4 ms·

Of course they do? Just because they created a platform long ago doesn’t make it public property all of a sudden? The value of their platform is in both hardwa

Of course they do? Just because they created a platform long ago doesn’t make it public property all of a sudden? The value of their platform is in both hardware and software by the way.

benreesman 2y ago
All property is public property in the sense that the duly constituted government informed by the wishes of the electorate has an iron monopoly on the use of force and in this case enough force to make anyone do anything. Some internet platform thing stops being socially useful from competitive innovation and starts being an extractive rent? The public has the power to dictate terms to the people running it. It’s a power the public hasn’t exercised a lot recently, but it’s only been about 30 years since LA 92, a little longer to Watts and Detroit. It would be a grave error to mistake the public’s kindness for weakness.
Dylan16807 2y ago
> Of course they do? Just because they created a platform long ago doesn’t make it public If that's what you think matters above all else, would you support a literal mafia group taking a cut if they had started the market in that particular city? > public property It's a market, not property. But Apple owns none of the iPhones, so why do they get a say? > The value of their platform is in both hardware and software by the way. They shouldn't be artificially tied together by DRM.
- FredPret 2y ago
  A legitimate business created an asset. There’s no good reason to believe they should cede ownership simply because 16 years have elapsed. > But Apple owns none of the iPhones, so why do they get a say? This is an interesting point. But the key thing is people buy iPhones in part because of the walled garden, and Apple bakes it into the price. Without that App Store revenue, those $999 iPhones would simply see a price increase.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    The demand is not for Apple to give up ownership of their own store. And if they baked the price into the phones, at least that would be honest. But they likely wouldn't increase the phone price by that much.
    - FredPret 2y ago
      If you think they're being dishonest by betting on future app revenue from iPhone users... buy an Android.
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        I assume you mean "buy an Android and do nothing else", but in that case I think it's unreasonable to suggest I'm not allowed to want companies to be honest 99.9% of the time, and I can only express it once every few years while I'm choosing what phone to buy. If you didn't mean that, I'm not sure why you gave me that advice. I'll keep it in mind but I'd prefer we keep the discussion focused on what Apple is doing and whether it should be accepted by the general public, both in terms of popularity and legality. And Google too, because this discussion started about both app stores.
  - mcherm 2y ago
    > Without that App Store revenue, those $999 iPhones would simply see a price increase. Why would that happen instead of Apple taking less profit overall? I suspect that Apple's pricing for phones is based on primarily on what the customer is willing to pay rather than on the amount needed to be profitable.
  - benreesman 2y ago
    At one time we had somewhat reasonable sounding protections via copyright and patent. Today that’s so captured that Mickey Mouse is still in copyright and insulin for diabetics costs more than the saline it’s in. It defies both the law as written and the human sense that wrote it to advocate for unproductive rent seeking: sixteen years? With a few point patches along the way? Thirty percent. The Europeans find it ridiculous, the FTC finds it ridiculous, anyone who likes innovation finds it ridiculous. But it’s mostly ridiculous because history is unambiguous on this point: you tell the peasants to eat cake long enough and you’ll swing from a dockyard crane. Let’s seek to avoid that kind of thing?
- michaelt 2y ago
  > If that's what you think matters above all else, would you support a literal mafia group taking a cut if they had started the market in that particular city? This is called being a "landlord" and it's actually completely legal. You buy some land, you build a mall, you invite shopkeepers to set up shops and sell to customers visiting the mall, and the shopkeepers give you $$$$ every month, forever. If they ever stop paying, they lose their shops. Even though it's shopkeepers that draw customers to the mall in the first place, and even though the shopkeepers are covering all the maintenance costs of the mall, you get paid anyway. Because you own the mall. So if a mafia group created a market, took a cut from every shop, and threw out anyone who wouldn't pay them their cut? That's actually a legitimate business.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    That doesn't quite hold when talking about a piece if hardware someone can own outright, like a phone. If the mall allowed shop owners to buy the store they'd have to function more like an HOA, collecting dues rather than rent. That analogy still doesn't quite hold as you legally agree to pay HOA dues when buying the property and agree the property can seized eventually if you don't pay. No such agreement is made between phone owners and Apple, Apple just sells you the thing and puts some of it's functionality behind ongoing fees.
    - immibis 2y ago
      That's the point - the mall doesn't allow shop owners to buy their store. And Google doesn't let you own your phone outright. If they did, they'd have to give up that recurring revenue stream!
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        I don't like the app store model at all, but it's a stretch to call it rent. Google can't repossess your phone simply because you don't buy any apps. I have heard the rent argument made for property tax and it holds better there. Own your house outright but fall behind on property taxes and the government can take your house and land - now that feels a lot more like rent.

