4 ms·

Or like the ISPs

paxys 6y ago
Or credit reporting agencies. Or credit card companies. Or banks. Or defense contractors. Tech is always the soft target for governments worldwide.
- creddit 6y ago
  Banks aren’t really concentrated, though. Lots of competition in the area.
- qppo 6y ago
  Because tech has monopolies over specific markets (or duopolies) engaged in anti-competitive practices that harm business and consumers while being comically unregulated. Banking, credit, and defense all have a pretty good balance of competition and regulation. That's not to say there aren't areas that should be targeted by governments, but tech is hardly a "soft target." It's never been hit!
  - thebradbain 6y ago
    Well, except for all the 90s/00s Microsoft + Internet Explorer antitrust drama -- though admittedly Microsoft came out of it mostly unscathed, if a bit humbled.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  >Tech is always the soft target for governments worldwide. lol. Take a look at credit card regulation in Europe and the amount of regulation passed on banks in the last 20 years alone (for good reasons). The only thing that's soft about tech is the industry's constant whinging because they're finally recognizing that the good old days of getting away with everything might be over. Credit cards are actually a good example. Let's slap the 0.2% interchange cap that is the legal limit in the EU on the Apple store and see what happens then.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > Let's slap the 0.2% interchange cap that is the legal limit in the EU on the Apple store and see what happens then. That's exactly the wrong solution, because it implies within it that they get to continue holding a monopoly as long as they're a regulated one. And then the regulations address the most visible seven of the two hundred thousand problems that are caused by monopolies and leave all of the other ones. What's needed is to reintroduce meaningful competition.
    - Barrin92 6y ago
      >That's exactly the wrong solution, because it implies within it that they get to continue holding a monopoly as long as they're a regulated one. That's a pretty common solution when infrastructure is concerned, which platforms basically are. Having 20 stores on your phone to me makes about as much sense as having 50 postal services driving on the streets. Not really sure what's wrong with basically making two regulations. Apple/Google get to charge ~1% or whatever for running the store, and they don't get to ban stuff other than content that's unlawful. To me it seems like that solves 99% of the issues we've been hearing about.
      - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        > That's a pretty common solution when infrastructure is concerned, which platforms basically are. It's pretty common for physical infrastructure because it has high fixed costs. Building a water distribution network is billion dollar enterprise. App stores are the complete opposite of that -- if it weren't for the platforms purposely interfering with competing stores, an individual would be able to set one up in a weekend. > Having 20 stores on your phone to me makes about as much sense as having 50 postal services driving on the streets. But we do have 50 postal services driving on the streets. Or at least more than one anyway -- USPS, FedEx, UPS, Amazon, plus private couriers, trucking companies and so on. You might as well ask why we have multiple retailers. "Wouldn't it be more efficient if everybody had to buy everything at Walmart and we just regulated them as a monopoly?" Some minor theoretical increase in efficiency is not worth the crushing oppression that would inevitably bring. > Not really sure what's wrong with basically making two regulations. Apple/Google get to charge ~1% or whatever for running the store, and they don't get to ban stuff other than content that's unlawful. To me it seems like that solves 99% of the issues we've been hearing about. Which means you're putting the role of vetting apps onto some other third parties -- good, now there will be competition and you won't be screwed if the monopoly store rejects something they shouldn't. But then what is the Google or Apple store even supposed to be doing? Hosting the app? Anybody can do that. Payment processing? There are a dozen companies that already do that. The only reason they have a monopoly is that they use control over the platform to purposely put barriers in front of app store competitors. It's not a natural monopoly whatsoever. And you're just proving the point about how the regulations only solve the most obvious problems and leave all the other ones. For example, if you let them exclude app store competitors, even if they can't charge high fees or exclude apps they don't like, they could still bury them in an unfindable hole by eliminating direct links and putting it on page 5000 of any search results, or cover anything they don't like in arbitrarily scary warning prompts, or find a hundred other ways to make your life hard unless you bend the knee. Whereas if their being unreasonable could be remedied by just going to another store, it actually puts a check on unreasonable behavior in general by way of competitive pressure, without you having to predict and explicitly prohibit it ahead of time.
badwolf 6y ago
The ISP's are probably who are pushing for this

