5 ms·

Competition laws

by jemmyw 2y ago

Competition laws

carlosjobim 2y ago
Apple does not hinder any developer from selling their software on competing devices or operating systems. I don't see how an honest person could claim that they're doing anything anti-competitive. I see how the EU politicians can claim that, because they are dishonest and expected to support parasitic actions.
- talldayo 2y ago
  > Apple does not hinder any developer from selling their software on competing devices or operating systems But Apple does hinder every developer from selling their software on Apple devices without using Apple's mandatory software distribution service. Which most of us can agree, is relatively monopolistic in nature and creates a captive market of Apple customers ripe for abuse.
  - tpmoney 2y ago
    No, I don't think "most of us can agree" that a manufacturer setting the conditions for distributing plugins for the hardware and software system that they produce and sell is "monopolistic" in nature. That's why we're having these discussions in the first place. Every store, market place and mall has conditions for being able to sell your wares in their space. Every single one of them will prevent you from using their space if you fail to meet those conditions. Malls will kick you out if you close your store during mall hours, denying you the ability to sell to those mall customers. eBay will shut your account if you try to get buyers to pay you outside of eBay, denying you the ability to sell to those eBay customers. Your local grocery store won't be allowing you to set up in the middle of the aisle with a laser light show selling your home made cookies, denying you the ability to sell to the grocery story customers. Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony will all very happily terminate your access to their markets for failure to comply with their development programs, denying you the ability to sell to those console customers.
    - talldayo 2y ago
      > Every store, market place and mall has conditions for being able to sell your wares in their space. But it's not a store. It's software; Apple charges developers to use their developer tools and then additionally requires you to pay the surcharges in their mandatory App Store. It is a racket that specifically relies on Apple's sole presence as a distributor on iOS and iPadOS; otherwise it will fail, as MacOS has shown us. > Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony will all very happily terminate your access to their markets for failure to comply with their development programs And every single one of those companies competes under fair pretenses with their publishing partners. Apple doesn't. That's why they're singled-out.
      - tpmoney 2y ago
        >But it's not a store. It's software; Apple ... requires you to pay the surcharges in their mandatory App Store. So is it a store or not? >And every single one of those companies competes under fair pretenses with their publishing partners. Apple doesn't. That's why they're singled-out. How so? What is Apple doing that those companies (Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony) don't do for their hardware platforms? The certainly "[charge] developers to use their developer tools and then additionally [require developers] to pay the surcharged in their mandatory [store]." So what's different? How are they competing under fair pretenses (a phrase which I admit I'm having trouble parsing the meaning of), but Apple isn't?
- inglor_cz 2y ago
  "I don't see how an honest person could claim that they're doing anything anti-competitive." I, on the other side, very much see it, given how huge the market share of Apple is. I would be with you if Apple had 5 per cent of the smartphone market. Nevertheless, their very size makes any of their actions that restricts freedoms of their customes at least suspicious of being anti-competitive.
- melesian 2y ago
  Perhaps you should inform yourself by reading the DMA. You won't find in it anything about Apple or anyone else hindering developers from selling elsewhere. What the EU is regulating is fair competition for very large platforms, defined as having 45m or more users. These benefit from network effects and may be operated in ways that inhibit competition. Do you also believe that John D. Rockefeller never did anything anti-competitive? lol If Apple wants to sell in the EU it will have to abide by EU rules decided by democratically elected politicians. The US has proven incapable and or unwilling to regulate big tech. The EU has been slow and won't always get it right first time but it's trying. This is why EU citizens have e.f., privacy rights Americans don't, why broadband costs way less in the EU than the US etc. If parasitism is what interests you I suggest directing your attention to rentier capitalism and the never ending upward flow of wealth to the 1% and the extent to which US politicians are owned by billionaires.
- RoyalHenOil 2y ago
  So are you accusing of most of the readers and participants in this comment section of being dishonest? Do you commonly just assume that people who disagree with you are dishonest?
  - carlosjobim 2y ago
    When money enters the conversation, honesty usually goes out. I would say that most people, almost all people, will bend things in a dishonest way when they think they can have the slightest monetary benefit. Here, the perceived benefit is cheaper apps for their cellphone. So we call Apple a monopoly, though they clearly aren't. And if they are, then why shouldn't McDonalds be forced to let anybody sell fast food inside their locations?
    - RoyalHenOil 2y ago
      To be clear, I am not an Apple user and do not have a dog in this fight. But it is abundantly clear to me that iPhone users cannot easily swap between competitors the same way that McDonalds customers can eat every meal at a different restaurant if they so wish (in fact, McDonald's is usually right next door to numerous competitors, making this maximally easy). Apple has an entrenched audience, as is unfortunately inherent with operating system and platforms, and that comes with certain legal responsibilities. If Apple doesn't like those responsibilities, they should get out of the OS/platform space. But this is the same argument you have no doubt seen many times, which you dismiss as "dishonesty". That is your prerogative, but most onlookers are going to see this as an attempt to get out of having to present a convincing argument, most likely because you can't.
- jemmyw 2y ago
  Apple have managed to get themselves into a monopolistic position. Actually it's a duopoly. It doesn't matter if there are alternatives to Android and iPhone, those are the majority of devices to something like 99%. If you want to access that marketplace you need to go through one of those 2 gatekeepers and they have similar rules. This is the exact kind of situation that monopoly laws are there to address. Apple have been hugely successful. No-one is proposing to take the success away from them, but they are taking away some of apple and Google's ability to control the market they've captured.

