3 ms·
First principles arguments are crushed by emergent properties at scale. Disneyland has less than a hundred restaurants. The harm to society if Dinseyland has ex
by spywaregorilla 5y ago
First principles arguments are crushed by emergent properties at scale. Disneyland has less than a hundred restaurants. The harm to society if Dinseyland has extra control over those restaurants is miniscule. The harm caused by Apple having monopolist control on the majority of mobile phone owner's entire software stack is exponentially larger.
- jeroenhd 5y ago> the majority of mobile phone owner's In some circles, maybe, but not here in the Netherlands (+/- 60%). Worldwide, the majority of phone owners still run Android. This is one of the key arguments people use in Apple's defence, because the bigger their majority share, the quicker anti-monopoly laws would apply. I agree with your point, though. The Apple/Google duopoly hurts the general public to ensure the profit margins for these companies' shareholders. Those with neoliberal convictions might not agree with me, but I believe that the free market needs regulation to prevent problems like these.
- spywaregorilla 5y agoI don't find that convincing. There's billions of ios users. That certainly passes the bar of emergent effects of scale to properly view it as its own unique market. It doesn't matter if there's billions of other users on android.
- netcan 5y agoI don't disagree with that. I'm not suggesting that harm is comparable, only structure. You can deal with DisneyLand ice cream by ignoring it. Apple, not necessarily. That said, if you were to deal with DisneyLand ice cream...