6 ms·

This is exactly the wrong argument to make and a perfect example of why internet discussion is becoming harder. None of what you said matters. It does not matt

by remon 3y ago

This is exactly the wrong argument to make and a perfect example of why internet discussion is becoming harder. None of what you said matters. It does not matter how much money a company makes or if you personally think they're charging too much for a service. They're allowed to. The open question is if they're in a position where there's no reasonable alternative for developers and/or consumers which you can make a strong case for. That line of argument would not be affected at all by how much money Apple makes, their cut or if they're spending their money in a socially productive way. The fact that this is the second highest upvoted comment is a rather sad datapoint on issues related to internet based conversation where opinions consistently trump fact or reason.

toyg 3y ago
> It does not matter how much money a company makes or if you personally think they're charging too much for a service. They're allowed to. Ah yes, loan sharks are perfectly legitimate businessmen too, then. > The fact that this is the second highest upvoted comment is a rather sad datapoint I personally find sadder that there are people who just rationalize away the utter lack of morality in modern capitalism. "Why screw others? Because we can! Woot!" is even worse than "greed is good".
- inemesitaffia 3y ago
  Why do companies charge extra to businesses for the same product? Should they? See the SSO tax
  - toyg 3y ago
    Companies should be free to compete on various variables, which include price for their services. But there is no competition for the Apple AppStore on Apple devices, it's a captive market. At that point, it's not competition but exploitation; and exploitation surely is a Bad Thing. We used to be taught that one of the Bad Elements of feudal life was that the local lord could impose arbitrary taxes to use a road or a bridge, with no recourse for people and tradesmen. Now we are at the same point in the digital world.
    - matwood 3y ago
      > But there is no competition for the Apple AppStore on Apple devices, it's a captive market Apples argument, which has legally worked so far, is the competition is at the ecosystem level. The iPhone and App Store are all parts of the whole. If someone doesn't like they can go to a competing ecosystem. Think game console, not computer.
      - toyg 3y ago
        I know very well, and I think that's the sticky point that needs untangling to take antitrust legislation into the XXI digital century. Ecosystem competition is not enough. Imagine buying a house, and having to ask to the original builder for permission to buy wardrobes, or a fridge, a table and chairs. The builder can tell you what he does or does not allow, and takes a cut of every purchase you make. It's a ludicrous proposition, but that's very much how our digital life currently is.
  - remon 3y ago
    There's plenty of good reasons to charge different amounts for the same services. There's nothing immoral about that. People can simply say no to making the purchase for the price offered to them. Again, this is completely besides the point of the Apple case. In Apple's case there are no reasonable alternatives and no practical way to say "no" to the service if you want any business at all. That and that alone should be the issue at hand. What Apple is doing should not be legal on that ground. Either they allow third party stores, or they adjust their cut to a level that can reasonably argued is aligned with the value they're adding to the publisher of that app or service. Now they're in "we can charge whatever because we're the only route to getting your product on Apple products" land, and that's just not where we want to be.
- remon 3y ago
  Are you being intentionally obtuse? Those two things are, again, completely unrelated. As a person I do feel capitalism in its current form results in demonstrably unethical practices, and I do think Apple overcharges for the value they bring to the table in the specific case of their 30% cut. That's a subjective ethical and moral assessment of Apple as a company. But that's not the topic at hand, and strawmanning one problem by pulling in another is just lazy. Ruling on this will not just affect Apple but any company with a similar modus operandi in the future, including smaller more ethical companies. Why people have trouble keeping legislative challenges (what you can do) and moral challenges (what you should do) apart is beyond me. You can have more than one opinion in your head at the same time.
  - toyg 3y ago
    > Are you being intentionally obtuse? For someone lamenting the state of discourse on the internet, you seem to have a problem with avoiding ad-hominems. You also seem to rabidly post multiple items at speed. Please calm down and refrain. > Ruling on this will not just affect Apple but any company with a similar modus operandi in the future, Absolutely - and absolutely, anyone creating a digital platform should be forced to follow better rules than what we have at the moment. The market alone will produce exploitative monopolies, and this is what we're seeing with Apple. If the letter of current antitrust laws doesn't touch them, the spirit definitely does. > Why people have trouble keeping legislative challenges (what you can do) and moral challenges (what you should do) apart Because it's in the cracks between those concepts that Bad Things for society tend to happen; which is why we have laws to reconcile them where the market fails to do so on its own. In this case, we have large companies effectively establishing exploitative and feudal relationships with smaller businesses and consumers, extracting parasitical rents. This is a Bad Thing and should be fixed. Including your other comment: > And yes, loan sharks are legitimate businessmen in the US. No, they are not. You need licenses to lend money in the US, and to get those you have to follow extensive rules and regulations put in place precisely to make it illegal to be a loan shark. Some businesses get close to the limits of such rules (payday loans etc), and that is a political item - precisely because they get very close to be something that is Bad for society. > if you want to change it vote for people that can turn that into law Absolutely, and people do. EU representatives are running with this, and Apple is slowly being subject to more and more scrutiny (together with Google, Amazon, and anyone else with a digital marketplace). People understand that what these businesses are doing is Bad for society in the long run, so if they can't reign themselves in on their own, they will have to be reigned in by the law.
- remon 3y ago
  And yes, loan sharks are legitimate businessmen in the US. Not most other places mind you because *there's legislation preventing it*. You're conflating "can" and "should" consistently, much like most other people in this thread. It's just not a moral business. Much like gambling isn't, selling addictive unhealthy products isn't, and so on. It's legal though, and if you want to change it vote for people that can turn that into law. Welcome to democracy.

