4 ms·

Are you saying Epic should not be allowed to have what is effectively a digital goods store while manufacturing apps? Or that Apple and Google should not be all

Are you saying Epic should not be allowed to have what is effectively a digital goods store while manufacturing apps? Or that Apple and Google should not be allowed to manufacture apps while owning digital goods stores? Or both?

mulmen 6y ago
I'm saying vertical integration has obvious competitive advantages. Historically this has led to anti trust regulation. The analogy here could be something along the lines of "device manufacturers cannot be in the business of content creation or distribution" or even "content distributors cannot be in the business of content creation". I don't have a strong opinion on this, I'm just providing some historical context. I'm sure there are many more examples and interpretations.
- chipotle_coyote 6y ago
  > "device manufacturers cannot be in the business of content creation or distribution" Historically, computer hardware makers have both made their own applications -- not just system-level software and bundled utilities -- and distributed software others make for their platform for about as long as there's been computer hardware. Unless this was somehow so narrowly tailored to Apple that it couldn't apply to anyone else, it would be a seismic change. (Also, I continue to be skeptical that forcing Apple to spin off the App Store is really a useful way to address the complaints people have. A separate company with an exclusive contract to run the App Store doesn't solve anything, and if you're going to force changes to make it non-exclusive, you can arguably do that without spinning it off.)
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - nikitaga 6y ago
    We need new laws because existing ones don't account for the existence and importance of computing platforms. But the problem is very obvious. A 30% cut for something that is completely free on other computing platforms is evidence of excessive monopolistic power. This power is exercised by means of restricting what kind of software end users can run. It is not hard to imagine several reasonable ways to restrict that power depending on how far you want to go and what tradeoffs to take. The only seismic effects would be to owners of walled gardens mandated by device manufacturers, i.e. Apple, Google, Sony, etc. – exactly those who are currently abusing their market position.
jariel 6y ago
Apple can have it's own app store, but it should allow downloads, including app stores, outside of it's own app store.
- supernova87a 6y ago
  If Apple's business model and hardware is predicated on security, privacy, ensuring quality, making your phone not misbehave, making things simple and reliable, why should they be forced to open that up to others who will not operate as they want?
  - mulmen 6y ago
    If those were the only factors they shouldn't be forced to open it up. But there are other factors. Such as consumer choice, pricing and competition. You also seem to assume vertical integration is the only way to provide a stable, secure and private computing platform. That is not obvious to me and I don't believe regulators could (or should!) arrive at such a conclusion. The question for regulators is simply if the market is operating with sufficient competition. Apple for example is not completely vertically integrated. They buy glass from someone else, and screens. I don't think they mine aluminum. Clearly it is possible to deliver their product by working with other companies they do not own. This means it may be possible for them to deliver a product with similar capabilities even after spinning off the app store as "apple apps co" which provides apps for "apple device co" but they may occasionally also make apps for "Samsung Device Co". This is further reinforced by the fact that the vast majority of apps on Apple's (and Google's) platform are not written by Apple. Kinda like how Boeing and Airbus both buy engines from Rolls Royce and Pratt & Whitney (which used to be part of the same company as Boeing). Or even like how Apple buys processors from Intel but also used to buy IBM processors.
  - happymellon 6y ago
    If you really believe that, then there is no reason for you to install any alternative store.
  - jariel 6y ago
    Because a) the anti-trust issues mentioned and b) it's simply not true that security issue requires that degree of control: Android is open and it's fine. As far as privacy, experience etc. - that should be a competitive advantage offer for the App Store. If consumers are willing to pay 30% more for guarantees of security, privacy, experience, then that's fine. Imagine if MS and Apple today banned all Desktop apps out of their own stores or took a 30% cut. We would immediately rethink the issue.

mulmen 6y ago

I'm saying vertical integration has obvious competitive advantages. Historically this has led to anti trust regulation. The analogy here could be something along the lines of "device manufacturers cannot be in the business of content creation or distribution" or even "content distributors cannot be in the business of content creation". I don't have a strong opinion on this, I'm just providing some historical context. I'm sure there are many more examples and interpretations.

chipotle_coyote 6y ago
> "device manufacturers cannot be in the business of content creation or distribution" Historically, computer hardware makers have both made their own applications -- not just system-level software and bundled utilities -- and distributed software others make for their platform for about as long as there's been computer hardware. Unless this was somehow so narrowly tailored to Apple that it couldn't apply to anyone else, it would be a seismic change. (Also, I continue to be skeptical that forcing Apple to spin off the App Store is really a useful way to address the complaints people have. A separate company with an exclusive contract to run the App Store doesn't solve anything, and if you're going to force changes to make it non-exclusive, you can arguably do that without spinning it off.)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- nikitaga 6y ago
  We need new laws because existing ones don't account for the existence and importance of computing platforms. But the problem is very obvious. A 30% cut for something that is completely free on other computing platforms is evidence of excessive monopolistic power. This power is exercised by means of restricting what kind of software end users can run. It is not hard to imagine several reasonable ways to restrict that power depending on how far you want to go and what tradeoffs to take. The only seismic effects would be to owners of walled gardens mandated by device manufacturers, i.e. Apple, Google, Sony, etc. – exactly those who are currently abusing their market position.

jariel 6y ago

Apple can have it's own app store, but it should allow downloads, including app stores, outside of it's own app store.

supernova87a 6y ago
If Apple's business model and hardware is predicated on security, privacy, ensuring quality, making your phone not misbehave, making things simple and reliable, why should they be forced to open that up to others who will not operate as they want?
- mulmen 6y ago
  If those were the only factors they shouldn't be forced to open it up. But there are other factors. Such as consumer choice, pricing and competition. You also seem to assume vertical integration is the only way to provide a stable, secure and private computing platform. That is not obvious to me and I don't believe regulators could (or should!) arrive at such a conclusion. The question for regulators is simply if the market is operating with sufficient competition. Apple for example is not completely vertically integrated. They buy glass from someone else, and screens. I don't think they mine aluminum. Clearly it is possible to deliver their product by working with other companies they do not own. This means it may be possible for them to deliver a product with similar capabilities even after spinning off the app store as "apple apps co" which provides apps for "apple device co" but they may occasionally also make apps for "Samsung Device Co". This is further reinforced by the fact that the vast majority of apps on Apple's (and Google's) platform are not written by Apple. Kinda like how Boeing and Airbus both buy engines from Rolls Royce and Pratt & Whitney (which used to be part of the same company as Boeing). Or even like how Apple buys processors from Intel but also used to buy IBM processors.
- happymellon 6y ago
  If you really believe that, then there is no reason for you to install any alternative store.
- jariel 6y ago
  Because a) the anti-trust issues mentioned and b) it's simply not true that security issue requires that degree of control: Android is open and it's fine. As far as privacy, experience etc. - that should be a competitive advantage offer for the App Store. If consumers are willing to pay 30% more for guarantees of security, privacy, experience, then that's fine. Imagine if MS and Apple today banned all Desktop apps out of their own stores or took a 30% cut. We would immediately rethink the issue.