6 ms·

Where does that stop? You have a nice little directory of apps you built at http://mjbaldwin.net http://mjbaldwin.net. If monopoly is no longer a requirement be

Where does that stop? You have a nice little directory of apps you built at http://mjbaldwin.net http://mjbaldwin.net. If monopoly is no longer a requirement before the government steps in, you could have to list my apps and anyone else's that wants to be included. Why should you have the editorial control over what's included in your site you want to take away from Apple?

paulgb 13y ago
I'm not necessarily in favor of government intervention here, but I do like the Android model: there is a sanctioned marketplace as the preferred distribution channel, but it's not the required distribution channel. This allows editorial control without creating a monopoly on app distribution for that platform.
ChikkaChiChi 13y ago
it stops when you refuse to concede any sort of control in a vertical market you monopolize.
Zimahl 13y ago
Your definition of 'monopoly' is not helping your argument. Apple controls a very big portion of the handheld market and that portion is completely roped off by iTunes. Worse, if they see something they are doing, whether it's better or not, you can't get your competing app onto their device. Was this not the same issue with Sun's Java and IE back in the 90s? Meanwhile, crazygringo has a website. Sure he controls the content of the site but doesn't prevent anyone else from publishing on the internet. If 'mjbaldwin.net' was one of only a couple portals on the internet, you might have an argument there.
- dangrossman 13y ago
  I didn't define monopoly or claim he had one. Re-read his suggestion: "a company shouldn't have to be a monopoly for anticompetitive behavior to become illegal".
MatthewPhillips 13y ago
IANAL, Apple has an absolute monopoly on iOS, does this mean nothing?
- dangrossman 13y ago
  Monopoly power is only regulated in the context of a relevant market (a term with specific legal meaning). The relevant market the iPhone is operating in is not the iOS market, it's the smartphone market, where there are many alternatives and Apple makes only 18% of the devices. Apple doesn't have monopoly power in the relevant market, so nothing it does can be an abuse of monopoly power, which is what's regulated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevant_market https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevant_market
  - MatthewPhillips 13y ago
    How is iOS itself not a market? Just curious. I know its more complicated than the Wikipedia and again IANAL but it seems to fit to me.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - dangrossman 13y ago
      That's like saying "McDonalds controls the Big Mac market". Yes, it does, but the Big Mac is not a relevant market for competition law, it's just a product within one or more relevant markets. > In competition law the Relevant market defines the market in which one or more goods compete. There are substitute goods to iOS that compete with it for consumers (Android, Windows, etc). The relevant market is where that competition is occurring: the smartphone and tablet markets.
      - MatthewPhillips 13y ago
        > That's like saying "McDonalds controls the Big Mac market". Yes, it does, but the Big Mac is not a relevant market for competition law, it's just a product within one or more relevant markets. But McDonalds is analogous to iTunes, not iOS. iOS is more like.. a city when McDonalds operates. If McDonalds also owned the city and banned all other fast food restaurants. > The relevant market is where that competition is occurring: the smartphone and tablet markets. But that's an artificial construct. The competition is there because it's the only place competition is allowed.
crazygringo 13y ago
Well thanks! :) I'm not a legislator, of course, but in my mind it would run something like: - if you have over x third-party selling participants (say, 50 or 500) - and the marketplace provides services to the "general public" (e.g. the Apple Store, qualifies, an intranet market would not) - and the marketplace has revenue over x per day (say, $10,000) - then participation in the marketplace must be governed by a clear, unambiguous set of rules that gives no advantage to products made/sold by the owner/administrator of the marketplace, and all interpretation of the rules, or challenges to such interpretation, must be made by a neutral, third-party arbitrator without influence from or by the owner/administrator of the marketplace - and additionally, rules of the marketplace must not be written in order to give any kind of explicit or "implicit" advantage to the owner/administrator of the marketplate (Apple can't always feature its own Maps application over Google's, for example) These specific rules are totally off the top of my head, but it's just a kind of idea -- once any market reaches a certain size, it's in the general public interest to ensure a level playing field and due process -- I mean, that's what things like court-enforceable contracts, food regulation, stock exchange and public company regulation, etc. are all about.
- scholia 13y ago
  I agree with you, but apps for games consoles (Wii/PS4/Xbox) are at least as controlled than the iTunes monopoly store. Heck, Google can cripple or even kill small businesses by excluding them from its search index, and like Apple, it can do exactly what it likes to further its own interests. There's no penalty for monopolistic behavior unless you are actually found to be a monopoly, in which case stuff you may have thought was legal suddenly becomes illegal and you get dinged for it.
- Steko 13y ago
  You're trying to solve the problem of "app x/y/z not approved in store" but all you've done is move those goalposts to the third party arbitrator who now has a financial incentive to deny approval to anything. Just no. Even worse your solution is effectively a government takeover of any store over size X. Trying to force goods on vendors is not the free market, it's central planning lite. Apple runs it's store the way it wants to. If you don't like it don't sell your wares there, don't shop there, picket their retail locations, call for boycotts online, etc.
jarrett 13y ago
I would draw the line between platforms on the one hand and 3rd party products and services on the other. Examples of platforms: A phone operating system, a desktop operating system, a browser. Examples of 3rd party products and services: A site with apps reviewed and upvoted by users, a curated app review site, an app store that's not affiliated with the hardware or OS maker. Controlling the former offers real opportunities for anticompetitive behavior. You have buyer lock-in, and you can dictate the terms on which others may develop for your platform. You can push people off your platform when their goals conflict with yours. This is a logical place for some regulation designed to protect and promote a free market. With the latter, there aren't any special ways to be anticompetitive. By special, I mean distinct from the ways in which, say, a chemical company could be anticompetitive. Your example of a "nice little directory of apps you built" would fall into this category. No industry-specific regulation is warranted for this type of product or service, since you're not in a position to hinder the free market.
- Steko 13y ago
  "This is a logical place for some regulation designed to protect and promote a free market." The government forcing me to carry your product =/= free market. Let's say I have a platform for kids. Now I can't disapprove adult apps? Are you effing kidding me?
  - jarrett 13y ago
    > The government forcing me to carry your product =/= free market. Preserving a free market sometimes requires regulation of anticompetitive behavior. That necessarily impinges on the economic freedoms of the largest players. But the intent is for such regulation to yield a net increase in market freedom. > Let's say I have a platform for kids. Now I can't disapprove adult apps? Are you effing kidding me? Presumably, a good law would make some allowances for things like this. It's not that you have to approve literally anything anyone wants to sell.
mikeash 13y ago
Apple should maintain full editorial control. It's their App Store, and they should be able to have it contain whatever they want. However, it is not their iPhone in my pocket anymore. The ownership changed when they got my money. They should not have any control over what it runs, and yet it only runs those things which Apple puts in their store. This is the real problem.

