5 ms·

I think I have a better analogy: Apple operates a market with a significant portion of economic activity in several industries / verticals, yet it sets its own

by cm277 6y ago

I think I have a better analogy: Apple operates a market with a significant portion of economic activity in several industries / verticals, yet it sets its own rules and even is party to transactions. That's basically the definition of a black market. Black markets are useful in some circumstances, but when they grow too big they have to be regulated and taxed. A lot. Good for Epic.

ntsplnkv2 6y ago
Except for it to be a black market illegality needs to be established and it isn't clandestine - the rules are freely available and there are other markets (android) available for apps. This is a poor analogy. I am still waiting for a real argument on HN as to what Apple is doing that is anti-competitive or illegal. Still have not found one.
- smnrchrds 6y ago
  Apple and Google are both charging 30% fees and together, they own almost the entire smartphone market. It is harming consumers due to the higher costs this 30% is imposing on transactions. Whether it is illegal or not is up to the court to decide. But as a customer, I would like to complain about this and state my dissatisfaction. Perhaps if enough people do it, they will change their behaviour. Also as a voter, I would hope that the legislature make these costs come down. In Canada, the government recently intervened to reduce credit card processing fees. I would hope next they direct their attention to app store fees. https://globalnews.ca/news/4379884/canada-credit-card-fee-cuts/ https://globalnews.ca/news/4379884/canada-credit-card-fee-cu...
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    Why? They provide a great service to consumers - a store to get applications easily. They provide a great service to devs - a store to get consumers to see and buy their products. Why is 30% unfair? A company charging a certain percentage for something is neither unfair or anti-competitive. You need to develop your argument further.
    - jpdus 6y ago
      Because - at least in Apples case - customer and developers have no alternative and no choice. There isn't a market setting a fair price for Apple's "service". You can't get on iPhones (for which people paid already!) without the App Store. You aren't asked if you want to pay for that "service" and there aren't any competitors. If you want to have an app, Apple owns 30% of your business, even if they didn't generate you a single installation. This is the same as with store owners who have to hand over part of their earnings as danegeld to some gangs controlling their neighborhood. They also pay happily for a great "protection" service. Would be a pity if something happens to your nice store (or app, in Apples case)! I don't get how anyone who stands up for freedom of information, a free internet and a fair economy can still own an iPhone without developing schizophrenia..
      - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
        > customer and developers have no alternative and no choice. They have Android, which dominates the market. I get it, Apple Bad! Bad Keyboards! No Upgrades! Bad Bad Bad! And yet people time and time again want iPhones over Android - because they like the way the App Store is, they like iOS, they don't want malware on their phones that is rampant on Androids. Opening it up will be WORSE FOR DEVS. > This is the same as with store owners who have to hand over part of their earnings as danegeld to some gangs controlling their neighborhood. No, it's the same as store owners who have to pay higher rent to be on a busy street. Which isn't illegal. > I don't get how anyone who stands up for freedom of information, a free internet and a fair economy can still own an iPhone without developing schizophrenia.. There are plenty of avenues for information - the iPhone controls apps - but the rules of engagement are clear and 2 million apps managed to get on the app store. If you can't, that's your problem. Still waiting for a real argument on here.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- acuozzo 6y ago
