3 ms·

Sweeney isn’t anti-monopoly, he’s pro-Sweeney. He sees an opportunity to let others do the work and investment to build platforms, then selectively swoop in to

by brookst 10mo ago

Sweeney isn’t anti-monopoly, he’s pro-Sweeney. He sees an opportunity to let others do the work and investment to build platforms, then selectively swoop in to compete once the risk and investment pay off. It’s not a bad business model if he can get the courts on his side: let others spend billions and take risks, then cherry pick the successful platforms and compete with their distribution using a cost basis that doesn’t have those up-front costs and risks.

michaelt 10mo ago
> He sees an opportunity to let others do the work and investment to build platforms, then selectively swoop in to compete once the risk and investment pay off. Sure. Just as long as you agree Google and Apple let others do the work and investment to develop new games, apps and media, then swoop in and demand a cut if the risk and investment pay off.
- EA-3167 10mo ago
  They don't automatically take a cut, they only take a cut when you want to sell to their captive audience, on their hardware, using their distribution system. Wait until you hear about how the entire entertainment industry has always worked!
  - michaelt 10mo ago
    Their hardware, huh? You're right, customers don't really own an iphone, even if they've paid $1000 for it.
    - EA-3167 10mo ago
      Surely in context, and reading the most charitable interpretation, you understood that the hardware I was referring to isn’t the end user’s device.
CamperBob2 10mo ago
He sees an opportunity to let others do the work and investment to build platforms^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H apps, then selectively swoop in to compete once the risk and investment pay off. If that's not a flawless description of a walled-garden app store, I can't imagine what would be.