8 ms·

> then spent billions in marketing to popularize the idea of using "mobile apps" in the first They didn't do it for charity though. > In addition, when you se

> then spent billions in marketing to popularize the idea of using "mobile apps" in the first They didn't do it for charity though. > In addition, when you sell on the App Store, you get free distribution in front of the highest income, most desirable segment of smartphone buyers--because that's the customer base Apple has invested billions in building and cultivating over 40+ years. It's like saying that Google should get 30% of every website's revenue due to them indexing large chunks of the web. Also, Apple directly profits by having a large amount of apps available for their hardware customers. Maybe Apple should be paying developers to write apps?

pembrook 6y ago
Of course they didn't do it for charity. That's my point. They spent billions on development and marketing to risk the idea people would want to use mobile apps from an "App Store." Spoiler alert, people liked it. Shouldn't they be rewarded for taking that risk? Or is the problem just that they became too popular? Also, the Google analogy would only work if websites were directly built on google's platform. Google did not create HTML, doesn't host your website, and doesn't provide the hardware and browser software for you to access it through.
- LunaSea 6y ago
  > Shouldn't they be rewarded for taking that risk? They are already, every time someone buys an iPhone because of the large supply of apps that exist. > Also, the Google analogy would only work if websites were directly built on google's platform. They do. They benefit from Google's crawling and indexing infrastructure which they researched, developed and host on their hardware. > Google did not create HTML, doesn't host your website, They are one of the biggest contributors to HTML, CSS and JavaScript both in standardisation and implementation. Also tangentially, in the AMP standard Google does host your website. > and doesn't provide the browser software for you to access it through. They provide Google Chrome which is exactly that.
- fauigerzigerk 6y ago
  >Shouldn't they be rewarded for taking that risk? In a market economy, popularising a concept and taking risk should only be rewarded to the degree that it gives you a headstart over the competition. That reward should peter out over time as new competitors enter the market. If the market structure (for whatever reason) turns out to be such that new competitors can no longer enter the market then that is a dysfunctional market that doesn't serve its purpose. Clearly the network effects that govern operating systems are so strong that the likelihood of new market entrants is extremely low. App stores don't compete on merit. They derive their pricing power from the fact that market forces have ceased to exist. So the question is whether we should allow the handful of companies that dominate operating systems at any given point in time to leverage that power to set prices in related markets without any restriction. At what point does that result in rent seeking that frustrates risk taking and innovation?

pembrook 6y ago

Of course they didn't do it for charity. That's my point. They spent billions on development and marketing to risk the idea people would want to use mobile apps from an "App Store." Spoiler alert, people liked it. Shouldn't they be rewarded for taking that risk? Or is the problem just that they became too popular? Also, the Google analogy would only work if websites were directly built on google's platform. Google did not create HTML, doesn't host your website, and doesn't provide the hardware and browser software for you to access it through.

LunaSea 6y ago
> Shouldn't they be rewarded for taking that risk? They are already, every time someone buys an iPhone because of the large supply of apps that exist. > Also, the Google analogy would only work if websites were directly built on google's platform. They do. They benefit from Google's crawling and indexing infrastructure which they researched, developed and host on their hardware. > Google did not create HTML, doesn't host your website, They are one of the biggest contributors to HTML, CSS and JavaScript both in standardisation and implementation. Also tangentially, in the AMP standard Google does host your website. > and doesn't provide the browser software for you to access it through. They provide Google Chrome which is exactly that.
fauigerzigerk 6y ago
>Shouldn't they be rewarded for taking that risk? In a market economy, popularising a concept and taking risk should only be rewarded to the degree that it gives you a headstart over the competition. That reward should peter out over time as new competitors enter the market. If the market structure (for whatever reason) turns out to be such that new competitors can no longer enter the market then that is a dysfunctional market that doesn't serve its purpose. Clearly the network effects that govern operating systems are so strong that the likelihood of new market entrants is extremely low. App stores don't compete on merit. They derive their pricing power from the fact that market forces have ceased to exist. So the question is whether we should allow the handful of companies that dominate operating systems at any given point in time to leverage that power to set prices in related markets without any restriction. At what point does that result in rent seeking that frustrates risk taking and innovation?