6 ms·

People make the game console comparison, but there are crucial differences that don't make these scenarios comparable - first, there is still a completely open,

People make the game console comparison, but there are crucial differences that don't make these scenarios comparable - first, there is still a completely open, viable platform to write games for (PC), and much more importantly, I do not run my entire life through my game console, and a game console is not effectively a requirement for modern life like a phone is. Phones are ubiquitous, and the vast majority of businesses have a Compelling Reason to have a presence on these devices. Allowing two companies to make any decision they want regarding what nearly every non-trivial business Can and Can Not Do, is the very definition of anti-competitiveness. When you are a monopoly and you can influence other businesses in such an overarching way, it is Extremely Appropriate that you have to follow a Different Set of Rules than other people, rules that are more closely regulated to ensure that you are not abusing your position

ericmay 5y ago
At what point does something pass over from "essential" to non-essential? And why does being essential matter?
- clusterfish 5y ago
  Essential - adjective - absolutely necessary; extremely important. Game consoles are not. Smartphones are. Obviously.
  - RIMR 5y ago
    There's literally nothing I can do with my phone that I can't do with a laptop. Most people here work in tech and know what I'm talking about. You could carry a laptop and a flip phone and be fine. There's literally nothing essential about a smartphone. It's just a luxury you've become inseparable from.
    - clusterfish 5y ago
      You can't carry your laptop in a pocket. And laptops are also "a luxury you've become inseparable from", doesn't make them any less essential. You'll need a stronger argument to claim that something that almost everyone uses despite significant cost isn't essential.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - ericmay 5y ago
        So cars are essential? What about grocery stores? Is gasoline essential? And to be clear when you say essential you mean for everyone alive right?
        Daishiman 5y ago
        During the pandemic a huge number of businesses recurred to phone-first scheduling software where you have to show some kind of QR code. Bars offer QR menus by default. Contactless payments have become the default. A lot of banks require 2FA to log into their systems. They're about as essential as they can be. And for the record, governments have laws to step in when gasoline or food supplies become unavailable. And in the US, at least, being able to drive is seen as a right in the eyes of the public.
        ericmay 5y ago
        Daishiman 5y ago
        I'm not sure if you understand that if any of these things had the sort of arbitrary restrictions and lack of competition as the phone space, you would definitely be seeing government intervention. If Amazon was only one of two online retailers that would imply monopoly breakup or serious regulation. If FedEx or UPS stopped working or imposed random and unjustified restrictions on their deliveries you'd see quite a few angry lawmakers and senate meetings on the topic.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    I didn’t ask what the definition of essential was. I asked at what point something crosses over to being essential, and why being essential matters here specifically.
    - stale2002 5y ago
      This is Loki's Fallacy. There is no exact point. It is a spectrum. And phones are clearly on the side of essential. We do not need an exact cutoff point to make judgements about an obvious case.
      - ericmay 5y ago
        We do need some criteria though. You’re invoking the fallacy, not me. What is the criteria for being essential?
        stale2002 5y ago
        > What is the criteria for being essential? The criteria would be "Whatever a jury or judge determines what the definition of essential is, in each specific lawsuit or case". Thats how the law works. The law is not determined by some sort of exact programming code. Instead, the law is determined by people. "I'll know it when I see it" is an actual argument, that the supreme court gave, for determining a similar question about what the definition of pornography is. So, the answer for what "essential" is, is the same answer that the literal supreme court used, which is "I'll know it when I see it" or "whatever the judge/jury decides". If that answer is good enough for the supreme court, then it is good enough for me. > You’re invoking the fallacy, not me Actually you were the one using the fallacy. Because you are attempting to demand an exact cutoff point, which is not necessary. The law does not need to define exact cutoff points ahead of time. Instead, the law can consider those questions, as they come, in a court case/trial.
        ericmay 5y ago
        > Actually you were the one using the fallacy. Because you are attempting to demand an exact cutoff point, which is not necessary. The law does not need to define exact cutoff points ahead of time. Again this is incorrect. I have not “demanded an exact cutoff point” at any time. > Instead, the law can consider those questions, as they come, in a court case/trial. So in other words you’re making a claim and then your defense of that claim is “the law will decide in a court case”. Ok… lol.
TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
Quite. Mobile is not some shiny new tech that deserves a special dispensation. It's now critical public infrastructure. The mobile duopoly is like having a duopoly on printing or paper manufacture. It would be crippling for businesses to have to pay a Paper Tax for all paper use, with a special surcharge for check or invoice printing, over and above the purchase cost of printer hardware. Mobile payments and app ecosystems are no different. There might be a case if Apple was far more careful about app quality, curation, and security than it pretends to be. But realistically it's just not doing a good enough job with any of them to justify its cut.
- philistine 5y ago
  If at some point, the government didn't stop the old phone companies from disallowing any third-party accessory to be plugged in the phone jack, we would not have the Internet.

