6 ms·
The slogans are easy but you need to define what "ecosystem" is so we understand the system-wide implications of these attitudes. Can I for example go to Walma
by slver 5y ago
The slogans are easy but you need to define what "ecosystem" is so we understand the system-wide implications of these attitudes.
Can I for example go to Walmart and setup my own store inside their store without having to ask them?
Can I do the same in your local mom-and-pop store?
- ginko 5y agoWhy not? edit: You changed your comment and added your line about mom-and-pop stores. To which I reply that different rules should apply to multi-billion dollar corporations.
- nicoburns 5y agoIt's interesting to consider what the effect of breaking up Walmart into constituent parts (either vertically or horizontally) would be. I'd be willing to bet it'd be a net-positive for the economy. The same is true for the majority of companies that large.
- adam_arthur 5y agoDeleted
- BitwiseFool 5y agoThe kind of ecosystem/business model that Apple has created is so fundamentally different from everything else that real world analogies just don't work. We should avoid using them in this debate.
- slver 5y agoI wasn't using an analogy. I was literally talking about: if this is a law, how it'll ACTUALLY impact every business. If you think what Apple has created is different, again, define it. Let's see how it's fundamentally different and where the line is.
- cmeacham98 5y agoCan you please explain how you go from the hypothetical future of "Apple's 30% app store cut is found to be illegally anti-competitive" to "Walmart would be forced to allow random competitors to open stores physically inside them".
- slver 5y agoI was asking a question. (1) That we define what we mean, so... (2) We can analyze the impact. Here I'm going to do it again. What does it mean "30% store cut is illegally anti-competetive". What does that even mean? Why isn't Apple allowed to charge a fee for maintaining their own store? It's just entirely unclear what's the objection here. Is the objection Apple's cut is too big? Is 5% legal? Is 10%? Should it be 0%? How big should it be? What is everyone even saying? Or is everyone just whining about "big bad corporate is bad, punish bad corporate" and not thinking any deeper than this? Believe it or not, Walmart and all other grocery stores charge 50% for the same service. Even when you order online, actually. Should we sue them for this? If no, why. If yes, why? And the Walmart example came directly from Epic wanting to open a store inside iOS. You don't agree? Again, where's the definition that contradicts this interpretation. Define what you say, so it means something. Right now I just see bunch of emotion and absolutely nothing of substance being said.
- bussierem 5y agoParent does have a point here. His point is not that you can or should compare the two. We know they are different. But the LAW doesn't. How do you define in LEGAL terms how apple and WalMart are different? You can't use the word "ecosystem" like we throw around for apple because it is meaningless in legal terms. So first you need to either find an existing legal term and apply it or you need to make a new one. If you make a new one (because obviously Apples thing doesn't have a normal analogy) then you have to be VERRRRRY CAREFUL how you define it and what exact terms you use because whatever that is will be used and abused by precedence for decades to come.
- dsr_ 5y agoReal world analogies are crucial to the process of reasoning about economic relationships. It's also how lawyers argue and judges decide. Not using them is implausible.
- rictic 5y agoIt's more like, if you buy a Ford car, does Taco Bell owe 30% to Ford when you use their drive through? Or can Ford forbid Taco Bell from operating drive through stores of their own, and require Ford owners to go through Ford's own all purpose drive through stores?
- asda_ 5y agoI mean, you can use the amazon website on the iphone and circumvent all the limitations for example. They want to use the platform apple provides to create apps (good user experiences). So, this analogy doesn't seem apt to me
- Angostura 5y agoShould Taco Bell be legally required to let MacDonalds set up stall rent-free in their stores?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- stale2002 5y agoThis is a false analogy. People who purchased a phone, own that phone. Apple doesn't own it anymore. Thats the difference. McDonald's own the store. But they don't own your car. And similarly, Apple does not own your phone, but they go to great efforts to prevent you from using other app stores.
- slver 5y agoYou own a phone yes. But you don’t own iOS. So take your own phone and install your own OS on it if that’s what you want.
- stale2002 5y agoOk, and people should be allowed to install whatever they want on their own hardware. We don't need to force Apple to put apps on its app store. Instead, people should be allowed to install whatever they want on the hardware that they own. > So take your own phone and install your own OS Or, instead of that, we could use the court system, to stop illegal anti-competitive practices, and require, by the existing law, that people are allowed to do what they want with their own phone.
- planetafro 5y agoWouldn't it be more like any games you bought at GameStop would force you to pay a cut to Gamestop from inside the games in-game store? ...that GameStop has nothing to do with.
- Spooky23 5y agoObviously there’s a spectrum of scenarios. In the 80s and 90s breaking up AT&T local loop unbundling made a huge positive change in telco in the us. Requiring the power company to rent pole space has a positive benefit. I think the App Store is more like a utility pole than a Walmart. Forcing Apple to unbundle the infrastructure of delivery, payment and signing would allow for competitive forces and innovation. The AppStore is all built around PKI. My company already operates an internal enterprise store — the metaphor exists. It would be pretty straightforward to evolve it into something different and arguably better.
