3 ms·

Let me put it this way - Microsoft signed on to the suit too, but how many competing app stores does Microsoft allow on the Xbox? They have their own twisted l

by paulmd 6y ago

Let me put it this way - Microsoft signed on to the suit too, but how many competing app stores does Microsoft allow on the Xbox? They have their own twisted logic on why Apple should have to open up and they shouldn't, but none of these companies are doing it for the morals, they want to use the courts to lever open Apple's bank vault and will then immediately turn around and argue why those rules shouldn't apply to them. They also don't really care about the impact it will have on end-users w/r/t large apps immediately starting their own "app stores" to bypass app review and start exploiting user data. Apple's an easy target because Apple as a corporation is far more unpopular than, say, Microsoft or Sony, but these other companies use the exact same business model, and when it comes down to it they will cite the exact same reasons. "Oh we wouldn't want malware, sexual content, or malicious software to take root on the Xbox" and so on.

josephg 6y ago
I hear what you’re saying, but the business model is different on the Xbox and PlayStation. On those consoles the devices themselves are sold at a loss with the expectation that the user will buy at least a few games. That’s not true of the iPhone - you bought the thing. What you do with it should arguably not be up to Apple any more. Maybe a better example would be the Nintendo switch - and I’m sympathetic to the idea that I should be able to install and run whatever software I want on my device. I wish I could install Netflix, but I can’t and that’s really annoying. I hear you about big companies forcing you into their app stores so they can exploit your user data. That’s a real worry; and I’m not sure what the right approach is there. Does this happen on android, where you can enter dev mode and install other app stores? I love that aspect of the iPhone - although I also wish I could have sexual content on my phone without Apple judging me for it.
- paulmd 6y ago
  This is all a far cry from grandparent's "it should be illegal to operate on a percentage-of-gross-revenue business model, only fixed prices". Why do you think it should be legal for clients to sue because they don't like the pricing model? Apple only controls 13% of the smartphone market. They're not a monopoly here. They're in fact the minority player in the market, significantly so. Monopoly rules only come into play when a monopoly actually exists, and a business exploits that monopoly to their competitive advantage. Is 13% a monopoly power?
  - josephg 6y ago
    Apple owns and runs 100% of the iphone app marketplace, enforced digitally. They're charging monopoly rates (30% of any money spent in any app, including things like spotify subscriptions, which make no sense). With a discount to 15% for small apps. 100% is a monopoly power, yes. The situation itself is nuanced. There are two extreme positions here, and I don't think the right answer belongs to either extreme view. We don't want the government to outlaw innovative business plans. And we don't want large, established companies using anticompetitive tactics to hurt competition and innovation. But as I understand it, the precedent here is based on the question of "Are smartphone apps the same business / marketplace as phones". For an xbox, I could imagine the courts saying that the product is essentially a games service, competing with other games services (eg the playstation). So thats acceptable. But microsoft bundling IE with windows a few decades ago is different - those are two marketplaces. One for operating systems, and another for web browsers. In that case, its anticompetitive to use OS dominance to unfairly outcompete in the web browser marketplace. Are phones more like windows, or are phones more like an xbox? I see your point, but personally I think they're more like windows. And the law should treat them as such. Competition is good for users in the short term, and generally good for an industry in the long term too.

by paulmd 6y ago

josephg 6y ago

I hear what you’re saying, but the business model is different on the Xbox and PlayStation. On those consoles the devices themselves are sold at a loss with the expectation that the user will buy at least a few games. That’s not true of the iPhone - you bought the thing. What you do with it should arguably not be up to Apple any more. Maybe a better example would be the Nintendo switch - and I’m sympathetic to the idea that I should be able to install and run whatever software I want on my device. I wish I could install Netflix, but I can’t and that’s really annoying. I hear you about big companies forcing you into their app stores so they can exploit your user data. That’s a real worry; and I’m not sure what the right approach is there. Does this happen on android, where you can enter dev mode and install other app stores? I love that aspect of the iPhone - although I also wish I could have sexual content on my phone without Apple judging me for it.

paulmd 6y ago
This is all a far cry from grandparent's "it should be illegal to operate on a percentage-of-gross-revenue business model, only fixed prices". Why do you think it should be legal for clients to sue because they don't like the pricing model? Apple only controls 13% of the smartphone market. They're not a monopoly here. They're in fact the minority player in the market, significantly so. Monopoly rules only come into play when a monopoly actually exists, and a business exploits that monopoly to their competitive advantage. Is 13% a monopoly power?
- josephg 6y ago
  Apple owns and runs 100% of the iphone app marketplace, enforced digitally. They're charging monopoly rates (30% of any money spent in any app, including things like spotify subscriptions, which make no sense). With a discount to 15% for small apps. 100% is a monopoly power, yes. The situation itself is nuanced. There are two extreme positions here, and I don't think the right answer belongs to either extreme view. We don't want the government to outlaw innovative business plans. And we don't want large, established companies using anticompetitive tactics to hurt competition and innovation. But as I understand it, the precedent here is based on the question of "Are smartphone apps the same business / marketplace as phones". For an xbox, I could imagine the courts saying that the product is essentially a games service, competing with other games services (eg the playstation). So thats acceptable. But microsoft bundling IE with windows a few decades ago is different - those are two marketplaces. One for operating systems, and another for web browsers. In that case, its anticompetitive to use OS dominance to unfairly outcompete in the web browser marketplace. Are phones more like windows, or are phones more like an xbox? I see your point, but personally I think they're more like windows. And the law should treat them as such. Competition is good for users in the short term, and generally good for an industry in the long term too.