5 ms·

"No - Apple needs to be accountable to an impartial regulatory body." That is a ridiculous assumption.

by sigzero 16y ago

lwhi 16y ago
May I ask why my opinion is ridiculous? Other industries (telecommunications for example) have regulatory bodies which oversee good practice. I don't see why it's ridiculous to imagine a regulatory body overseeing good practice for privately created IP-focused marketplaces.
- Anechoic 16y ago
  telecommunications for example Telecommunications (in the USA) used publicly-owned airwaves and in too-many cases have de facto or de jure monopolies. Neither applies to Apple.
  - lwhi 16y ago
    Which other company can I use to sell my iOS-based application?
    - ptomato 16y ago
      You can, however, develop for plenty of different smartphones.
      - lwhi 16y ago
        To avoid duplicating too much information, the second part of this reply[1] provides reasons why don't feel this is necessarily a good argument. [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2083312 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2083312
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
    - maximilianburke 16y ago
      Or, from the consumer's point of view, what other service can I use to buy iOS applications?
    - jad 16y ago
      iOS or iOS-based devices are not a market. Smartphones or tablet computers or personal computers are markets. Consider that the government concern with Microsoft in the 90s wasn't its monopoly position in "Windows," which is tautological, but PC operating systems broadly, which includes Linux and Macs. The smartphone and tablet computer markets are among the most competitive in the country right now. By definition this means no one has a monopoly.
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
        innernette 16y ago
        This is a core issue in antitrust. One factor is the SSNIP test. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSNIP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSNIP "The relevant market consists of a 'catalogue' of goods and/or services which are considered substitutes by the customer. Such a catalogue is considered 'worth monopolising' if should only one single supplier provided it, that supplier could profitably increase its price without its customers turning away and choosing other goods and services from other suppliers." So the question is this: if Apple were to increase its share of revenue by 5% to 10%, would developers move to Android, BlackBerry, or WP7? Absolutely. Even at the current level, there is plenty of cross-over between Android and iOS applications. In antitrust terms, the AppStore is not a market.
        lwhi 16y ago
        Sorry, I deleted my previous response as I wasn't sure it was adding to the discussion - I've added the original text below. Thanks for the clarification - but how can you be sure that developers would move platforms? -- I'd like to know what your definition of a market and marketplace is. I'd define a market as a place (or economic 'space') where people sell a related class of products or services. I'm not defining an iOS or iOS-based device as a market. I'm referring to the market for iOS applications (i.e. the AppStore). Why is the AppStore not a marketplace?
    - Anechoic 16y ago
      If you're going to define "monopoly" and "platform" than the word monopoly loses all meaning. If I create a business making 3rd-party wire harnesses for VW Passat and VW decides to change to a different harness and that change would kill my business, should there be some regulatory body that can force VW to stick to its old tech?
      - lwhi 16y ago
        If VW actively encouraged tens of thousands of people to form businesses developing and selling harnesses, perhaps there should.
- raganwald 16y ago
  It's not ridiculous, but it's also not compatible with the principles of free markets that are in force in Canada and the USA at this time. Apple is not a monopoly. It has a monopoly over those who choose to be its customers and those who choose to be its developers, but that is no different than saying that Levis has a monopoly over the black jeans that Steve Jobs wears. Things become different when someone can show that Apple has a monopoly position over an entire market, or that Apple's product or service is an essential product or service. For example, although there is plenty of competition amongst landlords for apartments, most jurisdictions have specific laws that limit the enforceable provisions of a lease. At this moment in time, I don't personally see Apple enjoying a monopoly position in its market, not do I see video player applications as an essential good or service.
  - lwhi 16y ago
    It's not ridiculous, but it's also not compatible with the principles of free markets that are in force in Canada and the USA at this time. I agree, regulation has traditionally been put in place to deal with the creation of monopolies. Personally - I think the question of whether Apple's AppStore constitutes a monopoly is a grey area. They are the only company authorised to sell applications developed for iOS. Supporters of Apple's current policy would argue that other application platforms are available. To this, I would offer the counter-argument that prior investment (time/money/effort) encourages developers and customers to stick with (and put up with) most rules Apple decides to enforce. Choice is (theoretically) available, but many developers and users will be placed in a situation where there they aren't. -- These IP-marketplaces are new - and, as with most things that are digitally-based, a great deal of power is available to whoever is in charge. More power, provides more scope for abuse. I think that some kind of regulation - either through new legislation or a regulatory body needs to be provided. -- Lastly - as Apple isn't providing a free-market to those who sell through it's AppStore, isn't it a little ironic that a desire for free-market economics is provided as a reason against regulation?
    - Anechoic 16y ago
      I think the question of whether Apple's AppStore constitutes a monopoly is a grey area. Not even close to a grey area unless you want to argue that Nike has a monopoly on athletic shoes that have the Nike 'swoosh.' To this, I would offer the counter-argument that prior investment (time/money/effort) encourages developers and customers to stick with (and put up with) most rules Apple decides to enforce. Choice is (theoretically) available, but many developers and users will be placed in a situation where there they aren't. How is that different from pretty much every other market where some business decides to create a product that relies on another business' product?

