3 ms·

IMO regulation should kick in based on market share, regardless of device type. If 50% of the population was being taxed 30% on digital transactions by the plat

IMO regulation should kick in based on market share, regardless of device type. If 50% of the population was being taxed 30% on digital transactions by the platform owner, it doesn't really matter if it happened on an iPhone/Android or Nintendo Switch.

ericmay 3y ago
Market share of devices sold? Does it change by the year? Market share of the company? What if companies just introduce small changes to the device that result in different SKUs? Take a look at the Nintendo Switch market share in 2020 [1]. We should regulate Nintendo and make them open up APIs but not Microsoft? [1] Assume this is accurate for the sake of argument https://www.statista.com/statistics/276768/global-unit-sales-of-video-game-consoles/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/276768/global-unit-sales...
- ProfessorLayton 3y ago
  Percent of revenue of digital transactions should open up companies to regulation. Nintendo should be free to do whatever they want up until a certain percent of the digital pie is controlled by them. What that number is should be up to regulators/we the people. Apple/Google's app store duopoly is a tax on competition and innovation. BTW these two app stores dwarf anything Nintendo is doing with theirs.
  - ericmay 3y ago
    What percent? Apple for example is known (I don't have the numbers in front of me) for making high margins on their hardware and not digital transactions though they're certainly trying to grow that sector. If you mean of the overall pie, wouldn't that just place burdensome regulation on new and small businesses or new sectors since as soon as you own a percent of the "digital pie" (what exactly is that anyway?) you have to then comply with regulations that could just open up your proprietary business features to your competitors? Why is it that Apple and Google's app store duopoly a tax on competition when they created the sector that enabled businesses to sell products? If anything they should charge more. But aside from that, doesn't this also discourage Apple, Google, and others from profiting off of or creating software features? Why even build the API? And if another company forks Android or creates a new mobile operating system they can keep all of their stuff closed until a later point in which they're beating incumbents and then just open up? Idk I feel like there's already too much additive logic here to make this worthwhile. Good regulation would be much cleaner and ideally subtractive instead of additive. > BTW these two app stores dwarf anything Nintendo is doing with theirs. I'm aware and I find this to be irrelevant.
    - ProfessorLayton 3y ago
      > What percent? I don't know, that's the regulator's job. > If you mean of the overall pie, wouldn't that just place burdensome regulation on new and small businesses or new sectors since as soon as you own a percent of the "digital pie" (what exactly is that anyway?) you have to then comply with regulations that could just open up your proprietary business features to your competitors? Businesses have to deal with new and changing regulations all the time. Once a business starts to worry about being too big and associated regulations, that's their legal team's job. > Why is it that Apple and Google's app store duopoly a tax on competition when they created the sector that enabled businesses to sell products? If anything they should charge more. Right, without regulation we're on a path for these megacoprs to start charging us more, especially if if our attempts to regulate them fail. They won't compete fairly out of the kindness of their hearts. > But aside from that, doesn't this also discourage Apple, Google, and others from profiting off of or creating software features? Why even build the API? And if another company forks Android or creates a new mobile operating system they can keep all of their stuff closed until a later point in which they're beating incumbents and then just open up? The beauty of competition is that if they don't continuously add new products or features, someone else will — Just like Apple/Google once did to the older tech incumbents. > Idk I feel like there's already too much additive logic here to make this worthwhile. Good regulation would be much cleaner and ideally subtractive instead of additive. While I proposed something, what I'm really looking for is outcomes that change tech into a more competitive landscape, and don't really care how it happens. > I'm aware and I find this to be irrelevant. It's not irrelevant in the context that antitrust regulations looks at the number of people impacted, which is very correlated to how much revenue is being generated.
      - ericmay 3y ago
        > I don't know, that's the regulator's job. Ok but you should at least have an idea because it's the central premise of your proposal. I'm not asking for you to split hairs between a percent or something but to provide something meaningful from a categorical standpoint. > Businesses have to deal with new and changing regulations all the time. Once a business starts to worry about being too big and associated regulations, that's their legal team's job. Sure that's fair though I'm still concerned about decreases in competition here due to this regulation as noted. > Right, without regulation we're on a path for these megacoprs to start charging us more, especially if if our attempts to regulate them fail. They won't compete fairly out of the kindness of their hearts. On the consumer side I don't see this as a big threat, it's more of a threat to developers. The vast majority of apps, games, etc. are junk and not worht acquiring for free or paid, and if those prices increase because companies are charging more then the likely scenario is they just die off which is good for the economy and the quality of the app stores. On the developer side this also has the added benefit of weeding out uncompetitive apps and poor products, and the cost burden is beared by developers instead of the corporations and personally I don't really care that much if, say, Epic gets more or less revenue than Apple because of these dynamics. Neither are lowering their prices so it's not relevant to me. > The beauty of competition is that if they don't continuously add new products or features, someone else will — Just like Apple/Google once did to the older tech incumbents. Nothing stops those new products or features today though so I'm not sure what the argument here is. Are you suggesting if Apple and Google open up their APIs then other competitors will... open up their non-existent APIs? If anything these things just further cemement Apple and Google dominance. > It's not irrelevant in the context that antitrust regulations looks at the number of people impacted, which is very correlated to how much revenue is being generated. Are you suggesting regulation overall due to company size or regulation within a sector? If it's the former I think there's likely to be some faulty rationele here and if it's the latter it's irrelevant because Nintendo isn't competing in the same sector as Apple or Google.

ericmay 3y ago

Market share of devices sold? Does it change by the year? Market share of the company? What if companies just introduce small changes to the device that result in different SKUs? Take a look at the Nintendo Switch market share in 2020 [1]. We should regulate Nintendo and make them open up APIs but not Microsoft? [1] Assume this is accurate for the sake of argument https://www.statista.com/statistics/276768/global-unit-sales-of-video-game-consoles/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/276768/global-unit-sales...

