4 ms·

>Oh and by the way, there’s no other malls in town to move your business to. I mean, given that this bill is targeting two companies, I'm not sure your analogy

>Oh and by the way, there’s no other malls in town to move your business to. I mean, given that this bill is targeting two companies, I'm not sure your analogy holds. There clearly is another mall you could move to. You just wouldn't get the patrons at the other mall. And they charge the same and always have. And, your business doesn't even have to be located in the mall if you think the fees are unreasonable. You just don't get the benefit of all the people already shopping at the mall. I also generally want to have my cake and eat it, too, though.

vorpalhex 5y ago
There are two malls, both are charging the same ridiculous fees and have created a situation where competition is not possible. The fix for that is legislative, not judicial. The legislature can decide that two malls with bad rates is a situation that needs fixing.
panzagl 5y ago
The analogy is saying there are malls in two different towns- there's only one mall in Androidville, and if I want to go to the one in Appletown I have to sell my house and all the stuff I bought at the Androidville mall and move there. Trying to argue its not a monopoly is engaging in the worst type of pointless semantic argument.
- ribosometronome 5y ago
  >Trying to argue its not a monopoly is engaging in the worst type of pointless semantic argument. So, you think this bill is a waste of time, then? If Apple has a monopoly, no legislation is needed as we already have laws to address it. Epic's lawsuit failed specifically because they couldn't prove Apple was a monopoly. This legislation's existence is specifically predicated on that there could be issues that might be worth addressing outside of monopolies.
  - panzagl 5y ago
    No, I support the bill. I guess I should have typed 'monopoly that is not already covered adequately by current anti-trust regulation', but at some point you have to stop.
jliptzin 5y ago
Ok here is another analogy. Imagine Microsoft not only bundling internet explorer with windows in the early 2000s, they made it not physically possible to even install a different web browser on the computer. On top of that, Microsoft demands complete control over what’s on your website (in its website review policy), and takes 30% of all your revenue otherwise Microsoft customers are no longer able to visit your website. And sure you can buy a Macintosh instead, but they’re doing the exact same thing except with Safari. The current situation is not any different. People seem to be tricked into going along with this because “security.” Legislators would have had a field day with that.
TipiKoivisto 5y ago
You can also drive any road but you choose the highway because it's the fastest and you know where it's headed.

vorpalhex 5y ago

There are two malls, both are charging the same ridiculous fees and have created a situation where competition is not possible. The fix for that is legislative, not judicial. The legislature can decide that two malls with bad rates is a situation that needs fixing.

panzagl 5y ago

The analogy is saying there are malls in two different towns- there's only one mall in Androidville, and if I want to go to the one in Appletown I have to sell my house and all the stuff I bought at the Androidville mall and move there. Trying to argue its not a monopoly is engaging in the worst type of pointless semantic argument.

ribosometronome 5y ago
>Trying to argue its not a monopoly is engaging in the worst type of pointless semantic argument. So, you think this bill is a waste of time, then? If Apple has a monopoly, no legislation is needed as we already have laws to address it. Epic's lawsuit failed specifically because they couldn't prove Apple was a monopoly. This legislation's existence is specifically predicated on that there could be issues that might be worth addressing outside of monopolies.
- panzagl 5y ago
  No, I support the bill. I guess I should have typed 'monopoly that is not already covered adequately by current anti-trust regulation', but at some point you have to stop.

jliptzin 5y ago

Ok here is another analogy. Imagine Microsoft not only bundling internet explorer with windows in the early 2000s, they made it not physically possible to even install a different web browser on the computer. On top of that, Microsoft demands complete control over what’s on your website (in its website review policy), and takes 30% of all your revenue otherwise Microsoft customers are no longer able to visit your website. And sure you can buy a Macintosh instead, but they’re doing the exact same thing except with Safari. The current situation is not any different. People seem to be tricked into going along with this because “security.” Legislators would have had a field day with that.

TipiKoivisto 5y ago

You can also drive any road but you choose the highway because it's the fastest and you know where it's headed.