5 ms·

Yup. Exactly. Think of it this way. You manufacture product foo and it's sold to customers via some national store chain. If you anger the owners of the sto

by pneill 6y ago

Yup. Exactly. Think of it this way. You manufacture product foo and it's sold to customers via some national store chain. If you anger the owners of the store chain, they can simply refuse to carry your product anymore. This happens all the time. The app store is no different. It's a national chain that Epic sells through and they've poked the bear one too many times. Lucky for Epic that it's privately held. Otherwise they'd have a shareholder revolt.

throwaw4y-plate 6y ago
Apple doesn't own those phones anymore though, the users do. Whereas, I don't get to own my own best buy.
- pneill 6y ago
  Users own the hardware, but not the software - they are grante a license to use the software. This is not about the hardware, it's about a single App, the App Store, which the user does not own.
  - throwaw4y-plate 6y ago
    And to which no alternative is permitted.
    - pneill 6y ago
      Correct. And this is not illegal. Using the store analogy - when you purchase at a store, the store has a markup on the product (usually 40%) - you cannot demand the store take a different markup because a store down the street is selling it for less, you can't set up a sign in the store telling patrons they can get a better deal down the road, and you can't say you want to pay in a particular currency because you don't have any of the local currency in your wallet. The store can establish policies like this for any patron that enters.
      - throwaw4y-plate 6y ago
        I dont get this store analogy. Best Buy can't suppress the existence of Fry's, so I can go do business with Fry's if a bridge with best buy is burnt. Apple suppresses all competition. And the legality has yet to be determined.
        52-6F-62 6y ago
        And Apple can't suppress the existence of Google or any other platform company. Personally, I bought an Apple device specifically because it was so locked down. I don't understand the desire to dictate how a piece of software should operate in this case. Why should Apple be forced to make their software operate like Google's? There are alternatives so nobody is forced to use Apple's platform if they don't want to. They can buy another. How is this not a case of buyer's remorse?
        throwaw4y-plate 6y ago
        I'm sorry, i don't follow your argument. E: and Google is no better.
      - aaomidi 6y ago
        > And this is not illegal. Maybe it should be. This isn't just about Apple. It's about all e-waste as well. The idea that I can't do anything with a perfectly workable device once the company providing software to it cuts it off is ridiculous. How much waste are we producing because we think the company that made a physical device should have 100% say on what happens on said physical device?
pmontra 6y ago
Then customers that want that product go to another store chain. This makes stores think twice before banning some products or brands. There is only one store in iOS country.
- fatbird 6y ago
  But there are several stores in mobile country, and more again in platform country. Drawing the boundary of the market around iOS seems circular. "They're a monopoly because they have 100% of the market share on the market that's specific to them."
  - aaomidi 6y ago
    Because the cost of going to another platform is far higher than the cost of going to another physical store. You don't invest ~$1000 to go to a physical store.
  - nwienert 6y ago
    The truth is because there are only two stores in our example, it really does make sense. Imagine there were only Walmart and Costco and literally nothing else, even small business. Now someone violates Walmart’s rules for a specific item in the store, and they not only ban that item, but also ban every item they sell. Here’s where it gets dystopian. In all platforms that allow competitive stores, the fees settle way down from 30%. Look at windows, epic, steam. 5-20%. That’s what a competitive price looks like. But because there exists literally only Walmart and Costco, they have 0 incentive to compete. That’s abuse of market power, and exactly what Antitrust concerns itself. The tired analogy of “it isn’t a monopoly” just doesn’t hold up in two dimensions: there are only two major players, both disallow competition within their marketplace, and yet in alternative platforms (game consoles, windows, linux) you have alternative routes to delivery that show us the “real cost” of managing a platform. Apple and Google are running their companies with 0 foresight. It’s a shame that Tim doesn’t have the foresight to pre-empt this, it’s terrible brand strategy and they are supposed to be good at it.
    - erulabs 6y ago
meragrin_ 6y ago
> The app store is not different. Really, where can iPhone users go obtain Fortnite from now? What? No place? Not the same.
josephcsible 6y ago
This analogy would only be valid if there were only one store chain in each region. For a better analogy, look at energy distribution, where there are rules that the monopolists have to follow.
- pneill 6y ago
  Actually, the scenario you describe "one store chain in each reason" is a common scenario. Outside of major urban centers it's not uncommon to have a single grocery store, hardware store, etc. Energy distribution is different because it's a government granted monopoly.

