2 ms·

> What precedent are we setting by legally mandating what a corporation can do on a platform they solely built? This does not concern setting precedents. The a

by y7 5y ago

> What precedent are we setting by legally mandating what a corporation can do on a platform they solely built? This does not concern setting precedents. The antitrust laws are already there, this is just a case of them being applied. More broadly speaking, I'm not really sensitive to the argument "they built the platform, so they should get to choose to do with it whatever they want". Network effects are so large that there is effectively zero competition. What little competition there is can be easily squashed by Apple throwing a minuscule portion of its capital at it. We need strong regulation to counter this, and to give small businesses a chance.

indigochill 5y ago
> Network effects are so large... Then are these network effects worth paying 30% for or not? If yes, you've just conceded the price is fair. If no, then Purism's Librem exists (and will not be bought by Apple). > We need strong regulation to counter this, and to give small businesses a chance. The same way it gave small railroad companies a chance? Or small oil, or small pharmaceutical, or small telecom? National legislation historically has been a method of pulling up the ladder behind robber barons, not of giving the little guy a chance.
- username90 5y ago
  > Then are these network effects worth paying 30% for or not? If yes, you've just conceded the price is fair. If no, then Purism's Librem exists (and will not be bought by Apple). EU forcing Apple to lower app store fees to 5% or something similar wouldn't remove the network effect though, there is no incentive for EU to allow Apple to extract that fee. Tell me this, what would EU lose by capping App store fees in general? App stores would still operate there, App store companies would still be very profitable, they would just be less of a leech on the economy. > The same way it gave small railroad companies a chance? Or small oil, or small pharmaceutical, or small telecom? Regulating those companies greatly reduced their ability to extract money from the market and therefore contributed to the plethora of small companies in other domains we see today. We don't see small companies in oil or pharma since those domains requires scale, which is why we instead of forcing competition force regulations on them to make them do the right thing. I mean, imagine if we let the oil companies take 30% of GDP as revenue, it would totally ruin the economy and prevent us from progressing as a society. You could argue that those oil companies deserved to get that much money since without them how would we get to work? But, fact is that giving large companies that much money doesn't benefit anyone but their shareholders.
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
>"legally mandating what a corporation can do" Can we please stop pretending corporations have feeling and liberties the way natural persons do? It reads like collective insanity "stones have feeling too".

by y7 5y ago

indigochill 5y ago

> Network effects are so large... Then are these network effects worth paying 30% for or not? If yes, you've just conceded the price is fair. If no, then Purism's Librem exists (and will not be bought by Apple). > We need strong regulation to counter this, and to give small businesses a chance. The same way it gave small railroad companies a chance? Or small oil, or small pharmaceutical, or small telecom? National legislation historically has been a method of pulling up the ladder behind robber barons, not of giving the little guy a chance.

username90 5y ago
> Then are these network effects worth paying 30% for or not? If yes, you've just conceded the price is fair. If no, then Purism's Librem exists (and will not be bought by Apple). EU forcing Apple to lower app store fees to 5% or something similar wouldn't remove the network effect though, there is no incentive for EU to allow Apple to extract that fee. Tell me this, what would EU lose by capping App store fees in general? App stores would still operate there, App store companies would still be very profitable, they would just be less of a leech on the economy. > The same way it gave small railroad companies a chance? Or small oil, or small pharmaceutical, or small telecom? Regulating those companies greatly reduced their ability to extract money from the market and therefore contributed to the plethora of small companies in other domains we see today. We don't see small companies in oil or pharma since those domains requires scale, which is why we instead of forcing competition force regulations on them to make them do the right thing. I mean, imagine if we let the oil companies take 30% of GDP as revenue, it would totally ruin the economy and prevent us from progressing as a society. You could argue that those oil companies deserved to get that much money since without them how would we get to work? But, fact is that giving large companies that much money doesn't benefit anyone but their shareholders.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

>"legally mandating what a corporation can do" Can we please stop pretending corporations have feeling and liberties the way natural persons do? It reads like collective insanity "stones have feeling too".