It's hard to reason about this, because in a way the app store situation is unprecedented. The best analogy I can come up with is a private road connecting half the people in the country: Of course you're happy that the private road exists and the amenities it offers. Companies can connect with customers, people can connect with each other. On the other hand, the road owner now has full control over the infrastructure and dictates prices and conditions.
In this situation, building your own roads is probably unfeasible or just not possible because there is no land available. So now you're at the whim of the owner. Should the road owner be allowed full control over what can be done on the road and how much it costs because it built the roads in the first place, even though it has become an indispensable part of everyone's lives, thus granting the owner immense power over everyone's lives and livelihoods? By the way, the same argument applies to FB, Google, Twitter and others. I think the individualist, wild west attitude of the US is going to hurt humanity in the long run. Our society needs to figure out a way to deal with the fact that we are granting private companies powers over people's lives beyond mere monetary value.
In your example, you forget that there is a competing private road just next to it. And competitors aren’t arguing about not being able to put new competing roads, they are arguing that they should be able to put tollboths on Apples road, because even though Apple don’t have a monopoly and don’t even have the most used road, it is still a very profitable road for Apple.
No, those two roads connect two mostly distinct group of people, since most people use either an Apple or a Google smartphone, not both, so I still think it’s a fitting analogy. And what is being argued for depends on who you ask. Some are fine with smaller fees, others don’t like the fact that Apple can control who and what is allowed to use the road, which is immense power for a road that connects millions of people.
My biggest problem isn't with the price, but with the conditions. Because currently people are saying I am not allowed to drive a Car that support certain political positions in these roads, and you are forced to use other road network which does not collect to Half of the country.
> The best analogy I can come up with is a private road connecting half the people in the country
That is pretty inaccurate. It is more like there are three interoperable road networks (apple, Google, other-free) and you are asking one of the roads to make you an additional toll operator.
Centralized distribution mechanisms are how people get software today, yes. Without those downloads, yeah, Snap would be in trouble.
What's not acknowledged is that perhaps other models might have got Snap the downloads it needs. It's not easy to tell how necessary Apple or Google are, because they are the status quo, because there hasn't been much opportunity to explore alternatives. Apple in particular won't even permit competition. Android has allowed alternate app stores- but also, Android 12 is the first release where a 3rd party app store can automatically update apps. The system's been stacked this whole time.
Being able & willing to imagine alternatives is really a pre-requisite that Evan failed to meet, when he attributed his app's success to these incumbents.
I could imagine Apple eventually complying with an order to allow alternative app stores – and ending up with an app store market share comparable to or perhaps larger than Google's on Android.
rectifying a decade of anti trust activity is hard. these gargantuan app store owners will very certainly continue to do well for a while, even if competition is opened.
I'm currently in Michigan (U.S.) - where liquor distribution is a state monopoly, retail sale requires a state license, the state takes as large a cut of the revenue as it pleases, etc. And - Apple lawyers must be green with envy - that whole setup is legally backed by the 25th Amendment (U.S. Constitution).
"Sin taxes" (heavy taxes on alcohol, tobacco, etc.) are very popular with normal voters and greedy politicians. But doubtless the Big Shots in the liquor industry are quietly practicing all the usual political sleaze - campaign donations, well-connected lobbyists, wining & dining, regulatory capture, ... - in attempts to influence things in their own favor.
Point 1 - Even if those Big Shots get nowhere with their political sleaze...the fact that they can try, try, try does provide feelings of empowerment, and an emotional outlet. Big Shots in the Apple App industry don't get either of those.
Point 2 - If I was buying a beer, and had heard that $Brewer was in a big legal fight with the state over this setup - I'd probably get an $Other_Brewer beer instead. It's an unpleasant reminder that my few-dollar beer is making the rich & powerful even richer. And strongly suggests that $Brewer is run by greedy MBAs - vs. the idealistic craft brewmasters that beer companies seem more inclined to highlight in their advertising. Snap's CEO is [cough] probably aware of such appearances and their value.
How do you explain that Apple gets 100% of its margins on selling books, movies, music and any digital goods but anyone else must sacrifice 30% of those margins. For a subscription based offering, taking 30% away is surely going to kill any room for a healthy positive margin for most companies, rendering the business useless on the app store.
I see this behavior as fundamentally anti competitive but don't see this discussed in the trial too much. This should be illegal.
Everyone should remember how Intel anti competitive behaviors had almost killed AMD. And it took a long time for AMD to recover after Intel was forced to stop doing that. But today, AMD is the innovative one and Intel forced to run to try to catch up. Still, a few other CPU manufacturers died on the way.
And the crazy thing is that, at an earlier time, a lot of idiots had supported Intel saying that their bad behavior was in the interest of consumers, and that it is thanks to that that they were able to provide innovation to the market...
Readit News
In this situation, building your own roads is probably unfeasible or just not possible because there is no land available. So now you're at the whim of the owner. Should the road owner be allowed full control over what can be done on the road and how much it costs because it built the roads in the first place, even though it has become an indispensable part of everyone's lives, thus granting the owner immense power over everyone's lives and livelihoods? By the way, the same argument applies to FB, Google, Twitter and others. I think the individualist, wild west attitude of the US is going to hurt humanity in the long run. Our society needs to figure out a way to deal with the fact that we are granting private companies powers over people's lives beyond mere monetary value.
My biggest problem isn't with the price, but with the conditions. Because currently people are saying I am not allowed to drive a Car that support certain political positions in these roads, and you are forced to use other road network which does not collect to Half of the country.
That is pretty inaccurate. It is more like there are three interoperable road networks (apple, Google, other-free) and you are asking one of the roads to make you an additional toll operator.
It’s about early access, and promotion in Keynotes and the App Store.
Dead Comment
we really need to treat all corporations as varioud forms of sociopathy
What's not acknowledged is that perhaps other models might have got Snap the downloads it needs. It's not easy to tell how necessary Apple or Google are, because they are the status quo, because there hasn't been much opportunity to explore alternatives. Apple in particular won't even permit competition. Android has allowed alternate app stores- but also, Android 12 is the first release where a 3rd party app store can automatically update apps. The system's been stacked this whole time.
Being able & willing to imagine alternatives is really a pre-requisite that Evan failed to meet, when he attributed his app's success to these incumbents.
"Sin taxes" (heavy taxes on alcohol, tobacco, etc.) are very popular with normal voters and greedy politicians. But doubtless the Big Shots in the liquor industry are quietly practicing all the usual political sleaze - campaign donations, well-connected lobbyists, wining & dining, regulatory capture, ... - in attempts to influence things in their own favor.
Point 1 - Even if those Big Shots get nowhere with their political sleaze...the fact that they can try, try, try does provide feelings of empowerment, and an emotional outlet. Big Shots in the Apple App industry don't get either of those.
Point 2 - If I was buying a beer, and had heard that $Brewer was in a big legal fight with the state over this setup - I'd probably get an $Other_Brewer beer instead. It's an unpleasant reminder that my few-dollar beer is making the rich & powerful even richer. And strongly suggests that $Brewer is run by greedy MBAs - vs. the idealistic craft brewmasters that beer companies seem more inclined to highlight in their advertising. Snap's CEO is [cough] probably aware of such appearances and their value.
I see this behavior as fundamentally anti competitive but don't see this discussed in the trial too much. This should be illegal.
And the crazy thing is that, at an earlier time, a lot of idiots had supported Intel saying that their bad behavior was in the interest of consumers, and that it is thanks to that that they were able to provide innovation to the market...