71–80 of 174 posts
I think governments should go after cartels rather than monopolies. Google and Apple combined have a >99% market share for mobile OS/app store market share. They also impose a synchronized 30% fee cut. There is a case to be made for an antitrust behavior from this cartel.
I think governments should go after cartels rather than monopolies. Google and Apple combined have a >99% market share for mobile OS/app store market share. They also impose a synchronized 30% fee cut. There is a case to be made for an antitrust behavior from this cartel.
They’ll also argue that they don’t keep prices high in their stores and provide value that makes that 15/30% cut worthwhile.
Anti-trust, IMO, won’t work either. Currently, Apple will (rightfully, IMO) argue it has viable competition in Android, and Google will say the same about iOS and say they allow other stores to exist.
I think we need new law to handle this kind of stuff.
It's hard to argue with the claim - if you have an iOS phone or tablet, for example, it is a monopoly, since it's the only place you can buy a program for your computer. The walled garden has real benefits in security and privacy, but seems to require centralized control, and comes at the expense of user freedom. A solution to the monopoly pricing problem could be to treat app store controllers (currently A & G) to t…
Sure, and Keurig has a monopoly on coffee if you own a Keurig machine and don't buy from Starbucks. While these corporate actions *are* anti-consumer, they do not generally fall in line with the standard definition of a monopoly, which includes looking at the the whole market, not just a sub-section of it. E.g. my local golf course also has a monopoly on golf balls while I'm in their pro-shop.
The definition of general-purpose Operating Systems should be formalized, and there should be a clear separation of roles: if you make an OS you cannot make apps and services, end of story. Then force Apple, Google, and Microsoft, to spin off their OS divisions or their apps&services divisions. That would immediately create a level playing-field for everyone.
Is this difficult? Yes. Is it necessary? Also yes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, and Keurig has a monopoly on coffee if you own a Keurig machine and don't buy from Starbucks. While these corporate actions *are* anti-consumer, they do not generally fall in line with the standard definition of a monopoly, which includes looking at the the whole market, not just a sub-section of it. E.g. my local golf course also has a monopoly on golf balls while I'm in their pro-shop.
Make up a new word and fine them all the same. If you engage in anti consumer practices then I, a consumer, highly endorse anti corporate legislation.
Fining them for things they do now before such law exists, however, should not be pursued. Ex post acte law is forbidden in large parts of the world for good reason.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law:
Ex post facto criminalization is also prohibited by Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 15(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Article 9 of the American Convention on Human Rights. While American jurisdictions generally prohibit ex post facto laws, European countries apply the principle of lex mitior ("the milder law"). It provides that, if the law has changed after an offense was committed, the version of the law that applies is the one that is more advantageous for the accused. This means that ex post facto laws apply in European jurisdictions to the extent that they are the milder law.
This will be round 2 in the fight for formalizing the role of OS developers versus App developers. Round 1 was the MS antitrust case, the outcome of which was clearly too weak to survive in the long run. The definition of general-purpose Operating Systems should be formalized, and there should be a clear separation of roles: if you make an OS you cannot make apps and services, end of story. Then force Apple, Google,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't even buy the "security" argument; MacOS is a highly secure operating system, produced by the same company, which has no forced walled-garden App Store. There certainly are exploits and scams which happen; just like on iOS. The argument sounds great in theory, but in practice, it simply doesn't hold water; security & privacy can (and should) (and does) happen at the OS layer, not application distribution.
macOS is definitely less secure than iOS.
This will be round 2 in the fight for formalizing the role of OS developers versus App developers. Round 1 was the MS antitrust case, the outcome of which was clearly too weak to survive in the long run. The definition of general-purpose Operating Systems should be formalized, and there should be a clear separation of roles: if you make an OS you cannot make apps and services, end of story. Then force Apple, Google,…
Which leads me to believe that what you're proposing is not addressing the root cause.
This will be round 2 in the fight for formalizing the role of OS developers versus App developers. Round 1 was the MS antitrust case, the outcome of which was clearly too weak to survive in the long run. The definition of general-purpose Operating Systems should be formalized, and there should be a clear separation of roles: if you make an OS you cannot make apps and services, end of story. Then force Apple, Google,…
This. How come the authorities cracked down hard on Microsoft in the 90's and early 2000's for exactly this but aren't doing the same with Apple and Google now?
I remember the days when, at least in the EU, due to antitrust laws, Windows XP had to come without Windows Media Player and without Internet Explorer preinstalled[1], which made for a rough out of the box experience for newbie users if they just wanted to quickly browse the web or play their "totally legit" mp3s after installing it, but it served to give competing apps and browsers a fighting chance and not allow Microsoft to entrench its monopoly further.
By the same logic, why can't we force Google/Apple to not prioritize their own apps and services on their platforms against their competitors?
[1]https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=144651...
This will be round 2 in the fight for formalizing the role of OS developers versus App developers. Round 1 was the MS antitrust case, the outcome of which was clearly too weak to survive in the long run. The definition of general-purpose Operating Systems should be formalized, and there should be a clear separation of roles: if you make an OS you cannot make apps and services, end of story. Then force Apple, Google,…
This is too simplistic. Linux distributions like Ubuntu provide both the OS and the apps and services. One could argue that the OS is the apps and services. Yet we see neither a monopoly there, nor complaints. Which leads me to believe that what you're proposing is not addressing the root cause.