7 ms·

imagine your Netflix and have to pay Apple massive % to be on their devices... then comes Apple with its own service and they can charge less because they don't

imagine your Netflix and have to pay Apple massive % to be on their devices... then comes Apple with its own service and they can charge less because they don't charge them self's the % giving them very anti competitive advantage.

charcircuit 5y ago
No, it would be a competitive thing. In chess capturing your opponents pieces to weaken them is a valid strategy you will see in any tournament. Capturing Netflix's marketshare by offering a cheaper alternative is competitive. Putting your enemy in disadvantaged positions is just part of the game.
- fauigerzigerk 5y ago
  I don't understand how your analogy is even remotely relevant. In chess, both sides can make the exact same moves. Neither side can change the rules. Neither side can impose any extra costs on the other side in an asymmetric way. It's a classic example of a level playing field, and it's the exact opposite of the asymmetric roles that Apple and Netflix play on the iOS platform. The only way in which your analogy could possibly apply is if you're saying Netflix is free to create its own mobile OS ecosystem where they can impose asymmetric rules and taxes on Apple TV. But it's neither possible nor desirable for every app maker to create their own OS and perhaps even their own hardware. The definition of "competitive" you seem to be using here is not useful.
  - charcircuit 5y ago
    >The only way in which your analogy could possibly apply is if you're saying Netflix is free to create its own mobile OS ecosystem where they can impose asymmetric rules and taxes on Apple TV That is an option for Netflix. If they made their own platform they could offer a more competitive price. Apple was created in 1996. Netflix was made in 1997. Maybe a good strategy of having a dominant streaming platform in 202x would have been to launch a mobile platform. Netflix had the same chance as Apple to take that path, but they didn't. Apple can now capitalize on good moves that it made in the past. In chess you can't just recognize that you are in a bad position and then ask a tournament organizer if you can be reset into an equal position again. Either you continue playing that bad position, or you resign. >But it's neither possible nor desirable for every app maker to create their own OS and perhaps even their own hardware. If you have no choice but to charge more than your competitors and you can't justify the extra cost with extra features or whatever and people stop using your service and you go bankrupt then you have lost the game. >The definition of "competitive" you seem to be using here is not useful. It seems useful to me. It's the basis of what makes this game interesting.
    - paulryanrogers 5y ago
      This ignores the network effects for users and integration costs for developers. Once a competitor gains monopoly/monopsony/oligopoly position with those factors introducing a new challenger becomes nearly impossible at any cost. Ask Microsoft. Anyway, Apple began in 1976, not 1996. And by '96 they had both an established hardware brand and decades more expertise than when Netflix launched.
    - andygcook 5y ago
      Apple was founded in 1976, which is a full twenty years before Netflix.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - fauigerzigerk 5y ago
      >That is an option for Netflix. If they made their own platform they could offer a more competitive price. It may be an option for Netflix. It may be an option for Facebook. But it's not an option for 99.999% of app makers and it would be bad for consumers. Very bad. Imagine you had to buy one device per service you're using. I don't want to buy a Netflix device to watch Netflix movies. This is just bonkers. >It seems useful to me. It's the basis of what makes this game interesting. No. It's more than just useless. It is a great demonstration of how every ideology becomes insanity if you take it to its extremes.
      - charcircuit 5y ago
        >But it's not an option for 99.999% of app makers and it would be bad for consumers. Then you will just have to live with being disadvantaged to a platform's creator when competing on their platform. They have the home field advantage. >No. It's more than just useless. It is a great demonstration of how every ideology becomes insanity if you take it to its extremes. You are the one making it extreme. If you think the strategic decision of developing your own mobile ecosystem is silly then there is always the option to not do it. There is no rule in this game that it has to be profitable to release stuff on the app store. Apple could just decide one day that third party apps are a security and privacy problem and then remove them all leaving only Apple apps.
taylorhou 5y ago
interesting point. I wonder if an incremental regulation can be passed whereas if the marketplace decides to become a participant/competitor, those in which it competes against no longer have to pay the marketplace fees to "even the playing field" at least from a financial standpoint. doesn't even have to be regulation. these companies can do it in good faith but alas, life's not fair.

