3 ms·

> Regulating the App Stores as some sort of utility sounds like the perfect way to stifle growth and make it more difficult and expensive to publish on the App

> Regulating the App Stores as some sort of utility sounds like the perfect way to stifle growth and make it more difficult and expensive to publish on the App Store Please explain how you've come to this conclusion, because I can't follow your logic.

zaroth 7y ago
It’s well established that regulations increase transaction costs and stifle innovation. Take FDA regulations for example. The cost of developing a drug for sale in the USA in orders of magnitude higher due to these regulations. In safety critical systems, we pay this cost because the alternative is that people die. However, even still, the regulatory system itself may also be responsible for many deaths, due to viable treatments being either unavailable or unaffordable. A regulatory framework on software distribution platforms frankly sounds horrific on many levels, but to avoid hyperbole, the most obvious effect would be increased compliance cost to the platform provider, which would be passed on to developers or end users. Making apps unreviewable, or prohibitively costly to review, or imposing significant liability into the app review process is a recipe for increased cost and decreased growth, simply put.
- johneth 7y ago
  I think we have a different idea of what these hypothetical regulations would do. I see it as regulations forcing Google and Apple, as platform owners, to not abuse their enormous power over developers on their platforms. Much like common-carrier regulations. I don't see how that sort of regulation would massively increase costs to Google and Apple (who are profiting massively off their platforms anyway!) I also don't agree that regulations on these platforms sounds horrific. I think just about anything is better than the power concentrated entirely at the whims of Google and Apple at the moment. Similarly, I don't think there'd be increased compliance cost to the platform. Regulation isn't always bad (in fact, I'd argue the vast majority of regulation is good, we just hear about the smaller amount of bad bits that slip through).
  - dmix 7y ago
    This is always the disconnect between what should be in the regulations and what ends up being in them every time. All of them start with a legitimate problem and then we get policy that have a wider scope or details even dumber than what the companies are doing (see GDPR fining a small Austrian retail store $4k because they had a single surveillance camera too broadly pointed at a sidewalk). Often pushed for by competition and often only designed for big mega companies like Google not the small ones who would normally replace Google in the future with something better. Most importantly unlike the companies and their policies which change and die, the regulations live long after the original problem has either faded in importance or every new better company comes around and are forced to jump through hoops because of Google's behaviour (assuming they even try).
  - zaroth 7y ago
    > I see it as regulations forcing Google and Apple, as platform owners, to not abuse their enormous power over developers on their platforms. How do you think Apple is “abusing” their power, and what kind of regulation would curtail that? How would compliance with the regulation be monitored and enforced? Would only Apple and Google need follow these regulations, or any software distribution platform, or maybe platforms with a threshold of revenue? I believe most of what we read about happening to devs on these App Stores relate to automated processes flagging accounts, because it’s not humanly possible to review the quantity of code being shipped through these stores. It’s not abuse to have a imperfect process - to me the term abuse implies the slight was done to some end - with some nefarious purpose. So when we get into that domain, perhaps it comes down to policies like “App Store subscriptions must be paid for through App Store if they are made in-app and Apple will get its cut”. Some people very strongly think this is “abuse” of their market position. IMO that is their business model and the whole reason they built the entire App Store ecosystem - in order to provide services revenue in the face of dwindling device sales, because the devices are so fast and durable you don’t need a new one every 2 years anymore. IMO forcing Apple to turn off these revenue streams is akin to theft of their IP. As a developer I personally feel like I should be able to offer my own creations on my own terms, and as long as those terms are clearly stated and non-discriminatory the market can take it or leave it. But if, for example, someone does believe this is a good example of a regulation to curtail an abuse of power by the App Stores — that is an example of a regulation which would cost Apple billions of dollars, and they will certainly attempt to make it up somewhere down the line.

zaroth 7y ago

It’s well established that regulations increase transaction costs and stifle innovation. Take FDA regulations for example. The cost of developing a drug for sale in the USA in orders of magnitude higher due to these regulations. In safety critical systems, we pay this cost because the alternative is that people die. However, even still, the regulatory system itself may also be responsible for many deaths, due to viable treatments being either unavailable or unaffordable. A regulatory framework on software distribution platforms frankly sounds horrific on many levels, but to avoid hyperbole, the most obvious effect would be increased compliance cost to the platform provider, which would be passed on to developers or end users. Making apps unreviewable, or prohibitively costly to review, or imposing significant liability into the app review process is a recipe for increased cost and decreased growth, simply put.

johneth 7y ago
I think we have a different idea of what these hypothetical regulations would do. I see it as regulations forcing Google and Apple, as platform owners, to not abuse their enormous power over developers on their platforms. Much like common-carrier regulations. I don't see how that sort of regulation would massively increase costs to Google and Apple (who are profiting massively off their platforms anyway!) I also don't agree that regulations on these platforms sounds horrific. I think just about anything is better than the power concentrated entirely at the whims of Google and Apple at the moment. Similarly, I don't think there'd be increased compliance cost to the platform. Regulation isn't always bad (in fact, I'd argue the vast majority of regulation is good, we just hear about the smaller amount of bad bits that slip through).
- dmix 7y ago
  This is always the disconnect between what should be in the regulations and what ends up being in them every time. All of them start with a legitimate problem and then we get policy that have a wider scope or details even dumber than what the companies are doing (see GDPR fining a small Austrian retail store $4k because they had a single surveillance camera too broadly pointed at a sidewalk). Often pushed for by competition and often only designed for big mega companies like Google not the small ones who would normally replace Google in the future with something better. Most importantly unlike the companies and their policies which change and die, the regulations live long after the original problem has either faded in importance or every new better company comes around and are forced to jump through hoops because of Google's behaviour (assuming they even try).
- zaroth 7y ago
  > I see it as regulations forcing Google and Apple, as platform owners, to not abuse their enormous power over developers on their platforms. How do you think Apple is “abusing” their power, and what kind of regulation would curtail that? How would compliance with the regulation be monitored and enforced? Would only Apple and Google need follow these regulations, or any software distribution platform, or maybe platforms with a threshold of revenue? I believe most of what we read about happening to devs on these App Stores relate to automated processes flagging accounts, because it’s not humanly possible to review the quantity of code being shipped through these stores. It’s not abuse to have a imperfect process - to me the term abuse implies the slight was done to some end - with some nefarious purpose. So when we get into that domain, perhaps it comes down to policies like “App Store subscriptions must be paid for through App Store if they are made in-app and Apple will get its cut”. Some people very strongly think this is “abuse” of their market position. IMO that is their business model and the whole reason they built the entire App Store ecosystem - in order to provide services revenue in the face of dwindling device sales, because the devices are so fast and durable you don’t need a new one every 2 years anymore. IMO forcing Apple to turn off these revenue streams is akin to theft of their IP. As a developer I personally feel like I should be able to offer my own creations on my own terms, and as long as those terms are clearly stated and non-discriminatory the market can take it or leave it. But if, for example, someone does believe this is a good example of a regulation to curtail an abuse of power by the App Stores — that is an example of a regulation which would cost Apple billions of dollars, and they will certainly attempt to make it up somewhere down the line.