5 ms·

You said it's naive but didn't actually present a reasonable alternative.

by emsy 5y ago

netcan 5y ago
Sorry. Poor choice of words. Alternative to what? A law that says apple must allow alternative App Stores? I'm ok with that, and it might be useful to some people. I just don't think it will affect the market much. The App Store "market" is not going to become a competitive market with a quick fix like that. Any solution that does make it a competitive market also tanks the business model. 30% to deliver an app is many times what a competitive rate would be. The competitive rate might be 0. We didn't have app stores before app stores. Any kind of antitrust effort would need to start from the understanding that this is not a competitive market. Apple has all the power. A few app devs have the leverage to negotiate and everyone else is a price taker. You could "solve" it by regulating prices, enforcing a single price or otherwise limiting apple's choices directly. Or... you could leave it as is, which is (IMO) about the same as ruling that they must allow side loading or alternative app stores. Similarly, it will be very hard to limit fb from making their app addictive, shrill or other such problems. Their incentives are very strongly tied to these.
- makeitdouble 5y ago
  > I just don't think it will affect the market much. In a weird way, I think Apple and Google proved it would have significant impact, at least enough for them to put sizable effort in stopping it from happening. Otherwise Apple wouldn't be fighting tooth and nails to keep it at bay. Google also went pretty great length, through bundled contracts, backroom deals and scaremongering to dissuade partners and users from choosing the alternative means that are available. From the "follow the money" perspective, it seems there's hope in that corner.
  - netcan 5y ago
    proves it both ways, does it not? I mean, I agree that if Apple abandoned trying to control app delivery it would be a big deal. I just don't think a simple rule gets us there.
    - emsy 5y ago
      I think it’s reasonable to expect a lot of people to follow Netflix outside of the App Store. Therefore Apple would have to make an offer that is competitive enough for them to stay. I would argue that’s fair competition. Unlike their current highway robbery approach (in German we have the word wegelagerei, which was medieval toll extortion on unavoidable roadways, a better fitting term in my opinion)
      - netcan 5y ago
        I don't understand where you're going. Obviously Netflix would have more negotiating power if there were more alternatives. Netflix has enough leverage with Apple now that they pay half what regular developers pay. The dynamics play strongly in Apple's favour. 15% (or 30% for shmoes) may be a large slice. But even if the alternative app store is free for developers, In any case, I'm not arguing that a competitive market would not be better. I'm arguing that it takes more than a minor rule to get there. The dynamics play strongly in the platform's favour. 15% (or 30% for shmoes) may be a large slice. But, unless you take the vast majority of users with you, that will add up to less revenue. There just isn't a whole lot of middle ground, compatibility between a world with competitive dynamic and play store's business model. To the extent that a law would be successful in creating competition, the play store business model fails. It's premised on monopolism, more or less. I mean, payment processing and such obviously exist outside of a captive market... but in a competitive market, rates probably resolve to <50% of the current rate.
tshaddox 5y ago
emsy's claim was that Apple's App Store doing something bad isn't a problem, but rather that the only problem is that there aren't other app stores on the iPhone. The "alternative" is that, no, it's actually a problem that Apple's App Store is doing something bad.

You said it's naive but didn't actually present a reasonable alternative.

by emsy 5y ago

You said it's naive but didn't actually present a reasonable alternative.

Sorry. Poor choice of words. Alternative to what? A law that says apple must allow alternative App Stores? I'm ok with that, and it might be useful to some people. I just don't think it will affect the market much. The App Store "market" is not going to become a competitive market with a quick fix like that. Any solution that does make it a competitive market also tanks the business model. 30% to deliver an app is many times what a competitive rate would be. The competitive rate might be 0. We didn't have app stores before app stores. Any kind of antitrust effort would need to start from the understanding that this is not a competitive market. Apple has all the power. A few app devs have the leverage to negotiate and everyone else is a price taker. You could "solve" it by regulating prices, enforcing a single price or otherwise limiting apple's choices directly. Or... you could leave it as is, which is (IMO) about the same as ruling that they must allow side loading or alternative app stores. Similarly, it will be very hard to limit fb from making their app addictive, shrill or other such problems. Their incentives are very strongly tied to these.

makeitdouble 5y ago
> I just don't think it will affect the market much. In a weird way, I think Apple and Google proved it would have significant impact, at least enough for them to put sizable effort in stopping it from happening. Otherwise Apple wouldn't be fighting tooth and nails to keep it at bay. Google also went pretty great length, through bundled contracts, backroom deals and scaremongering to dissuade partners and users from choosing the alternative means that are available. From the "follow the money" perspective, it seems there's hope in that corner.
- netcan 5y ago
  proves it both ways, does it not? I mean, I agree that if Apple abandoned trying to control app delivery it would be a big deal. I just don't think a simple rule gets us there.
  - emsy 5y ago
    I think it’s reasonable to expect a lot of people to follow Netflix outside of the App Store. Therefore Apple would have to make an offer that is competitive enough for them to stay. I would argue that’s fair competition. Unlike their current highway robbery approach (in German we have the word wegelagerei, which was medieval toll extortion on unavoidable roadways, a better fitting term in my opinion)
    - netcan 5y ago
      I don't understand where you're going. Obviously Netflix would have more negotiating power if there were more alternatives. Netflix has enough leverage with Apple now that they pay half what regular developers pay. The dynamics play strongly in Apple's favour. 15% (or 30% for shmoes) may be a large slice. But even if the alternative app store is free for developers, In any case, I'm not arguing that a competitive market would not be better. I'm arguing that it takes more than a minor rule to get there. The dynamics play strongly in the platform's favour. 15% (or 30% for shmoes) may be a large slice. But, unless you take the vast majority of users with you, that will add up to less revenue. There just isn't a whole lot of middle ground, compatibility between a world with competitive dynamic and play store's business model. To the extent that a law would be successful in creating competition, the play store business model fails. It's premised on monopolism, more or less. I mean, payment processing and such obviously exist outside of a captive market... but in a competitive market, rates probably resolve to <50% of the current rate.

tshaddox 5y ago

emsy's claim was that Apple's App Store doing something bad isn't a problem, but rather that the only problem is that there aren't other app stores on the iPhone. The "alternative" is that, no, it's actually a problem that Apple's App Store is doing something bad.