5 ms·

Because the two giant companies that own those markets like it this way, and they spend millions per year on lawyers and lobbyists to keep that position.

by rurp 3y ago

pipes 3y ago
Or because those two companies created those platforms. I don't see why they owe it to other companies to lower their prices.
- hot_gril 3y ago
  It's both. They lobbied to keep it that way. I'm a little glad they did.
- hobs 3y ago
  Because it actively harms the users of the market, and we'd control the regulation in our favor if big companies didn't brainwash everyone.
- legitster 3y ago
  It's not even clear that breaking up the app stores would be good for consumers or developers. Having to load an app onto 15 different app stores to capture the market sounds like hell. The only ones who would really benefit are other large corporations like Epic.
  - threeseed 3y ago
    And Epic only cares because they want to run their own private, exclusive App Store.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - mvc 3y ago
    As a mere consumer, I would prefer it if "capturing" was difficult. Society should not be optimized for those who want to "capture" entire markets.
- stale2002 3y ago
  > Or because those two companies created those platform This is completely irrelevant if they are a monopoly and subject to anti trust laws. > I don't see why they owe it to other companies That owe it to the countries that they are based in to follow the law, or move their entire company else where, if that's what they choose.
  - semiquaver 3y ago
    > This is completely irrelevant if they are a monopoly and subject to anti trust laws. No legal precedent supports the idea that the Android or iOS app stores are monopolies under US law. We are in a thread discussing a final verdict against that proposition which is now binding in CA9. “This is completely irrelevant if [this decidedly false fact]” is not really a useful statement. Wishcasting that courts will misinterpret the law is not the way forward, the way forward is new laws.
    - stale2002 3y ago
      > No legal precedent supports Gotcha. Unrelated to my point though. My point was that someone saying "well it's their platform, they can do what they want!" Is making a bad argument. If someone wants to make a good argument, instead of a bad one, then you would have to start talking about what a monopoly is. But whoever built the platform is simply an argument that is unrelated. > is not really a useful statement. It absolutely is useful, because it focuses on the question that matters. No matter if you think that Apple is a monopoly or not, of which there are reasonable arguments to be made on all sides, the fact that Apple built it just doesn't matter. Talk about the things that matter, not unrelated points. > a final verdict against that proposition which is now binding in CA9. If you meant to imply that this is a final verdict on if Apple is a monopoly or not, then I would recommend that you re-read the original ruling of the California judge. The California judge was very clear that the verdict only shows that Epic failed in their arguments, not that Apple is decidedly not a monopoly.
      - semiquaver 3y ago
        You’re mistaken. The district court did in fact find that Apple does not possess monopoly power in any relevant market. Here is the ruling from the 9th Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/04/24/21-16506.pdf https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/04/24/2... Now that SCOTUS has denied cert this constitutes a final judgement. Its rulings on law are binding throughout the 9th circuit. While “possession of monopoly power is a fact question”, this denial is likely to be the final say for quite some time on questions of whether Apple possesses monopoly power in markets related to app stores, which it obviously does not because of the existence of Android. Epic attempted to argue that Apple has monopoly power in “iOS games” which was rejected since you can’t just arbitrarily narrow your market definition until you find a monopoly.
- JeffSnazz 3y ago
  > Or because those two companies created those platforms. I don't see why they owe it to other companies to lower their prices. It's up to us to make them give us better tools for us. This isn't a natural thing that just happens. I don't give a damn which company succeeds in the end so long as the consumer is fairly represented.
grecy 3y ago
> they spend millions per year on lawyers and lobbyists to keep that position. They paid lawmakers to keep the laws the way they want them to be. Just so we're clear, if we were talking about some other country it would be called bribery.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > They paid lawmakers...if we were talking about some other country it would be called bribery No, they did not and no we would not. If you have evidence of Apple or Google cutting a cheque to any lawmaker, personally, I'll commit here and now to paying you six figures for it, because it's worth ten times that much in the open.
  - hex4def6 3y ago
    >If you have evidence of Apple or Google cutting a cheque to any lawmaker, personally, I'll commit here and now to paying you six figures for it, because it's worth ten times that much in the open. https://www.opensecrets.org/search?order=desc&q=apple&sort=A&type=donors https://www.opensecrets.org/search?order=desc&q=apple&sort=A... $140,000 to a John Harris Whitmire. Apparently he's "an American attorney and politician who is the 63rd mayor of Houston, Texas" according to Wikipedia.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      That's a campaign donation. (Mayors in mayor-council governments aren't technically lawmakers, though Houston has a strong enough mayor that it's semantic at best.) You can't--legally--spend campaign donations on personal expenses. It's the difference between investing in someone's start-up (or more accurately, donating to their non-profit) and giving them money personally. I'm not arguing it doesn't buy influence. It does, though not in the form popularly conceived. But it's not bribery. Cheapening bribery by conflating it with campaign finance, or worse, lobbying in general isn't intellectually honest.
      - lmm 3y ago
seanmcdirmid 3y ago
I guess you mean Apple and Nintendo right? I'm not sure if Switch is really so comparable to an iPhone though.
- bmitc 3y ago
  Apple and Google

