6 ms·

Apple at this point has no fear of regulatory action. I think both Red and Blue can agree they need to be reigned in and split up.

jimbob45 4y ago
My understanding was that the new EU rules would force Apple to open up their platform to competing app stores, no? In that view, this would seem to be a last gasp by Apple to capture profit that they soon won't be able to seek.
- unity1001 4y ago
  > My understanding was that the new EU rules would force Apple to open up their platform to competing app stores, no? It gave companies 6 months to comply. They are still within that period. Then the fine hammer will start coming down.
- threeseed 4y ago
  Apple may be forced to have competing app stores but: a) They would be allowed to then ban apps that exist on alternate stores. b) They can still collect their 30% cut which no-one has ever said was not permitted. They already have telemetry about what apps are being installed on their phones and can simply bill the third party App Store. Non-payment would result in the store being banned. Similar situation happened when Apple was forced to support alternate payment processors in Netherlands. Nobody used it because it ended up being less profitable than simply using Apple.
RajT88 4y ago
When it comes to politicians, both red and blue rely on big tech money. It could be as simple as investment portfolios, or the more likely lobbyist money which fills their war chest
- thatguy0900 4y ago
  The politicians can just take short positions, their investments will be fine as always
  - _5uxp 4y ago
    Yes and recent years they're great traders anyway. High ROI then many funds and market avg. Great people
nickthegreek 4y ago
I think they need to be reigned in, but what is the reason to split them up?
- gjsman-1000 4y ago
  I would love it if public companies were forced to take a niche and stick with it - because the horizontal integration becomes a major anti-competitive tool. Imagine if iOS was developed independently and available for other phone makers as an Android competitor, the iPhone just being one of them. The App Store could be its own thing, as could Apple Music. AirPods could be its own business. Sure, things might be less integrated and tight-knit, but the market would be far more competitive. At this point I'm almost willing to say horizontal integration is the source of so many competitive problems and anti-consumer behavior.
  - akmarinov 4y ago
    Yeah but some things would never have seen the light of day. The M1 chips for example were a huge investment that wouldn’t have been made without the behemoth that is Apple behind it.
    - gjsman-1000 4y ago
      There comes a point though when you have to break monopoly's for the market's sake. For example, remember Standard Oil? They made oil super cheap, researched new oils, basically were great for customers almost like Amazon - but they were monopolistic and were shattered for being so. Similar monopolies in the past like Bell Telephone or, arguably, Amazon now are great from the consumer's perspective but terrible for businesses. In the past, we were less afraid to say, "you're doing great, but you're still too powerful."
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - simonh 4y ago
yamtaddle 4y ago
I'm all for this if government would outlaw all the bad behavior I can currently pay Apple to protect me from, first. Which they really ought to do anyway. Like, do that and I'll join you with the pitchforks demanding Apple change its ways or be destroyed. Meanwhile... please don't.
- goosedragons 4y ago
  Do you just not use a computer? Why would it be any different? I feel like Apple sells false safety and there's still scams and still malware in there.
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    Been using computers since... oh, '91 or '92, Apple stuff only since ~2010. Having at least one platform I can use as an actually-useful-in-real-life tool without constantly having to scrutinize and second-guess and mistrust and un-fuck everything is damn nice. They could absolutely be better—a lot better, yes bad stuff gets into the store, yes some practices like loot box gambling really ought to be on their naughty-list except those make them tons of money, et c.—but I like having an option for that kind of experience—even if it's far from perfect, even if they're not as privacy-respecting as they claim, even if App Store rule enforcement and sandboxing protections are less than 100% effective, et c.—especially with government asleep at the wheel, regulation-wise. I like that Apple's in a position to force other companies not to be shitty, while also having an ecosystem too tempting for those companies to ignore. That's great for me. I'd rather the worst behavior they protect against were simply illegal. I'd rather Apple had other competitors offering similar things (though, absent regulation, that kinda depends on their leveraging monopoly power, so it's hard to see how robust competition would fit into that dynamic). I'd rather no companies were as big as Apple (or Microsoft, or Google, or Facebook, or...) with hands in as many pies. But given the broader environment I'd rather have Apple the way it is, than broken up or destroyed. Ideally, yes, that's what would happen, but the rest of the situation's far from ideal. Fix some of that first, so losing them doesn't remove an option I like having, and I'm with you, let's break them up.
- smoldesu 4y ago
NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
I think you overestimate the extent to which the political parties will look at the most profitable company in America and say "hmm, time to disrupt that".
- ethanbond 4y ago
  Profitable and generally well-regarded by consumers. Even if it were blatantly monopolistic, that only matters if its bad for consumers. The vast majority of non-HN crowd is super, super happy being inside of Apple's walled garden.
  - CSSer 4y ago
    Therein lies the rub. Consumer welfare has no definition[0]. [0]: https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=897001005069000112089014127125067077034027008029087048022107121028025075064107121120039058099039050028002124089116091125025077056010074000048109007108009113004098038041084091026021087104096072013067096091115015027012125007088107088120079104108113121 https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=897001005069000...
mensetmanusman 4y ago
Splitting Apple into Tv, music, App Store probably makes sense
- ethanbond 4y ago
  For whom? Certainly not for consumers, which are the only people that antitrust regulations are meant to protect. The integrated ecosystem is the point. That's why Apple commands such enormous premium over their competitors.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    Isn't antitrust law supposed to protect something you can't see or touch: fair competition. Fair competition should be protected. Lack of competition is bad.
    - ethanbond 4y ago
      No, that’s not the purpose of antitrust rules. The only purpose of antitrust is to protect consumers.
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
        Standard Oil: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Standard-Oil https://www.britannica.com/topic/Standard-Oil > Although consolidation did advance the large-scale production and distribution of oil products, many critics believed that the resulting concentration of economic power was becoming excessive. In 1906 the U.S. government brought suit against Standard Oil Company (New Jersey) under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890; in 1911 the New Jersey company was ordered to divest itself of its major holdings—33 companies in all.
        ethanbond 4y ago
        Yes it became bad for consumers and they were broken up. My point is that if you want a shot at calling in antitrust regulations on Apple (you know, potentially destroying billions of other-peoples’-dollars), you have to prove not that they’re crushing their competition but that 1) they’re doing so unfairly and 2) with negative outcomes for consumers.
cobertos 4y ago
Split up? They're not a monopoly in the phone market and only barely have a majority market share. I don't defend Apple's actions but I don't think this is a company-sized anticompetition problem. This is a regulation problem where it should be a user right to have access to alternate app stores, and to choose to run whatever software we want.
- hamandcheese 4y ago
  A monopoly is not a pre-requisite to engage in anticompetitive behavior.
weberer 4y ago
>I think both Red and Blue can agree they need to be reigned in and split up. Well I'm not too sure about one of them. https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/apple-inc/totals?id=D000021754 https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/apple-inc/totals?id=D000021...
cwkoss 4y ago
We need a progressive tax on corporate revenue: billion dollar companies should be taxed a significantly higher rate than million dollar companies. (we currently have the opposite) The power disparity between corporations and citizens is huge and growing. It should be expensive to be mega powerful, and trillion dollar companies should be paying huge taxes to incentivize them breaking up into smaller units: a vertically integrated trillion dollar company is enough of a monopoly to hurt the market even if there are other competitors. It's bad for society.