charcircuit 5y ago

No, it would be a competitive thing. In chess capturing your opponents pieces to weaken them is a valid strategy you will see in any tournament. Capturing Netflix's marketshare by offering a cheaper alternative is competitive. Putting your enemy in disadvantaged positions is just part of the game.

fauigerzigerk 5y ago
I don't understand how your analogy is even remotely relevant. In chess, both sides can make the exact same moves. Neither side can change the rules. Neither side can impose any extra costs on the other side in an asymmetric way. It's a classic example of a level playing field, and it's the exact opposite of the asymmetric roles that Apple and Netflix play on the iOS platform. The only way in which your analogy could possibly apply is if you're saying Netflix is free to create its own mobile OS ecosystem where they can impose asymmetric rules and taxes on Apple TV. But it's neither possible nor desirable for every app maker to create their own OS and perhaps even their own hardware. The definition of "competitive" you seem to be using here is not useful.
- charcircuit 5y ago
  >The only way in which your analogy could possibly apply is if you're saying Netflix is free to create its own mobile OS ecosystem where they can impose asymmetric rules and taxes on Apple TV That is an option for Netflix. If they made their own platform they could offer a more competitive price. Apple was created in 1996. Netflix was made in 1997. Maybe a good strategy of having a dominant streaming platform in 202x would have been to launch a mobile platform. Netflix had the same chance as Apple to take that path, but they didn't. Apple can now capitalize on good moves that it made in the past. In chess you can't just recognize that you are in a bad position and then ask a tournament organizer if you can be reset into an equal position again. Either you continue playing that bad position, or you resign. >But it's neither possible nor desirable for every app maker to create their own OS and perhaps even their own hardware. If you have no choice but to charge more than your competitors and you can't justify the extra cost with extra features or whatever and people stop using your service and you go bankrupt then you have lost the game. >The definition of "competitive" you seem to be using here is not useful. It seems useful to me. It's the basis of what makes this game interesting.
  - paulryanrogers 5y ago
    This ignores the network effects for users and integration costs for developers. Once a competitor gains monopoly/monopsony/oligopoly position with those factors introducing a new challenger becomes nearly impossible at any cost. Ask Microsoft. Anyway, Apple began in 1976, not 1996. And by '96 they had both an established hardware brand and decades more expertise than when Netflix launched.
  - andygcook 5y ago
    Apple was founded in 1976, which is a full twenty years before Netflix.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - fauigerzigerk 5y ago
    >That is an option for Netflix. If they made their own platform they could offer a more competitive price. It may be an option for Netflix. It may be an option for Facebook. But it's not an option for 99.999% of app makers and it would be bad for consumers. Very bad. Imagine you had to buy one device per service you're using. I don't want to buy a Netflix device to watch Netflix movies. This is just bonkers. >It seems useful to me. It's the basis of what makes this game interesting. No. It's more than just useless. It is a great demonstration of how every ideology becomes insanity if you take it to its extremes.
    - charcircuit 5y ago
      >But it's not an option for 99.999% of app makers and it would be bad for consumers. Then you will just have to live with being disadvantaged to a platform's creator when competing on their platform. They have the home field advantage. >No. It's more than just useless. It is a great demonstration of how every ideology becomes insanity if you take it to its extremes. You are the one making it extreme. If you think the strategic decision of developing your own mobile ecosystem is silly then there is always the option to not do it. There is no rule in this game that it has to be profitable to release stuff on the app store. Apple could just decide one day that third party apps are a security and privacy problem and then remove them all leaving only Apple apps.

taylorhou 5y ago

interesting point. I wonder if an incremental regulation can be passed whereas if the marketplace decides to become a participant/competitor, those in which it competes against no longer have to pay the marketplace fees to "even the playing field" at least from a financial standpoint. doesn't even have to be regulation. these companies can do it in good faith but alas, life's not fair.