  > I am still waiting for a real argument on HN as to what Apple is doing that is anti-competitive or illegal. Apple and Google are engaging in obvious tacit collusion. QED.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    Google offers clear alternatives to their play store. Apple offers a closed experience, which is what my parents want. They don't want to be tricked into downloading malware through some crappy facebook post. This is depriving the market of a valid product, it's unfair to people who want this product, so that devs can make more money, and Epic can rip off more kids for a skin on a gun.
- cm277 6y ago
  They are extracting rent from a market that's now too big and powerful and are enforcing rules that do not have political (as in citizens') legitimacy. They have obviously won their market position fair-and-square and their rules aren't illegal. But extracting taxes ('rent' in economist-speak) from other companies just because they were successful at some point in the past is uncompetitive behavior now. Same goes for Amazon/Google: extracting rent from a market-dominant position should be illegal (it isn't) regardless of how that position was won.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    Once again - they are not market dominant, they do not have the largest marketshare of phone users. This is false. > and are enforcing rules that do not have political (as in citizens') legitimacy. This is basically saying to me "yea you're right, it isn't illegal, but I don't like it!!" They're charging for a service, there is nothing unfair about it. Frankly, it could be even higher. > Same goes for Amazon/Google: extracting rent from a market-dominant position should be illegal (it isn't) regardless of how that position was won. Google is a clear monopoly - they dominate the market. Amazon does not - Wal-Mart, Target, are all viable competitors. BestBuy, NewEgg, Ebay, etc.
thephyber 6y ago
You have changed the definition of "black markets" to something else. A black market requires illegality. You are conflating "rules" of contracts and "rules" of law. I agree that Apple "even is party to transactions". I think that's the common problem with Google (eg. Froogle / Google Shopping), Amazon (eg. Amazon Basics), and Apple (apps that compete and undercut 3rd party apps or which don't have to adhere to the same App Store contract clauses). Elizabeth Warren discussed this frequently. > Google, Apple, and Amazon provide platforms that lots of other companies depend on for survival. But Google, Apple, and Amazon also, in many cases, compete with those same small companies, so that the platform can become a tool to snuff out competition. [1] https://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/2016-6-29_Warren_Antitrust_Speech.pdf https://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/2016-6-29_Warr...
- cm277 6y ago
  Hm, fair point: the App Store isn't illegal, so "black market" is pushing the term too far. However, the laws in the App Store aren't controlled by a political/state entity: they are imposed by Apple themselves. The fact that they are legal under US law, doesn't make them legitimate: democratic control (via regulation) does. So I guess my point was this: past a certain size / power concentration a market/platform has to have regulations that are answerable to a democratic/political authority, not to a private party. That's regulation, isn't? "Grey market" is taken, so how about "brown market"? :)
  - thephyber 6y ago
    I can't follow your first paragraph. You are redefining words left and right. App stores don't create "laws"; they have contractually enforced rules. Regulations are laws if the regulatory body was granted the power to make regulations. Your use of legitimate confuses me; I can't grok your intention. The FTC has the directive and authority to regulate commerce. If Apple is violating an US law or an FTC regulation, the FTC should prosecute. Otherwise this discussion should be focused on what laws (if any) you think need to be created.
- murgindrag 6y ago
  Man. Warren would have been the perfect VP pick. Bloomberg/Warren 2020!
paulcole 6y ago
Doesn’t that make Amazon and the supermarket down the street black markets, too?
- cm277 6y ago
  The supermarket is very tightly regulated, so not at all... Amazon though... :)

