5 ms·

This is an interesting point that people miss sometimes - so thank you for bringing it up. I guess a comparison would be a utility that both owns the transmiss

This is an interesting point that people miss sometimes - so thank you for bringing it up. I guess a comparison would be a utility that both owns the transmission lines and power plants? However, the transmission line rates are set by regulation. We have accepted as a society that the infrastructure needs to have regulated pricing. So why is it all that different here? The transmission of the products, just given the way the cellphone market works, is basically limited to either App Store or Android Store. I basically have no alternative. Isn't that approaching a monopoly / duopoly where regulation starts to make sense? I say this all as a fairly conservative person, but it just seems too similar to utilities to me... Why am I wrong? (Serious Question)

luckylion 6y ago
> Isn't that approaching a monopoly / duopoly where regulation starts to make sense? Or it might be a cartel (few players are coordinating for maximum revenue, are not competing, prices are fixed), but we usually won't let that stand either. It's good to remember that Google and Apple (and others) have been found to collude before when they made secret no-poaching deals. They settled for $415m. I don't know how that would work though, without breaking up the companies.
mook 6y ago
I believe a better comparison would be Comcast also having a Netflix competitor… let's call it Xfinity Stream. And then they make Netflix have extra costs (say, having plans that have low monthly bandwidth caps that limit how much you would be able to use Netflix) but exclude their own service from having those costs. Essentially, making an artificial floor on competitor prices where their own service can ignore that floor. … Let's just say there's a reason my example is oddly concrete. In your example, as far as I know consumers do not actually interact with the power plants, and have no choice on what utility company to use; to do so would require duplicate infrastructure. In the (either) app store case there is — I can still install the Microsoft mail client instead of the Apple or Google ones.
- Closi 6y ago
  Or to create a more direct comparison, that Comcast fully blocks Netflix unless they give 30% of fees and launches their own service which is heavily subsidised. This wouldn’t work now, but if it was done when Netflix was growing it would have severely impacted their ability to compete.
  - zaroth 6y ago
    Or to create a more direct comparison, it would be like Netflix distributing content inside the Xfinity OnDemand app and using Comcast’s streaming platform to do it, and paying Comcast a percentage of the revenue. Which is exactly how Xfinity OnDemand works. Apple’s creation, development, and control of the App Store is akin to Comcast’s Xfinity OnDemand. They are both retail stores owned, operated and curated by their private enterprise creators in order to sell some first party but mostly third-party content.
  - WWLink 6y ago
    They did try to do something like that, where Netflix counted against your bandwidth cap but Comcast's own IPTV service did not. Maybe it was AT&T? I do recall it being a thing.
parasubvert 6y ago
It took MANY decades before transmission lines, power generation and brokerage were forcibly separated and regulated. They traditionally were integrated, even through the 1980s in some countries. Utility regulation only works when the product doesn’t change and is a fungible commodity - power is power. It also is about driving prices down for consumers for that commodity. The iOS and Google platforms have barely existed more than a decade, and the platforms are constantly evolving. New platforms and ecosystems are emerging too, with Facebook/Oculus, Valve/Steam, Amazon with Fire/Alexa, etc. Enshrining today’s dominant app platforms as the government sanctioned ones will surely stifle their evolution and innovation, because that’s what declaring something a utility is: a commodity with no differentiation. The crux of this matter is that end consumers generally do not care about the 30% cut, It’s a retail cut they’re used to from other platforms like Sony PlayStation, or Ticketmaster for concert tickets. it barely impacts them (and arguably the curated stores are a better overall experience). I also don’t think almost any consumer of iOS would agree their App ecosystem experience is fungible with Android or anyone else. This is entirely driven by Devs and publishers that want better margins.
- starfallg 6y ago
  >It’s a retail cut they’re used to from other platforms like Sony PlayStation, or Ticketmaster for concert tickets. The counterpoint being that Ticketmaster doesn't take a 30% cut on consession sales at the event AFAIK. That's the real issue - these stores are distributing some apps for free and some for pay. Hence free apps can sidestep paying the Google/Apple cut and then offer in-app payments directly. But that's entirely due to their business model of allowing free apps and taking a cut on paid apps.
  - firstbabylonian 6y ago
    > Ticketmaster doesn't take a 30% cut on consession sales at the event Ticketmaster doesn't provide as complex of a service as Apple does with the App Store.
    - Beldin 6y ago
Someone 6y ago
“I guess a comparison would be a utility that both owns the transmission lines and power plants?” Something like that happens a lot with mobile networks, where some operators both have a license for bandwidth and sell it to customers, and other operators buy bandwidth from them to sell it to customers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_virtual_network_operator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_virtual_network_operato...), with an important difference being that customers (sometimes after a few years of contract) are free to switch between providers. But yes, the important discussion here is whether app stores should become utilities. AFAIK, there is no existing law there, so it will have to be created. Because there is no law, I don’t see Epic winning this in the sense that they will get paid for damages. They may win in the sense that things will change, though.
jnwatson 6y ago
If you sell breakfast cereal, you’re competing against the grocery store’s store brand.
- username90 6y ago
  If one store charges outrageous fees for third party brands then customers will just shop at several stores. That doesn't work for appstores.
  - firstbabylonian 6y ago
    Apps are not food.
    - mattl 6y ago
      Apps used to mean appetizers, not applications.