paulgb 13y ago

I'm not necessarily in favor of government intervention here, but I do like the Android model: there is a sanctioned marketplace as the preferred distribution channel, but it's not the required distribution channel. This allows editorial control without creating a monopoly on app distribution for that platform.

ChikkaChiChi 13y ago

it stops when you refuse to concede any sort of control in a vertical market you monopolize.

Zimahl 13y ago

Your definition of 'monopoly' is not helping your argument. Apple controls a very big portion of the handheld market and that portion is completely roped off by iTunes. Worse, if they see something they are doing, whether it's better or not, you can't get your competing app onto their device. Was this not the same issue with Sun's Java and IE back in the 90s? Meanwhile, crazygringo has a website. Sure he controls the content of the site but doesn't prevent anyone else from publishing on the internet. If 'mjbaldwin.net' was one of only a couple portals on the internet, you might have an argument there.

dangrossman 13y ago
I didn't define monopoly or claim he had one. Re-read his suggestion: "a company shouldn't have to be a monopoly for anticompetitive behavior to become illegal".

MatthewPhillips 13y ago

IANAL, Apple has an absolute monopoly on iOS, does this mean nothing?

dangrossman 13y ago
Monopoly power is only regulated in the context of a relevant market (a term with specific legal meaning). The relevant market the iPhone is operating in is not the iOS market, it's the smartphone market, where there are many alternatives and Apple makes only 18% of the devices. Apple doesn't have monopoly power in the relevant market, so nothing it does can be an abuse of monopoly power, which is what's regulated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevant_market https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevant_market
- MatthewPhillips 13y ago
  How is iOS itself not a market? Just curious. I know its more complicated than the Wikipedia and again IANAL but it seems to fit to me.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - dangrossman 13y ago
    That's like saying "McDonalds controls the Big Mac market". Yes, it does, but the Big Mac is not a relevant market for competition law, it's just a product within one or more relevant markets. > In competition law the Relevant market defines the market in which one or more goods compete. There are substitute goods to iOS that compete with it for consumers (Android, Windows, etc). The relevant market is where that competition is occurring: the smartphone and tablet markets.
    - MatthewPhillips 13y ago
      > That's like saying "McDonalds controls the Big Mac market". Yes, it does, but the Big Mac is not a relevant market for competition law, it's just a product within one or more relevant markets. But McDonalds is analogous to iTunes, not iOS. iOS is more like.. a city when McDonalds operates. If McDonalds also owned the city and banned all other fast food restaurants. > The relevant market is where that competition is occurring: the smartphone and tablet markets. But that's an artificial construct. The competition is there because it's the only place competition is allowed.