Competition laws

by jemmyw 2y ago

Competition laws

Apple does not hinder any developer from selling their software on competing devices or operating systems. I don't see how an honest person could claim that they're doing anything anti-competitive. I see how the EU politicians can claim that, because they are dishonest and expected to support parasitic actions.

talldayo 2y ago
> Apple does not hinder any developer from selling their software on competing devices or operating systems But Apple does hinder every developer from selling their software on Apple devices without using Apple's mandatory software distribution service. Which most of us can agree, is relatively monopolistic in nature and creates a captive market of Apple customers ripe for abuse.
- tpmoney 2y ago
  No, I don't think "most of us can agree" that a manufacturer setting the conditions for distributing plugins for the hardware and software system that they produce and sell is "monopolistic" in nature. That's why we're having these discussions in the first place. Every store, market place and mall has conditions for being able to sell your wares in their space. Every single one of them will prevent you from using their space if you fail to meet those conditions. Malls will kick you out if you close your store during mall hours, denying you the ability to sell to those mall customers. eBay will shut your account if you try to get buyers to pay you outside of eBay, denying you the ability to sell to those eBay customers. Your local grocery store won't be allowing you to set up in the middle of the aisle with a laser light show selling your home made cookies, denying you the ability to sell to the grocery story customers. Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony will all very happily terminate your access to their markets for failure to comply with their development programs, denying you the ability to sell to those console customers.
  - talldayo 2y ago
    > Every store, market place and mall has conditions for being able to sell your wares in their space. But it's not a store. It's software; Apple charges developers to use their developer tools and then additionally requires you to pay the surcharges in their mandatory App Store. It is a racket that specifically relies on Apple's sole presence as a distributor on iOS and iPadOS; otherwise it will fail, as MacOS has shown us. > Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony will all very happily terminate your access to their markets for failure to comply with their development programs And every single one of those companies competes under fair pretenses with their publishing partners. Apple doesn't. That's why they're singled-out.
    - tpmoney 2y ago
      >But it's not a store. It's software; Apple ... requires you to pay the surcharges in their mandatory App Store. So is it a store or not? >And every single one of those companies competes under fair pretenses with their publishing partners. Apple doesn't. That's why they're singled-out. How so? What is Apple doing that those companies (Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony) don't do for their hardware platforms? The certainly "[charge] developers to use their developer tools and then additionally [require developers] to pay the surcharged in their mandatory [store]." So what's different? How are they competing under fair pretenses (a phrase which I admit I'm having trouble parsing the meaning of), but Apple isn't?
inglor_cz 2y ago
"I don't see how an honest person could claim that they're doing anything anti-competitive." I, on the other side, very much see it, given how huge the market share of Apple is. I would be with you if Apple had 5 per cent of the smartphone market. Nevertheless, their very size makes any of their actions that restricts freedoms of their customes at least suspicious of being anti-competitive.
melesian 2y ago
Perhaps you should inform yourself by reading the DMA. You won't find in it anything about Apple or anyone else hindering developers from selling elsewhere. What the EU is regulating is fair competition for very large platforms, defined as having 45m or more users. These benefit from network effects and may be operated in ways that inhibit competition. Do you also believe that John D. Rockefeller never did anything anti-competitive? lol If Apple wants to sell in the EU it will have to abide by EU rules decided by democratically elected politicians. The US has proven incapable and or unwilling to regulate big tech. The EU has been slow and won't always get it right first time but it's trying. This is why EU citizens have e.f., privacy rights Americans don't, why broadband costs way less in the EU than the US etc. If parasitism is what interests you I suggest directing your attention to rentier capitalism and the never ending upward flow of wealth to the 1% and the extent to which US politicians are owned by billionaires.
RoyalHenOil 2y ago
So are you accusing of most of the readers and participants in this comment section of being dishonest? Do you commonly just assume that people who disagree with you are dishonest?
- carlosjobim 2y ago
  When money enters the conversation, honesty usually goes out. I would say that most people, almost all people, will bend things in a dishonest way when they think they can have the slightest monetary benefit. Here, the perceived benefit is cheaper apps for their cellphone. So we call Apple a monopoly, though they clearly aren't. And if they are, then why shouldn't McDonalds be forced to let anybody sell fast food inside their locations?
  - RoyalHenOil 2y ago
    To be clear, I am not an Apple user and do not have a dog in this fight. But it is abundantly clear to me that iPhone users cannot easily swap between competitors the same way that McDonalds customers can eat every meal at a different restaurant if they so wish (in fact, McDonald's is usually right next door to numerous competitors, making this maximally easy). Apple has an entrenched audience, as is unfortunately inherent with operating system and platforms, and that comes with certain legal responsibilities. If Apple doesn't like those responsibilities, they should get out of the OS/platform space. But this is the same argument you have no doubt seen many times, which you dismiss as "dishonesty". That is your prerogative, but most onlookers are going to see this as an attempt to get out of having to present a convincing argument, most likely because you can't.
jemmyw 2y ago
Apple have managed to get themselves into a monopolistic position. Actually it's a duopoly. It doesn't matter if there are alternatives to Android and iPhone, those are the majority of devices to something like 99%. If you want to access that marketplace you need to go through one of those 2 gatekeepers and they have similar rules. This is the exact kind of situation that monopoly laws are there to address. Apple have been hugely successful. No-one is proposing to take the success away from them, but they are taking away some of apple and Google's ability to control the market they've captured.