7 ms·

I’m betting some people will argue that “It’s their store, they can do what they want with it”

by _lvbh 3y ago

apwell23 3y ago
yes same as apple app store.
qwertox 3y ago
I was about to write that maybe a discount could be OK, due to some kind of high volume income generation for Google, but then again, wouldn't that mean that they should have to create some kind of discount tiers which apply to all depending on a certain criteria?
itslennysfault 3y ago
It is pretty hard to argue against that. For me, I think the open question is can they deny 3rd party app stores or side-loading apps. Then, we get into the "Microsoft installing IE by default" fight. How can a 3rd party app store compete? (I don't have an answer)
- euazOn 3y ago
  > It is pretty hard to argue against that. The European Union's Digital Markets Act finds that pretty easy.
  - everforward 3y ago
    The DMA is about whether they can be the only store, not whether they can do whatever they want with their store. The DMA will let them charge 100% fees if they want, it just won't allow them to be the only store on the platform to force people to pay that fee.
- packetlost 3y ago
  Because they are over 1/2 of a duopoly? It's pretty darn easy to argue against it and it has been done successfully.
- flutas 3y ago
  > the open question is can they deny 3rd party app stores or side-loading apps This is somewhat the basis of the lawsuit that actually brought this out. The accusation is (iirc): Google has backroom deals with OEMs to prevent them from having any market installed by default except for Google Play. This is what stopped Epic from continuing with their own mobile market idea, as no OEMs would agree due to this.
- xcv123 3y ago
  > It is pretty hard to argue against that. If they are a monopoly or duopoly or cartel it is very easy to argue against that. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/antitrust.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/antitrust.asp
robertlagrant 3y ago
> I’m betting some people will argue that “It’s their store, they can do what they want with it” Behaving as though predicting a response is a counter to it is bad faith.
mattnewton 3y ago
Typically I see people arguing that when it’s apple. Usually complete with a “think of the children / the grandmas” when arguing against side-loading. I’m still scratching my head trying to understand why this is okay but Microsoft bundling internet explorer wasn’t.
K0nserv 3y ago
I guess I'm usually in this camp with regards to Apple and I suppose it's strictly okay for Google to do this. However, since these markets are so dominant, I'd like any discounts to be transparent and offered to everyone at the same terms. Apple's public discount program works like this, although who knows what secret deals they have. Related: are utility companies in various jurisdictions allowed to strike deals like this?
- hospitalJail 3y ago
  The double standard is revealed. Apple is the Nintendo of gaming. Through advanced psychology tricks, they aren't held to the same standards.
  - K0nserv 3y ago
    My standard is consistent. Apple and Google control their respective OSes. They are not general purpose OSes and there's nothing wrong with locking down the software users can run. Having a store and charging a commission is also fine, however it makes sense that all developers should be on equal footing with respect to the store and their app size(in terms of download) i.e. no sweetheart deals. I do think there's a strong argument to be made about forcing Apple and Google to facilitate the ability to install a different OS if the user wishes.
- astrange 3y ago
  > Apple's public discount program works like this, although who knows what secret deals they have. They don't have any, we know because of Epic testimony.
paxys 3y ago
People only use that argument for the Apple ecosystem. Any other company following their example is evil and should be regulated out of existence.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
asylteltine 3y ago
That doesn’t work when you have a monopoly though. This isn’t a bakery or “totally legitimate internet website making business that absolutely is real and wasn’t invented specifically to bring a case to the Supreme Court”
- astrange 3y ago
  An app store isn't a monopoly, it's a two-sided marketplace. If you claim it's a monopoly then it should also be a monopsony, which would cancel out most of it.
muzani 3y ago
That argument works when they don't own 70% or so of the apps in the world. At some point, they should be held accountable for what they do on their store, just like countries would be held accountable to what happens to their citizens. If Play Store decided to ban or restrict, say, Uber or Netflix, that's just billions of dollars of economic damage on a flick of a finger. They hold more power than banks. It's surprising they aren't tightly regulated like banks would be.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > They hold more power than banks. It's surprising they aren't tightly regulated like banks would be. No. Stop doing this. When someone has a monopoly, the solution is not to keep the monopoly and try to regulate it. It's to break the monopoly.
  - muzani 3y ago
    Banks aren't a monopoly and are still dangerous. Also the apple app store is a "hard" monopoly, while Google's is a soft one, but Google still holds a bulk of the power despite major competitors. Also not all monopolies are dangerous or evil, e.g. Steam.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > Banks aren't a monopoly and are still dangerous. Banks aren't dangerous because they're a monopoly, they're dangerous because you're entrusting them with your money. Platform app stores are dangerous because they're a monopoly. > Also not all monopolies are dangerous or evil, e.g. Steam. Steam is still taking a 30% cut. Only monopolists can get away with that, and they should all be smashed.
  - astrange 3y ago
    This is how to ensure your economy isn't competitive with other countries. Large companies with export businesses are more competent and successful than small companies without them. It's good for Korea that they have Samsung.
gwbas1c 3y ago
I think that (“It’s their store, they can do what they want with it”) would only work if using alternative stores was practical. I once tried installing the Amazon app store to see if I could get a version of Kindle that allowed in-app purchases. It didn't exist.

