4 ms·

> Regulating retailers because you don’t like their cut is price controls That's not the point though The point is that if Apple Store (or Play Store) is the

> Regulating retailers because you don’t like their cut is price controls That's not the point though The point is that if Apple Store (or Play Store) is the only way to ask for money to users, Apple cannot decide who's in and who's out on their whim, they have to allow anybody and only act post-facto on the apps that misbehaved In real life you are not arrested for attempted homicide because you carry a knife with you 'cause knives can be used to kill people They have two choices: relax the rules of the store or accept other stores that can apply different rules, giving more choice to developers, publishers and users The other point is that Apple cannot control what's inside an app, if the developer wants to promote their own product, website, other ways of buying a subscription, they should be allowed, in the same exact way the manufacturer of the blood pressure monitor I bough on Amazon have put inside the box a 5 euros coupon to buy OTC drugs online on their e-store. Amazon doesn't have a say on that. > I could see Europe doing something more intrusive, as is their tendency. As European I love that Europe protects me as citizen of Europe instead of Apple, which is not even European and evades taxes using tax heavens

parasubvert 6y ago
Apple absolutely can decide who is in or out: it’s their platform. Governments with even regulated markets generally don’t force stores to carry certain products. Amazon absolutely has a say of what they carry in their store, and most consumers hate the terrible curation of their marketplaces lately. If what Apple runs is not a product, it’s a utility. I think people underestimate what it means to declare the App Stores a utility: freeing up the App admission rules likely might not be one of the outcomes. > They have two choices: relax the rules of the store or accept other stores that can apply different rules, giving more choice to developers, publishers and users Or they have a third choice: status quo. It is currently a fantasy to think otherwise.
- romanoderoma 6y ago
  > Apple absolutely can decide who is in or out: it’s their platform. The HW device is not theirs. > Amazon absolutely has a say of what they carry in their store They have no say of what's inside the box. If inside the box there is a sticker that says "buy from our store, it's cheaper" they can't be forced out Maybe Amazon can find other ways of kicking products out, but not that one Apple wrote that rule inside their agreements Which is clearly unfair competition Apple competes directly with publishers on the store, being both entities that make the software that people can buy on the only store available, Amazon does not compete directly, they don't manufacture what they sell, they simply resell. > It is currently a fantasy to think otherwise. again: EU exists and take this matters seriously. China could find itself in a digital war with US and it's the third most important market in the World for Apple. Things can change very quickly > most consumers hate the terrible curation of their marketplaces lately. Considering how many posts I've seen about broken or fake products sold on Amazon, it's quite clear that the real fantasy is thinking that a marketplace where only one decides what's good and what's not doesn't produce a better curated and more secure experience
  - parasubvert 6y ago
    > The HW device is not theirs. The software is theirs. It’s already been legally established that they’re allowed to create HW that only runs their software. > [Amazon] have no say of what's inside the box. That is untrue. If amazon doesn’t like a supplier, or what’s in a suppliers box, they can and will cut that supplier off from being able to sell on their store. They have done this before at their own whim. > Apple wrote that rule inside their agreements... Which is clearly unfair competition No. It’s simple contract law. Their software, their rules. There is no competition here to be anticompetitive, there is only a singular retail channel to a singular platform. Anyone is free to walk across the street to Google, or any one of the Non-Play-Store Androids. Taking a cut of retail sales isn’t rent seeking, its normal business practice. As soon as a government decides it doesn’t like private contracts and wants to create a disintermediated market - which is the most logical way to get close to what you’re asking for, a free market of stores and suppliers where it’s more likely that ISVs will be less restricted , that’s interfering with the market arrangement and the iOS platform’s approach to security and quality control. It is almost unimaginable that the government would force Apple to lift all admission restrictions on the platform due to security and quality concerns , but even if they did, they couldn’t force Apple or any other retailer to resell software they don’t want to, short of heavy regulatory injection. So let’s say they they found a way to make this work. It’s either via a market of many app stores, or its by making Apple an agent of the government Itself in curating the App Store. My overall point is “Be careful what you wish for“. The unintended consequences of this interference are vast. The likely outcome is entrenching Apple and Google as an extension of government, rather than just removing restrictions for ISVs. Apple gets regulated, but now keeps making trillions of dollars/euros by law.
    - romanoderoma 6y ago
      > The software is theirs. You are wrong The case against Apple is based on three principle - first sale doctrine: when I buy something I have the rights of redestributing it. Apple disallow it - Any dependency on the future versions and upgrades for a proprietary software package can create vendor lock-in, entrenching a monopoly position. - they have the rights to make software that only run on their hardware, the opposite is not implied, hardware is not theirs, they have no legal framework to make hardware that only runs their software. To be more explicit: iOS can be Apple only, but there's no right to make Apple HW iOS only. The hardware is not theirs. > Their software, their rules. False, again Rules are not above laws. If I make you sign a contract that in exchange for goods and services asks you for a testicle, I can't enforce it, even if you triple signed it with your blood. > “Be careful what you wish for“. The unintended consequences of this interference are vast I'm usually very careful I'm sure they would be for Apple or for US economy But I am Italian and don't rely on Apple existence, I don't care if they both burn into flames (spoiler: they won't, they will be just fine, psychological terrorism don't work on me) In my country many companies already make billions by law, that means they are forced to supply the service at a reasonable price and can't refuse it for any reason which is not approved by a judge It would be a very welcome improvement regarding US companies behaviour outside US What's more interesting for me is that if I say "in Italy we all pay for public healthcare so it's almost free for everybody" they scream "communists" If I say "the State should own a sufficient number of public buildings to give homes to those who can't afford it" they scream "communists" Same when I say that in Italy insurance companies can't make their own prices and prices can't be discriminatory These are all traits of modern welfare state that is widespread in Europe, despite not being communists But when a company abuse of its powers acting like a real communist dictator, showing those behaviours that in US they imagine as being a communist, making rules and forcing everybody to obey them, even when they are debatable, many in US applaud

