5 ms·

I have no issue with app stores moderating their own service. I just want 10 equally reach weighted stores instead of 2 that coordinate.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
Apparently, not enough people do to make it economically sustainable.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  Which is why antitrust enforcement is important.
  - trident5000 6y ago
    Which is hard to do when a cartel greases our representatives in direct and indirect bribery (record setting campaign donations and banning their political opposition).
- slowhand09 6y ago
  Right... only most of the world's population...
colejohnson66 6y ago
Bandwagoning isn’t coordinating
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  This is a loophole that deserves to be closed.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    >> Bandwagoning isn’t coordinating > This is a loophole that deserves to be closed. How is it a loophole? It's freedom of association, which is protected by the First Amendment.
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    What loophole? “Twitter took the first step, so now it’s safe for us to” isn’t collusion anymore than when someone joins Parler/Gab because it’s the “hip new thing”. If you want to talk about the insane power these platforms have, that’s one thing, but to claim that they’re “conspiring” (I’m assuming you mean to deplatform conservative views) isn’t arguing in good faith.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      The only difference between conspiring and conscious parallelism is saying that you're doing it out loud. Let's use the classic example -- raising prices. Suppose you have a market with two companies. If they get together in a room and conspire to fix prices, that's illegal. So here's what they do instead. First, one of them raises prices. They know that isn't going to end well for them unless the other one does it, because otherwise they'll lose business to the other one which now has a lower price. If the other one doesn't promptly respond by raising prices too, they'll have to lower them again. So that action is really an invitation to coordinate in raising prices. Because they both know that. It's obvious that the one can't profitably raise prices unless the other one does. So now the other company has a choice. Option one, leave prices where they are, causing their competitor to have to lower them again before their own company actually gains any significant market share as a result of the lower prices. Option two, raise prices to match, and now they both make more money. Option two is better for both companies. They both make more money and the only risk is that the higher margins attract a third competitor who comes in to undercut them. If that isn't likely or can be made unlikely through some exclusionary mechanism then they both get to raise prices to the monopoly price. It's exactly the same thing as the price fixing conspiracy except that they never said it out loud. It's a loophole. And it's also the difference here: > isn’t collusion anymore than when someone joins Parler/Gab because it’s the “hip new thing”. The users are too diffuse for the coordination mechanism to operate, and without it they don't have market power. At the point when each site has a proportionate share of the users, no individual user has any reason to use a given site other than because they like it better, and their individual choice doesn't affect the collective outcome enough to justify making it strategically. Basically, it only applies to concentrated markets.
jbob2000 6y ago
It would take a large stroke of global authoritarian action to get what you want. There are 2 stores because that's about what the market can support right now. Any more and you divide the development base too thin, companies cut budgets, and you end up with... two stores.
- fsflover 6y ago
  > There are 2 stores because that's about what the market can support right now. I think this restrictions is caused by their walled-garden approach. If we forced interoperability, the situation would immediately improve.
  - trident5000 6y ago
    In other words Apple needs to let other app stores into their phones as an example.
  - akhilcacharya 6y ago
    For the record there are dozens of alt app stores on Android.
    - fsflover 6y ago
      And how many people use them? We are talking about the duopoly.
Bud 6y ago
That's a nice fantasy you're having. What magical power is supposed to ensure that whole "equally reach weighted" part? Because I'll lay 10:1 odds that guaranteeing that would be much more oppressive than a one-time temporary ban on a Nazi app.
- trident5000 6y ago
  The DOJ handles antitrust. Its not fantasy for anyone thats looks to history, you might remember when telecom was broken up. That was reach that was then fragmented. This issue is larger than your individual assessment of what Parler was and regardless of what "side" you are on politically.
  - darkwizard42 6y ago
    You can't geo-divide an app store...Also the way DOJ broke up Ma Bell is largely viewed as a failure given the amount of company consolidation that occurred in the years following
    - trident5000 6y ago
      Who said we are going to geo-divide app stores? The failure was the follow up effort of the DOJ for not blocking mergers thereafter, not the initial break-up.
    - throwaway568468 6y ago
      Multiple countries have local app store on Android. I don't see why the app store could not be geo-divided. It might not be the best or even a good way to reinstate some competition however.
kgwxd 6y ago
I just want no app stores. Completely useless middleman.
- fsflover 6y ago
  So the phone Purism advertises in the article should suit you well. It's a desktop GNU/Linux, so you can install everything as you wish.
  - kwhitefoot 6y ago
    Except that very often the app is not available for that platform.
    - fsflover 6y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25835256 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25835256
    - UncleMeat 6y ago
      Okay. People have been developing for Windows and excluding Linux for decades. Demanding that people develop for your very niche desired use case is just going to be unreasonable a huge amount of the time.
      - kwhitefoot 6y ago
        > your very niche desired use case I don't think that my bank (SBanken) would agree that its app (which is very good by the way) is serving a niche use case but they nonetheless only provide it for unrooted Android and IPhone.
  - kgwxd 6y ago
    I've been watching it very closely for years. I've been waiting for it to become a little more stable as a product. It might already be there for me, but I just bought a Jelly 2 and I'm liking the smallness for now. I use F-Droid to install most apps I use anyway, which isn't many.
ardy42 6y ago
> I have no issue with app stores moderating their own service. I just want 10 equally reach weighted stores instead of 2 that coordinate. Do you have evidence that Apple, Google, and Amazon actually coordinated (e.g. met and agreed on a common plan)? I think it's more likely that they made similar judgements based on the same information.
- trident5000 6y ago
  Coordination doesnt need to be explicit, it can be circumstantial. And further, coordination isnt a requirement for a duopoly to simply exist and be anti free market. But to put the tin foil hat on, it would be naive to think the heads of these companies do not talk to their parallels. Its a pretty small club at the top. Obviously I do not have access to their calls and meetings and can prove none of this but I've worked with high up executives in other fields and know how the sausage is made even in more fragmented markets.

