3 ms·

> these large companies are basically utility companies I could see the Internet itself being treated as a public utility (and US law already does this in some

by pdonis 5y ago

> these large companies are basically utility companies I could see the Internet itself being treated as a public utility (and US law already does this in some ways, for example by requiring ISPs to serve rural areas where there aren't enough users to make it profitable). But app stores are not. App stores are the way they are not because of any fundamental limitation of app distribution over the Internet, but because users have chosen that model. If developers want to "fix" that, they need to use their own market power to not use Google Play at all, so that users have to switch to a different model because there are no apps on Google Play. The government doesn't need to get involved in this. > and wield a whole lot of power over people's lives and livelihoods Google only has power over your livelihood as a developer if you let them. Which, as I've already commented upthread, is not a choice any sane developer should make given Google's track record. Developers should simply stop distributing apps through Google Play if they don't like Google's behavior. That's how a free market is supposed to work. > we're not even talking about regulating people, we talk about regulating companies worth billions and sometimes even trillions, so I am a little less concerned about being "intrusive" there. Regulating companies worth billions and trillions just makes it harder for companies that aren't worth billions and trillions to compete. It doesn't faze the companies that are worth billions and trillions; they just buy the regulations that favor them. Look up "regulatory capture". Governments can't effectively regulate companies of this size. But they can certainly regulate potential competitors to those companies out of existence. > We do not have any of that when it comes to companies. But you have something a lot more powerful: the ability to boycott. All those government avenues you describe are extremely weak, and continue to get weaker over time. The US Congress has approval ratings in the single digits and incumbent reelection rates above 90 percent. That's a huge sign that you can't fix whatever problem you want to fix using the government. Whereas in the free market, you can exercise your market power immediately by changing what transactions you do and do not choose to make. > not everything the government does is always bad The fact that the government does some good things does not mean government regulation is a good thing all things considered. And even with the "good" things you describe, you don't see their downsides. You don't see what the world would have been like if people had chosen to use free market power to regulate those things instead of the government. > boycotts or protests, which hardly ever work Protests hardly ever work because they don't change the company's bottom line. Boycotts can and do work because they do change the company's bottom line. > a bunch of companies that are defacto governments Companies only get such power if governments give it to them. Your example of the East India Company illustrates that. Without the special privileges given to them by the British government, they would have been powerless to do the things they did. > I would consider a lot of the small time app developers to be essentially gig workers For Google (or Apple if they develop iOS apps), yes. Why? Why are developers continuing to feed these monsters?

rndgermandude 5y ago
>App stores are the way they are not because of any fundamental limitation of app distribution over the Internet, but because users have chosen that model. Users have not chosen. App developers have not chosen. Apple has chosen and Google copied them. Google and Apple effectively have a duopoly over app stores. >Developers should simply stop distributing apps through Google Play if they don't like Google's behavior. That's how a free market is supposed to work. No, the free market is supposed to work by having a seller and a buyer find each other and make a deal. However, with app stores, a middle man forcefully inserts itself into that equation in a way that cannot be sidestepped by buyer and seller. Some buyers and sellers are fine with it, but some is hardly all. The option app developers have right now is to either be obedient to the app stores, or change profession. >Regulating companies worth billions and trillions just makes it harder for companies that aren't worth billions and trillions to compete. You're talking regulatory capture, which indeed is a concern. That's why I mentioned the "gatekeeper" definition of the upcoming EU DMA... It considers size and (market) power, and only regulates large companies. >But you have something a lot more powerful: the ability to boycott. Boycotts are a joke in general. They only work if you find a majority supporting that such a boycott, and often to a degree where it actually hurts. It doesn't do anything to protect any (large) minority. So when e.g. black people got redlined, were they supposed to boycott the banks that refused to do business with them in the first place? Because the white majority clearly didn't care enough; they got their loans, they were happy and content, and often didn't even really know about the plight of their fellow citizens. >The US Congress has approval ratings in the single digits and incumbent reelection rates above 90 percent. That's a huge sign that you can't fix whatever problem you want to fix using the government. The US political system can be changed. The Tea Party demonstrated that, Obama and Bernie and Trump demonstrated that (whether one agrees with these people is another matter, the point is that even in the US, which is plagued by the first-past-the-post voting, change is possible). And you don't necessarily have to replace people, just make them fear enough that they might be replaced if they do not play ball. You could consider that a boycott at the ballot ;) >The fact that the government does some good things does not mean government regulation is a good thing all things considered. No, it doesn't necessitate that. But historically, it is, all things considered. >And even with the "good" things you describe, you don't see their downsides. Yeah, I somehow fail to see the downside of the government preventing companies from dumping toxic waste in my backyard, or government enabling me to get health care when I need it. >You don't see what the world would have been like if people had chosen to use free market power to regulate those things instead of the government. But I have seen that. I explicitly mentioned the East India company. I saw banks redlining people, fuel producers putting lead in gasoline, industry working people to literal death (making them sick, or working them in unsafe conditions) because human resources were cheap and replenish-able, and people were willing to do that work to avoid almost certain starvation and homelessness if they did not. And then there is this profession that doesn't care about laws anyway: narcos and other criminals. And they bring havoc wherever they go. I have seen enough. >Companies only get such power if governments give it to them. Your example of the East India Company illustrates that. You're basically advocating for no government (or an entirely toothless government). In your system, the East India company would have existed, with one difference: It wouldn't have had to ask the monarch for permission first. They had power not just because of the special privileges (which they wouldn't even need in your no-government system), they had power because they had money. And that money allowed them to form an army and declare themselves rulers of India. If there was no British government, they'd still be ruler of India today (and probably quite a few other places). >Why are developers continuing to feed these monsters? Because they got dragged in with rosy promised of profits, became entangled in the network effects, and are now beholden to their feudal rulers, unless they want to be risky and change professions. Which they usually don't, until they are forced to, like the guy in the article probably will be. That's like asking a person in a sweatshop why they still work there. Or the Uber driver who barely makes ends meet, or the amazon warehouse worker who wears diapers because a regular pee break would take too long.