jimbob45 4y ago

My understanding was that the new EU rules would force Apple to open up their platform to competing app stores, no? In that view, this would seem to be a last gasp by Apple to capture profit that they soon won't be able to seek.

unity1001 4y ago
> My understanding was that the new EU rules would force Apple to open up their platform to competing app stores, no? It gave companies 6 months to comply. They are still within that period. Then the fine hammer will start coming down.
threeseed 4y ago
Apple may be forced to have competing app stores but: a) They would be allowed to then ban apps that exist on alternate stores. b) They can still collect their 30% cut which no-one has ever said was not permitted. They already have telemetry about what apps are being installed on their phones and can simply bill the third party App Store. Non-payment would result in the store being banned. Similar situation happened when Apple was forced to support alternate payment processors in Netherlands. Nobody used it because it ended up being less profitable than simply using Apple.

RajT88 4y ago

When it comes to politicians, both red and blue rely on big tech money. It could be as simple as investment portfolios, or the more likely lobbyist money which fills their war chest

thatguy0900 4y ago
The politicians can just take short positions, their investments will be fine as always
- _5uxp 4y ago
  Yes and recent years they're great traders anyway. High ROI then many funds and market avg. Great people

nickthegreek 4y ago

I think they need to be reigned in, but what is the reason to split them up?

gjsman-1000 4y ago
I would love it if public companies were forced to take a niche and stick with it - because the horizontal integration becomes a major anti-competitive tool. Imagine if iOS was developed independently and available for other phone makers as an Android competitor, the iPhone just being one of them. The App Store could be its own thing, as could Apple Music. AirPods could be its own business. Sure, things might be less integrated and tight-knit, but the market would be far more competitive. At this point I'm almost willing to say horizontal integration is the source of so many competitive problems and anti-consumer behavior.
- akmarinov 4y ago
  Yeah but some things would never have seen the light of day. The M1 chips for example were a huge investment that wouldn’t have been made without the behemoth that is Apple behind it.
  - gjsman-1000 4y ago
    There comes a point though when you have to break monopoly's for the market's sake. For example, remember Standard Oil? They made oil super cheap, researched new oils, basically were great for customers almost like Amazon - but they were monopolistic and were shattered for being so. Similar monopolies in the past like Bell Telephone or, arguably, Amazon now are great from the consumer's perspective but terrible for businesses. In the past, we were less afraid to say, "you're doing great, but you're still too powerful."
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - simonh 4y ago

yamtaddle 4y ago

I'm all for this if government would outlaw all the bad behavior I can currently pay Apple to protect me from, first. Which they really ought to do anyway. Like, do that and I'll join you with the pitchforks demanding Apple change its ways or be destroyed. Meanwhile... please don't.