- adam_arthur 5y agoI don't see this as an accurate comparison. You can already rent a space right next to Walmart and open your own store if you like. Yes, I may have to pay a landlord, but again, there's competition among owners of land that keeps rents at a market rate. You can think of the space within an ecosystem as virtual land. Apple has a monopoly on this virtual space. They can charge whatever they like, there is no competition. The argument of choose another phone is different, because it requires spending a large amount of money for the right to entry. To many people this is cost prohibitive. I don't have a personal stance on what the outcome should be either way, need to dig into it more.
- nradov 5y agoYou can buy a new unlocked Samsung smartphone for $180. That's hardly cost prohibitive. Especially if you already have an iPhone you can just sell it and buy something else.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Someone 5y agoApple’s argument is that their land has value because of the work they did/do. They also may argue that rents for their land are at market rate, as demand for it stays high. Of course, that may be (is for a large part, in my opinion) because of their market power, but that, I think, isn’t much different from Walmart. Market power and sales volume are how Walmart can negotiate lower prices with sellers. Theme parks such as Disney World may be even better examples. If you want to sell ice creams there, I bet you have to pay a huge sum of money to Disney. It wouldn’t even surprise me if that were a percentage of revenues.
- slver 5y ago> I don't see this as an accurate comparison. You can already rent a space right next to Walmart and open your own store if you like. Opening a store in iOS is not "next to" it's "inside of". > The argument of choose another phone is different, because it requires spending a large amount of money for the right to entry. To many people this is cost prohibitive. This makes no sense, first because Androids tend to be cheaper than iPhones, and second no one forces you into buying an iPhone. Also "iPhone is too expensive" is not an argument for "I should be allowed to do X with it". If you don't like what an iPhone does, don't buy one. You don't get to buy a Tesla and complain how come it's so expensive and doesn't run also on oil, do you?
- matheusmoreira 5y agoAre iOS devices Apple's private property?
- slver 5y agoiOS is. It's a software and a set of associated services and apps provided to you under a license. If you wanna install your own OS, you can set up your own App Store.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago> If you wanna install your own OS Yes, please. Who do I have to call at Apple to get an iPhone's bootloader unlocked?
- slver 5y agoI don’t work at Apple, do your own research. Also maybe next time do that research before buying a device and then complaining it doesn’t do what it never said it does.
- matheusmoreira 5y agoHow about we make it illegal for corporations to lock down other people's devices instead? Much better than constantly moving the goalposts.
- slver 5y agoHow about you phrase your statements with intellectual honesty, instead of wasting my time having to explain this is not a case of "corporations locking down other people's devices" but it's a case of "you bought this device with the idea it runs iOS, that's the only thing Apple promised it'll do, and that's precisely what it does". I'm not moving any goalposts. Your argument is this utterly ridiculous notion that you get to buy an iPhone and then whine it doesn't do what it never said it'll do. It's like buying a Tesla and complaining it doesn't run on oil. The responsibility is on you, as a buyer, to buy shit that does what you want it to do. It's full of phones that you can install whatever on. Buy one of those. "How about we make it illegal for corporations to control the product they themselves make" is a shitty, entitled, spoiled brat behavior that honestly disgusts me to my core.
- trboyden 5y agoExcept what you state already exists. I can load the Walmart app on iOS and order a TV from Walmart, not Apple. Apple is preventing Epic from doing the same - buy in-app merchandise through Epic's app on iOS.
- trboyden 5y agoI can also go into a mom and pop store, load Target's website on my phone, and order a pick-up order from Target. The Mom and Pop store can't stop you from doing that.
- nodamage 5y agoYou can also open an iPhone, load any website in Safari, and order whatever you want from the website. Apple can't stop you from doing that either.
- trboyden 5y agoExcept, as we have seen with Epic, and why we are talking about this case, is they can, by dropping your app from the App Store in retribution for offering an alternative. They can do that because there is no other app store on Apple and effectively prevents you from competing.
- slver 5y agoEpic wasn't dropped for offering sales on a site. Inform yourself.
- trboyden 5y agoExcept, they did. Apple started the threats against Epic when Epic started lowering their prices for add-ons on other platforms, which made Apple look greedy. To bolster their anti-competitive case against Apple, Epic turned on the in-app store to which Apple then pulled Fortnite. Epic has to be able to show damages and anti-competitive actions in order to have a case. If they didn't force Apple to pull Fortnite, they wouldn't be able to show damages.
- nodamage 5y agoNo, you are allowed to offer an alternative on your website. Netflix and plenty of other apps do this just fine. If you want to advertise the alternative inside your app, well, that's a bit like Target putting a sign inside that mom-and-pop store saying you can get a better deal at Target.
- fooey 5y agoThe closest comparable platforms are probably the consoles. Should Xbox/PlayStation/Nintendo be forced to allow 3rd party app stores on their devices?
- throwaway3699 5y agoWhy not? Everybody benefits from open marketplaces. The PC has been like this, and though Steam is dominant, it's not even close to a monopoly.
- gbear605 5y agoYes.