5 ms·

Sure, and Keurig has a monopoly on coffee if you own a Keurig machine and don't buy from Starbucks. While these corporate actions are anti-consumer, they do n

by ghayes 6y ago

Sure, and Keurig has a monopoly on coffee if you own a Keurig machine and don't buy from Starbucks. While these corporate actions *are* anti-consumer, they do not generally fall in line with the standard definition of a monopoly, which includes looking at the the whole market, not just a sub-section of it. E.g. my local golf course also has a monopoly on golf balls while I'm in their pro-shop.

erhk 6y ago
Make up a new word and fine them all the same. If you engage in anti consumer practices then I, a consumer, highly endorse anti corporate legislation.
- RunawayGalaxy 6y ago
  TBH this is reasonable. I'm not on the side of Apple, but the monopoly claim is ridiculous to me.
- Someone 6y ago
  Creating new law IMO, indeed is the way to go. Fining them for things they do now before such law exists, however, should not be pursued. Ex post acte law is forbidden in large parts of the world for good reason. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law: Ex post facto criminalization is also prohibited by Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 15(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Article 9 of the American Convention on Human Rights. While American jurisdictions generally prohibit ex post facto laws, European countries apply the principle of lex mitior ("the milder law"). It provides that, if the law has changed after an offense was committed, the version of the law that applies is the one that is more advantageous for the accused. This means that ex post facto laws apply in European jurisdictions to the extent that they are the milder law.
  - hyperman1 6y ago
    Do human rights apply to corporations? E.g. in my country, Belgium, There is a difference between a law person vs natural person. I had assumed only a natural person can claim human rights, but I might be wrong here.
Leherenn 6y ago
Isn't the whole issue the definition of the market? That's going to be highly subjective. Are Samsung and Google phones running Android the same market? Most people would say yes. Are phones and tablets, or computing devices in general the same market? Most people would say no. iOS and Android? It gets murky, the cost of switching is high and fungibility is debatable.
zepto 5y ago
Are they anti-consumer? Many people seem to disagree. I want a Linux based phone with the performance of an iPhone and a decentralized App Store with an auditable chain of trust. I also want an information appliance that is trivial to use and completely managed by a third party I trust. Why can’t I have both?
- moooo99 5y ago
  They definitely are anti-consumer and nobody who actually looked into the topic would disagree. Apple has a monopoly on software distribution on their mobile devices and they force companies to use their IAP api which comes with a heavy fine, which leads to developers (rightfully) increasing the prices. The same goes for Google, the only argument that could be made in the benefit for Google is that it is possible to install Apps from other sources. Apple is the gatekeeper for anything that gets on their mobile devices (they can't really be considered yours). Apple and the review process are the ones who decide what is a useful tool and what not, what could be considered harmful to their customers etc. This way their consumers missing out at a lot. Many die hard Apple fans would argue with the perceived sense of security, but recent events perfectly demonstrate that even the most strict gatekeeper, the review process, is insufficient to provide security to unknown users. The best thing companies can do to enhance their users security is to educate them. The software is not the only position where Apple shows monopolistic and anti-consumer behavior, their hardware repair is another great example but not the topic
  - zepto 5y ago
    > They definitely are anti-consumer and nobody who actually looked into the topic would disagree. This renders the rest of the comment meaningless in the context of a platform intended for curiousity and debate, so I didn’t read past it.
  - jsnell 5y ago
    > the only argument that could be made in the benefit for Google is that it is possible to install Apps from other sources. That's already a pretty big difference by itself, but in addition to that the Play Store is much more permissive about use of third party payment providers. So e.g. Apple can (and does) sell Apple Music subscriptions on Android without a 30% tax. The converse is not possible.
maxwell 5y ago
Starbucks makes licensed K-Cups: https://athome.starbucks.com/coffees-by-format/k-cup-pods https://athome.starbucks.com/coffees-by-format/k-cup-pods Keurig doesn't have a monopoly on anything except licensing their name. Unlicensed third-party compatible cups are readily available. Keurig machines are more Windows/macOS than Android/iOS. https://www.gourmesso.com/collections/all-keurig-blends https://www.gourmesso.com/collections/all-keurig-blends https://shoponline.melitta.com/pages/javajig https://shoponline.melitta.com/pages/javajig etc. I'm holding out for a PINE64 PineBrew FOSS coffee maker myself.

