3 ms·

So I'll start by saying that companies like Apple need to be regulated, as they're misusing their market power to the detriment of everyone but them. However,

So I'll start by saying that companies like Apple need to be regulated, as they're misusing their market power to the detriment of everyone but them. However, your argument isn't what you think it is. It's extremely common for companies to sell/gatekeep (Or "pimp" as you put it) access to "their" user base. Think credit cards (Amex can charge merchants more as because their users tend to spend more) or even club memberships like Costco (They're certainly not letting telcos sign up users for free.)

lapcat 2y ago
This is a very strange analogy. I didn't buy my credit card. I don't own it. The credit card is just a little piece of plastic, totally useless without the line of credit, i.e, the service provided by the credit card company, in stark contrast with my computers, which can be used quite extensively without the App Store. The credit card company is not gatekeeping "access" to me. I can pay for things with cash, a debit card, a check, etc. If I choose to pay with a credit card, it's because I wish to take advantage of the specific features of the credit card, the primary one of which is the ability to pay for the product later rather than at the moment of purchase.
- ksec 2y ago
  >This is a very strange analogy. You can be both an Amex and a Visa card Customer. You can also be an iPhone and Android Customer at the same time as well. As well as a web user. Amex charges higher fees, and offer specific services to their customer base.
  - lapcat 2y ago
    > You can be both an Amex and a Visa card Customer. Yes, which supports my point. > You can also be an iPhone and Android Customer at the same time as well. Who does this? Barely anyone. Most people can't afford to buy two smartphones, and even if you could afford two, why in the world would you use two of them simultaneously? That sounds extremely inconvenient, for no apparent benefit. Practically speaking, a smartphone is an exclusive relationship; you pick one at a time. Yours is such a bizarre hypothetical. In any case, the crucial difference is that a smartphone is a product of independent value that you can buy, whereas a credit card is not. The piece of plastic is just a container for your credit card number, a means of accessing the service, a line of credit.
    - ProfessorLayton 2y ago
      >In any case, the crucial difference is that a smartphone is a product of independent value that you can buy, whereas a credit card is not. This is missing the broader point, which is that companies absolutely do gatekeep access to "their" customers all the time in several industries in and outside of tech. Customer acquisition costs a lot of money, and one of the ways businesses recoup their costs or boost profits is by monetizing them by selling access. The problem with Apple doing it is that they're abusing their market power.
      - lapcat 2y ago
        > This is missing the broader point, which is that companies absolutely do gatekeep access to "their" customers all the time in several industries in and outside of tech. You're still in need of examples, because I've already explained how credit card companies don't gatekeep access to me. > Customer acquisition costs a lot of money, and one of the ways businesses recoup their costs or boost profits is by monetizing them by selling access. iPhones also cost a lot of money. Apple sold almost $40 billion worth of iPhones just last quarter. I'm quite certain that Apple is recouping its costs via hardware sales.
        ProfessorLayton 2y ago
        There are plenty of examples out there, but keeping it to the ones I've already pointed out: Costco makes the vast majority of its profit from membership sales, and not from the items they're selling. They absolutely gatekeep access to "their" customers, and regularly play hardball with their suppliers to keep prices low, even major ones like CocaCola. Suppliers that don't meet their terms don't make it to their warehouses. Same as Apple. The difference is their market power.
        lapcat 2y ago
        You don't seem to understand what gatekeeping means. In the context of iPhone, it means that the owner of an iPhone is not able to install software on their own iPhone without Apple's permission. It's a restriction on the owner's freedom. Neither credit cards nor Costco memberships are analogous, because in the first place, there's no ownership involved, as I already explained. With a Costco membership, you certainly don't own part of Costco. You're simply buying temporary access to the store. In the second place, there's no restriction of customer freedom. A Costco member is free to walk across the street and buy Coca-Cola at any other store. Coke is Coke: it's the exact same formula in every can or bottle. It may be more expensive elsewhere, of course, and that's the point of the Costco membership. But there is absolutely nothing in the world restricting Coke and customers of Coke from coming together. I have no objection to Apple having an App Store and setting terms for its App Store. It does this on the Mac too. My objection is that unlike on the Mac, the iOS App Store is the sole source of software, and iPhone owners are not free to shop elsewhere, again unlike Mac owners. The iPhone gatekeeps its owners in a way that the Mac does not. It's not really about market power, because iPhone owners have never been free to install software from outside the App Store, not even way back in 2008 when iPhone sales were vastly smaller. And that's always been wrong. If you want another example of customer gatekeeping, I'll give you one: John Deere tractors using DRM to prevent tractor owners or third-parties from repairing the tractor. That's wrong too.

