6 ms·

A contract can be declared unenforceable in court if it is against public policy: https://www.upcounsel.com/what-contracts-are-considered-to-be-contrary-to-publ

A contract can be declared unenforceable in court if it is against public policy: https://www.upcounsel.com/what-contracts-are-considered-to-be-contrary-to-public-policy https://www.upcounsel.com/what-contracts-are-considered-to-b... The goal should be to make Apple's app store model against public policy.

chrisseaton 6y ago
> The goal should be to make Apple's app store model against public policy. Policy should not be written to attack an individual company that for some reason you've got a beef with.
- zeusk 6y ago
  It's not just Apple, I think the fight shouldn't be about just fee but allowing 3rd party stores and applications that don't have an approval stamp from Apple. Imagine, if your Tesla refused to move if you didn't use Tesla approved tires which cost 30% more because Tesla charges the tire manufacturer 30% for approving them?
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > Imagine, if your Tesla refused to move if you didn't use Tesla approved tires which cost 30% more because Tesla charges the tire manufacturer 30% for approving them? Fine by me. Their business what they charge and how their product is designed, not mine. As long as there's a competitor. And there is.
    - zeusk 6y ago
      Not for iOS realistically speaking. You have to switch to Android, your only other choice, and suddenly all your other Apple devices don't really work that well.
      - tesmar2 6y ago
        Yes realistically speaking. Of course if you switch to a competitor things aren’t going to integrate as well. Perhaps you can immerse yourself in that ecosystem.
      - jolux 6y ago
        Yeah except compatibility like that has never been a legal requirement and I’m not sure how it could become one either.
      - valuearb 6y ago
        If you have to switch to Toyota it’s not going to do everything as well as your Tesla, otherwise Tesla wouldn’t exist. That’s a silly argument.
        zeusk 6y ago
        My argument is for interoperability and better 3rd party access to APIs within the OS. My argument is not that Android doesn't function as well, I quite liked it infact but all my other apple devices basically lost half their functionality without an iPhone and Apple won't give access to 3rd party developers or itself make those apps for Android. Apple won't even let 3rd party apps integrate with the system like their own do - which is why I wanted to shift away from an iPhone in the first place. Not because I hate or like Android, but because I can replace whatever parts of Google I don't like
    - damnyou 6y ago
      Not fine by me regardless of monopoly status, and I believe it should be not fine by public policy either.
      - tesmar2 6y ago
        Not fine for a company to sell you a device on their own terms?
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        If you don't like the Apple ecosystem, feel free to ignore it. Just pretend it doesn't exist.
        damnyou 6y ago
        I can pretend Apple's ecosystem doesn't exist, but I can't pretend that all of the negative externalities of Apple's ecosystem don't exist.
- damnyou 6y ago
  OK, fair. The goal should be to make models like Apple's app store, regardless of the corporation, against public policy.
  - tesmar2 6y ago
    Why? If someone wants to offer that it’s fine. But to force it is an unjustified intrusion into the market.
    - damnyou 6y ago
      It's actually a completely justified intrusion into the market. To answer questions posed by others since I'm apparently posting too fast: The reasons governments should intervene are well-elaborated in the blog post under discussion. Governments worldwide already have plenty of control over what terms corporations can sell their wares to people on. For example, in Europe you must offer at least two years of warranty. Corporations are government-granted legal fictions, so a government is free to impose whatever constraints it wants on corporations. In return, corporations get plenty of benefits like the ability to declare bankruptcy and not have it hit the pocketbooks of its executives. I would be fine with a regime where if a corporation doesn't abide by the rules, its executives become personally liable for debts, for example.
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        But why?
      - tesmar2 6y ago
        By what standard are you claiming justification besides “it has been done before”? > so a government is free to impose whatever constraints it wants on corporations Sorry this is just stated, not justified. I happen to think that the government should not have unilateral control.
        damnyou 6y ago
        It's the truth. Unilateral control is the reality, and I'm interested in exploring how to harness it to improve the lot of humanity. For example, I think Stripe should be able to compete with Apple to be a payment provider on Apple's platform. As I said, I would be a fine with a world where if Tim Cook doesn't want to play by the government's rules, he is jointly and severally liable for Apple's debts. There are real benefits that come with being a corporation. There need to be responbilities to society as well.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

chrisseaton 6y ago

> The goal should be to make Apple's app store model against public policy. Policy should not be written to attack an individual company that for some reason you've got a beef with.