Sure, and Keurig has a monopoly on coffee if you own a Keurig machine and don't buy from Starbucks. While these corporate actions *are* anti-consumer, they do n

by ghayes 6y ago

erhk 6y ago

Make up a new word and fine them all the same. If you engage in anti consumer practices then I, a consumer, highly endorse anti corporate legislation.

RunawayGalaxy 6y ago
TBH this is reasonable. I'm not on the side of Apple, but the monopoly claim is ridiculous to me.
Someone 6y ago
Creating new law IMO, indeed is the way to go. Fining them for things they do now before such law exists, however, should not be pursued. Ex post acte law is forbidden in large parts of the world for good reason. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law: Ex post facto criminalization is also prohibited by Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 15(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Article 9 of the American Convention on Human Rights. While American jurisdictions generally prohibit ex post facto laws, European countries apply the principle of lex mitior ("the milder law"). It provides that, if the law has changed after an offense was committed, the version of the law that applies is the one that is more advantageous for the accused. This means that ex post facto laws apply in European jurisdictions to the extent that they are the milder law.
- hyperman1 6y ago
  Do human rights apply to corporations? E.g. in my country, Belgium, There is a difference between a law person vs natural person. I had assumed only a natural person can claim human rights, but I might be wrong here.

Leherenn 6y ago

Isn't the whole issue the definition of the market? That's going to be highly subjective. Are Samsung and Google phones running Android the same market? Most people would say yes. Are phones and tablets, or computing devices in general the same market? Most people would say no. iOS and Android? It gets murky, the cost of switching is high and fungibility is debatable.

zepto 5y ago

Are they anti-consumer? Many people seem to disagree. I want a Linux based phone with the performance of an iPhone and a decentralized App Store with an auditable chain of trust. I also want an information appliance that is trivial to use and completely managed by a third party I trust. Why can’t I have both?

moooo99 5y ago
They definitely are anti-consumer and nobody who actually looked into the topic would disagree. Apple has a monopoly on software distribution on their mobile devices and they force companies to use their IAP api which comes with a heavy fine, which leads to developers (rightfully) increasing the prices. The same goes for Google, the only argument that could be made in the benefit for Google is that it is possible to install Apps from other sources. Apple is the gatekeeper for anything that gets on their mobile devices (they can't really be considered yours). Apple and the review process are the ones who decide what is a useful tool and what not, what could be considered harmful to their customers etc. This way their consumers missing out at a lot. Many die hard Apple fans would argue with the perceived sense of security, but recent events perfectly demonstrate that even the most strict gatekeeper, the review process, is insufficient to provide security to unknown users. The best thing companies can do to enhance their users security is to educate them. The software is not the only position where Apple shows monopolistic and anti-consumer behavior, their hardware repair is another great example but not the topic
- zepto 5y ago
  > They definitely are anti-consumer and nobody who actually looked into the topic would disagree. This renders the rest of the comment meaningless in the context of a platform intended for curiousity and debate, so I didn’t read past it.
- jsnell 5y ago
  > the only argument that could be made in the benefit for Google is that it is possible to install Apps from other sources. That's already a pretty big difference by itself, but in addition to that the Play Store is much more permissive about use of third party payment providers. So e.g. Apple can (and does) sell Apple Music subscriptions on Android without a 30% tax. The converse is not possible.

maxwell 5y ago

Starbucks makes licensed K-Cups: https://athome.starbucks.com/coffees-by-format/k-cup-pods https://athome.starbucks.com/coffees-by-format/k-cup-pods Keurig doesn't have a monopoly on anything except licensing their name. Unlicensed third-party compatible cups are readily available. Keurig machines are more Windows/macOS than Android/iOS. https://www.gourmesso.com/collections/all-keurig-blends https://www.gourmesso.com/collections/all-keurig-blends https://shoponline.melitta.com/pages/javajig https://shoponline.melitta.com/pages/javajig etc. I'm holding out for a PINE64 PineBrew FOSS coffee maker myself.