3 ms·

I think the fundamental thing here is that this isn't merely a store. The Apple ecosystem is large enough to BE a market in itself. It's not about the market f

I think the fundamental thing here is that this isn't merely a store. The Apple ecosystem is large enough to BE a market in itself. It's not about the market for apps, or the market for smartphones. Those markets are comparable to any market. This is about the market for apps ON the apple ecosystem. And the problem that is being solved is: Apple can't have a monopoly on that market, such that they can (for example) charge a commission for every sale. Basically: we can't allow a company to be so successful that their STORE becomes a MARKET.

stahtops 1mo ago
You’re making a lot of statements here with no supporting argument. Plenty of other companies manufacture hardware and run stores. If we’re going to say that isn’t allowed, then at least make the rule across the board. How many new companies will be popping up to manufacture these types of devices? Not many. I think the reality is that the EU sees an opportunity to apply some pressure on a few successful foreign companies, as that potentially provides them leverage in other negotiations, or at the very least some revenue from fines.
- alkonaut 1mo ago
  > Plenty of other companies manufacture hardware and run stores. How does that matter? Are you suggesting we must treat a massive company the same as a not-massive company? Once they reach a certain size, they're at risk of being a monopoly. Until they do, they're not. This is just a matter of size.
  - stahtops 26d ago
    Well I’m definitely going to suggest that you don’t understand the definition of the word monopoly, because it has nothing to do with “size”. What I’m suggesting is that it’s at best sloppy, and at worst corrupt, to arbitrarily apply rules in the way the EU is doing. If you think it’s wrong for a hardware manufacturer to be the sole operator of an app or software store on their platform, that’s fine. Make your rule, apply it to everyone, and give people N years to come into compliance. The reason the EU isn’t doing that in these cases is because they don’t want to apply these laws to EU companies, and it gives them leverage in negotiations with foreign companies.

stahtops 1mo ago

You’re making a lot of statements here with no supporting argument. Plenty of other companies manufacture hardware and run stores. If we’re going to say that isn’t allowed, then at least make the rule across the board. How many new companies will be popping up to manufacture these types of devices? Not many. I think the reality is that the EU sees an opportunity to apply some pressure on a few successful foreign companies, as that potentially provides them leverage in other negotiations, or at the very least some revenue from fines.

alkonaut 1mo ago
> Plenty of other companies manufacture hardware and run stores. How does that matter? Are you suggesting we must treat a massive company the same as a not-massive company? Once they reach a certain size, they're at risk of being a monopoly. Until they do, they're not. This is just a matter of size.
- stahtops 26d ago
  Well I’m definitely going to suggest that you don’t understand the definition of the word monopoly, because it has nothing to do with “size”. What I’m suggesting is that it’s at best sloppy, and at worst corrupt, to arbitrarily apply rules in the way the EU is doing. If you think it’s wrong for a hardware manufacturer to be the sole operator of an app or software store on their platform, that’s fine. Make your rule, apply it to everyone, and give people N years to come into compliance. The reason the EU isn’t doing that in these cases is because they don’t want to apply these laws to EU companies, and it gives them leverage in negotiations with foreign companies.