5 ms·

People pretend that for-profit entities are supposed to build platform as a public good. When in fact corporations are incentivized by the market to be a monopo

by f6v 6y ago

People pretend that for-profit entities are supposed to build platform as a public good. When in fact corporations are incentivized by the market to be a monopoly.

simion314 6y ago
You should not be allowed to build a platform and then compete unfair with apps for that platform.
- f6v 6y ago
  Why build a platform then?
  - simion314 6y ago
    Don't build one, build good products that users want and not forced to use. But this is from the users point of view. From a capitalistic point of view I agree you need to screw the users and environment as much as legally possible.
    - bennysomething 6y ago
      How do apple "screw" users. Anyone buying Apple products is making choice: keep my money or spend on a thing I find beneficial. I think anyone would be forgiven for calling this a first world problem. Getting screwed usually means having money stolen. Here it just means demanding someone else's services cheaper.
      - simion314 6y ago
        >How do apple "screw" users. Apple forbids you to put a link or a text message in your app to inform the users that they could pay for a subscription or product on a webpage. So how can we spin "forcing developers not to inform users so users pay more and Apple makes more money" in such a way where this is not "screwing users". If I was a fanboy I would say that "most iOS users are poor old grandmas and to much information and options is too much for them AND for sure the grandma hit I agree on the TOS where Apple says that they force users to hide useful information"
bennysomething 6y ago
Apple aren't even close to a monopoly. If the app store wasn't useful to the public the public wouldn't use it.
- f6v 6y ago
  > Apple aren't even close to a monopoly. Let's see if the EU says "No, it is" and shakes apple for some money.
  - bennysomething 6y ago
    So if the EU say it's s monopoly it is? Given there are multiple places to stream music I find it hard to think of it as a monopoly.
    - f6v 6y ago
      I’m not an economist so my naïve reasoning is: 1. Is Apple using their platform to promote their services? Yes. 2. Is Apple making it harder for competition to compete on their platform? Yes. Someone mentioned Apple Music is not a subject to 15-30% fees while Spotify is. 3. Are companies building platforms to do exactly that? Also yes. There’s no point in building platform and not using the benefits of controlling it. So where does that leave us? Apple is doing exactly as you’d expect it to do. Government will try to restrict that, that’s what it’s for. What I don’t get is why people are so emotional about it. It’s all out in the open, why pretend Apple isn’t using their platform ownership to undermine completion? Why get upset that they do? People perceive this situation as black and white, nothing in between.

by f6v 6y ago

People pretend that for-profit entities are supposed to build platform as a public good. When in fact corporations are incentivized by the market to be a monopoly.

simion314 6y ago

You should not be allowed to build a platform and then compete unfair with apps for that platform.

f6v 6y ago
Why build a platform then?
- simion314 6y ago
  Don't build one, build good products that users want and not forced to use. But this is from the users point of view. From a capitalistic point of view I agree you need to screw the users and environment as much as legally possible.
  - bennysomething 6y ago
    How do apple "screw" users. Anyone buying Apple products is making choice: keep my money or spend on a thing I find beneficial. I think anyone would be forgiven for calling this a first world problem. Getting screwed usually means having money stolen. Here it just means demanding someone else's services cheaper.
    - simion314 6y ago
      >How do apple "screw" users. Apple forbids you to put a link or a text message in your app to inform the users that they could pay for a subscription or product on a webpage. So how can we spin "forcing developers not to inform users so users pay more and Apple makes more money" in such a way where this is not "screwing users". If I was a fanboy I would say that "most iOS users are poor old grandmas and to much information and options is too much for them AND for sure the grandma hit I agree on the TOS where Apple says that they force users to hide useful information"

bennysomething 6y ago

Apple aren't even close to a monopoly. If the app store wasn't useful to the public the public wouldn't use it.

f6v 6y ago
> Apple aren't even close to a monopoly. Let's see if the EU says "No, it is" and shakes apple for some money.
- bennysomething 6y ago
  So if the EU say it's s monopoly it is? Given there are multiple places to stream music I find it hard to think of it as a monopoly.
  - f6v 6y ago
    I’m not an economist so my naïve reasoning is: 1. Is Apple using their platform to promote their services? Yes. 2. Is Apple making it harder for competition to compete on their platform? Yes. Someone mentioned Apple Music is not a subject to 15-30% fees while Spotify is. 3. Are companies building platforms to do exactly that? Also yes. There’s no point in building platform and not using the benefits of controlling it. So where does that leave us? Apple is doing exactly as you’d expect it to do. Government will try to restrict that, that’s what it’s for. What I don’t get is why people are so emotional about it. It’s all out in the open, why pretend Apple isn’t using their platform ownership to undermine completion? Why get upset that they do? People perceive this situation as black and white, nothing in between.