Of course they do? Just because they created a platform long ago doesn’t make it public property all of a sudden? The value of their platform is in both hardware and software by the way.

benreesman 2y ago

All property is public property in the sense that the duly constituted government informed by the wishes of the electorate has an iron monopoly on the use of force and in this case enough force to make anyone do anything. Some internet platform thing stops being socially useful from competitive innovation and starts being an extractive rent? The public has the power to dictate terms to the people running it. It’s a power the public hasn’t exercised a lot recently, but it’s only been about 30 years since LA 92, a little longer to Watts and Detroit. It would be a grave error to mistake the public’s kindness for weakness.

Dylan16807 2y ago

> Of course they do? Just because they created a platform long ago doesn’t make it public If that's what you think matters above all else, would you support a literal mafia group taking a cut if they had started the market in that particular city? > public property It's a market, not property. But Apple owns none of the iPhones, so why do they get a say? > The value of their platform is in both hardware and software by the way. They shouldn't be artificially tied together by DRM.

FredPret 2y ago
A legitimate business created an asset. There’s no good reason to believe they should cede ownership simply because 16 years have elapsed. > But Apple owns none of the iPhones, so why do they get a say? This is an interesting point. But the key thing is people buy iPhones in part because of the walled garden, and Apple bakes it into the price. Without that App Store revenue, those $999 iPhones would simply see a price increase.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  The demand is not for Apple to give up ownership of their own store. And if they baked the price into the phones, at least that would be honest. But they likely wouldn't increase the phone price by that much.
  - FredPret 2y ago
    If you think they're being dishonest by betting on future app revenue from iPhone users... buy an Android.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      I assume you mean "buy an Android and do nothing else", but in that case I think it's unreasonable to suggest I'm not allowed to want companies to be honest 99.9% of the time, and I can only express it once every few years while I'm choosing what phone to buy. If you didn't mean that, I'm not sure why you gave me that advice. I'll keep it in mind but I'd prefer we keep the discussion focused on what Apple is doing and whether it should be accepted by the general public, both in terms of popularity and legality. And Google too, because this discussion started about both app stores.
- mcherm 2y ago
  > Without that App Store revenue, those $999 iPhones would simply see a price increase. Why would that happen instead of Apple taking less profit overall? I suspect that Apple's pricing for phones is based on primarily on what the customer is willing to pay rather than on the amount needed to be profitable.
- benreesman 2y ago
  At one time we had somewhat reasonable sounding protections via copyright and patent. Today that’s so captured that Mickey Mouse is still in copyright and insulin for diabetics costs more than the saline it’s in. It defies both the law as written and the human sense that wrote it to advocate for unproductive rent seeking: sixteen years? With a few point patches along the way? Thirty percent. The Europeans find it ridiculous, the FTC finds it ridiculous, anyone who likes innovation finds it ridiculous. But it’s mostly ridiculous because history is unambiguous on this point: you tell the peasants to eat cake long enough and you’ll swing from a dockyard crane. Let’s seek to avoid that kind of thing?
michaelt 2y ago
> If that's what you think matters above all else, would you support a literal mafia group taking a cut if they had started the market in that particular city? This is called being a "landlord" and it's actually completely legal. You buy some land, you build a mall, you invite shopkeepers to set up shops and sell to customers visiting the mall, and the shopkeepers give you $$$$ every month, forever. If they ever stop paying, they lose their shops. Even though it's shopkeepers that draw customers to the mall in the first place, and even though the shopkeepers are covering all the maintenance costs of the mall, you get paid anyway. Because you own the mall. So if a mafia group created a market, took a cut from every shop, and threw out anyone who wouldn't pay them their cut? That's actually a legitimate business.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  That doesn't quite hold when talking about a piece if hardware someone can own outright, like a phone. If the mall allowed shop owners to buy the store they'd have to function more like an HOA, collecting dues rather than rent. That analogy still doesn't quite hold as you legally agree to pay HOA dues when buying the property and agree the property can seized eventually if you don't pay. No such agreement is made between phone owners and Apple, Apple just sells you the thing and puts some of it's functionality behind ongoing fees.
  - immibis 2y ago
    That's the point - the mall doesn't allow shop owners to buy their store. And Google doesn't let you own your phone outright. If they did, they'd have to give up that recurring revenue stream!
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      I don't like the app store model at all, but it's a stretch to call it rent. Google can't repossess your phone simply because you don't buy any apps. I have heard the rent argument made for property tax and it holds better there. Own your house outright but fall behind on property taxes and the government can take your house and land - now that feels a lot more like rent.