4 ms·

> on their platform On...their platform. The rest of your comment relies on this being an issue. I don't see how it is. They also don't make it "quick and eas

> on their platform On...their platform. The rest of your comment relies on this being an issue. I don't see how it is. They also don't make it "quick and easy" to install a different OS on their devices. Should we sue them for anti-competitive behavior here too? "I can't one-click install Android on the phone that YOU built. That's not fair! I'm suing!" I don't understand your argument at all.

stale2002 6y ago
> On...their platform. Anti competitive practices are still illegal, under the sherman anti trust act, even if the company "owns" the platform. To give a relevant example, most people would agree that it would be illegal and anti-competitive if Microsoft made every single app on the PC go through the microsoft store. In fact, there was already a court case, 20 years ago, where Microsoft lost an anti-trust case, which was a bit similar to this. (Yes, microsoft had around ~80% of the market share then, but Apple now has ~50% of the smartphone market, which is enough for anti-trust law to apply. Thus it is a similar case) > I don't understand your argument at all. The argument is that Apple's actions are illegally anti-competitive, and that similar behavior has already been ruled illegal in the past, and if we thought about other hypotheticals, such as if Microsoft did the same behavior for the PC, that basically everyone would agree that this would be illegally anti-competitive. Just think about the microsoft example if you are still confused. Basically everyone would agree that it would be illegally anti-competitive for microsoft to prevent people from downloading software onto their PC, and forced everyone to give them a cut through the microsoft PC app store.
- kempbellt 6y ago
  Oh, I'm not confused. I just don't see it as a good argument. One could argue that using anti-competitive laws to prevent people from controlling their platform for their own benefit, is in itself, anti-competitive. I use my car to get to work and run errands. You could argue that my car is my platform, which I use for my benefit. Is it anti-competitive of me to not go out of my way to pick up other people and take them to their jobs? Would that be covered in the "Sherman Anti Trust Act of 1890" (Yes, I am familiar with it...), as the act was intended? I doubt it. You are of course welcome to disagree. I'll be expecting a ride to the grocery store tomorrow, and even if you have errands to run, we need to run mine first, because if you prioritize running errands in your car over mine, you are being anti-competitive, and that isn't fair! If I went out of my way to prevent others from getting a car so that I kept an advantage over them, that is anti-competitive behavior. Anti-trust laws were written to protect the public marketplace. As far as I'm concerned, the Apple app store is a private marketplace that Apple can do with as it sees fit. They can delete it today if they want, but that's just me.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > One could argue that using anti-competitive laws to prevent people from controlling their platform This is a false view of how anti-trust law works. If a company is engaging in anti-competitive practices, and has significant market power, this is illegal. And the courts can absolutely force a company to engage or not engage in certain actions. Courts have already ruled on this. Just go look at the microsoft case. The courts forced microsoft to take certain actions. This is a settled, legal issue, lol. The courts can absolutely force companies to stop engaging in anti-competitive practices, according to the sherman anti-trust act. The courts can also force a company to sell to certain people and engage in certain business practices, if refusing to do is would be anti-competitive. > You could argue that my car is my platform Bad analogy. The reason why it is bad, is because a singular car is not a hundred billion dollar business. If, instead, you controlled 50% of the car industry, though, then the government could absolutely force you to do things, or not do things, if your actions are ruled anti-competitive, as according to the Sherman anti-trust act. > you are being anti-competitive, and that isn't fair! Anti competitive actions are only illegal if you have significant market power. 1 person, with a single car does not have significant market power. Instead, I would have to control 50% of a 100 billion dollar business, in order for it to be illegal to engage in anti-competitive behavior.

stale2002 6y ago

> On...their platform. Anti competitive practices are still illegal, under the sherman anti trust act, even if the company "owns" the platform. To give a relevant example, most people would agree that it would be illegal and anti-competitive if Microsoft made every single app on the PC go through the microsoft store. In fact, there was already a court case, 20 years ago, where Microsoft lost an anti-trust case, which was a bit similar to this. (Yes, microsoft had around ~80% of the market share then, but Apple now has ~50% of the smartphone market, which is enough for anti-trust law to apply. Thus it is a similar case) > I don't understand your argument at all. The argument is that Apple's actions are illegally anti-competitive, and that similar behavior has already been ruled illegal in the past, and if we thought about other hypotheticals, such as if Microsoft did the same behavior for the PC, that basically everyone would agree that this would be illegally anti-competitive. Just think about the microsoft example if you are still confused. Basically everyone would agree that it would be illegally anti-competitive for microsoft to prevent people from downloading software onto their PC, and forced everyone to give them a cut through the microsoft PC app store.

kempbellt 6y ago
Oh, I'm not confused. I just don't see it as a good argument. One could argue that using anti-competitive laws to prevent people from controlling their platform for their own benefit, is in itself, anti-competitive. I use my car to get to work and run errands. You could argue that my car is my platform, which I use for my benefit. Is it anti-competitive of me to not go out of my way to pick up other people and take them to their jobs? Would that be covered in the "Sherman Anti Trust Act of 1890" (Yes, I am familiar with it...), as the act was intended? I doubt it. You are of course welcome to disagree. I'll be expecting a ride to the grocery store tomorrow, and even if you have errands to run, we need to run mine first, because if you prioritize running errands in your car over mine, you are being anti-competitive, and that isn't fair! If I went out of my way to prevent others from getting a car so that I kept an advantage over them, that is anti-competitive behavior. Anti-trust laws were written to protect the public marketplace. As far as I'm concerned, the Apple app store is a private marketplace that Apple can do with as it sees fit. They can delete it today if they want, but that's just me.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > One could argue that using anti-competitive laws to prevent people from controlling their platform This is a false view of how anti-trust law works. If a company is engaging in anti-competitive practices, and has significant market power, this is illegal. And the courts can absolutely force a company to engage or not engage in certain actions. Courts have already ruled on this. Just go look at the microsoft case. The courts forced microsoft to take certain actions. This is a settled, legal issue, lol. The courts can absolutely force companies to stop engaging in anti-competitive practices, according to the sherman anti-trust act. The courts can also force a company to sell to certain people and engage in certain business practices, if refusing to do is would be anti-competitive. > You could argue that my car is my platform Bad analogy. The reason why it is bad, is because a singular car is not a hundred billion dollar business. If, instead, you controlled 50% of the car industry, though, then the government could absolutely force you to do things, or not do things, if your actions are ruled anti-competitive, as according to the Sherman anti-trust act. > you are being anti-competitive, and that isn't fair! Anti competitive actions are only illegal if you have significant market power. 1 person, with a single car does not have significant market power. Instead, I would have to control 50% of a 100 billion dollar business, in order for it to be illegal to engage in anti-competitive behavior.