Because the two giant companies that own those markets like it this way, and they spend millions per year on lawyers and lobbyists to keep that position.

by rurp 3y ago

Because the two giant companies that own those markets like it this way, and they spend millions per year on lawyers and lobbyists to keep that position.

pipes 3y ago

Or because those two companies created those platforms. I don't see why they owe it to other companies to lower their prices.

hot_gril 3y ago
It's both. They lobbied to keep it that way. I'm a little glad they did.
hobs 3y ago
Because it actively harms the users of the market, and we'd control the regulation in our favor if big companies didn't brainwash everyone.
legitster 3y ago
It's not even clear that breaking up the app stores would be good for consumers or developers. Having to load an app onto 15 different app stores to capture the market sounds like hell. The only ones who would really benefit are other large corporations like Epic.
- threeseed 3y ago
  And Epic only cares because they want to run their own private, exclusive App Store.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- mvc 3y ago
  As a mere consumer, I would prefer it if "capturing" was difficult. Society should not be optimized for those who want to "capture" entire markets.
stale2002 3y ago
> Or because those two companies created those platform This is completely irrelevant if they are a monopoly and subject to anti trust laws. > I don't see why they owe it to other companies That owe it to the countries that they are based in to follow the law, or move their entire company else where, if that's what they choose.
- semiquaver 3y ago
  > This is completely irrelevant if they are a monopoly and subject to anti trust laws. No legal precedent supports the idea that the Android or iOS app stores are monopolies under US law. We are in a thread discussing a final verdict against that proposition which is now binding in CA9. “This is completely irrelevant if [this decidedly false fact]” is not really a useful statement. Wishcasting that courts will misinterpret the law is not the way forward, the way forward is new laws.
  - stale2002 3y ago
    > No legal precedent supports Gotcha. Unrelated to my point though. My point was that someone saying "well it's their platform, they can do what they want!" Is making a bad argument. If someone wants to make a good argument, instead of a bad one, then you would have to start talking about what a monopoly is. But whoever built the platform is simply an argument that is unrelated. > is not really a useful statement. It absolutely is useful, because it focuses on the question that matters. No matter if you think that Apple is a monopoly or not, of which there are reasonable arguments to be made on all sides, the fact that Apple built it just doesn't matter. Talk about the things that matter, not unrelated points. > a final verdict against that proposition which is now binding in CA9. If you meant to imply that this is a final verdict on if Apple is a monopoly or not, then I would recommend that you re-read the original ruling of the California judge. The California judge was very clear that the verdict only shows that Epic failed in their arguments, not that Apple is decidedly not a monopoly.
    - semiquaver 3y ago
      You’re mistaken. The district court did in fact find that Apple does not possess monopoly power in any relevant market. Here is the ruling from the 9th Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/04/24/21-16506.pdf https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/04/24/2... Now that SCOTUS has denied cert this constitutes a final judgement. Its rulings on law are binding throughout the 9th circuit. While “possession of monopoly power is a fact question”, this denial is likely to be the final say for quite some time on questions of whether Apple possesses monopoly power in markets related to app stores, which it obviously does not because of the existence of Android. Epic attempted to argue that Apple has monopoly power in “iOS games” which was rejected since you can’t just arbitrarily narrow your market definition until you find a monopoly.
JeffSnazz 3y ago
> Or because those two companies created those platforms. I don't see why they owe it to other companies to lower their prices. It's up to us to make them give us better tools for us. This isn't a natural thing that just happens. I don't give a damn which company succeeds in the end so long as the consumer is fairly represented.

grecy 3y ago

> they spend millions per year on lawyers and lobbyists to keep that position. They paid lawmakers to keep the laws the way they want them to be. Just so we're clear, if we were talking about some other country it would be called bribery.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> They paid lawmakers...if we were talking about some other country it would be called bribery No, they did not and no we would not. If you have evidence of Apple or Google cutting a cheque to any lawmaker, personally, I'll commit here and now to paying you six figures for it, because it's worth ten times that much in the open.
- hex4def6 3y ago
  >If you have evidence of Apple or Google cutting a cheque to any lawmaker, personally, I'll commit here and now to paying you six figures for it, because it's worth ten times that much in the open. https://www.opensecrets.org/search?order=desc&q=apple&sort=A&type=donors https://www.opensecrets.org/search?order=desc&q=apple&sort=A... $140,000 to a John Harris Whitmire. Apparently he's "an American attorney and politician who is the 63rd mayor of Houston, Texas" according to Wikipedia.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    That's a campaign donation. (Mayors in mayor-council governments aren't technically lawmakers, though Houston has a strong enough mayor that it's semantic at best.) You can't--legally--spend campaign donations on personal expenses. It's the difference between investing in someone's start-up (or more accurately, donating to their non-profit) and giving them money personally. I'm not arguing it doesn't buy influence. It does, though not in the form popularly conceived. But it's not bribery. Cheapening bribery by conflating it with campaign finance, or worse, lobbying in general isn't intellectually honest.
    - lmm 3y ago

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

I guess you mean Apple and Nintendo right? I'm not sure if Switch is really so comparable to an iPhone though.

bmitc 3y ago
Apple and Google