ericmay 5y ago

At what point does something pass over from "essential" to non-essential? And why does being essential matter?

clusterfish 5y ago
Essential - adjective - absolutely necessary; extremely important. Game consoles are not. Smartphones are. Obviously.
- RIMR 5y ago
  There's literally nothing I can do with my phone that I can't do with a laptop. Most people here work in tech and know what I'm talking about. You could carry a laptop and a flip phone and be fine. There's literally nothing essential about a smartphone. It's just a luxury you've become inseparable from.
  - clusterfish 5y ago
    You can't carry your laptop in a pocket. And laptops are also "a luxury you've become inseparable from", doesn't make them any less essential. You'll need a stronger argument to claim that something that almost everyone uses despite significant cost isn't essential.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - ericmay 5y ago
      So cars are essential? What about grocery stores? Is gasoline essential? And to be clear when you say essential you mean for everyone alive right?
      - Daishiman 5y ago
        During the pandemic a huge number of businesses recurred to phone-first scheduling software where you have to show some kind of QR code. Bars offer QR menus by default. Contactless payments have become the default. A lot of banks require 2FA to log into their systems. They're about as essential as they can be. And for the record, governments have laws to step in when gasoline or food supplies become unavailable. And in the US, at least, being able to drive is seen as a right in the eyes of the public.
        ericmay 5y ago
        Daishiman 5y ago
        I'm not sure if you understand that if any of these things had the sort of arbitrary restrictions and lack of competition as the phone space, you would definitely be seeing government intervention. If Amazon was only one of two online retailers that would imply monopoly breakup or serious regulation. If FedEx or UPS stopped working or imposed random and unjustified restrictions on their deliveries you'd see quite a few angry lawmakers and senate meetings on the topic.
- ericmay 5y ago
  I didn’t ask what the definition of essential was. I asked at what point something crosses over to being essential, and why being essential matters here specifically.
  - stale2002 5y ago
    This is Loki's Fallacy. There is no exact point. It is a spectrum. And phones are clearly on the side of essential. We do not need an exact cutoff point to make judgements about an obvious case.
    - ericmay 5y ago
      We do need some criteria though. You’re invoking the fallacy, not me. What is the criteria for being essential?
      - stale2002 5y ago
        > What is the criteria for being essential? The criteria would be "Whatever a jury or judge determines what the definition of essential is, in each specific lawsuit or case". Thats how the law works. The law is not determined by some sort of exact programming code. Instead, the law is determined by people. "I'll know it when I see it" is an actual argument, that the supreme court gave, for determining a similar question about what the definition of pornography is. So, the answer for what "essential" is, is the same answer that the literal supreme court used, which is "I'll know it when I see it" or "whatever the judge/jury decides". If that answer is good enough for the supreme court, then it is good enough for me. > You’re invoking the fallacy, not me Actually you were the one using the fallacy. Because you are attempting to demand an exact cutoff point, which is not necessary. The law does not need to define exact cutoff points ahead of time. Instead, the law can consider those questions, as they come, in a court case/trial.
        ericmay 5y ago
        > Actually you were the one using the fallacy. Because you are attempting to demand an exact cutoff point, which is not necessary. The law does not need to define exact cutoff points ahead of time. Again this is incorrect. I have not “demanded an exact cutoff point” at any time. > Instead, the law can consider those questions, as they come, in a court case/trial. So in other words you’re making a claim and then your defense of that claim is “the law will decide in a court case”. Ok… lol.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago

Quite. Mobile is not some shiny new tech that deserves a special dispensation. It's now critical public infrastructure. The mobile duopoly is like having a duopoly on printing or paper manufacture. It would be crippling for businesses to have to pay a Paper Tax for all paper use, with a special surcharge for check or invoice printing, over and above the purchase cost of printer hardware. Mobile payments and app ecosystems are no different. There might be a case if Apple was far more careful about app quality, curation, and security than it pretends to be. But realistically it's just not doing a good enough job with any of them to justify its cut.

philistine 5y ago
If at some point, the government didn't stop the old phone companies from disallowing any third-party accessory to be plugged in the phone jack, we would not have the Internet.