crazygringo 13y ago

Well thanks! :) I'm not a legislator, of course, but in my mind it would run something like: - if you have over x third-party selling participants (say, 50 or 500) - and the marketplace provides services to the "general public" (e.g. the Apple Store, qualifies, an intranet market would not) - and the marketplace has revenue over x per day (say, $10,000) - then participation in the marketplace must be governed by a clear, unambiguous set of rules that gives no advantage to products made/sold by the owner/administrator of the marketplace, and all interpretation of the rules, or challenges to such interpretation, must be made by a neutral, third-party arbitrator without influence from or by the owner/administrator of the marketplace - and additionally, rules of the marketplace must not be written in order to give any kind of explicit or "implicit" advantage to the owner/administrator of the marketplate (Apple can't always feature its own Maps application over Google's, for example) These specific rules are totally off the top of my head, but it's just a kind of idea -- once any market reaches a certain size, it's in the general public interest to ensure a level playing field and due process -- I mean, that's what things like court-enforceable contracts, food regulation, stock exchange and public company regulation, etc. are all about.

scholia 13y ago
I agree with you, but apps for games consoles (Wii/PS4/Xbox) are at least as controlled than the iTunes monopoly store. Heck, Google can cripple or even kill small businesses by excluding them from its search index, and like Apple, it can do exactly what it likes to further its own interests. There's no penalty for monopolistic behavior unless you are actually found to be a monopoly, in which case stuff you may have thought was legal suddenly becomes illegal and you get dinged for it.
Steko 13y ago
You're trying to solve the problem of "app x/y/z not approved in store" but all you've done is move those goalposts to the third party arbitrator who now has a financial incentive to deny approval to anything. Just no. Even worse your solution is effectively a government takeover of any store over size X. Trying to force goods on vendors is not the free market, it's central planning lite. Apple runs it's store the way it wants to. If you don't like it don't sell your wares there, don't shop there, picket their retail locations, call for boycotts online, etc.

jarrett 13y ago

I would draw the line between platforms on the one hand and 3rd party products and services on the other. Examples of platforms: A phone operating system, a desktop operating system, a browser. Examples of 3rd party products and services: A site with apps reviewed and upvoted by users, a curated app review site, an app store that's not affiliated with the hardware or OS maker. Controlling the former offers real opportunities for anticompetitive behavior. You have buyer lock-in, and you can dictate the terms on which others may develop for your platform. You can push people off your platform when their goals conflict with yours. This is a logical place for some regulation designed to protect and promote a free market. With the latter, there aren't any special ways to be anticompetitive. By special, I mean distinct from the ways in which, say, a chemical company could be anticompetitive. Your example of a "nice little directory of apps you built" would fall into this category. No industry-specific regulation is warranted for this type of product or service, since you're not in a position to hinder the free market.

Steko 13y ago
"This is a logical place for some regulation designed to protect and promote a free market." The government forcing me to carry your product =/= free market. Let's say I have a platform for kids. Now I can't disapprove adult apps? Are you effing kidding me?
- jarrett 13y ago
  > The government forcing me to carry your product =/= free market. Preserving a free market sometimes requires regulation of anticompetitive behavior. That necessarily impinges on the economic freedoms of the largest players. But the intent is for such regulation to yield a net increase in market freedom. > Let's say I have a platform for kids. Now I can't disapprove adult apps? Are you effing kidding me? Presumably, a good law would make some allowances for things like this. It's not that you have to approve literally anything anyone wants to sell.

mikeash 13y ago

Apple should maintain full editorial control. It's their App Store, and they should be able to have it contain whatever they want. However, it is not their iPhone in my pocket anymore. The ownership changed when they got my money. They should not have any control over what it runs, and yet it only runs those things which Apple puts in their store. This is the real problem.