4 ms·

Why? If I don't think that "government interfering in the internal operations of some company" is generally bad and morally wrong (and I don't [1]), is there an

by thingie 17y ago

Why? If I don't think that "government interfering in the internal operations of some company" is generally bad and morally wrong (and I don't [1]), is there any other reason to think this? Is there any objective reason why should the European governments let Apple do anything it likes at the expense of the European companies and customers? (This is not necessarily the case, but it's close.) I'm not saying that you are wrong and I don't think that some government should "interfere" in this case, but I'd like to know your reasons why it should not. Just curious. [1] I don't even think that we're speaking about "internal operations", there are numerous external companies and customers involved, how is that an "internal operation"?

netcan 17y ago
Are you asking in the very general sense? Of course there are reasons, both "moral" and practical. One important one is that when courts and politicians get involved, manoeuvring in the system is more important then manoeuvring in the market. This becomes the central focus of managers. Managers without talent or experience in this area give way to managers that are. Remember, this is not just a matter of flipping a switch. The case against Microsoft took years. During that time, the beginning of the PC revolution, the most important thing the most important company could do was win a court case and preserve a public image. This is damage that happens so long as the system stays clean. Another problem with this sort of action is that it creates terrible incentive for corruption. Fortunes can be won or lost depending on a political decision. The owners of those fortunes will try to influence the process. On the flip side, it isn't obvious that there is much return to this sort of "intervention." Microsoft & IBM, the two great monopolies of the computer industry both failed to do much harm. The both were clearly affected by competition. The markets stayed competitive. New products appeared. Innovation happened. They made high profits (MS still has great profits), but no obvious damage happened. To see this at work look at telcos and other infrastructure owning companies around the world, where government intervention is usually highest. Look at the CEOs of these companies. These are guys who know how to oil the system, not lay copper wire and certainly not how to answer a customer service call. It is not uncommon for corruption to be present. Many countries have telcos owned by members of a political elite.
- thingie 17y ago
  I wasn't trying to be so general, and wanted to talk mostly about Apple and Appstore :-) But thank you, it's a good answer. Anyway, I think that while market will usually find a workable solution, we cannot expect it to ever find the best one (well, and especially socially responsible one, whatever it means :-)). Of course, regulation, even in the best interests, can fail badly and make things much much worse. Still, I think it would be better for us all if Apple was forced to make iPhone development more open, and the risks of doing so are not so great. But I agree that those risks could be seen as a good reason to avoid it. After all, we can live quite happily even with closed iPhone (or no iPhone at all :-)).
  - netcan 17y ago
    If you are interested in rule of law, it's pretty risky. You need to decide who has the power to decide what a company can and can't do. In this case, the only way to do that is with fairly arbitrary power and that is bad for rule of law. They would need to be able to scrutinise then change Apple's appstore approval process/policy and make sure that it is indeed being followed. Apart from affecting their macro policies, this precludes that Apple's ability to decide arbitrarily which is pretty important to what they are trying to do. If you do take a more general/macro view, which I think you need to, you need to take into account how this affects Apple's behaviour and the general effect on the market. The idea that apps need to be babysat and approved is controversial, but worth testing. This is what APple is doing right now, in the market. They are testing a hypothesis: 'An authoritarian marketplace will result in better apps and a better user experience.' Other hypothesis such as: 'some babaysitting is good but we should let people opt out and install whatever they want' will also probably be tested.
    - mattmanser 17y ago
      I find your position to be tenable at best, what is and is not an addictive food additive? What recreational drugs are and are not good for the public health? All these are arbitrary decisions too. I doubt you would suggest the US should get rid of the FDA. It is not such a jump to conclude that if drug companies must be watched for practices which damage consumers, why not a retail firm? The line America has drawn for regulation is just as arbitrary as the one European countries do, Europe is just a bit more suspicious of laissez-faire capitalism than America. And I highly doubt they are baby sitting this app because of quality.
Tycho 17y ago
Companies are just extensions of the rights/properties of individuals. You might as well ask whether the it's morally bad for the government to insist JK Rowling use/promote other authors' characters in her novels.

by thingie 17y ago

netcan 17y ago

Are you asking in the very general sense? Of course there are reasons, both "moral" and practical. One important one is that when courts and politicians get involved, manoeuvring in the system is more important then manoeuvring in the market. This becomes the central focus of managers. Managers without talent or experience in this area give way to managers that are. Remember, this is not just a matter of flipping a switch. The case against Microsoft took years. During that time, the beginning of the PC revolution, the most important thing the most important company could do was win a court case and preserve a public image. This is damage that happens so long as the system stays clean. Another problem with this sort of action is that it creates terrible incentive for corruption. Fortunes can be won or lost depending on a political decision. The owners of those fortunes will try to influence the process. On the flip side, it isn't obvious that there is much return to this sort of "intervention." Microsoft & IBM, the two great monopolies of the computer industry both failed to do much harm. The both were clearly affected by competition. The markets stayed competitive. New products appeared. Innovation happened. They made high profits (MS still has great profits), but no obvious damage happened. To see this at work look at telcos and other infrastructure owning companies around the world, where government intervention is usually highest. Look at the CEOs of these companies. These are guys who know how to oil the system, not lay copper wire and certainly not how to answer a customer service call. It is not uncommon for corruption to be present. Many countries have telcos owned by members of a political elite.

thingie 17y ago
I wasn't trying to be so general, and wanted to talk mostly about Apple and Appstore :-) But thank you, it's a good answer. Anyway, I think that while market will usually find a workable solution, we cannot expect it to ever find the best one (well, and especially socially responsible one, whatever it means :-)). Of course, regulation, even in the best interests, can fail badly and make things much much worse. Still, I think it would be better for us all if Apple was forced to make iPhone development more open, and the risks of doing so are not so great. But I agree that those risks could be seen as a good reason to avoid it. After all, we can live quite happily even with closed iPhone (or no iPhone at all :-)).
- netcan 17y ago
  If you are interested in rule of law, it's pretty risky. You need to decide who has the power to decide what a company can and can't do. In this case, the only way to do that is with fairly arbitrary power and that is bad for rule of law. They would need to be able to scrutinise then change Apple's appstore approval process/policy and make sure that it is indeed being followed. Apart from affecting their macro policies, this precludes that Apple's ability to decide arbitrarily which is pretty important to what they are trying to do. If you do take a more general/macro view, which I think you need to, you need to take into account how this affects Apple's behaviour and the general effect on the market. The idea that apps need to be babysat and approved is controversial, but worth testing. This is what APple is doing right now, in the market. They are testing a hypothesis: 'An authoritarian marketplace will result in better apps and a better user experience.' Other hypothesis such as: 'some babaysitting is good but we should let people opt out and install whatever they want' will also probably be tested.
  - mattmanser 17y ago
    I find your position to be tenable at best, what is and is not an addictive food additive? What recreational drugs are and are not good for the public health? All these are arbitrary decisions too. I doubt you would suggest the US should get rid of the FDA. It is not such a jump to conclude that if drug companies must be watched for practices which damage consumers, why not a retail firm? The line America has drawn for regulation is just as arbitrary as the one European countries do, Europe is just a bit more suspicious of laissez-faire capitalism than America. And I highly doubt they are baby sitting this app because of quality.

Tycho 17y ago

Companies are just extensions of the rights/properties of individuals. You might as well ask whether the it's morally bad for the government to insist JK Rowling use/promote other authors' characters in her novels.