lotsofpulp 6y ago

Apparently, not enough people do to make it economically sustainable.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
Which is why antitrust enforcement is important.
- trident5000 6y ago
  Which is hard to do when a cartel greases our representatives in direct and indirect bribery (record setting campaign donations and banning their political opposition).
slowhand09 6y ago
Right... only most of the world's population...

colejohnson66 6y ago

Bandwagoning isn’t coordinating

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
This is a loophole that deserves to be closed.
- ardy42 6y ago
  >> Bandwagoning isn’t coordinating > This is a loophole that deserves to be closed. How is it a loophole? It's freedom of association, which is protected by the First Amendment.
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  What loophole? “Twitter took the first step, so now it’s safe for us to” isn’t collusion anymore than when someone joins Parler/Gab because it’s the “hip new thing”. If you want to talk about the insane power these platforms have, that’s one thing, but to claim that they’re “conspiring” (I’m assuming you mean to deplatform conservative views) isn’t arguing in good faith.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    The only difference between conspiring and conscious parallelism is saying that you're doing it out loud. Let's use the classic example -- raising prices. Suppose you have a market with two companies. If they get together in a room and conspire to fix prices, that's illegal. So here's what they do instead. First, one of them raises prices. They know that isn't going to end well for them unless the other one does it, because otherwise they'll lose business to the other one which now has a lower price. If the other one doesn't promptly respond by raising prices too, they'll have to lower them again. So that action is really an invitation to coordinate in raising prices. Because they both know that. It's obvious that the one can't profitably raise prices unless the other one does. So now the other company has a choice. Option one, leave prices where they are, causing their competitor to have to lower them again before their own company actually gains any significant market share as a result of the lower prices. Option two, raise prices to match, and now they both make more money. Option two is better for both companies. They both make more money and the only risk is that the higher margins attract a third competitor who comes in to undercut them. If that isn't likely or can be made unlikely through some exclusionary mechanism then they both get to raise prices to the monopoly price. It's exactly the same thing as the price fixing conspiracy except that they never said it out loud. It's a loophole. And it's also the difference here: > isn’t collusion anymore than when someone joins Parler/Gab because it’s the “hip new thing”. The users are too diffuse for the coordination mechanism to operate, and without it they don't have market power. At the point when each site has a proportionate share of the users, no individual user has any reason to use a given site other than because they like it better, and their individual choice doesn't affect the collective outcome enough to justify making it strategically. Basically, it only applies to concentrated markets.