by pdonis 5y ago

rndgermandude 5y ago

>App stores are the way they are not because of any fundamental limitation of app distribution over the Internet, but because users have chosen that model. Users have not chosen. App developers have not chosen. Apple has chosen and Google copied them. Google and Apple effectively have a duopoly over app stores. >Developers should simply stop distributing apps through Google Play if they don't like Google's behavior. That's how a free market is supposed to work. No, the free market is supposed to work by having a seller and a buyer find each other and make a deal. However, with app stores, a middle man forcefully inserts itself into that equation in a way that cannot be sidestepped by buyer and seller. Some buyers and sellers are fine with it, but some is hardly all. The option app developers have right now is to either be obedient to the app stores, or change profession. >Regulating companies worth billions and trillions just makes it harder for companies that aren't worth billions and trillions to compete. You're talking regulatory capture, which indeed is a concern. That's why I mentioned the "gatekeeper" definition of the upcoming EU DMA... It considers size and (market) power, and only regulates large companies. >But you have something a lot more powerful: the ability to boycott. Boycotts are a joke in general. They only work if you find a majority supporting that such a boycott, and often to a degree where it actually hurts. It doesn't do anything to protect any (large) minority. So when e.g. black people got redlined, were they supposed to boycott the banks that refused to do business with them in the first place? Because the white majority clearly didn't care enough; they got their loans, they were happy and content, and often didn't even really know about the plight of their fellow citizens. >The US Congress has approval ratings in the single digits and incumbent reelection rates above 90 percent. That's a huge sign that you can't fix whatever problem you want to fix using the government. The US political system can be changed. The Tea Party demonstrated that, Obama and Bernie and Trump demonstrated that (whether one agrees with these people is another matter, the point is that even in the US, which is plagued by the first-past-the-post voting, change is possible). And you don't necessarily have to replace people, just make them fear enough that they might be replaced if they do not play ball. You could consider that a boycott at the ballot ;) >The fact that the government does some good things does not mean government regulation is a good thing all things considered. No, it doesn't necessitate that. But historically, it is, all things considered. >And even with the "good" things you describe, you don't see their downsides. Yeah, I somehow fail to see the downside of the government preventing companies from dumping toxic waste in my backyard, or government enabling me to get health care when I need it. >You don't see what the world would have been like if people had chosen to use free market power to regulate those things instead of the government. But I have seen that. I explicitly mentioned the East India company. I saw banks redlining people, fuel producers putting lead in gasoline, industry working people to literal death (making them sick, or working them in unsafe conditions) because human resources were cheap and replenish-able, and people were willing to do that work to avoid almost certain starvation and homelessness if they did not. And then there is this profession that doesn't care about laws anyway: narcos and other criminals. And they bring havoc wherever they go. I have seen enough. >Companies only get such power if governments give it to them. Your example of the East India Company illustrates that. You're basically advocating for no government (or an entirely toothless government). In your system, the East India company would have existed, with one difference: It wouldn't have had to ask the monarch for permission first. They had power not just because of the special privileges (which they wouldn't even need in your no-government system), they had power because they had money. And that money allowed them to form an army and declare themselves rulers of India. If there was no British government, they'd still be ruler of India today (and probably quite a few other places). >Why are developers continuing to feed these monsters? Because they got dragged in with rosy promised of profits, became entangled in the network effects, and are now beholden to their feudal rulers, unless they want to be risky and change professions. Which they usually don't, until they are forced to, like the guy in the article probably will be. That's like asking a person in a sweatshop why they still work there. Or the Uber driver who barely makes ends meet, or the amazon warehouse worker who wears diapers because a regular pee break would take too long.