4 ms·

It’s humorous to me that we discuss “monopolies” over what are ultimately very discretionary sectors. Compare to the trusts of the 20th century, which were mono

by lumb63 3y ago

It’s humorous to me that we discuss “monopolies” over what are ultimately very discretionary sectors. Compare to the trusts of the 20th century, which were monopolizing oil or steel for example. These are (or were) the commodities required to power commerce via shipping and transportation. A single entity having pricing power over such essential commodities threatens the robustness of the world economy. Today we complain about the monopolistic power of, e.g. Google, who does not actually have a monopoly on search (there are many other providers), and the ability to search the entire internet isn’t really that necessary, or Apple’s mobile marketplace, where they again do not have a monopoly (people choose to develop for Apple devices, and part of choosing to sell something somewhere is agreeing to the market’s terms - as has been the case for all of time), and this is mostly to power manipulative microtransactions for kids on games. These are entirely different ballparks.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
The thing you're missing is the "you're not the customer, you're the product." The customer is the app developer or the advertiser -- the startup Apple is extracting 30% from, or the small business which just wants to get its name out but Google systematically excludes small websites from organic search results and requires you to pay a huge chunk of your revenue to be seen. If your prospective customers have iPhones, you need Apple's permission or you're out of business. If your prospective customers use Google search, you pay them for advertising or you're invisible. You don't get to choose which phone or search engine they use, and they rarely if ever use more than one -- unlike retail stores where it's common for the same customer to shop at dozens of different stores. If Walmart won't carry your products in their stores, you can sell them through Target and Amazon and a zillion other retailers. The same customers can get it from another store. If Apple won't carry your app, those customers have no other viable means to get it from you. This isn't just "manipulative microtransactions for kids on games" -- it's the reason you can't use cryptocurrency or any competing payment network for in-app purchases. Are payments not an important industry for which we care about competition? Apple basically murdered Tumblr by giving them an impossible choice between banning adult content (causing them to lose too much of their user base) or being banned from iPhones (causing them to lose too much of their user base). Regardless of how you feel about adult content, they have the power to do this over anything. Should they be able to destroy your social network or force you to censor if they don't like your politics? How does this not matter?

by lumb63 3y ago

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

The thing you're missing is the "you're not the customer, you're the product." The customer is the app developer or the advertiser -- the startup Apple is extracting 30% from, or the small business which just wants to get its name out but Google systematically excludes small websites from organic search results and requires you to pay a huge chunk of your revenue to be seen. If your prospective customers have iPhones, you need Apple's permission or you're out of business. If your prospective customers use Google search, you pay them for advertising or you're invisible. You don't get to choose which phone or search engine they use, and they rarely if ever use more than one -- unlike retail stores where it's common for the same customer to shop at dozens of different stores. If Walmart won't carry your products in their stores, you can sell them through Target and Amazon and a zillion other retailers. The same customers can get it from another store. If Apple won't carry your app, those customers have no other viable means to get it from you. This isn't just "manipulative microtransactions for kids on games" -- it's the reason you can't use cryptocurrency or any competing payment network for in-app purchases. Are payments not an important industry for which we care about competition? Apple basically murdered Tumblr by giving them an impossible choice between banning adult content (causing them to lose too much of their user base) or being banned from iPhones (causing them to lose too much of their user base). Regardless of how you feel about adult content, they have the power to do this over anything. Should they be able to destroy your social network or force you to censor if they don't like your politics? How does this not matter?