3 ms·

> The question here for me is does this 'everyone' include the entity that made, invested & owns the device in question Yes. Apple heavily benefits from market

> The question here for me is does this 'everyone' include the entity that made, invested & owns the device in question Yes. Apple heavily benefits from market standardization and interoperability: from transportation, to currency, to electricity, to the web. That standardization prevents other companies from heavily abusing Apple in ways that would probably have prevented the company from ever rising to the prominence it is today. Apple the company benefited from antitrust when it was younger, particularly antitrust around Microsoft. Without that market interference, it is not clear that Apple would have survived long enough to launch an iPhone in the first place. Now that Apple is as powerful as it is today, in a few areas it would like to avoid interoperability and it would like the ability to lock-down the market and to lock down devices that consumers own -- extracting additional value from those consumers against their will after the device has already been purchased by restricting the user's freedom to control their own devices. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander. It's enormously hypocritical for a company that was historically an underdog that benefited dramatically from interoperability between computing ecosystems to now claim that no one else should get the same benefits.

carlosjobim 3y ago
How can your arguments not be used to also force airlines to make your favourite pickle sandwich on every flight or to force McDonalds to serve Pepsi and not only Coke? These are also giant businesses who "benefitted from electricity", so they owe you big time, right? Or just Apple?
- danShumway 3y ago
  > These are also giant businesses who "benefitted from electricity", so they owe you big time, right? Or just Apple? If you mean, are businesses other than Apple subject to antitrust law, the answer is yes, they obviously are. That's not really a gotcha, that's just how the US/EU markets have always worked. > not be used to also force airlines to make your favourite pickle sandwich on every flight Whether or not an airline serves pickles is not an antitrust concern. There's this idea people bring up where if the market is regulated in any way at all, then suddenly all bets are off and nobody has any freedom. But it's just plain silly, it's a ridiculous way to think about regulation. It's like saying, "Oh, you support laws? Cops should be able to pull you over for speeding? So what, they should also be able to come into a restaurant, steal your food, and then slap you?" No, of course not, because those are different things and our society is capable of looking at different actions and judging them differently depending on context. Heck, you want to get wild -- we are even capable as a society of deciding that individual regulations are good or bad on a case-by-case basis based on their likely effects and side-effects. So saying "the government has the authority to interfere with business practices when businesses are harming the entire market" is not carte-blanch permission for the government to do literally anything it wants. It's a specific category of regulation, one that is well-established within US and EU law. But yes, if an airline was engaged in anticompetitive activity we would as a country be justified in regulating it. In fact, airlines are regulated today. It's not theoretical, we force airlines to follow rules to prevent excessive customer abuse. We force airlines to follow safety regulations. And yes, part of the reason why we can force them to do that is that airlines are a part of a regulated market where they benefit from regulations, and as willing participants in that market who have benefited from that market, they can't just randomly decide, "no, I'm not part of the market now when you want to regulate me, I've decided that I'm suddenly now a completely independent entity that's divorced from the rest of the economy."
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
    I haven't seen any evidence of anticompetitive activity on Apple's part. Not mass producing products and services to the exact and exquisite taste of each hacker news poster is not anticompetitive activity, just like an airline not serving your favourite pickle sandwich is not anticompetitive activity. Ford will make their cars compatible with Ford engines only, and if you want to put another engine inside your truck you'll have to do it yourself. Just as with Apple hardware. There's nobody stopping you. Then of course the law and justice system are able to and will do whatever they want, in a completely arbitrary fashion as they usually do. That's reality. If they want to go after Apple they will. The reality is also that it seems the general public and hackers take all innovation, products and services for granted. Something that just magically pops up to be taken advantage of by forcing other people to bend to your will, using the government as a club to hammer them with. Sure, if there's abuse. But not making a Linux-compatible iPhone is not abuse, no matter how hurt hackers feel. Why not focus on actual abuse instead, of which there is a lot? > "no, I'm not part of the market now when you want to regulate me, I've decided that I'm suddenly now a completely independent entity that's divorced from the rest of the economy." That is what has always happened and is called brain-drain. People and companies move to places that reward entrepreneurship instead of exploiting it.
    - danShumway 3y ago
