3 ms·

What law forces a store to carry items/services they do not want to sell? Microsoft has a store for the Xbox, and they decide what they sell on that store. If

by redial 10y ago

What law forces a store to carry items/services they do not want to sell? Microsoft has a store for the Xbox, and they decide what they sell on that store. If Sony submits a game for the Xbox store Microsoft can reject it without giving them any reason. And it is perfectly legal. In Amazon's app store the developers don't even get to set their own prices.

UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
We're discussing competition law. Microsoft did far less and still got hit with anti-trust on Windows just for bundling IE. Now we have app stores which hold monopolies on their platform and restrict competition yet further for the consumer's detriment. As to what should be allowed and disallowed, companies should hold their own services and products to the same standard as their competitor's services and products. So if you're going to disallow a Sony branded music streaming service then you also have to disallow a Microsoft branded music streaming service, otherwise you're using your monopolistic position abusively.
- redial 10y ago
  You are discussing competition law, because you have redefined the market. Microsoft was found guilty of abusing its position because it had a monopoly on the entire PC OS market. They didn't, and don't have a monopoly on the Windows market because there is no such thing.
  - UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
    > Microsoft was found guilty of abusing its position because it had a monopoly on the entire PC OS market. And Apple has a monopoly on the entire Apple app store market. > You are discussing competition law, because you have redefined the market. Law is expansive. When competition laws were written several securities didn't really exist, but the law expanded to encompass them. There's no specific reason why the law cannot expand into protecting consumers from monopolies within an artificially created digital marketplace. Ultimately competition law exists as a concept to protect consumers, it is clear as day that Apple is abusing its monopolistic control of its app store in a way that hurts consumers. Even if existing law wasn't able to expand to encompass that situation, new law could and should. PS - I love the people who turn up late and downvote every comment on one side of a discussion.
    - st3v3r 10y ago
      "And Apple has a monopoly on the entire Apple app store market." That's not the market. Mobile Software in general is the market. "There's no specific reason why the law cannot expand into protecting consumers from monopolies within an artificially created digital marketplace." Other than it's not needed, as there is competition in the digital marketplace. Android exists, and has several app stores. "Ultimately competition law exists as a concept to protect consumers, it is clear as day that Apple is abusing its monopolistic control of its app store in a way that hurts consumers." Again, Apple does not have a monopoly. Android still exists. "PS - I love the people who turn up late and downvote every comment on one side of a discussion." I love when one side of a discussion is completely wrong and is not contributing to the discussion.
      - UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
        > That's not the market. Mobile Software in general is the market. Now who's making up arbitrary markets? > Other than it's not needed, as there is competition in the digital marketplace. Apple allows no other app stores on its platform. There is no competition. > Again, Apple does not have a monopoly. Android still exists. Android is not allowed on Apple's hardware or in Apple's ecosystem. > I love when one side of a discussion is completely wrong and is not contributing to the discussion. So instead of a discussion you just want others to agree with your perspective otherwise, to you, they're "not contributing." So essentially to you there are two types of conversations: An echo chamber (contributing) or disagreement (not contributing). You're right, I'm not contributing to your echo chamber by having the audacity of disagreeing with your baseless opinion presented as fact.
        st3v3r 10y ago
        "So instead of a discussion you just want others to agree with your perspective otherwise, to you, they're "not contributing." So essentially to you there are two types of conversations: An echo chamber (contributing) or disagreement (not contributing)." No, you're not contributing because you're trying to define arbitrary markets to prove your point. And when told that's not how it works, you continue to base everything off the arbitrary markets that you've defined.

by redial 10y ago

UnoriginalGuy 10y ago

We're discussing competition law. Microsoft did far less and still got hit with anti-trust on Windows just for bundling IE. Now we have app stores which hold monopolies on their platform and restrict competition yet further for the consumer's detriment. As to what should be allowed and disallowed, companies should hold their own services and products to the same standard as their competitor's services and products. So if you're going to disallow a Sony branded music streaming service then you also have to disallow a Microsoft branded music streaming service, otherwise you're using your monopolistic position abusively.

redial 10y ago
You are discussing competition law, because you have redefined the market. Microsoft was found guilty of abusing its position because it had a monopoly on the entire PC OS market. They didn't, and don't have a monopoly on the Windows market because there is no such thing.
- UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
  > Microsoft was found guilty of abusing its position because it had a monopoly on the entire PC OS market. And Apple has a monopoly on the entire Apple app store market. > You are discussing competition law, because you have redefined the market. Law is expansive. When competition laws were written several securities didn't really exist, but the law expanded to encompass them. There's no specific reason why the law cannot expand into protecting consumers from monopolies within an artificially created digital marketplace. Ultimately competition law exists as a concept to protect consumers, it is clear as day that Apple is abusing its monopolistic control of its app store in a way that hurts consumers. Even if existing law wasn't able to expand to encompass that situation, new law could and should. PS - I love the people who turn up late and downvote every comment on one side of a discussion.
  - st3v3r 10y ago
    "And Apple has a monopoly on the entire Apple app store market." That's not the market. Mobile Software in general is the market. "There's no specific reason why the law cannot expand into protecting consumers from monopolies within an artificially created digital marketplace." Other than it's not needed, as there is competition in the digital marketplace. Android exists, and has several app stores. "Ultimately competition law exists as a concept to protect consumers, it is clear as day that Apple is abusing its monopolistic control of its app store in a way that hurts consumers." Again, Apple does not have a monopoly. Android still exists. "PS - I love the people who turn up late and downvote every comment on one side of a discussion." I love when one side of a discussion is completely wrong and is not contributing to the discussion.
    - UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
      > That's not the market. Mobile Software in general is the market. Now who's making up arbitrary markets? > Other than it's not needed, as there is competition in the digital marketplace. Apple allows no other app stores on its platform. There is no competition. > Again, Apple does not have a monopoly. Android still exists. Android is not allowed on Apple's hardware or in Apple's ecosystem. > I love when one side of a discussion is completely wrong and is not contributing to the discussion. So instead of a discussion you just want others to agree with your perspective otherwise, to you, they're "not contributing." So essentially to you there are two types of conversations: An echo chamber (contributing) or disagreement (not contributing). You're right, I'm not contributing to your echo chamber by having the audacity of disagreeing with your baseless opinion presented as fact.
      - st3v3r 10y ago
        "So instead of a discussion you just want others to agree with your perspective otherwise, to you, they're "not contributing." So essentially to you there are two types of conversations: An echo chamber (contributing) or disagreement (not contributing)." No, you're not contributing because you're trying to define arbitrary markets to prove your point. And when told that's not how it works, you continue to base everything off the arbitrary markets that you've defined.