4 ms·

Apple doesn't have to support other stores. If users don't like that idea, they can simply not use Apple products. Users have a choice. If, however, you want t

Apple doesn't have to support other stores. If users don't like that idea, they can simply not use Apple products. Users have a choice. If, however, you want to impose the support of other stores on Apple by the means of regulations, you're effectively supporting the use of the government's monopoly of force against a company that is building products that people are happy to pay a premium to buy products from (and therefore are perfectly fine with the app store).

Apocryphon 6y ago
As a customer, I am happy with the potential for greater consumer choice. And as an app developer, I am happy with the potential for greater 3rd party dev leverage over the platform. In this specific situation, I am okay with exploring options involving the government monopoly of force to bring about potentially beneficial outcomes, when used against the most valuable company on the planet, for what will likely cost them relatively little downside. This is from a practical standpoint, not one involving schools of ideology wrt government power.
- moralsupply 6y ago
  Are you saying that you're fine to use the government's force against a company that is not causing harm to anyone just so that you benefit from that intervention (and in complete disregard to all users who are happy to pay for Apple's products and services exactly the way they are)? There's a name for this: Crony Capitalism.
  - Apocryphon 6y ago
    Given that breaking up a major power leads to increased competition, it’s arguably more capitalistic and market-efficient.
    - moralsupply 6y ago
      Definitely not. Any government interference in the market will lead to distortions and malinvestments, not "increased competition" -- unless you believe that giving unfair advantages to Apple competitors is acceptable by any standards, and that this would lead to a more efficient market. Apple made its brand and has a loyal customer base due to the quality of the products it delivers, therefore it's providing what the market wants.
      - Apocryphon 6y ago
        > Any government interference in the market will lead to distortions and malinvestments, not "increased competition" -- This brand of laissez-faire sentimentalism is very predictable, but it is neither here nor there. > unless you believe that giving unfair advantages to Apple competitors is acceptable by any standards, and that this would lead to a more efficient market. Given that Apple's control of its platform comes with forcing of 30% fees on its competitors (such as ProtonMail, the OP), it would be less giving advantages to other competitors, than refusing unfair advantages that Apple itself has exploited and enjoyed under the current state of affairs. > Apple made its brand and has a loyal customer base due to the quality of the products it delivers, therefore it's providing what the market wants. Then it should rest its laurels on the quality of its products and not on restrictive anti-competitive behavior levied upon its competitors. After all the App Store would be nothing without 3rd party developers, and the world in which Steve Jobs had chosen to never open up the platform to such developers would be a much barer one indeed.
  - orwin 6y ago
    Are you saying you are not fine to use the governement's force against a company that is removing podcast apps from their store because they talk about what's happening in China? I mean, i thought everyone agreed across the political spectrum that what China is doing in Hong-kong is bad. Reading this thread, i stand corrected.
    - moralsupply 6y ago
      Users accept the app store EULA, which serves as a contract, and in which Apple states it can shut down content according to any standards they desire. That means users are fine with Apple removing podcast apps that talk about whatever Apple doesn't like. If you believe otherwise, you believe that users don't understand the nature of contracts and can't decide on what's better for themselves. On the other hand, are you saying that because of your ideas on how the world should run that contract is invalid and that Apple should be forced to change it retroactively, despite the fact they are not causing harm to anyone? China invading Hong Kong is an aggression, for sure, but so is the EU interference in the free market and private contracts under whatever justification.
      - Apocryphon 6y ago
        EULAs are not legally enforceable, nor are they legally binding. Clickthrough EULAs are absolutely contracts that users neither understand nor deign to read, and to claim otherwise is to hide behind the threat of the government monopoly on force imposed by legal action.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]

Apocryphon 6y ago

As a customer, I am happy with the potential for greater consumer choice. And as an app developer, I am happy with the potential for greater 3rd party dev leverage over the platform. In this specific situation, I am okay with exploring options involving the government monopoly of force to bring about potentially beneficial outcomes, when used against the most valuable company on the planet, for what will likely cost them relatively little downside. This is from a practical standpoint, not one involving schools of ideology wrt government power.

moralsupply 6y ago
Are you saying that you're fine to use the government's force against a company that is not causing harm to anyone just so that you benefit from that intervention (and in complete disregard to all users who are happy to pay for Apple's products and services exactly the way they are)? There's a name for this: Crony Capitalism.
- Apocryphon 6y ago
  Given that breaking up a major power leads to increased competition, it’s arguably more capitalistic and market-efficient.
  - moralsupply 6y ago
    Definitely not. Any government interference in the market will lead to distortions and malinvestments, not "increased competition" -- unless you believe that giving unfair advantages to Apple competitors is acceptable by any standards, and that this would lead to a more efficient market. Apple made its brand and has a loyal customer base due to the quality of the products it delivers, therefore it's providing what the market wants.
    - Apocryphon 6y ago
      > Any government interference in the market will lead to distortions and malinvestments, not "increased competition" -- This brand of laissez-faire sentimentalism is very predictable, but it is neither here nor there. > unless you believe that giving unfair advantages to Apple competitors is acceptable by any standards, and that this would lead to a more efficient market. Given that Apple's control of its platform comes with forcing of 30% fees on its competitors (such as ProtonMail, the OP), it would be less giving advantages to other competitors, than refusing unfair advantages that Apple itself has exploited and enjoyed under the current state of affairs. > Apple made its brand and has a loyal customer base due to the quality of the products it delivers, therefore it's providing what the market wants. Then it should rest its laurels on the quality of its products and not on restrictive anti-competitive behavior levied upon its competitors. After all the App Store would be nothing without 3rd party developers, and the world in which Steve Jobs had chosen to never open up the platform to such developers would be a much barer one indeed.
- orwin 6y ago
  Are you saying you are not fine to use the governement's force against a company that is removing podcast apps from their store because they talk about what's happening in China? I mean, i thought everyone agreed across the political spectrum that what China is doing in Hong-kong is bad. Reading this thread, i stand corrected.
  - moralsupply 6y ago
    Users accept the app store EULA, which serves as a contract, and in which Apple states it can shut down content according to any standards they desire. That means users are fine with Apple removing podcast apps that talk about whatever Apple doesn't like. If you believe otherwise, you believe that users don't understand the nature of contracts and can't decide on what's better for themselves. On the other hand, are you saying that because of your ideas on how the world should run that contract is invalid and that Apple should be forced to change it retroactively, despite the fact they are not causing harm to anyone? China invading Hong Kong is an aggression, for sure, but so is the EU interference in the free market and private contracts under whatever justification.
    - Apocryphon 6y ago
      EULAs are not legally enforceable, nor are they legally binding. Clickthrough EULAs are absolutely contracts that users neither understand nor deign to read, and to claim otherwise is to hide behind the threat of the government monopoly on force imposed by legal action.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]