luckylion 6y ago

> Isn't that approaching a monopoly / duopoly where regulation starts to make sense? Or it might be a cartel (few players are coordinating for maximum revenue, are not competing, prices are fixed), but we usually won't let that stand either. It's good to remember that Google and Apple (and others) have been found to collude before when they made secret no-poaching deals. They settled for $415m. I don't know how that would work though, without breaking up the companies.

mook 6y ago

I believe a better comparison would be Comcast also having a Netflix competitor… let's call it Xfinity Stream. And then they make Netflix have extra costs (say, having plans that have low monthly bandwidth caps that limit how much you would be able to use Netflix) but exclude their own service from having those costs. Essentially, making an artificial floor on competitor prices where their own service can ignore that floor. … Let's just say there's a reason my example is oddly concrete. In your example, as far as I know consumers do not actually interact with the power plants, and have no choice on what utility company to use; to do so would require duplicate infrastructure. In the (either) app store case there is — I can still install the Microsoft mail client instead of the Apple or Google ones.

Closi 6y ago
Or to create a more direct comparison, that Comcast fully blocks Netflix unless they give 30% of fees and launches their own service which is heavily subsidised. This wouldn’t work now, but if it was done when Netflix was growing it would have severely impacted their ability to compete.
- zaroth 6y ago
  Or to create a more direct comparison, it would be like Netflix distributing content inside the Xfinity OnDemand app and using Comcast’s streaming platform to do it, and paying Comcast a percentage of the revenue. Which is exactly how Xfinity OnDemand works. Apple’s creation, development, and control of the App Store is akin to Comcast’s Xfinity OnDemand. They are both retail stores owned, operated and curated by their private enterprise creators in order to sell some first party but mostly third-party content.
- WWLink 6y ago
  They did try to do something like that, where Netflix counted against your bandwidth cap but Comcast's own IPTV service did not. Maybe it was AT&T? I do recall it being a thing.

parasubvert 6y ago

It took MANY decades before transmission lines, power generation and brokerage were forcibly separated and regulated. They traditionally were integrated, even through the 1980s in some countries. Utility regulation only works when the product doesn’t change and is a fungible commodity - power is power. It also is about driving prices down for consumers for that commodity. The iOS and Google platforms have barely existed more than a decade, and the platforms are constantly evolving. New platforms and ecosystems are emerging too, with Facebook/Oculus, Valve/Steam, Amazon with Fire/Alexa, etc. Enshrining today’s dominant app platforms as the government sanctioned ones will surely stifle their evolution and innovation, because that’s what declaring something a utility is: a commodity with no differentiation. The crux of this matter is that end consumers generally do not care about the 30% cut, It’s a retail cut they’re used to from other platforms like Sony PlayStation, or Ticketmaster for concert tickets. it barely impacts them (and arguably the curated stores are a better overall experience). I also don’t think almost any consumer of iOS would agree their App ecosystem experience is fungible with Android or anyone else. This is entirely driven by Devs and publishers that want better margins.

starfallg 6y ago
>It’s a retail cut they’re used to from other platforms like Sony PlayStation, or Ticketmaster for concert tickets. The counterpoint being that Ticketmaster doesn't take a 30% cut on consession sales at the event AFAIK. That's the real issue - these stores are distributing some apps for free and some for pay. Hence free apps can sidestep paying the Google/Apple cut and then offer in-app payments directly. But that's entirely due to their business model of allowing free apps and taking a cut on paid apps.
- firstbabylonian 6y ago
  > Ticketmaster doesn't take a 30% cut on consession sales at the event Ticketmaster doesn't provide as complex of a service as Apple does with the App Store.
  - Beldin 6y ago

Someone 6y ago

“I guess a comparison would be a utility that both owns the transmission lines and power plants?” Something like that happens a lot with mobile networks, where some operators both have a license for bandwidth and sell it to customers, and other operators buy bandwidth from them to sell it to customers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_virtual_network_operator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_virtual_network_operato...), with an important difference being that customers (sometimes after a few years of contract) are free to switch between providers. But yes, the important discussion here is whether app stores should become utilities. AFAIK, there is no existing law there, so it will have to be created. Because there is no law, I don’t see Epic winning this in the sense that they will get paid for damages. They may win in the sense that things will change, though.

jnwatson 6y ago

If you sell breakfast cereal, you’re competing against the grocery store’s store brand.

username90 6y ago
If one store charges outrageous fees for third party brands then customers will just shop at several stores. That doesn't work for appstores.
- firstbabylonian 6y ago
  Apps are not food.
  - mattl 6y ago
    Apps used to mean appetizers, not applications.