"No - Apple needs to be accountable to an impartial regulatory body." That is a ridiculous assumption.

by sigzero 16y ago

"No - Apple needs to be accountable to an impartial regulatory body." That is a ridiculous assumption.

lwhi 16y ago

May I ask why my opinion is ridiculous? Other industries (telecommunications for example) have regulatory bodies which oversee good practice. I don't see why it's ridiculous to imagine a regulatory body overseeing good practice for privately created IP-focused marketplaces.

Anechoic 16y ago
telecommunications for example Telecommunications (in the USA) used publicly-owned airwaves and in too-many cases have de facto or de jure monopolies. Neither applies to Apple.
- lwhi 16y ago
  Which other company can I use to sell my iOS-based application?
  - ptomato 16y ago
    You can, however, develop for plenty of different smartphones.
    - lwhi 16y ago
      To avoid duplicating too much information, the second part of this reply[1] provides reasons why don't feel this is necessarily a good argument. [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2083312 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2083312
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
  - maximilianburke 16y ago
    Or, from the consumer's point of view, what other service can I use to buy iOS applications?
  - jad 16y ago
    iOS or iOS-based devices are not a market. Smartphones or tablet computers or personal computers are markets. Consider that the government concern with Microsoft in the 90s wasn't its monopoly position in "Windows," which is tautological, but PC operating systems broadly, which includes Linux and Macs. The smartphone and tablet computer markets are among the most competitive in the country right now. By definition this means no one has a monopoly.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
      - innernette 16y ago
        This is a core issue in antitrust. One factor is the SSNIP test. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSNIP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSNIP "The relevant market consists of a 'catalogue' of goods and/or services which are considered substitutes by the customer. Such a catalogue is considered 'worth monopolising' if should only one single supplier provided it, that supplier could profitably increase its price without its customers turning away and choosing other goods and services from other suppliers." So the question is this: if Apple were to increase its share of revenue by 5% to 10%, would developers move to Android, BlackBerry, or WP7? Absolutely. Even at the current level, there is plenty of cross-over between Android and iOS applications. In antitrust terms, the AppStore is not a market.
        lwhi 16y ago
        Sorry, I deleted my previous response as I wasn't sure it was adding to the discussion - I've added the original text below. Thanks for the clarification - but how can you be sure that developers would move platforms? -- I'd like to know what your definition of a market and marketplace is. I'd define a market as a place (or economic 'space') where people sell a related class of products or services. I'm not defining an iOS or iOS-based device as a market. I'm referring to the market for iOS applications (i.e. the AppStore). Why is the AppStore not a marketplace?
  - Anechoic 16y ago
    If you're going to define "monopoly" and "platform" than the word monopoly loses all meaning. If I create a business making 3rd-party wire harnesses for VW Passat and VW decides to change to a different harness and that change would kill my business, should there be some regulatory body that can force VW to stick to its old tech?
    - lwhi 16y ago
      If VW actively encouraged tens of thousands of people to form businesses developing and selling harnesses, perhaps there should.
raganwald 16y ago
It's not ridiculous, but it's also not compatible with the principles of free markets that are in force in Canada and the USA at this time. Apple is not a monopoly. It has a monopoly over those who choose to be its customers and those who choose to be its developers, but that is no different than saying that Levis has a monopoly over the black jeans that Steve Jobs wears. Things become different when someone can show that Apple has a monopoly position over an entire market, or that Apple's product or service is an essential product or service. For example, although there is plenty of competition amongst landlords for apartments, most jurisdictions have specific laws that limit the enforceable provisions of a lease. At this moment in time, I don't personally see Apple enjoying a monopoly position in its market, not do I see video player applications as an essential good or service.
- lwhi 16y ago
  It's not ridiculous, but it's also not compatible with the principles of free markets that are in force in Canada and the USA at this time. I agree, regulation has traditionally been put in place to deal with the creation of monopolies. Personally - I think the question of whether Apple's AppStore constitutes a monopoly is a grey area. They are the only company authorised to sell applications developed for iOS. Supporters of Apple's current policy would argue that other application platforms are available. To this, I would offer the counter-argument that prior investment (time/money/effort) encourages developers and customers to stick with (and put up with) most rules Apple decides to enforce. Choice is (theoretically) available, but many developers and users will be placed in a situation where there they aren't. -- These IP-marketplaces are new - and, as with most things that are digitally-based, a great deal of power is available to whoever is in charge. More power, provides more scope for abuse. I think that some kind of regulation - either through new legislation or a regulatory body needs to be provided. -- Lastly - as Apple isn't providing a free-market to those who sell through it's AppStore, isn't it a little ironic that a desire for free-market economics is provided as a reason against regulation?
  - Anechoic 16y ago
    I think the question of whether Apple's AppStore constitutes a monopoly is a grey area. Not even close to a grey area unless you want to argue that Nike has a monopoly on athletic shoes that have the Nike 'swoosh.' To this, I would offer the counter-argument that prior investment (time/money/effort) encourages developers and customers to stick with (and put up with) most rules Apple decides to enforce. Choice is (theoretically) available, but many developers and users will be placed in a situation where there they aren't. How is that different from pretty much every other market where some business decides to create a product that relies on another business' product?