      > I haven't seen any evidence of anticompetitive activity on Apple's part. I guess agree to disagree? Apple has a massive effect on the computing market, particularly around smartphones. We're currently legislating a Google antritust case in the US (which I hope Google loses) that alleges having default settings on an iPhone was worth billions of dollars to Google to help cement their place in the market. But sure, you can disagree with that if you want. Lots of people do. Just don't pretend that regulation is inherently some slippery slope, argue against the specific regulation that you don't like. > Ford will make their cars compatible with Ford engines only, and if you want to put another engine inside your truck you'll have to do it yourself. Just as with Apple hardware. There's nobody stopping you. Not a great example, it would honestly take me a minute or two to think of a bigger industry off the top of my head where standardization and cross-device compatibility is more regulated than the auto industry. And it's been hecking fantastic; it is extremely good that the auto-industry uses mostly compatible parts and that it's forced to allow for 3rd-party repair and aftermarket customization and swapping of parts. I would kill to have regulations for compatibility and 3rd-party support in the computing industry that were as strict as automotive regulations. Imagine it being illegal for Apple not to make diagnostic information available to all 3rd-party repair shops using the same physical port on the phone and using the same standardized communication format to query diagnostics that every other OS and phone uses. By all means, let's copy the auto industry, that is a great idea :) > The reality is also that it seems the general public and hackers take all innovation, products and services for granted. I would argue that if you look at the history of computing, increased competition between vendors and Open access to platforms between vendors has historically strongly coincided with innovation and better products for consumers. But... again, you can disagree with that if you want. > People and companies move to places that reward entrepreneurship instead of exploiting it. They're welcome to do so. Look, I'm not trying to force anyone to be part of a market; if Apple doesn't want to sell in the EU or US, there are very few companies in the world who have more capital and resources at their disposal to help them move markets. It's not like they're a mom-and-pop shop that can't afford to move and that are trapped under regulations, they are one of the biggest computing companies in the world and they have the resources to go elsewhere if they don't like the arrangements.
lancesells 3y ago
I think the Microsoft judgement was opening up their APIs for other companies to make apps. If that's all you're comparing than that's a tough argument as that has little to do with the hardware being tied to an OS. And to be clear, I'm not pro-Apple on not being able to install another OS. I think if there is a law it should be about EVERY device. Nintendo Switch, tractors, phones, etc. Just the environmental benefits would be big and always getting bigger.
- danShumway 3y ago
  The antitrust fights against Microsoft I think were a big reason why IE and Word ended up coming to MacOS. Apple also benefited from being able to reverse-engineer Word's format without facing legal trouble. And I think there were a lot of knock-on effects from that; even if we just look at the IE bundling would the web have looked the same if that ecosystem had never changed? Remember that iOS started out primarily supporting web apps; a closed down web ecosystem would have fundamentally changed the device. Is that the same as forcing a company to open up hardware access? We can argue that, and I sort of see where you're coming from, but... I think my bigger point is: > as that has little to do with the hardware being tied to an OS. I feel like this is a very narrow interpretation of antitrust. Microsoft was prevented from abusing a market power that could have prevented other competitors from gaining a foothold in the market. Apple directly benefited from the government and regulators stepping in and saying "we don't think a company should be able to unduly block competition." It feels a little hand-wavy if someone wants to make the argument that it's all different just because Apple now has a different mechanism for locking down the market. The problem was locking down the market, and that's still the problem. And what we're really asking is "should the government be able to stop a company from making the market uncompetitive?" Sure, someone could make the argument that allowing a custom OS on a phone is technically different from government intervention standardizing electrical outlets so the iPhone can charge, but they're both regulations that serve basically the exact same purpose that are coming from the exact same authority. If Apple wants to claim that opening up the hardware would be a step too far, I'd want to see an argument from them about what is practically different about that regulation that makes it a step too far. We regulated device compatibility for phone networks and that led to an explosion of innovation that shaped the modern Internet. Not all regulations are good. There should be limits on what the government can do. But I think the onus is on companies like Apple who have benefited from the government saying, "we have a vested interest in making the market competitive" to explain not just why the regulations being proposed are technically different, but to also explain why it matters that we're talking about opening hardware and not just software and why that regulation should be treated differently. > I think if there is a law it should be about EVERY device. Nintendo Switch, tractors, phones, etc. Just the environmental benefits would be big and always getting bigger. Completely agreed.

