4 ms·

I strongly disagree with that. Apple and Google have both spent billions developing and maintaining their respective platforms. A government entity shouldn’t be

I strongly disagree with that. Apple and Google have both spent billions developing and maintaining their respective platforms. A government entity shouldn’t be able to overreach and regulate how they are able to maintain and distribute their own platform. If Apples decisions were truly so anti-consumer, then consumers would use a different platform, such as android. This is as a developer who has to pay the App Store fees. All this regulation has done is make the app acquisition experience on iOS worse as a whole and laid a minefield of vague legal regulations and lawsuits yet to come.

wvenable 3y ago
Apple (and every other company) is already subject to tons of consumer regulations -- many of them already concerning how they maintain, manage, and distribute their own platform. So why are all those regulations ok but this one isn't? If we remove all consumer protections and regulations then consumers could still -- as you say -- choose to use a different platform. You could argue this specific regulation itself is bad -- like you can with all other regulations -- but the concept of regulating a business for the benefit of consumers has long been already decided everywhere in the world.
- multimoon 3y ago
  I don’t have any substantive basis to argue some other regulation versus this one that isn’t an emotional basis as a developer without doing further research, but this regulation has now inadvertently made it a worse experience. To my perception this regulation has gone far deeper than any before defining the “market gatekeepers” and attempting to govern how a company can monetize its own market. Regulations are usually “how a company can sell a product in the free market” not “how a company can monetize the services of its already existing product”. That is a consideration of the consumer during purchasing of the product, or a consideration of the developer when developing for it. At the minimum, this was a poorly planned and executed regulation as displayed by Apple here.
  - toyg 3y ago
    You should read up on the evolution of business regulations in the XIX and XX century. TL;DR: this is nowhere near the most-reaching one, nor the first to regulate how businesses can sell stuff in their own markets. Apple and Google (and Facebook, and Amazon, and Adobe, and and and...) are not special: they are just entitled.
    - multimoon 3y ago
      Digital services revenue didn’t exist in the 19th and if even at all during the end of the 20th century, so this is still a relatively new space in the timescale of government regulation, and is an entirely new type of market.
      - toyg 3y ago
        Financial services, subscriptions, and other service-based commercial relationships pre-date digitalisation by decades. The main differences for digital products are actually items that Apple are rejecting even today: the fact that national borders are disappearing, and that unregulated everything-as-subscription creates neofeudal relationships. Hopefully we'll address that at some point.
MerManMaid 3y ago
> I strongly disagree with that. Apple and Google have both spent billions developing and maintaining their respective platforms. A government entity shouldn’t be able to overreach and regulate how they are able to maintain and distribute their own platform. What? That's a large part of most government's responsibility. If we used the logic you described above, then the US government should never of touched Big Tobacco, Bell, Standard Oil, US Steel, ect. I don't really want to debate if the multi-trillion dollar conglomerate known as Apple is a monopoly, however I'll happily engage with anyone who thinks a government shouldn't regulate a company they concluded to be anti-competitive and monopolistic.

wvenable 3y ago

Apple (and every other company) is already subject to tons of consumer regulations -- many of them already concerning how they maintain, manage, and distribute their own platform. So why are all those regulations ok but this one isn't? If we remove all consumer protections and regulations then consumers could still -- as you say -- choose to use a different platform. You could argue this specific regulation itself is bad -- like you can with all other regulations -- but the concept of regulating a business for the benefit of consumers has long been already decided everywhere in the world.

multimoon 3y ago
I don’t have any substantive basis to argue some other regulation versus this one that isn’t an emotional basis as a developer without doing further research, but this regulation has now inadvertently made it a worse experience. To my perception this regulation has gone far deeper than any before defining the “market gatekeepers” and attempting to govern how a company can monetize its own market. Regulations are usually “how a company can sell a product in the free market” not “how a company can monetize the services of its already existing product”. That is a consideration of the consumer during purchasing of the product, or a consideration of the developer when developing for it. At the minimum, this was a poorly planned and executed regulation as displayed by Apple here.
- toyg 3y ago
  You should read up on the evolution of business regulations in the XIX and XX century. TL;DR: this is nowhere near the most-reaching one, nor the first to regulate how businesses can sell stuff in their own markets. Apple and Google (and Facebook, and Amazon, and Adobe, and and and...) are not special: they are just entitled.
  - multimoon 3y ago
    Digital services revenue didn’t exist in the 19th and if even at all during the end of the 20th century, so this is still a relatively new space in the timescale of government regulation, and is an entirely new type of market.
    - toyg 3y ago
      Financial services, subscriptions, and other service-based commercial relationships pre-date digitalisation by decades. The main differences for digital products are actually items that Apple are rejecting even today: the fact that national borders are disappearing, and that unregulated everything-as-subscription creates neofeudal relationships. Hopefully we'll address that at some point.

MerManMaid 3y ago

> I strongly disagree with that. Apple and Google have both spent billions developing and maintaining their respective platforms. A government entity shouldn’t be able to overreach and regulate how they are able to maintain and distribute their own platform. What? That's a large part of most government's responsibility. If we used the logic you described above, then the US government should never of touched Big Tobacco, Bell, Standard Oil, US Steel, ect. I don't really want to debate if the multi-trillion dollar conglomerate known as Apple is a monopoly, however I'll happily engage with anyone who thinks a government shouldn't regulate a company they concluded to be anti-competitive and monopolistic.