by remon 3y ago

toyg 3y ago

> It does not matter how much money a company makes or if you personally think they're charging too much for a service. They're allowed to. Ah yes, loan sharks are perfectly legitimate businessmen too, then. > The fact that this is the second highest upvoted comment is a rather sad datapoint I personally find sadder that there are people who just rationalize away the utter lack of morality in modern capitalism. "Why screw others? Because we can! Woot!" is even worse than "greed is good".

inemesitaffia 3y ago
Why do companies charge extra to businesses for the same product? Should they? See the SSO tax
- toyg 3y ago
  Companies should be free to compete on various variables, which include price for their services. But there is no competition for the Apple AppStore on Apple devices, it's a captive market. At that point, it's not competition but exploitation; and exploitation surely is a Bad Thing. We used to be taught that one of the Bad Elements of feudal life was that the local lord could impose arbitrary taxes to use a road or a bridge, with no recourse for people and tradesmen. Now we are at the same point in the digital world.
  - matwood 3y ago
    > But there is no competition for the Apple AppStore on Apple devices, it's a captive market Apples argument, which has legally worked so far, is the competition is at the ecosystem level. The iPhone and App Store are all parts of the whole. If someone doesn't like they can go to a competing ecosystem. Think game console, not computer.
    - toyg 3y ago
      I know very well, and I think that's the sticky point that needs untangling to take antitrust legislation into the XXI digital century. Ecosystem competition is not enough. Imagine buying a house, and having to ask to the original builder for permission to buy wardrobes, or a fridge, a table and chairs. The builder can tell you what he does or does not allow, and takes a cut of every purchase you make. It's a ludicrous proposition, but that's very much how our digital life currently is.
- remon 3y ago
  There's plenty of good reasons to charge different amounts for the same services. There's nothing immoral about that. People can simply say no to making the purchase for the price offered to them. Again, this is completely besides the point of the Apple case. In Apple's case there are no reasonable alternatives and no practical way to say "no" to the service if you want any business at all. That and that alone should be the issue at hand. What Apple is doing should not be legal on that ground. Either they allow third party stores, or they adjust their cut to a level that can reasonably argued is aligned with the value they're adding to the publisher of that app or service. Now they're in "we can charge whatever because we're the only route to getting your product on Apple products" land, and that's just not where we want to be.
remon 3y ago
Are you being intentionally obtuse? Those two things are, again, completely unrelated. As a person I do feel capitalism in its current form results in demonstrably unethical practices, and I do think Apple overcharges for the value they bring to the table in the specific case of their 30% cut. That's a subjective ethical and moral assessment of Apple as a company. But that's not the topic at hand, and strawmanning one problem by pulling in another is just lazy. Ruling on this will not just affect Apple but any company with a similar modus operandi in the future, including smaller more ethical companies. Why people have trouble keeping legislative challenges (what you can do) and moral challenges (what you should do) apart is beyond me. You can have more than one opinion in your head at the same time.
- toyg 3y ago
  > Are you being intentionally obtuse? For someone lamenting the state of discourse on the internet, you seem to have a problem with avoiding ad-hominems. You also seem to rabidly post multiple items at speed. Please calm down and refrain. > Ruling on this will not just affect Apple but any company with a similar modus operandi in the future, Absolutely - and absolutely, anyone creating a digital platform should be forced to follow better rules than what we have at the moment. The market alone will produce exploitative monopolies, and this is what we're seeing with Apple. If the letter of current antitrust laws doesn't touch them, the spirit definitely does. > Why people have trouble keeping legislative challenges (what you can do) and moral challenges (what you should do) apart Because it's in the cracks between those concepts that Bad Things for society tend to happen; which is why we have laws to reconcile them where the market fails to do so on its own. In this case, we have large companies effectively establishing exploitative and feudal relationships with smaller businesses and consumers, extracting parasitical rents. This is a Bad Thing and should be fixed. Including your other comment: > And yes, loan sharks are legitimate businessmen in the US. No, they are not. You need licenses to lend money in the US, and to get those you have to follow extensive rules and regulations put in place precisely to make it illegal to be a loan shark. Some businesses get close to the limits of such rules (payday loans etc), and that is a political item - precisely because they get very close to be something that is Bad for society. > if you want to change it vote for people that can turn that into law Absolutely, and people do. EU representatives are running with this, and Apple is slowly being subject to more and more scrutiny (together with Google, Amazon, and anyone else with a digital marketplace). People understand that what these businesses are doing is Bad for society in the long run, so if they can't reign themselves in on their own, they will have to be reigned in by the law.
remon 3y ago
And yes, loan sharks are legitimate businessmen in the US. Not most other places mind you because *there's legislation preventing it*. You're conflating "can" and "should" consistently, much like most other people in this thread. It's just not a moral business. Much like gambling isn't, selling addictive unhealthy products isn't, and so on. It's legal though, and if you want to change it vote for people that can turn that into law. Welcome to democracy.