by pneill 6y ago

throwaw4y-plate 6y ago

Apple doesn't own those phones anymore though, the users do. Whereas, I don't get to own my own best buy.

pneill 6y ago
Users own the hardware, but not the software - they are grante a license to use the software. This is not about the hardware, it's about a single App, the App Store, which the user does not own.
- throwaw4y-plate 6y ago
  And to which no alternative is permitted.
  - pneill 6y ago
    Correct. And this is not illegal. Using the store analogy - when you purchase at a store, the store has a markup on the product (usually 40%) - you cannot demand the store take a different markup because a store down the street is selling it for less, you can't set up a sign in the store telling patrons they can get a better deal down the road, and you can't say you want to pay in a particular currency because you don't have any of the local currency in your wallet. The store can establish policies like this for any patron that enters.
    - throwaw4y-plate 6y ago
      I dont get this store analogy. Best Buy can't suppress the existence of Fry's, so I can go do business with Fry's if a bridge with best buy is burnt. Apple suppresses all competition. And the legality has yet to be determined.
      - 52-6F-62 6y ago
        And Apple can't suppress the existence of Google or any other platform company. Personally, I bought an Apple device specifically because it was so locked down. I don't understand the desire to dictate how a piece of software should operate in this case. Why should Apple be forced to make their software operate like Google's? There are alternatives so nobody is forced to use Apple's platform if they don't want to. They can buy another. How is this not a case of buyer's remorse?
        throwaw4y-plate 6y ago
        I'm sorry, i don't follow your argument. E: and Google is no better.
    - aaomidi 6y ago
      > And this is not illegal. Maybe it should be. This isn't just about Apple. It's about all e-waste as well. The idea that I can't do anything with a perfectly workable device once the company providing software to it cuts it off is ridiculous. How much waste are we producing because we think the company that made a physical device should have 100% say on what happens on said physical device?

pmontra 6y ago

Then customers that want that product go to another store chain. This makes stores think twice before banning some products or brands. There is only one store in iOS country.

fatbird 6y ago
But there are several stores in mobile country, and more again in platform country. Drawing the boundary of the market around iOS seems circular. "They're a monopoly because they have 100% of the market share on the market that's specific to them."
- aaomidi 6y ago
  Because the cost of going to another platform is far higher than the cost of going to another physical store. You don't invest ~$1000 to go to a physical store.
- nwienert 6y ago
  The truth is because there are only two stores in our example, it really does make sense. Imagine there were only Walmart and Costco and literally nothing else, even small business. Now someone violates Walmart’s rules for a specific item in the store, and they not only ban that item, but also ban every item they sell. Here’s where it gets dystopian. In all platforms that allow competitive stores, the fees settle way down from 30%. Look at windows, epic, steam. 5-20%. That’s what a competitive price looks like. But because there exists literally only Walmart and Costco, they have 0 incentive to compete. That’s abuse of market power, and exactly what Antitrust concerns itself. The tired analogy of “it isn’t a monopoly” just doesn’t hold up in two dimensions: there are only two major players, both disallow competition within their marketplace, and yet in alternative platforms (game consoles, windows, linux) you have alternative routes to delivery that show us the “real cost” of managing a platform. Apple and Google are running their companies with 0 foresight. It’s a shame that Tim doesn’t have the foresight to pre-empt this, it’s terrible brand strategy and they are supposed to be good at it.
  - erulabs 6y ago

meragrin_ 6y ago

> The app store is not different. Really, where can iPhone users go obtain Fortnite from now? What? No place? Not the same.

josephcsible 6y ago

This analogy would only be valid if there were only one store chain in each region. For a better analogy, look at energy distribution, where there are rules that the monopolists have to follow.

pneill 6y ago
Actually, the scenario you describe "one store chain in each reason" is a common scenario. Outside of major urban centers it's not uncommon to have a single grocery store, hardware store, etc. Energy distribution is different because it's a government granted monopoly.