I’m betting some people will argue that “It’s their store, they can do what they want with it”

by _lvbh 3y ago

I’m betting some people will argue that “It’s their store, they can do what they want with it”

apwell23 3y ago

yes same as apple app store.

qwertox 3y ago

I was about to write that maybe a discount could be OK, due to some kind of high volume income generation for Google, but then again, wouldn't that mean that they should have to create some kind of discount tiers which apply to all depending on a certain criteria?

itslennysfault 3y ago

It is pretty hard to argue against that. For me, I think the open question is can they deny 3rd party app stores or side-loading apps. Then, we get into the "Microsoft installing IE by default" fight. How can a 3rd party app store compete? (I don't have an answer)

euazOn 3y ago
> It is pretty hard to argue against that. The European Union's Digital Markets Act finds that pretty easy.
- everforward 3y ago
  The DMA is about whether they can be the only store, not whether they can do whatever they want with their store. The DMA will let them charge 100% fees if they want, it just won't allow them to be the only store on the platform to force people to pay that fee.
packetlost 3y ago
Because they are over 1/2 of a duopoly? It's pretty darn easy to argue against it and it has been done successfully.
flutas 3y ago
> the open question is can they deny 3rd party app stores or side-loading apps This is somewhat the basis of the lawsuit that actually brought this out. The accusation is (iirc): Google has backroom deals with OEMs to prevent them from having any market installed by default except for Google Play. This is what stopped Epic from continuing with their own mobile market idea, as no OEMs would agree due to this.
xcv123 3y ago
> It is pretty hard to argue against that. If they are a monopoly or duopoly or cartel it is very easy to argue against that. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/antitrust.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/antitrust.asp

robertlagrant 3y ago

> I’m betting some people will argue that “It’s their store, they can do what they want with it” Behaving as though predicting a response is a counter to it is bad faith.

mattnewton 3y ago

Typically I see people arguing that when it’s apple. Usually complete with a “think of the children / the grandmas” when arguing against side-loading. I’m still scratching my head trying to understand why this is okay but Microsoft bundling internet explorer wasn’t.

K0nserv 3y ago

I guess I'm usually in this camp with regards to Apple and I suppose it's strictly okay for Google to do this. However, since these markets are so dominant, I'd like any discounts to be transparent and offered to everyone at the same terms. Apple's public discount program works like this, although who knows what secret deals they have. Related: are utility companies in various jurisdictions allowed to strike deals like this?

hospitalJail 3y ago
The double standard is revealed. Apple is the Nintendo of gaming. Through advanced psychology tricks, they aren't held to the same standards.
- K0nserv 3y ago
  My standard is consistent. Apple and Google control their respective OSes. They are not general purpose OSes and there's nothing wrong with locking down the software users can run. Having a store and charging a commission is also fine, however it makes sense that all developers should be on equal footing with respect to the store and their app size(in terms of download) i.e. no sweetheart deals. I do think there's a strong argument to be made about forcing Apple and Google to facilitate the ability to install a different OS if the user wishes.
astrange 3y ago
> Apple's public discount program works like this, although who knows what secret deals they have. They don't have any, we know because of Epic testimony.

paxys 3y ago

People only use that argument for the Apple ecosystem. Any other company following their example is evil and should be regulated out of existence.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

asylteltine 3y ago

That doesn’t work when you have a monopoly though. This isn’t a bakery or “totally legitimate internet website making business that absolutely is real and wasn’t invented specifically to bring a case to the Supreme Court”

astrange 3y ago
An app store isn't a monopoly, it's a two-sided marketplace. If you claim it's a monopoly then it should also be a monopsony, which would cancel out most of it.

muzani 3y ago

That argument works when they don't own 70% or so of the apps in the world. At some point, they should be held accountable for what they do on their store, just like countries would be held accountable to what happens to their citizens. If Play Store decided to ban or restrict, say, Uber or Netflix, that's just billions of dollars of economic damage on a flick of a finger. They hold more power than banks. It's surprising they aren't tightly regulated like banks would be.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> They hold more power than banks. It's surprising they aren't tightly regulated like banks would be. No. Stop doing this. When someone has a monopoly, the solution is not to keep the monopoly and try to regulate it. It's to break the monopoly.
- muzani 3y ago
  Banks aren't a monopoly and are still dangerous. Also the apple app store is a "hard" monopoly, while Google's is a soft one, but Google still holds a bulk of the power despite major competitors. Also not all monopolies are dangerous or evil, e.g. Steam.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > Banks aren't a monopoly and are still dangerous. Banks aren't dangerous because they're a monopoly, they're dangerous because you're entrusting them with your money. Platform app stores are dangerous because they're a monopoly. > Also not all monopolies are dangerous or evil, e.g. Steam. Steam is still taking a 30% cut. Only monopolists can get away with that, and they should all be smashed.
- astrange 3y ago
  This is how to ensure your economy isn't competitive with other countries. Large companies with export businesses are more competent and successful than small companies without them. It's good for Korea that they have Samsung.

gwbas1c 3y ago

I think that (“It’s their store, they can do what they want with it”) would only work if using alternative stores was practical. I once tried installing the Amazon app store to see if I could get a version of Kindle that allowed in-app purchases. It didn't exist.