carlosjobim 3y ago

How can your arguments not be used to also force airlines to make your favourite pickle sandwich on every flight or to force McDonalds to serve Pepsi and not only Coke? These are also giant businesses who "benefitted from electricity", so they owe you big time, right? Or just Apple?

danShumway 3y ago
> These are also giant businesses who "benefitted from electricity", so they owe you big time, right? Or just Apple? If you mean, are businesses other than Apple subject to antitrust law, the answer is yes, they obviously are. That's not really a gotcha, that's just how the US/EU markets have always worked. > not be used to also force airlines to make your favourite pickle sandwich on every flight Whether or not an airline serves pickles is not an antitrust concern. There's this idea people bring up where if the market is regulated in any way at all, then suddenly all bets are off and nobody has any freedom. But it's just plain silly, it's a ridiculous way to think about regulation. It's like saying, "Oh, you support laws? Cops should be able to pull you over for speeding? So what, they should also be able to come into a restaurant, steal your food, and then slap you?" No, of course not, because those are different things and our society is capable of looking at different actions and judging them differently depending on context. Heck, you want to get wild -- we are even capable as a society of deciding that individual regulations are good or bad on a case-by-case basis based on their likely effects and side-effects. So saying "the government has the authority to interfere with business practices when businesses are harming the entire market" is not carte-blanch permission for the government to do literally anything it wants. It's a specific category of regulation, one that is well-established within US and EU law. But yes, if an airline was engaged in anticompetitive activity we would as a country be justified in regulating it. In fact, airlines are regulated today. It's not theoretical, we force airlines to follow rules to prevent excessive customer abuse. We force airlines to follow safety regulations. And yes, part of the reason why we can force them to do that is that airlines are a part of a regulated market where they benefit from regulations, and as willing participants in that market who have benefited from that market, they can't just randomly decide, "no, I'm not part of the market now when you want to regulate me, I've decided that I'm suddenly now a completely independent entity that's divorced from the rest of the economy."
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  I haven't seen any evidence of anticompetitive activity on Apple's part. Not mass producing products and services to the exact and exquisite taste of each hacker news poster is not anticompetitive activity, just like an airline not serving your favourite pickle sandwich is not anticompetitive activity. Ford will make their cars compatible with Ford engines only, and if you want to put another engine inside your truck you'll have to do it yourself. Just as with Apple hardware. There's nobody stopping you. Then of course the law and justice system are able to and will do whatever they want, in a completely arbitrary fashion as they usually do. That's reality. If they want to go after Apple they will. The reality is also that it seems the general public and hackers take all innovation, products and services for granted. Something that just magically pops up to be taken advantage of by forcing other people to bend to your will, using the government as a club to hammer them with. Sure, if there's abuse. But not making a Linux-compatible iPhone is not abuse, no matter how hurt hackers feel. Why not focus on actual abuse instead, of which there is a lot? > "no, I'm not part of the market now when you want to regulate me, I've decided that I'm suddenly now a completely independent entity that's divorced from the rest of the economy." That is what has always happened and is called brain-drain. People and companies move to places that reward entrepreneurship instead of exploiting it.
  - danShumway 3y ago
    > I haven't seen any evidence of anticompetitive activity on Apple's part. I guess agree to disagree? Apple has a massive effect on the computing market, particularly around smartphones. We're currently legislating a Google antritust case in the US (which I hope Google loses) that alleges having default settings on an iPhone was worth billions of dollars to Google to help cement their place in the market. But sure, you can disagree with that if you want. Lots of people do. Just don't pretend that regulation is inherently some slippery slope, argue against the specific regulation that you don't like. > Ford will make their cars compatible with Ford engines only, and if you want to put another engine inside your truck you'll have to do it yourself. Just as with Apple hardware. There's nobody stopping you. Not a great example, it would honestly take me a minute or two to think of a bigger industry off the top of my head where standardization and cross-device compatibility is more regulated than the auto industry. And it's been hecking fantastic; it is extremely good that the auto-industry uses mostly compatible parts and that it's forced to allow for 3rd-party repair and aftermarket customization and swapping of parts. I would kill to have regulations for compatibility and 3rd-party support in the computing industry that were as strict as automotive regulations. Imagine it being illegal for Apple not to make diagnostic information available to all 3rd-party repair shops using the same physical port on the phone and using the same standardized communication format to query diagnostics that every other OS and phone uses. By all means, let's copy the auto industry, that is a great idea :) > The reality is also that it seems the general public and hackers take all innovation, products and services for granted. I would argue that if you look at the history of computing, increased competition between vendors and Open access to platforms between vendors has historically strongly coincided with innovation and better products for consumers. But... again, you can disagree with that if you want. > People and companies move to places that reward entrepreneurship instead of exploiting it. They're welcome to do so. Look, I'm not trying to force anyone to be part of a market; if Apple doesn't want to sell in the EU or US, there are very few companies in the world who have more capital and resources at their disposal to help them move markets. It's not like they're a mom-and-pop shop that can't afford to move and that are trapped under regulations, they are one of the biggest computing companies in the world and they have the resources to go elsewhere if they don't like the arrangements.

