about monopolies when they lose or don't get what they want so resort to the government to cheat their way to competitiveness/success.

</comment><comment><USER44> You should not share articles like these on HN. Sacred things are not to be critized, and everything Apple is sacred :) Just check the comments in this thread. As long as I get my "flawless user experience" it doesn't matter what happens and how Apple treats the backbone of its platform (independent developers) and forcing them in a feudal relationship, one might even call it a road to serfdom.

And I can see already that there will be people jumping out of the woods with the classic argument: "The devs are free to leave the App store" You try to make a business and the first decision you make is that you abandon half of your potential marketshare (iOS is over 50% in the U.S.)

</comment><comment><USER45> I think the right approach here would be to regulate the revenue cut Apple is allowed to take. Right now it's 30%.

</comment><comment><USER46> Yes, it's a monopoly, but that doesn't mean it's bad per-se. People are freely choosing to buy iPhones and there are alternatives. If the situation on the App Store was so bad, there wouldn't be enough good apps and perhaps people would choose other devices. No one is forcing any company to publish into the App Store.

<comment><USER47> "No one is forcing any company to publish into the App Store."

Yes Apple is, there is no alternative to the App Store on an iPhone.

<comment><USER48> I think the point is app developers can target other platforms to release their software, they don't have to target iOS.

Part of my confidence in the iOS app store is the fact that Apple controls it so strongly. If they were forced to allow third party apps I doubt I would install any. My phone is too critical a part of my life to risk it.

<comment><USER19> it would be on a different app store - you would still have full confidence if you used the Apple App Store only

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I think the important part is that they apply the same rules to all the apps in their app store so it's a fair playing field between companies. IE they should not be allowed to for instance get into the dating market, and start by blocking Tinder.

</comment><comment><USER29> Blast from the past: Apple using EU courts to prevent Samsung from selling the Galaxy Tab 7.7 in Europe (2012)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4285862](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4285862)

</comment><comment><USER50> As an app developer, what bothers me is not so much the fact that you have to pay the 30% when going through the app store it's the fact that you cannot even mention the Android Play store AT ALL. Also I don't like that they completely force app developers to use IAP instead of supporting other purchasing flows (without Apple's cut)

<comment><USER27> You actually want Apple to allow you to advertise a competitor's phone on their phone.

What company would ever allow that ?

<comment><USER51> Pre-smartphone era pretty much every hardware vendor didnt impose arbitrary restrictions on software like that (the notable exception being video game consoles). If you wanted to write a Mac app that said "also available on Windows" (or vice versa), no one cared.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Apple had the opportunity to lean on the web and elected not to.

With appropriate APIs, web apps can reach into devices and leverage GPU and CPU compute, multiple threads, microphone, camera, on-device storage, and more.

HTML and canvas don't have to be the only UI primitives available.

Both Google and Apple should be _forced_ to fund the W3C and/or Mozilla in leading development of a cross-platform native experience. Other companies such as Microsoft and Amazon should join as stakeholders.

Yes, they should be forced to do it.

 _Edit:_ Downvotes already? What's wrong with wanting an open platform? Why do we have to expend effort developing for three different tech stacks (Android, iOS, web) when one is superior and wastes less human capital?

 _Edit 2:_ Wow, y'all really don't like this. My other suggestion is that we break up Apple and Google into separate companies so they're divested of their app marketplace from their hardware ecosystem/ad tech funnels. I think letting them work together on an open platform is less destructive and puts the world in a better place, but honestly if they can't do this then they should be broken up.

My representative, Lucy McBath, did a great job grilling the tech execs this week, and I continue to support her in breaking apart these unfair monopolies.

 _Edit 3:_ If you believe Apple is entitled to reap 30% from controlled access to their generic compute device, then you also should favor cable and internet service providers charging whatever they want for access to their pipes. It's the same thing. How many of you want Comcast to be able to charge you for your Netflix usage?

<comment><USER11> > Both Google and Apple should be forced to fund the W3C and/or Mozilla in > leading development of a cross-platform native experience

Private entities shouldn't be _forced_ into doing anything on a whim. You can arguably stop them from doing some things, but there is no reasonable basis for compelling companies to do things as you are saying.

> Downvotes already? What's wrong with wanting an open platform?

The downvotes is because what you suggest is wholly antithetical to every "open" movement in history. You don't get to tell people what to do simply because you want it to be that way. That's tyranny.

> I think letting them work together on an open platform is less destructive > and puts the world in a better place

Again with this whole thing. You don't get to enact whatever policies you want because you think it would be nice. People have rights.

<comment><USER13> > Private entities shouldn't be forced into doing anything on a whim.

It's not a whim. They're being investigated by the EU and US Congress for being monopolies and suffocating smaller players. They're sucking all of the air out of the environment, making it incredibly difficult to gain traction on your own.

Don't trust me? Ask DHH.

> You can arguably stop them from doing some things, but there is no > reasonable basis for compelling companies to do things as you are saying.

The government can absolutely tell them what to do. Apple wouldn't be where they are today if the US Government hadn't intervened against Microsoft and forced them to pay Apple.

Apple exists because of antitrust and the DOJ.

> You don't get to tell people what to do simply because you want it to be > that way. That's tyranny.

I'm glad the tyrannical government put the FDA in place. And the FAA. Can you imagine if those industries could act however they wanted?

> People have rights.

Companies aren't people. Despite Citizen's United.

<comment><USER11> > It's not a whim

Saying stuff like "Google and Apple should be forced to fund the W3C and/or Mozilla" is absolutely a whim. This would be an absurd government overreach.

> They're sucking all of the air out of the environment, making it incredibly > difficult to gain traction on your own.

You can absolutely succeed today without Apple. Apple is a minority player in the mobile device segment.

Perhaps Apple is more profitable for developers. But they are not a monopoly in this space yet and do not warrant anti-trust.

> Apple wouldn't be where they are today if the US Government hadn't > intervened against Microsoft and forced them to pay Apple.

Microsoft, on the other hand, was a monopoly (and still is, in many ways).

> Can you imagine if those industries could act however they wanted?

Can you imagine what will happen if we keep giving the government more and more power to do what they want? See: Australia's government forcing encryption backdoors into every service.

Giving the government more and more power over companies that don't yet even constitute a monopoly is a recipe for disaster.

> Companies aren't people.

And yet companies are property, private entities, etc. Just because companies aren't people doesn't mean they are toys for the government to manipulate and control in any way they want under the guise of "antitrust regulation."</comment></comment></comment></comment>