zeusk 6y ago
It's not just Apple, I think the fight shouldn't be about just fee but allowing 3rd party stores and applications that don't have an approval stamp from Apple. Imagine, if your Tesla refused to move if you didn't use Tesla approved tires which cost 30% more because Tesla charges the tire manufacturer 30% for approving them?
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > Imagine, if your Tesla refused to move if you didn't use Tesla approved tires which cost 30% more because Tesla charges the tire manufacturer 30% for approving them? Fine by me. Their business what they charge and how their product is designed, not mine. As long as there's a competitor. And there is.
  - zeusk 6y ago
    Not for iOS realistically speaking. You have to switch to Android, your only other choice, and suddenly all your other Apple devices don't really work that well.
    - tesmar2 6y ago
      Yes realistically speaking. Of course if you switch to a competitor things aren’t going to integrate as well. Perhaps you can immerse yourself in that ecosystem.
    - jolux 6y ago
      Yeah except compatibility like that has never been a legal requirement and I’m not sure how it could become one either.
    - valuearb 6y ago
      If you have to switch to Toyota it’s not going to do everything as well as your Tesla, otherwise Tesla wouldn’t exist. That’s a silly argument.
      - zeusk 6y ago
        My argument is for interoperability and better 3rd party access to APIs within the OS. My argument is not that Android doesn't function as well, I quite liked it infact but all my other apple devices basically lost half their functionality without an iPhone and Apple won't give access to 3rd party developers or itself make those apps for Android. Apple won't even let 3rd party apps integrate with the system like their own do - which is why I wanted to shift away from an iPhone in the first place. Not because I hate or like Android, but because I can replace whatever parts of Google I don't like
  - damnyou 6y ago
    Not fine by me regardless of monopoly status, and I believe it should be not fine by public policy either.
    - tesmar2 6y ago
      Not fine for a company to sell you a device on their own terms?
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      If you don't like the Apple ecosystem, feel free to ignore it. Just pretend it doesn't exist.
      - damnyou 6y ago
        I can pretend Apple's ecosystem doesn't exist, but I can't pretend that all of the negative externalities of Apple's ecosystem don't exist.
damnyou 6y ago
OK, fair. The goal should be to make models like Apple's app store, regardless of the corporation, against public policy.
- tesmar2 6y ago
  Why? If someone wants to offer that it’s fine. But to force it is an unjustified intrusion into the market.
  - damnyou 6y ago
    It's actually a completely justified intrusion into the market. To answer questions posed by others since I'm apparently posting too fast: The reasons governments should intervene are well-elaborated in the blog post under discussion. Governments worldwide already have plenty of control over what terms corporations can sell their wares to people on. For example, in Europe you must offer at least two years of warranty. Corporations are government-granted legal fictions, so a government is free to impose whatever constraints it wants on corporations. In return, corporations get plenty of benefits like the ability to declare bankruptcy and not have it hit the pocketbooks of its executives. I would be fine with a regime where if a corporation doesn't abide by the rules, its executives become personally liable for debts, for example.
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      But why?
    - tesmar2 6y ago
      By what standard are you claiming justification besides “it has been done before”? > so a government is free to impose whatever constraints it wants on corporations Sorry this is just stated, not justified. I happen to think that the government should not have unilateral control.
      - damnyou 6y ago
        It's the truth. Unilateral control is the reality, and I'm interested in exploring how to harness it to improve the lot of humanity. For example, I think Stripe should be able to compete with Apple to be a payment provider on Apple's platform. As I said, I would be a fine with a world where if Tim Cook doesn't want to play by the government's rules, he is jointly and severally liable for Apple's debts. There are real benefits that come with being a corporation. There need to be responbilities to society as well.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]