lancesells 3y ago

I think the Microsoft judgement was opening up their APIs for other companies to make apps. If that's all you're comparing than that's a tough argument as that has little to do with the hardware being tied to an OS. And to be clear, I'm not pro-Apple on not being able to install another OS. I think if there is a law it should be about EVERY device. Nintendo Switch, tractors, phones, etc. Just the environmental benefits would be big and always getting bigger.

danShumway 3y ago
The antitrust fights against Microsoft I think were a big reason why IE and Word ended up coming to MacOS. Apple also benefited from being able to reverse-engineer Word's format without facing legal trouble. And I think there were a lot of knock-on effects from that; even if we just look at the IE bundling would the web have looked the same if that ecosystem had never changed? Remember that iOS started out primarily supporting web apps; a closed down web ecosystem would have fundamentally changed the device. Is that the same as forcing a company to open up hardware access? We can argue that, and I sort of see where you're coming from, but... I think my bigger point is: > as that has little to do with the hardware being tied to an OS. I feel like this is a very narrow interpretation of antitrust. Microsoft was prevented from abusing a market power that could have prevented other competitors from gaining a foothold in the market. Apple directly benefited from the government and regulators stepping in and saying "we don't think a company should be able to unduly block competition." It feels a little hand-wavy if someone wants to make the argument that it's all different just because Apple now has a different mechanism for locking down the market. The problem was locking down the market, and that's still the problem. And what we're really asking is "should the government be able to stop a company from making the market uncompetitive?" Sure, someone could make the argument that allowing a custom OS on a phone is technically different from government intervention standardizing electrical outlets so the iPhone can charge, but they're both regulations that serve basically the exact same purpose that are coming from the exact same authority. If Apple wants to claim that opening up the hardware would be a step too far, I'd want to see an argument from them about what is practically different about that regulation that makes it a step too far. We regulated device compatibility for phone networks and that led to an explosion of innovation that shaped the modern Internet. Not all regulations are good. There should be limits on what the government can do. But I think the onus is on companies like Apple who have benefited from the government saying, "we have a vested interest in making the market competitive" to explain not just why the regulations being proposed are technically different, but to also explain why it matters that we're talking about opening hardware and not just software and why that regulation should be treated differently. > I think if there is a law it should be about EVERY device. Nintendo Switch, tractors, phones, etc. Just the environmental benefits would be big and always getting bigger. Completely agreed.