3 ms·

To your first paragraph: Sure, the effect is hard-capped at 30%. How is that an argument that it's not a real problem? If someone was cheating you for 30% of y

To your first paragraph: Sure, the effect is hard-capped at 30%. How is that an argument that it's not a real problem? If someone was cheating you for 30% of your bill on anything, wouldn't you complain? To your second paragraph: transparency isn't what's being discussed here. The developers aren't suing Apple; end users are. To your third paragraph: nobody is alleging that Apple has a monopoly on computer programs in general; the point is that they have a monopoly on distribution channels for -- specifically -- iOS apps.

sjwright 10y ago
My point about the 30% is that Apple is only liable for inflating prices at most 30%. Prices can't be three times higher than the market would have set because Apple doesn't set the final price. Here's a question, if Apple ran the App Store for free (0% commission) would there be any case to answer? How about 1%? Why is 30% so unreasonable? Seems to be the fair market rate for store services, I'd argue. Microsoft has a monopoly on distribution channels for Xbox games. (Including packaged game discs which just like their online store require their blessing and a license fee. The only difference in practice is method of data delivery and additional middlemen taking a further cut of sales.) Should Microsoft be required to open the Xbox to games not blessed by Microsoft?
- icebraining 10y ago
  Should Microsoft be required to open the Xbox to games not blessed by Microsoft? Sure, why not?
  - sjwright 10y ago
    Why should the government of one country pick the business model Microsoft must use on their games console? For a country that seems to bleat "freedom" like a trademark, that's pretty authoritarian.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      Anti-trust law, particularly in the form of the Sherman Act, has been preventing certain types of business models - deemed anticompetitive - for many years. See for example United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.. I'm not particularly interested in discussing whether those legal restrictions are philosophically compatible with some concept of freedom. Citing the best work of political science of the last 40 years, Minister - We are discussing right and wrong. Humphrey - You may be, Minister, but I'm not. It would be a serious misuse of government time. Yes, Minister - (S03E06) The Whisky Priest
    - tarboreus 10y ago
      You should be thinking more about the freedom of consumers to buy goods in a robust and competitive marketplace than you should about the freedom of tycoons to vertically integrate in said marketplace.

sjwright 10y ago

My point about the 30% is that Apple is only liable for inflating prices at most 30%. Prices can't be three times higher than the market would have set because Apple doesn't set the final price. Here's a question, if Apple ran the App Store for free (0% commission) would there be any case to answer? How about 1%? Why is 30% so unreasonable? Seems to be the fair market rate for store services, I'd argue. Microsoft has a monopoly on distribution channels for Xbox games. (Including packaged game discs which just like their online store require their blessing and a license fee. The only difference in practice is method of data delivery and additional middlemen taking a further cut of sales.) Should Microsoft be required to open the Xbox to games not blessed by Microsoft?

icebraining 10y ago
Should Microsoft be required to open the Xbox to games not blessed by Microsoft? Sure, why not?
- sjwright 10y ago
  Why should the government of one country pick the business model Microsoft must use on their games console? For a country that seems to bleat "freedom" like a trademark, that's pretty authoritarian.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    Anti-trust law, particularly in the form of the Sherman Act, has been preventing certain types of business models - deemed anticompetitive - for many years. See for example United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.. I'm not particularly interested in discussing whether those legal restrictions are philosophically compatible with some concept of freedom. Citing the best work of political science of the last 40 years, Minister - We are discussing right and wrong. Humphrey - You may be, Minister, but I'm not. It would be a serious misuse of government time. Yes, Minister - (S03E06) The Whisky Priest
  - tarboreus 10y ago
    You should be thinking more about the freedom of consumers to buy goods in a robust and competitive marketplace than you should about the freedom of tycoons to vertically integrate in said marketplace.