2 ms·

> The problem with this is that then you have to make the choice of app store together with the choice of the entire platform including the hardware and operati

> The problem with this is that then you have to make the choice of app store together with the choice of the entire platform including the hardware and operating system and everything. Moreover, once you make the choice, it's hard to change because there are significant transition costs, even if the apps available in the stores change. This is no different than buying an Xbox or a Playstation or Switch knowing that you will only have access to certain games on each platform. Yes, once you've bought the Xbox you're limited to Xbox-compatible games and it will cost a lot of money to switch to a Switch. But it doesn't mean you didn't have a choice. > Or suppose I want an iPhone exclusively so that I'm not giving my data to Google and for no other reason. Then my choice of app store is being constrained by my choice of platforms -- basically the definition of an anti-competitive restraint. Your choice being constrained by your personal preference is well outside the scope of antitrust law.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> This is no different than buying an Xbox or a Playstation or Switch knowing that you will only have access to certain games on each platform. Yes, once you've bought the Xbox you're limited to Xbox-compatible games and it will cost a lot of money to switch to a Switch. Except, as previously mentioned, you don't switch to a Switch. If you have an Xbox and then go out and buy a Switch, you still have an Xbox. At which point the stores actually have to compete with one another because you could buy a game for either one. That isn't what people do with phones. They're not going to carry two phones around all the time, but having only one destroys the competition between stores when a given phone can only use one store. Also notice that the cost of a game (typically $50) is a lot closer to the cost of a console (<$500) than the cost of an app (typically $1) is to the cost of the average iPhone ($800). > Your choice being constrained by your personal preference is well outside the scope of antitrust law. How is this not like saying that a monopoly on gasoline is fine because you're only being constrained by your "personal preference" to drive a car instead of riding a horse?
- nodamage 6y ago
  Okay, but how is any of that is relevant to the original point that "you have to make the choice of app store together with the choice of the entire platform including the hardware and operating system". It seems to me, when you make the choice of what gaming console to buy, you take the entire ecosystem into account. When you make the choice of what phone to buy, you do the same thing. That's not an unreasonable thing to do in either case. You're framing it as if you had no choice of what phone to buy and now you're somehow stuck with an iPhone with all these restrictions you don't like. But you did have a choice when you made the original purchase! > Also notice that the cost of a game (typically $50) is a lot closer to the cost of a console (<$500) than the cost of an app (typically $1) is to the cost of the average iPhone ($800). Again, not sure why this is relevant. The vast majority of apps are free anyway (in which case there is no cost to switch) and other apps may come with you because your account is separate from the app itself (Netflix, etc). > How is this not like saying that a monopoly on gasoline is fine because you're only being constrained by your "personal preference" to drive a car instead of riding a horse? A horse is not a "reasonably interchangeable substitute" for a car. An Xbox is a "reasonably interchangeable substitute" for a Playstation.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> This is no different than buying an Xbox or a Playstation or Switch knowing that you will only have access to certain games on each platform. Yes, once you've bought the Xbox you're limited to Xbox-compatible games and it will cost a lot of money to switch to a Switch. Except, as previously mentioned, you don't switch to a Switch. If you have an Xbox and then go out and buy a Switch, you still have an Xbox. At which point the stores actually have to compete with one another because you could buy a game for either one. That isn't what people do with phones. They're not going to carry two phones around all the time, but having only one destroys the competition between stores when a given phone can only use one store. Also notice that the cost of a game (typically $50) is a lot closer to the cost of a console (<$500) than the cost of an app (typically $1) is to the cost of the average iPhone ($800). > Your choice being constrained by your personal preference is well outside the scope of antitrust law. How is this not like saying that a monopoly on gasoline is fine because you're only being constrained by your "personal preference" to drive a car instead of riding a horse?

nodamage 6y ago
Okay, but how is any of that is relevant to the original point that "you have to make the choice of app store together with the choice of the entire platform including the hardware and operating system". It seems to me, when you make the choice of what gaming console to buy, you take the entire ecosystem into account. When you make the choice of what phone to buy, you do the same thing. That's not an unreasonable thing to do in either case. You're framing it as if you had no choice of what phone to buy and now you're somehow stuck with an iPhone with all these restrictions you don't like. But you did have a choice when you made the original purchase! > Also notice that the cost of a game (typically $50) is a lot closer to the cost of a console (<$500) than the cost of an app (typically $1) is to the cost of the average iPhone ($800). Again, not sure why this is relevant. The vast majority of apps are free anyway (in which case there is no cost to switch) and other apps may come with you because your account is separate from the app itself (Netflix, etc). > How is this not like saying that a monopoly on gasoline is fine because you're only being constrained by your "personal preference" to drive a car instead of riding a horse? A horse is not a "reasonably interchangeable substitute" for a car. An Xbox is a "reasonably interchangeable substitute" for a Playstation.