goosedragons 4y ago
Do you just not use a computer? Why would it be any different? I feel like Apple sells false safety and there's still scams and still malware in there.
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  Been using computers since... oh, '91 or '92, Apple stuff only since ~2010. Having at least one platform I can use as an actually-useful-in-real-life tool without constantly having to scrutinize and second-guess and mistrust and un-fuck everything is damn nice. They could absolutely be better—a lot better, yes bad stuff gets into the store, yes some practices like loot box gambling really ought to be on their naughty-list except those make them tons of money, et c.—but I like having an option for that kind of experience—even if it's far from perfect, even if they're not as privacy-respecting as they claim, even if App Store rule enforcement and sandboxing protections are less than 100% effective, et c.—especially with government asleep at the wheel, regulation-wise. I like that Apple's in a position to force other companies not to be shitty, while also having an ecosystem too tempting for those companies to ignore. That's great for me. I'd rather the worst behavior they protect against were simply illegal. I'd rather Apple had other competitors offering similar things (though, absent regulation, that kinda depends on their leveraging monopoly power, so it's hard to see how robust competition would fit into that dynamic). I'd rather no companies were as big as Apple (or Microsoft, or Google, or Facebook, or...) with hands in as many pies. But given the broader environment I'd rather have Apple the way it is, than broken up or destroyed. Ideally, yes, that's what would happen, but the rest of the situation's far from ideal. Fix some of that first, so losing them doesn't remove an option I like having, and I'm with you, let's break them up.
smoldesu 4y ago

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago

I think you overestimate the extent to which the political parties will look at the most profitable company in America and say "hmm, time to disrupt that".

ethanbond 4y ago
Profitable and generally well-regarded by consumers. Even if it were blatantly monopolistic, that only matters if its bad for consumers. The vast majority of non-HN crowd is super, super happy being inside of Apple's walled garden.
- CSSer 4y ago
  Therein lies the rub. Consumer welfare has no definition[0]. [0]: https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=897001005069000112089014127125067077034027008029087048022107121028025075064107121120039058099039050028002124089116091125025077056010074000048109007108009113004098038041084091026021087104096072013067096091115015027012125007088107088120079104108113121 https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=897001005069000...

mensetmanusman 4y ago

Splitting Apple into Tv, music, App Store probably makes sense

ethanbond 4y ago
For whom? Certainly not for consumers, which are the only people that antitrust regulations are meant to protect. The integrated ecosystem is the point. That's why Apple commands such enormous premium over their competitors.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  Isn't antitrust law supposed to protect something you can't see or touch: fair competition. Fair competition should be protected. Lack of competition is bad.
  - ethanbond 4y ago
    No, that’s not the purpose of antitrust rules. The only purpose of antitrust is to protect consumers.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
      Standard Oil: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Standard-Oil https://www.britannica.com/topic/Standard-Oil > Although consolidation did advance the large-scale production and distribution of oil products, many critics believed that the resulting concentration of economic power was becoming excessive. In 1906 the U.S. government brought suit against Standard Oil Company (New Jersey) under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890; in 1911 the New Jersey company was ordered to divest itself of its major holdings—33 companies in all.
      - ethanbond 4y ago
        Yes it became bad for consumers and they were broken up. My point is that if you want a shot at calling in antitrust regulations on Apple (you know, potentially destroying billions of other-peoples’-dollars), you have to prove not that they’re crushing their competition but that 1) they’re doing so unfairly and 2) with negative outcomes for consumers.

cobertos 4y ago

Split up? They're not a monopoly in the phone market and only barely have a majority market share. I don't defend Apple's actions but I don't think this is a company-sized anticompetition problem. This is a regulation problem where it should be a user right to have access to alternate app stores, and to choose to run whatever software we want.

hamandcheese 4y ago
A monopoly is not a pre-requisite to engage in anticompetitive behavior.

weberer 4y ago

>I think both Red and Blue can agree they need to be reigned in and split up. Well I'm not too sure about one of them. https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/apple-inc/totals?id=D000021754 https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/apple-inc/totals?id=D000021...

cwkoss 4y ago

We need a progressive tax on corporate revenue: billion dollar companies should be taxed a significantly higher rate than million dollar companies. (we currently have the opposite) The power disparity between corporations and citizens is huge and growing. It should be expensive to be mega powerful, and trillion dollar companies should be paying huge taxes to incentivize them breaking up into smaller units: a vertically integrated trillion dollar company is enough of a monopoly to hurt the market even if there are other competitors. It's bad for society.