ProfessorLayton 3y ago
Percent of revenue of digital transactions should open up companies to regulation. Nintendo should be free to do whatever they want up until a certain percent of the digital pie is controlled by them. What that number is should be up to regulators/we the people. Apple/Google's app store duopoly is a tax on competition and innovation. BTW these two app stores dwarf anything Nintendo is doing with theirs.
- ericmay 3y ago
  What percent? Apple for example is known (I don't have the numbers in front of me) for making high margins on their hardware and not digital transactions though they're certainly trying to grow that sector. If you mean of the overall pie, wouldn't that just place burdensome regulation on new and small businesses or new sectors since as soon as you own a percent of the "digital pie" (what exactly is that anyway?) you have to then comply with regulations that could just open up your proprietary business features to your competitors? Why is it that Apple and Google's app store duopoly a tax on competition when they created the sector that enabled businesses to sell products? If anything they should charge more. But aside from that, doesn't this also discourage Apple, Google, and others from profiting off of or creating software features? Why even build the API? And if another company forks Android or creates a new mobile operating system they can keep all of their stuff closed until a later point in which they're beating incumbents and then just open up? Idk I feel like there's already too much additive logic here to make this worthwhile. Good regulation would be much cleaner and ideally subtractive instead of additive. > BTW these two app stores dwarf anything Nintendo is doing with theirs. I'm aware and I find this to be irrelevant.
  - ProfessorLayton 3y ago
    > What percent? I don't know, that's the regulator's job. > If you mean of the overall pie, wouldn't that just place burdensome regulation on new and small businesses or new sectors since as soon as you own a percent of the "digital pie" (what exactly is that anyway?) you have to then comply with regulations that could just open up your proprietary business features to your competitors? Businesses have to deal with new and changing regulations all the time. Once a business starts to worry about being too big and associated regulations, that's their legal team's job. > Why is it that Apple and Google's app store duopoly a tax on competition when they created the sector that enabled businesses to sell products? If anything they should charge more. Right, without regulation we're on a path for these megacoprs to start charging us more, especially if if our attempts to regulate them fail. They won't compete fairly out of the kindness of their hearts. > But aside from that, doesn't this also discourage Apple, Google, and others from profiting off of or creating software features? Why even build the API? And if another company forks Android or creates a new mobile operating system they can keep all of their stuff closed until a later point in which they're beating incumbents and then just open up? The beauty of competition is that if they don't continuously add new products or features, someone else will — Just like Apple/Google once did to the older tech incumbents. > Idk I feel like there's already too much additive logic here to make this worthwhile. Good regulation would be much cleaner and ideally subtractive instead of additive. While I proposed something, what I'm really looking for is outcomes that change tech into a more competitive landscape, and don't really care how it happens. > I'm aware and I find this to be irrelevant. It's not irrelevant in the context that antitrust regulations looks at the number of people impacted, which is very correlated to how much revenue is being generated.
    - ericmay 3y ago
      > I don't know, that's the regulator's job. Ok but you should at least have an idea because it's the central premise of your proposal. I'm not asking for you to split hairs between a percent or something but to provide something meaningful from a categorical standpoint. > Businesses have to deal with new and changing regulations all the time. Once a business starts to worry about being too big and associated regulations, that's their legal team's job. Sure that's fair though I'm still concerned about decreases in competition here due to this regulation as noted. > Right, without regulation we're on a path for these megacoprs to start charging us more, especially if if our attempts to regulate them fail. They won't compete fairly out of the kindness of their hearts. On the consumer side I don't see this as a big threat, it's more of a threat to developers. The vast majority of apps, games, etc. are junk and not worht acquiring for free or paid, and if those prices increase because companies are charging more then the likely scenario is they just die off which is good for the economy and the quality of the app stores. On the developer side this also has the added benefit of weeding out uncompetitive apps and poor products, and the cost burden is beared by developers instead of the corporations and personally I don't really care that much if, say, Epic gets more or less revenue than Apple because of these dynamics. Neither are lowering their prices so it's not relevant to me. > The beauty of competition is that if they don't continuously add new products or features, someone else will — Just like Apple/Google once did to the older tech incumbents. Nothing stops those new products or features today though so I'm not sure what the argument here is. Are you suggesting if Apple and Google open up their APIs then other competitors will... open up their non-existent APIs? If anything these things just further cemement Apple and Google dominance. > It's not irrelevant in the context that antitrust regulations looks at the number of people impacted, which is very correlated to how much revenue is being generated. Are you suggesting regulation overall due to company size or regulation within a sector? If it's the former I think there's likely to be some faulty rationele here and if it's the latter it's irrelevant because Nintendo isn't competing in the same sector as Apple or Google.