by cm277 6y ago

ntsplnkv2 6y ago

Except for it to be a black market illegality needs to be established and it isn't clandestine - the rules are freely available and there are other markets (android) available for apps. This is a poor analogy. I am still waiting for a real argument on HN as to what Apple is doing that is anti-competitive or illegal. Still have not found one.

smnrchrds 6y ago
Apple and Google are both charging 30% fees and together, they own almost the entire smartphone market. It is harming consumers due to the higher costs this 30% is imposing on transactions. Whether it is illegal or not is up to the court to decide. But as a customer, I would like to complain about this and state my dissatisfaction. Perhaps if enough people do it, they will change their behaviour. Also as a voter, I would hope that the legislature make these costs come down. In Canada, the government recently intervened to reduce credit card processing fees. I would hope next they direct their attention to app store fees. https://globalnews.ca/news/4379884/canada-credit-card-fee-cuts/ https://globalnews.ca/news/4379884/canada-credit-card-fee-cu...
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  Why? They provide a great service to consumers - a store to get applications easily. They provide a great service to devs - a store to get consumers to see and buy their products. Why is 30% unfair? A company charging a certain percentage for something is neither unfair or anti-competitive. You need to develop your argument further.
  - jpdus 6y ago
    Because - at least in Apples case - customer and developers have no alternative and no choice. There isn't a market setting a fair price for Apple's "service". You can't get on iPhones (for which people paid already!) without the App Store. You aren't asked if you want to pay for that "service" and there aren't any competitors. If you want to have an app, Apple owns 30% of your business, even if they didn't generate you a single installation. This is the same as with store owners who have to hand over part of their earnings as danegeld to some gangs controlling their neighborhood. They also pay happily for a great "protection" service. Would be a pity if something happens to your nice store (or app, in Apples case)! I don't get how anyone who stands up for freedom of information, a free internet and a fair economy can still own an iPhone without developing schizophrenia..
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      > customer and developers have no alternative and no choice. They have Android, which dominates the market. I get it, Apple Bad! Bad Keyboards! No Upgrades! Bad Bad Bad! And yet people time and time again want iPhones over Android - because they like the way the App Store is, they like iOS, they don't want malware on their phones that is rampant on Androids. Opening it up will be WORSE FOR DEVS. > This is the same as with store owners who have to hand over part of their earnings as danegeld to some gangs controlling their neighborhood. No, it's the same as store owners who have to pay higher rent to be on a busy street. Which isn't illegal. > I don't get how anyone who stands up for freedom of information, a free internet and a fair economy can still own an iPhone without developing schizophrenia.. There are plenty of avenues for information - the iPhone controls apps - but the rules of engagement are clear and 2 million apps managed to get on the app store. If you can't, that's your problem. Still waiting for a real argument on here.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
acuozzo 6y ago
> I am still waiting for a real argument on HN as to what Apple is doing that is anti-competitive or illegal. Apple and Google are engaging in obvious tacit collusion. QED.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  Google offers clear alternatives to their play store. Apple offers a closed experience, which is what my parents want. They don't want to be tricked into downloading malware through some crappy facebook post. This is depriving the market of a valid product, it's unfair to people who want this product, so that devs can make more money, and Epic can rip off more kids for a skin on a gun.
cm277 6y ago
They are extracting rent from a market that's now too big and powerful and are enforcing rules that do not have political (as in citizens') legitimacy. They have obviously won their market position fair-and-square and their rules aren't illegal. But extracting taxes ('rent' in economist-speak) from other companies just because they were successful at some point in the past is uncompetitive behavior now. Same goes for Amazon/Google: extracting rent from a market-dominant position should be illegal (it isn't) regardless of how that position was won.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  Once again - they are not market dominant, they do not have the largest marketshare of phone users. This is false. > and are enforcing rules that do not have political (as in citizens') legitimacy. This is basically saying to me "yea you're right, it isn't illegal, but I don't like it!!" They're charging for a service, there is nothing unfair about it. Frankly, it could be even higher. > Same goes for Amazon/Google: extracting rent from a market-dominant position should be illegal (it isn't) regardless of how that position was won. Google is a clear monopoly - they dominate the market. Amazon does not - Wal-Mart, Target, are all viable competitors. BestBuy, NewEgg, Ebay, etc.

thephyber 6y ago

You have changed the definition of "black markets" to something else. A black market requires illegality. You are conflating "rules" of contracts and "rules" of law. I agree that Apple "even is party to transactions". I think that's the common problem with Google (eg. Froogle / Google Shopping), Amazon (eg. Amazon Basics), and Apple (apps that compete and undercut 3rd party apps or which don't have to adhere to the same App Store contract clauses). Elizabeth Warren discussed this frequently. > Google, Apple, and Amazon provide platforms that lots of other companies depend on for survival. But Google, Apple, and Amazon also, in many cases, compete with those same small companies, so that the platform can become a tool to snuff out competition. [1] https://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/2016-6-29_Warren_Antitrust_Speech.pdf https://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/2016-6-29_Warr...

cm277 6y ago
Hm, fair point: the App Store isn't illegal, so "black market" is pushing the term too far. However, the laws in the App Store aren't controlled by a political/state entity: they are imposed by Apple themselves. The fact that they are legal under US law, doesn't make them legitimate: democratic control (via regulation) does. So I guess my point was this: past a certain size / power concentration a market/platform has to have regulations that are answerable to a democratic/political authority, not to a private party. That's regulation, isn't? "Grey market" is taken, so how about "brown market"? :)
- thephyber 6y ago
  I can't follow your first paragraph. You are redefining words left and right. App stores don't create "laws"; they have contractually enforced rules. Regulations are laws if the regulatory body was granted the power to make regulations. Your use of legitimate confuses me; I can't grok your intention. The FTC has the directive and authority to regulate commerce. If Apple is violating an US law or an FTC regulation, the FTC should prosecute. Otherwise this discussion should be focused on what laws (if any) you think need to be created.
murgindrag 6y ago
Man. Warren would have been the perfect VP pick. Bloomberg/Warren 2020!

paulcole 6y ago

Doesn’t that make Amazon and the supermarket down the street black markets, too?

cm277 6y ago
The supermarket is very tightly regulated, so not at all... Amazon though... :)