4 ms·

the sooner government steps in and clips Apple's wings the better What exactly do you want the government to do?

by GHFigs 16y ago

kjksf 16y ago
If you look at Microsoft's anti-trust case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft) government imposed several rules on Microsoft e.g. required them to publish all protocols and APIs (e.g. Exchange protocol) so that other can create interoperable implementations. They were forbidden from doing different OEM pricing (so they couldn't strong arm OEMs by requesting that they pay more for a Windows license unless they make some concession in favor of Microsoft) etc. More generally: "the Settlement's requirements were primarily designed to ensure there were stringent oversight procedures and explicit requirements to prevent Microsoft from engaging in "Predatory Behavior" or other practices that might form a "Barrier to Entry"". It's not hard to identify Apple's 'predatory behavior' that creates 'barrier to entry' that could be rectified by government imposed rules. One such 'predatory behavior' that creates 'barrier to entry' is inability to sell (or give away) applications that are not approved by Apple. Solution: Apple needs to allow installation of applications without approval by Apple. Technical solution: sideloading, third party stores like on Android. Another 'predatory behavior' is the rule under discussion i.e. Apple disallowing all forms of commerce other than iTunes (which results in 30% tax to Apple). Solution: the rule needs to go away. There are more predatory rules in the app store agreement (like inability to write interpreters which means no Firefox for iPhone) but they wouldn't be important as long as the biggest predatory rule was eliminated: inability to install apps that are not approved by Apple.
- GHFigs 16y ago
  Is there a precedent for conditions of a uniform voluntary agreement being considered "predatory"? Edit: The parent comment did not deserve downvotes, folks.
  - kjksf 16y ago
    I'm not sure what uniform means in that context but "voluntary" is not a good standard because it's too loose a word. Again, going back to Microsoft's case: reportedly Microsoft demanded OEMs to stop dual-installing competing BeOS on Windows machine or else they would have to pay more for Windows license. For the OEM that was voluntary contract in that they had a choice: quit the business selling Windows machines, be less competitive than other OEMs (higher prices or smaller margins) or stop dual-installing Microsoft's competitor. The third option was the most compelling but neither was fair or good for competition or users. Apple is in the same position as Microsoft was: they can impose whatever restrictions they want on access to iPhone/iPad users. Acceptance of those rules is "voluntary" on part of Amazon or Sony or Mozilla or me, but that doesn't meant that those rules are fair or good for competition or users. I for one, would like to see Firefox on iPad but it's not going to happen thanks to "voluntary" agreement between Apple and Mozilla that Mozilla "voluntarily" couldn't accept. And that's just one example of things that I would like to see on iPad but won't.
- ghshephard 16y ago
  Microsoft was a monopoly. They tried to leverage that monopoly by winning a new market. The monopoly was not illegal. The leverage market share in a new market is not illegal. The leveraging a _monopoly_ into a new market share was what they were found guilty of. Apple has had the tablet in the market for less than a year. Let's see how things work out for a few years before we call them a monopoly, shall we? I think Apple would be very, very happy to exit 2012 with 75% market share in tablets - the point at which they can't really be called a monopoly anymore.
  - factotvm 16y ago
    I think the more relevant case here is United States v Paramount Pictures. To paraphrase (poorly) the decision: You can make movies, distribute movies and/or show movies, but you can't do all three. I hope at some point app stores as the only way to introduce software onto your purchased hardware will be struck down as violating anti-trust laws. But, I'm no lawyer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pict....

the sooner government steps in and clips Apple's wings the better What exactly do you want the government to do?

by GHFigs 16y ago

the sooner government steps in and clips Apple's wings the better What exactly do you want the government to do?

kjksf 16y ago

If you look at Microsoft's anti-trust case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft) government imposed several rules on Microsoft e.g. required them to publish all protocols and APIs (e.g. Exchange protocol) so that other can create interoperable implementations. They were forbidden from doing different OEM pricing (so they couldn't strong arm OEMs by requesting that they pay more for a Windows license unless they make some concession in favor of Microsoft) etc. More generally: "the Settlement's requirements were primarily designed to ensure there were stringent oversight procedures and explicit requirements to prevent Microsoft from engaging in "Predatory Behavior" or other practices that might form a "Barrier to Entry"". It's not hard to identify Apple's 'predatory behavior' that creates 'barrier to entry' that could be rectified by government imposed rules. One such 'predatory behavior' that creates 'barrier to entry' is inability to sell (or give away) applications that are not approved by Apple. Solution: Apple needs to allow installation of applications without approval by Apple. Technical solution: sideloading, third party stores like on Android. Another 'predatory behavior' is the rule under discussion i.e. Apple disallowing all forms of commerce other than iTunes (which results in 30% tax to Apple). Solution: the rule needs to go away. There are more predatory rules in the app store agreement (like inability to write interpreters which means no Firefox for iPhone) but they wouldn't be important as long as the biggest predatory rule was eliminated: inability to install apps that are not approved by Apple.

GHFigs 16y ago
Is there a precedent for conditions of a uniform voluntary agreement being considered "predatory"? Edit: The parent comment did not deserve downvotes, folks.
- kjksf 16y ago
  I'm not sure what uniform means in that context but "voluntary" is not a good standard because it's too loose a word. Again, going back to Microsoft's case: reportedly Microsoft demanded OEMs to stop dual-installing competing BeOS on Windows machine or else they would have to pay more for Windows license. For the OEM that was voluntary contract in that they had a choice: quit the business selling Windows machines, be less competitive than other OEMs (higher prices or smaller margins) or stop dual-installing Microsoft's competitor. The third option was the most compelling but neither was fair or good for competition or users. Apple is in the same position as Microsoft was: they can impose whatever restrictions they want on access to iPhone/iPad users. Acceptance of those rules is "voluntary" on part of Amazon or Sony or Mozilla or me, but that doesn't meant that those rules are fair or good for competition or users. I for one, would like to see Firefox on iPad but it's not going to happen thanks to "voluntary" agreement between Apple and Mozilla that Mozilla "voluntarily" couldn't accept. And that's just one example of things that I would like to see on iPad but won't.
ghshephard 16y ago
Microsoft was a monopoly. They tried to leverage that monopoly by winning a new market. The monopoly was not illegal. The leverage market share in a new market is not illegal. The leveraging a _monopoly_ into a new market share was what they were found guilty of. Apple has had the tablet in the market for less than a year. Let's see how things work out for a few years before we call them a monopoly, shall we? I think Apple would be very, very happy to exit 2012 with 75% market share in tablets - the point at which they can't really be called a monopoly anymore.
- factotvm 16y ago
  I think the more relevant case here is United States v Paramount Pictures. To paraphrase (poorly) the decision: You can make movies, distribute movies and/or show movies, but you can't do all three. I hope at some point app stores as the only way to introduce software onto your purchased hardware will be struck down as violating anti-trust laws. But, I'm no lawyer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pict....