Or like the ISPs

Or credit reporting agencies. Or credit card companies. Or banks. Or defense contractors. Tech is always the soft target for governments worldwide.

creddit 6y ago
Banks aren’t really concentrated, though. Lots of competition in the area.
qppo 6y ago
Because tech has monopolies over specific markets (or duopolies) engaged in anti-competitive practices that harm business and consumers while being comically unregulated. Banking, credit, and defense all have a pretty good balance of competition and regulation. That's not to say there aren't areas that should be targeted by governments, but tech is hardly a "soft target." It's never been hit!
- thebradbain 6y ago
  Well, except for all the 90s/00s Microsoft + Internet Explorer antitrust drama -- though admittedly Microsoft came out of it mostly unscathed, if a bit humbled.
Barrin92 6y ago
>Tech is always the soft target for governments worldwide. lol. Take a look at credit card regulation in Europe and the amount of regulation passed on banks in the last 20 years alone (for good reasons). The only thing that's soft about tech is the industry's constant whinging because they're finally recognizing that the good old days of getting away with everything might be over. Credit cards are actually a good example. Let's slap the 0.2% interchange cap that is the legal limit in the EU on the Apple store and see what happens then.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > Let's slap the 0.2% interchange cap that is the legal limit in the EU on the Apple store and see what happens then. That's exactly the wrong solution, because it implies within it that they get to continue holding a monopoly as long as they're a regulated one. And then the regulations address the most visible seven of the two hundred thousand problems that are caused by monopolies and leave all of the other ones. What's needed is to reintroduce meaningful competition.
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    >That's exactly the wrong solution, because it implies within it that they get to continue holding a monopoly as long as they're a regulated one. That's a pretty common solution when infrastructure is concerned, which platforms basically are. Having 20 stores on your phone to me makes about as much sense as having 50 postal services driving on the streets. Not really sure what's wrong with basically making two regulations. Apple/Google get to charge ~1% or whatever for running the store, and they don't get to ban stuff other than content that's unlawful. To me it seems like that solves 99% of the issues we've been hearing about.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      > That's a pretty common solution when infrastructure is concerned, which platforms basically are. It's pretty common for physical infrastructure because it has high fixed costs. Building a water distribution network is billion dollar enterprise. App stores are the complete opposite of that -- if it weren't for the platforms purposely interfering with competing stores, an individual would be able to set one up in a weekend. > Having 20 stores on your phone to me makes about as much sense as having 50 postal services driving on the streets. But we do have 50 postal services driving on the streets. Or at least more than one anyway -- USPS, FedEx, UPS, Amazon, plus private couriers, trucking companies and so on. You might as well ask why we have multiple retailers. "Wouldn't it be more efficient if everybody had to buy everything at Walmart and we just regulated them as a monopoly?" Some minor theoretical increase in efficiency is not worth the crushing oppression that would inevitably bring. > Not really sure what's wrong with basically making two regulations. Apple/Google get to charge ~1% or whatever for running the store, and they don't get to ban stuff other than content that's unlawful. To me it seems like that solves 99% of the issues we've been hearing about. Which means you're putting the role of vetting apps onto some other third parties -- good, now there will be competition and you won't be screwed if the monopoly store rejects something they shouldn't. But then what is the Google or Apple store even supposed to be doing? Hosting the app? Anybody can do that. Payment processing? There are a dozen companies that already do that. The only reason they have a monopoly is that they use control over the platform to purposely put barriers in front of app store competitors. It's not a natural monopoly whatsoever. And you're just proving the point about how the regulations only solve the most obvious problems and leave all the other ones. For example, if you let them exclude app store competitors, even if they can't charge high fees or exclude apps they don't like, they could still bury them in an unfindable hole by eliminating direct links and putting it on page 5000 of any search results, or cover anything they don't like in arbitrarily scary warning prompts, or find a hundred other ways to make your life hard unless you bend the knee. Whereas if their being unreasonable could be remedied by just going to another store, it actually puts a check on unreasonable behavior in general by way of competitive pressure, without you having to predict and explicitly prohibit it ahead of time.

badwolf 6y ago

The ISP's are probably who are pushing for this