501–510 of 513 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A market equilibrium is reached and it’s called anti-competitive behaviour. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. I suppose the state could implement price controls and force Rogers et al to lower their prices. That worked well in the past!
Market equilibrium !== collusion and it's difficult to tell them apart.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll reiterate: I've already stated, the market decides to buy iPhones understanding (even appreciating) that the user cannot side-load non-Apple approved apps (other than through a less trusted channel i.e. the browser). As such the market through demand, has decided there is a niche ecosystem where 30% fees for in app purchases are appropriate and fair. Why is this market dynamic an issue given there are so many ga…
Just cause you both bridged from my comment, first thanks. But I disagree that consumers agree to 30% because they continue to buy expecting sideloading to be relegated from relevancy. If polled, I doubt consumers would guess the royalty is even that high. Someone should run a survey. I am in general, very favorable toward Apple as a company. I’ve commented before that I believe in the company’s stance toward privacy…
This is definitely the right mental model. I am fully onboard for more data.
However, to clarify my previous point when I said "customers agree" I meant customers understand and are generally accepting of "priced in" convenience. For example, in some convenience stores they offer a discount for using cash or debit. Most big stores tho, "price in the cost of credit transactions". Customers understand this and are happy for the convenience and happy for the points.
With the Apple store, digital goods are 30% more expensive, and seemingly customers are ok with it because they are making purchases, while getting the conveniences of the AppStore vetting, refunds process, permissions model, advertising model, privacy, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would John Q. Public trust a third party over the manufacturer of their device ?
Why would anyone want to download Firefox or Chrome when you can just surf with IE?
Apple cares about their hardware customers and fosters a well-earned trust. The AppStore rules are a huge part of the foundation of that trust.
Discussion of Apple topics here on HN almost always gets reduced to the argument that Apple is not a monopoly, so what they are doing is OK. I want to present an alternative viewpoint. It's not a monopoly issue, it is an anti-competitive issue. In Canada, we have three major cell carriers. None of them has a monopoly, or anything close to it. None of them has even 50% market share. You can have a 10 GB smartphone pla…
From working with Canadians, it always supprised me how they seemed fine with these non-competitive practices for Telecom and Banking. It seems that they are systematically over-paying for what they are getting. Maybe it's a form of pride to have the "Canadian alternative"? Or they feel they couldn't really compete with the US/Europeans?
Population density in Canada is about 4 per square km, in the US about 36, and in the UK (pretty typical for western-europe) about 270.
I know that much of Canada is mostly uninhabited and typical population density is a lot higher, still, to hook up Canadian telecom infrastructure seems to be inherently to be a much more expensive endeavour.
I compared quickly (not very thorough) the profit margins and some ratios of US/Canadian telecoms, and they're really not much different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> reduced to the argument that Apple is not a monopoly, so what they are doing is OK. Wait, how can what Apple does ever be okay even they legally don't have a monopoly. Apple provides a marketplace (which they name store, but it's a marked place not a store) which is the only way to install software (on their phone) for millions of persons which means it's a marked and not just a marked place and they do both run th…
I think the terminology you're using ("be okay") is so vague it doesn't mean anything here. You seem to be arguing your own personal value set without telling the rest of us what your values are or what ethical framework you are arguing in. The only thing I can infer from this comment is that you aren't arguing within a legal framework (although I suspect you might be wrong because "unfair competitive advantage" is s…
Especially if we consider the difference between the intend behind a law and it's current legal interpretations.
Because of this I try to avoid arguing using the actual laws.
I also believe many of this laws need some degree of adaption to the modern world. Sometimes with changes in the law and sometimes with changes in the interpretation of the law.
So yes it's no accidentally vague.
More concrete would be : It should be illegal but might not be due to the law not being adapted to the dynamics of many modern markets.
But that's still pretty vague tbh.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From working with Canadians, it always supprised me how they seemed fine with these non-competitive practices for Telecom and Banking. It seems that they are systematically over-paying for what they are getting. Maybe it's a form of pride to have the "Canadian alternative"? Or they feel they couldn't really compete with the US/Europeans?
I wonder to what extent it's actually true though, to what extent are higher prices not simply driven by higher costs, rather than some kind of tacit collusion to drive excess profit? Population density in Canada is about 4 per square km, in the US about 36, and in the UK (pretty typical for western-europe) about 270. I know that much of Canada is mostly uninhabited and typical population density is a lot higher, sti…
It's an extreme outlier in terms of habitable land vs land area. 5% of it's land is arable, as compared to close to 17% for the United-States. I wouldn't be surprised if 90% of the land was simply not inhabited.
[0] https://geopoliticalfutures.com/population-density-of-canada...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would anyone want to download Firefox or Chrome when you can just surf with IE?
Microsoft didn't make the computer, and has no incentive to ensure a high quality UX. Apple cares about their hardware customers and fosters a well-earned trust. The AppStore rules are a huge part of the foundation of that trust.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
... and competitors do the same for less than a tenth of that cost. The only thing that allows them to do so is complete control over the ecosystem to shut out all competition.
I pay them so I don't need to make the choice! If I wanted a different choice I'd buy a different brand of phone.
Also, many can dislike this issue but still not buy an Android. It isn’t like this is the only differentiator.
An oligopoly is an oligopoly. Would be redundant to bring in how this one has mediocre products now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft didn't make the computer, and has no incentive to ensure a high quality UX. Apple cares about their hardware customers and fosters a well-earned trust. The AppStore rules are a huge part of the foundation of that trust.
But Microsoft made the OS, hence why shouldn’t the user trust their neatly-integrated browser? The analogy still holds.
What's Microsoft's parallel motivation in your analogy?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But Microsoft made the OS, hence why shouldn’t the user trust their neatly-integrated browser? The analogy still holds.
Apple is a hardware company that wants to ensure the best possible UX for their customers, and does so by vetting the software that gets installed on their hardware products. What's Microsoft's parallel motivation in your analogy?