parasubvert 6y ago

Apple absolutely can decide who is in or out: it’s their platform. Governments with even regulated markets generally don’t force stores to carry certain products. Amazon absolutely has a say of what they carry in their store, and most consumers hate the terrible curation of their marketplaces lately. If what Apple runs is not a product, it’s a utility. I think people underestimate what it means to declare the App Stores a utility: freeing up the App admission rules likely might not be one of the outcomes. > They have two choices: relax the rules of the store or accept other stores that can apply different rules, giving more choice to developers, publishers and users Or they have a third choice: status quo. It is currently a fantasy to think otherwise.

romanoderoma 6y ago
> Apple absolutely can decide who is in or out: it’s their platform. The HW device is not theirs. > Amazon absolutely has a say of what they carry in their store They have no say of what's inside the box. If inside the box there is a sticker that says "buy from our store, it's cheaper" they can't be forced out Maybe Amazon can find other ways of kicking products out, but not that one Apple wrote that rule inside their agreements Which is clearly unfair competition Apple competes directly with publishers on the store, being both entities that make the software that people can buy on the only store available, Amazon does not compete directly, they don't manufacture what they sell, they simply resell. > It is currently a fantasy to think otherwise. again: EU exists and take this matters seriously. China could find itself in a digital war with US and it's the third most important market in the World for Apple. Things can change very quickly > most consumers hate the terrible curation of their marketplaces lately. Considering how many posts I've seen about broken or fake products sold on Amazon, it's quite clear that the real fantasy is thinking that a marketplace where only one decides what's good and what's not doesn't produce a better curated and more secure experience
- parasubvert 6y ago
  > The HW device is not theirs. The software is theirs. It’s already been legally established that they’re allowed to create HW that only runs their software. > [Amazon] have no say of what's inside the box. That is untrue. If amazon doesn’t like a supplier, or what’s in a suppliers box, they can and will cut that supplier off from being able to sell on their store. They have done this before at their own whim. > Apple wrote that rule inside their agreements... Which is clearly unfair competition No. It’s simple contract law. Their software, their rules. There is no competition here to be anticompetitive, there is only a singular retail channel to a singular platform. Anyone is free to walk across the street to Google, or any one of the Non-Play-Store Androids. Taking a cut of retail sales isn’t rent seeking, its normal business practice. As soon as a government decides it doesn’t like private contracts and wants to create a disintermediated market - which is the most logical way to get close to what you’re asking for, a free market of stores and suppliers where it’s more likely that ISVs will be less restricted , that’s interfering with the market arrangement and the iOS platform’s approach to security and quality control. It is almost unimaginable that the government would force Apple to lift all admission restrictions on the platform due to security and quality concerns , but even if they did, they couldn’t force Apple or any other retailer to resell software they don’t want to, short of heavy regulatory injection. So let’s say they they found a way to make this work. It’s either via a market of many app stores, or its by making Apple an agent of the government Itself in curating the App Store. My overall point is “Be careful what you wish for“. The unintended consequences of this interference are vast. The likely outcome is entrenching Apple and Google as an extension of government, rather than just removing restrictions for ISVs. Apple gets regulated, but now keeps making trillions of dollars/euros by law.
  - romanoderoma 6y ago
    > The software is theirs. You are wrong The case against Apple is based on three principle - first sale doctrine: when I buy something I have the rights of redestributing it. Apple disallow it - Any dependency on the future versions and upgrades for a proprietary software package can create vendor lock-in, entrenching a monopoly position. - they have the rights to make software that only run on their hardware, the opposite is not implied, hardware is not theirs, they have no legal framework to make hardware that only runs their software. To be more explicit: iOS can be Apple only, but there's no right to make Apple HW iOS only. The hardware is not theirs. > Their software, their rules. False, again Rules are not above laws. If I make you sign a contract that in exchange for goods and services asks you for a testicle, I can't enforce it, even if you triple signed it with your blood. > “Be careful what you wish for“. The unintended consequences of this interference are vast I'm usually very careful I'm sure they would be for Apple or for US economy But I am Italian and don't rely on Apple existence, I don't care if they both burn into flames (spoiler: they won't, they will be just fine, psychological terrorism don't work on me) In my country many companies already make billions by law, that means they are forced to supply the service at a reasonable price and can't refuse it for any reason which is not approved by a judge It would be a very welcome improvement regarding US companies behaviour outside US What's more interesting for me is that if I say "in Italy we all pay for public healthcare so it's almost free for everybody" they scream "communists" If I say "the State should own a sufficient number of public buildings to give homes to those who can't afford it" they scream "communists" Same when I say that in Italy insurance companies can't make their own prices and prices can't be discriminatory These are all traits of modern welfare state that is widespread in Europe, despite not being communists But when a company abuse of its powers acting like a real communist dictator, showing those behaviours that in US they imagine as being a communist, making rules and forcing everybody to obey them, even when they are debatable, many in US applaud