2 ms·

It's a shame that anti-trust enforcement has been so effectively neutered in the US. This is exactly the type of thing it's designed to protect us from. But I

by skohan 6y ago

It's a shame that anti-trust enforcement has been so effectively neutered in the US. This is exactly the type of thing it's designed to protect us from. But I think with the current high bar for anti-trust, it can be argued that Apple is "hurting consumers" through the lock-down of their platform. It's fine that Apple should offer a safe, curated experience of using their devices through the App Store. I'm even fine with the App Store having some OS-level integrations which would not be available to 3rd parties. But the App Store should have to compete on its own merits for how it delivers value to the customer - it should not be the only option by fiat. Maybe at the beginning, but not when smartphones are the dominant computing platform and the main way people use software on a daily basis. The 30% cut which Apple requires is simply not justified for how much value Apple offers to businesses which drive revenue through the App Store. Again, maybe at the beginning, but the App Store no longer offers any meaningful benefit in terms of discoverability. Losing almost 1/3 of revenue out of the gate can make the difference between viability and not for a lot of companies at the margins, meaning this policy costs the user access to all those products which might be able to exist were it not for the "apple tax". Even under the current legal framework, I just don't see how it's justified.

eru 6y ago
> Even under the current legal framework, I just don't see how it's justified. In general, prices don't need a legal justification. That's a big part of free enterprise. > This is exactly the type of thing it's designed to protect us from. What makes you so optimistic? In practice, complicated laws with lots of reach usually work in favour of the party that can afford more and better lawyers. (Or, sometimes, the party that is winning the PR battle for the hearts and minds of public opinion.)
- skohan 6y ago
  > In general, prices don't need a legal justification. That's a big part of free enterprise. Well it would need a legal justification if the alternative is that Apple would be penalized under anti-trust regulation for using its market share to hurt consumers for its own benefit. Even "free enterprise" operates within a legal framework. > In practice, complicated laws with lots of reach usually work in favour of the party that can afford more and better lawyers. I mean this is an incredibly defeatist and cynical view. Don't get me wrong, I'm not overly optimistic that things will change based on the way laws have been applied in the last few decades, but the fact that people see laws as primarily a tool for the powerful - and don't even have an expectation for legal enforcement to operate on behalf of the consumer - seems to me to be a large part of the reason the US is looking more and more like a failed state.
  - eru 6y ago
    Oh, I'm just defeatist and cynical when it comes to complicated laws. I have higher hopes for simple laws. And also for efforts to lower barriers to entry. See eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_deregulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_deregulation and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedoms_of_the_air https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedoms_of_the_air for a legislative efforts that did much good. Some interesting thoughts on rail freight transport at https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/SurfaceFreightTransportationDeregulation.html https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/SurfaceFreightTransporta... If all you did was follow casual online discussions about the state of American rail transport, you'd think it's in shambles. What's interesting is that the deregulated freight part of the industry is actually doing great. It's the transportation of people part that's not so hot. I have no ready answer for Apple's walled garden. But as I stated earlier, I'm afraid heavy handed interference might do more harm than good, since Apple has so much money to through at lobbyists and lawyers. For what it's worth, the default historical case people always cite in favour of trust busting, Standard Oil, actually shows the opposite. See eg https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-standard-oil-was-a-predatory-monopoly/ https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-standard-oil-was-a-pr...

by skohan 6y ago

eru 6y ago

> Even under the current legal framework, I just don't see how it's justified. In general, prices don't need a legal justification. That's a big part of free enterprise. > This is exactly the type of thing it's designed to protect us from. What makes you so optimistic? In practice, complicated laws with lots of reach usually work in favour of the party that can afford more and better lawyers. (Or, sometimes, the party that is winning the PR battle for the hearts and minds of public opinion.)

skohan 6y ago
> In general, prices don't need a legal justification. That's a big part of free enterprise. Well it would need a legal justification if the alternative is that Apple would be penalized under anti-trust regulation for using its market share to hurt consumers for its own benefit. Even "free enterprise" operates within a legal framework. > In practice, complicated laws with lots of reach usually work in favour of the party that can afford more and better lawyers. I mean this is an incredibly defeatist and cynical view. Don't get me wrong, I'm not overly optimistic that things will change based on the way laws have been applied in the last few decades, but the fact that people see laws as primarily a tool for the powerful - and don't even have an expectation for legal enforcement to operate on behalf of the consumer - seems to me to be a large part of the reason the US is looking more and more like a failed state.
- eru 6y ago
  Oh, I'm just defeatist and cynical when it comes to complicated laws. I have higher hopes for simple laws. And also for efforts to lower barriers to entry. See eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_deregulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_deregulation and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedoms_of_the_air https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedoms_of_the_air for a legislative efforts that did much good. Some interesting thoughts on rail freight transport at https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/SurfaceFreightTransportationDeregulation.html https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/SurfaceFreightTransporta... If all you did was follow casual online discussions about the state of American rail transport, you'd think it's in shambles. What's interesting is that the deregulated freight part of the industry is actually doing great. It's the transportation of people part that's not so hot. I have no ready answer for Apple's walled garden. But as I stated earlier, I'm afraid heavy handed interference might do more harm than good, since Apple has so much money to through at lobbyists and lawyers. For what it's worth, the default historical case people always cite in favour of trust busting, Standard Oil, actually shows the opposite. See eg https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-standard-oil-was-a-predatory-monopoly/ https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-standard-oil-was-a-pr...