lapcat 2y ago

This is a very strange analogy. I didn't buy my credit card. I don't own it. The credit card is just a little piece of plastic, totally useless without the line of credit, i.e, the service provided by the credit card company, in stark contrast with my computers, which can be used quite extensively without the App Store. The credit card company is not gatekeeping "access" to me. I can pay for things with cash, a debit card, a check, etc. If I choose to pay with a credit card, it's because I wish to take advantage of the specific features of the credit card, the primary one of which is the ability to pay for the product later rather than at the moment of purchase.

ksec 2y ago
>This is a very strange analogy. You can be both an Amex and a Visa card Customer. You can also be an iPhone and Android Customer at the same time as well. As well as a web user. Amex charges higher fees, and offer specific services to their customer base.
- lapcat 2y ago
  > You can be both an Amex and a Visa card Customer. Yes, which supports my point. > You can also be an iPhone and Android Customer at the same time as well. Who does this? Barely anyone. Most people can't afford to buy two smartphones, and even if you could afford two, why in the world would you use two of them simultaneously? That sounds extremely inconvenient, for no apparent benefit. Practically speaking, a smartphone is an exclusive relationship; you pick one at a time. Yours is such a bizarre hypothetical. In any case, the crucial difference is that a smartphone is a product of independent value that you can buy, whereas a credit card is not. The piece of plastic is just a container for your credit card number, a means of accessing the service, a line of credit.
  - ProfessorLayton 2y ago
    >In any case, the crucial difference is that a smartphone is a product of independent value that you can buy, whereas a credit card is not. This is missing the broader point, which is that companies absolutely do gatekeep access to "their" customers all the time in several industries in and outside of tech. Customer acquisition costs a lot of money, and one of the ways businesses recoup their costs or boost profits is by monetizing them by selling access. The problem with Apple doing it is that they're abusing their market power.
    - lapcat 2y ago
      > This is missing the broader point, which is that companies absolutely do gatekeep access to "their" customers all the time in several industries in and outside of tech. You're still in need of examples, because I've already explained how credit card companies don't gatekeep access to me. > Customer acquisition costs a lot of money, and one of the ways businesses recoup their costs or boost profits is by monetizing them by selling access. iPhones also cost a lot of money. Apple sold almost $40 billion worth of iPhones just last quarter. I'm quite certain that Apple is recouping its costs via hardware sales.
      - ProfessorLayton 2y ago
        There are plenty of examples out there, but keeping it to the ones I've already pointed out: Costco makes the vast majority of its profit from membership sales, and not from the items they're selling. They absolutely gatekeep access to "their" customers, and regularly play hardball with their suppliers to keep prices low, even major ones like CocaCola. Suppliers that don't meet their terms don't make it to their warehouses. Same as Apple. The difference is their market power.
        lapcat 2y ago
        You don't seem to understand what gatekeeping means. In the context of iPhone, it means that the owner of an iPhone is not able to install software on their own iPhone without Apple's permission. It's a restriction on the owner's freedom. Neither credit cards nor Costco memberships are analogous, because in the first place, there's no ownership involved, as I already explained. With a Costco membership, you certainly don't own part of Costco. You're simply buying temporary access to the store. In the second place, there's no restriction of customer freedom. A Costco member is free to walk across the street and buy Coca-Cola at any other store. Coke is Coke: it's the exact same formula in every can or bottle. It may be more expensive elsewhere, of course, and that's the point of the Costco membership. But there is absolutely nothing in the world restricting Coke and customers of Coke from coming together. I have no objection to Apple having an App Store and setting terms for its App Store. It does this on the Mac too. My objection is that unlike on the Mac, the iOS App Store is the sole source of software, and iPhone owners are not free to shop elsewhere, again unlike Mac owners. The iPhone gatekeeps its owners in a way that the Mac does not. It's not really about market power, because iPhone owners have never been free to install software from outside the App Store, not even way back in 2008 when iPhone sales were vastly smaller. And that's always been wrong. If you want another example of customer gatekeeping, I'll give you one: John Deere tractors using DRM to prevent tractor owners or third-parties from repairing the tractor. That's wrong too.