5 ms·

Here the market is "things that can be installed on iOS" or "NFC payment providers that can be installed on iOS", where I don't think you can deny Apple has 100

by Youden 7y ago

Here the market is "things that can be installed on iOS" or "NFC payment providers that can be installed on iOS", where I don't think you can deny Apple has 100% market dominance. You could argue that the market should be "things that can be installed on smartphones" but that ignores that people with iPhones really need things that work on their devices. It's akin to saying that if one company had a monopoly on car tyres, it'd be okay because people could just replace their car and buy a tractor with tractor tyres instead.

scarface74 7y ago
So now that’s how we carve out “monopoly”? So in that case are the console makers monopolies? Does Apple also have a “monopoly” on music services that work on HomePods? Phones that take complete advantage of AirPods Pro? Should that be regulated too? Should we go after Apple because Google’s and Amazon’s voice assistants don’t work on the Apple Watch and the AirPods since Apple has a “monopoly on voice assistants that work on those devices?”
- mindslight 7y ago
  To the extent that many of those conditions result from anticompetitive behavior (eg preventing interoperability), rather than a lack of outside development interest, probably.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    So now you’re saying that the government should tell every company that they must inter operate with third parties? Would you like that every piece of software you write to have features forced on it for interoperability before you can release it? Should every website and every web service also have a publicly accessible API? Do you want a government committee to decide when your service or software is interoperable enough before you can release it?
    - mindslight 7y ago
      You're strawmanning with an ominous "government committee", implying the situation requires deep analysis. But really, vendors are deliberately preventing interoperability with competing products through technical means such as digital restrictions management. If they stopped doing that, there would be no argument. After an item is sold to a user, that item shouldn't be working to undermine the interests of its owner. Those interests include being a market participant for other products to use with it. If giving a user the option to eg change a data source or trust authority would be too much of a mandate for specific development, then manufacturers can just fall back to releasing the basic documentation that would allow straightforward re-implementation. > Should every website and every web service also have a publicly accessible API? Sure, why not? Anything a user can do, a program representing the user should be able to do. The alternative is computational disenfranchisement.
pjmlp 7y ago
That is your personal definition of monopoly, not what we in European law have as definition.
briandear 7y ago
> Here the market is "things that can be installed on iOS“ So McDonalds has a monopoly on hamburgers sold at McDonalds?

by Youden 7y ago

scarface74 7y ago

So now that’s how we carve out “monopoly”? So in that case are the console makers monopolies? Does Apple also have a “monopoly” on music services that work on HomePods? Phones that take complete advantage of AirPods Pro? Should that be regulated too? Should we go after Apple because Google’s and Amazon’s voice assistants don’t work on the Apple Watch and the AirPods since Apple has a “monopoly on voice assistants that work on those devices?”

mindslight 7y ago
To the extent that many of those conditions result from anticompetitive behavior (eg preventing interoperability), rather than a lack of outside development interest, probably.
- scarface74 7y ago
  So now you’re saying that the government should tell every company that they must inter operate with third parties? Would you like that every piece of software you write to have features forced on it for interoperability before you can release it? Should every website and every web service also have a publicly accessible API? Do you want a government committee to decide when your service or software is interoperable enough before you can release it?
  - mindslight 7y ago
    You're strawmanning with an ominous "government committee", implying the situation requires deep analysis. But really, vendors are deliberately preventing interoperability with competing products through technical means such as digital restrictions management. If they stopped doing that, there would be no argument. After an item is sold to a user, that item shouldn't be working to undermine the interests of its owner. Those interests include being a market participant for other products to use with it. If giving a user the option to eg change a data source or trust authority would be too much of a mandate for specific development, then manufacturers can just fall back to releasing the basic documentation that would allow straightforward re-implementation. > Should every website and every web service also have a publicly accessible API? Sure, why not? Anything a user can do, a program representing the user should be able to do. The alternative is computational disenfranchisement.

pjmlp 7y ago

That is your personal definition of monopoly, not what we in European law have as definition.

briandear 7y ago

> Here the market is "things that can be installed on iOS“ So McDonalds has a monopoly on hamburgers sold at McDonalds?