jbob2000 6y ago

It would take a large stroke of global authoritarian action to get what you want. There are 2 stores because that's about what the market can support right now. Any more and you divide the development base too thin, companies cut budgets, and you end up with... two stores.

fsflover 6y ago
> There are 2 stores because that's about what the market can support right now. I think this restrictions is caused by their walled-garden approach. If we forced interoperability, the situation would immediately improve.
- trident5000 6y ago
  In other words Apple needs to let other app stores into their phones as an example.
- akhilcacharya 6y ago
  For the record there are dozens of alt app stores on Android.
  - fsflover 6y ago
    And how many people use them? We are talking about the duopoly.

Bud 6y ago

That's a nice fantasy you're having. What magical power is supposed to ensure that whole "equally reach weighted" part? Because I'll lay 10:1 odds that guaranteeing that would be much more oppressive than a one-time temporary ban on a Nazi app.

trident5000 6y ago
The DOJ handles antitrust. Its not fantasy for anyone thats looks to history, you might remember when telecom was broken up. That was reach that was then fragmented. This issue is larger than your individual assessment of what Parler was and regardless of what "side" you are on politically.
- darkwizard42 6y ago
  You can't geo-divide an app store...Also the way DOJ broke up Ma Bell is largely viewed as a failure given the amount of company consolidation that occurred in the years following
  - trident5000 6y ago
    Who said we are going to geo-divide app stores? The failure was the follow up effort of the DOJ for not blocking mergers thereafter, not the initial break-up.
  - throwaway568468 6y ago
    Multiple countries have local app store on Android. I don't see why the app store could not be geo-divided. It might not be the best or even a good way to reinstate some competition however.

kgwxd 6y ago

I just want no app stores. Completely useless middleman.

fsflover 6y ago
So the phone Purism advertises in the article should suit you well. It's a desktop GNU/Linux, so you can install everything as you wish.
- kwhitefoot 6y ago
  Except that very often the app is not available for that platform.
  - fsflover 6y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25835256 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25835256
  - UncleMeat 6y ago
    Okay. People have been developing for Windows and excluding Linux for decades. Demanding that people develop for your very niche desired use case is just going to be unreasonable a huge amount of the time.
    - kwhitefoot 6y ago
      > your very niche desired use case I don't think that my bank (SBanken) would agree that its app (which is very good by the way) is serving a niche use case but they nonetheless only provide it for unrooted Android and IPhone.
- kgwxd 6y ago
  I've been watching it very closely for years. I've been waiting for it to become a little more stable as a product. It might already be there for me, but I just bought a Jelly 2 and I'm liking the smallness for now. I use F-Droid to install most apps I use anyway, which isn't many.

ardy42 6y ago

> I have no issue with app stores moderating their own service. I just want 10 equally reach weighted stores instead of 2 that coordinate. Do you have evidence that Apple, Google, and Amazon actually coordinated (e.g. met and agreed on a common plan)? I think it's more likely that they made similar judgements based on the same information.

trident5000 6y ago
Coordination doesnt need to be explicit, it can be circumstantial. And further, coordination isnt a requirement for a duopoly to simply exist and be anti free market. But to put the tin foil hat on, it would be naive to think the heads of these companies do not talk to their parallels. Its a pretty small club at the top. Obviously I do not have access to their calls and meetings and can prove none of this but I've worked with high up executives in other fields and know how the sausage is made even in more fragmented markets.