4 ms·

You have changed the definition of "black markets" to something else. A black market requires illegality. You are conflating "rules" of contracts and "rules" o

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!

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!