4 ms·

i think it's not productive to call it a literal/actual/effective monopoly, since it's designed to be monopoly. The problem is not so much that it's a monopoly

i think it's not productive to call it a literal/actual/effective monopoly, since it's designed to be monopoly. The problem is not so much that it's a monopoly but that it advertises itself to developers and to users as being an open more or less market, which it isn't since it's by design rigged and censored. There's a legal gap here probably because such situations are unprecedented (where a company builds a market completely controlled by itself). Do sellers and buyers have fundamental rights in a free market economy?

chii 6y ago
> situations are unprecedented (where a company builds a market completely controlled by itself) not really. Malls are in a similar situation. If you own the mall, you get to dictate whether the tenants are allowed or not. They pay rent to remain in the mall, and there's some rules they must follow or they get kicked out (rules which are made clear upfront). The difference between a mall and the app store is that there can be competing malls (say, right next door!), but currently, apple has made it impossible to create competing app stores. But malls themselves have a natural monopoly, because of pysics - pauli's exclusion principle - you cannot occupy the same space as another mall. So the law should account for this, and make sure that the app store is just as fair as a mall is today.
- cblconfederate 6y ago
  I dont consider that a good analogy - if a mall closes a cinema because it doesn't like a movie, or a bakery because it baked a cake, there would be legal repercusions for them while apple's developer contract doesn't seem to have lots of legal protections for the seller, or the buyer. Also, a mall doesn't benefit from dictating these decisions in a direct way the way apple does: apps are selected on the basis of improving the value (and price/desirability) of apple's products, not on the basis of giving user satisfaction/choice (when these two conflict) A closer analogy would be a gas station made by Ford that is the only station that that Fords can use. Or Tesla's charger network where competing companies could be invited , but be at their whims. Well, pauli's principle allows up to 2 malls in the same place
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    > if a mall closes a cinema because it doesn't like a movie, or a bakery because it baked a cake,... Would they though? If a movie theater refuses to show a certain movie, that’s legal. A mall is just refusing to house a tenant they don’t agree with. Apartment owners are allowed to refuse to rent to you for any reason (not covered under a protected class).
zepto 6y ago
> it advertises itself to developers and to users as being an open more or less market This is about as false as a statement can get. Every developer signs a contract agreeing to the rules, and Apple’s marketing page for the store highlights the curation and review as a selling point. Tim Cook says out loud we believe in curation and review at every possible opportunity. Nowhere does Apple ever suggest that the App Store is an open market.
- cblconfederate 6y ago
  First sentence in Apple's developer agreement: > no legal partnership or agency relationship is created between you and Apple So developers have no legal obligation to follow the rules Here's the app store descrption: > The App Store for iPhone, iPad, Mac, Apple Watch, Apple TV, and iMessage, makes it easy for over a billion customers around the world to discover and download your apps. There are no hosting fees and Apple handles all payment processing.
  - zepto 6y ago
    >> no legal partnership or agency relationship is created between you and Apple > So developers have no legal obligation to follow the rules Another completely false statement. It’s still a binding contract. This just means you don’t understand the legal terms ‘partnership’ and ‘agency’. I am not an attorney but I recommend you consult one.
TheCoelacanth 6y ago
> it's designed to be monopoly How is being designed to be illegal a defense? If anything, that makes it worse.

chii 6y ago

> situations are unprecedented (where a company builds a market completely controlled by itself) not really. Malls are in a similar situation. If you own the mall, you get to dictate whether the tenants are allowed or not. They pay rent to remain in the mall, and there's some rules they must follow or they get kicked out (rules which are made clear upfront). The difference between a mall and the app store is that there can be competing malls (say, right next door!), but currently, apple has made it impossible to create competing app stores. But malls themselves have a natural monopoly, because of pysics - pauli's exclusion principle - you cannot occupy the same space as another mall. So the law should account for this, and make sure that the app store is just as fair as a mall is today.

cblconfederate 6y ago
I dont consider that a good analogy - if a mall closes a cinema because it doesn't like a movie, or a bakery because it baked a cake, there would be legal repercusions for them while apple's developer contract doesn't seem to have lots of legal protections for the seller, or the buyer. Also, a mall doesn't benefit from dictating these decisions in a direct way the way apple does: apps are selected on the basis of improving the value (and price/desirability) of apple's products, not on the basis of giving user satisfaction/choice (when these two conflict) A closer analogy would be a gas station made by Ford that is the only station that that Fords can use. Or Tesla's charger network where competing companies could be invited , but be at their whims. Well, pauli's principle allows up to 2 malls in the same place
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  > if a mall closes a cinema because it doesn't like a movie, or a bakery because it baked a cake,... Would they though? If a movie theater refuses to show a certain movie, that’s legal. A mall is just refusing to house a tenant they don’t agree with. Apartment owners are allowed to refuse to rent to you for any reason (not covered under a protected class).

zepto 6y ago

> it advertises itself to developers and to users as being an open more or less market This is about as false as a statement can get. Every developer signs a contract agreeing to the rules, and Apple’s marketing page for the store highlights the curation and review as a selling point. Tim Cook says out loud we believe in curation and review at every possible opportunity. Nowhere does Apple ever suggest that the App Store is an open market.

cblconfederate 6y ago
First sentence in Apple's developer agreement: > no legal partnership or agency relationship is created between you and Apple So developers have no legal obligation to follow the rules Here's the app store descrption: > The App Store for iPhone, iPad, Mac, Apple Watch, Apple TV, and iMessage, makes it easy for over a billion customers around the world to discover and download your apps. There are no hosting fees and Apple handles all payment processing.
- zepto 6y ago
  >> no legal partnership or agency relationship is created between you and Apple > So developers have no legal obligation to follow the rules Another completely false statement. It’s still a binding contract. This just means you don’t understand the legal terms ‘partnership’ and ‘agency’. I am not an attorney but I recommend you consult one.

TheCoelacanth 6y ago

> it's designed to be monopoly How is being designed to be illegal a defense? If anything, that makes it worse.