undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmisnome4y ago0 comments

> I dont know a single person outside of the SV bubble who is buying 'mah free market!' argument so prevalent here.

Most of the arguments I've seen here, that you are probably classifying under this aspersion, are probably some variant on:

- This doesn't look illegal under current (US) laws

- New laws to restrict this are hard to write constitutionally (in the US)

- If this happens a lot of the good parts of the ecosystem get thrown out also (arguments through security, fraud)

Whereas an awful lot of the other side looks like "This is unfair so must be illegal!" (30% arguments, very narrow definitions of the word "monopoly" that favour the arguer). Very few seem to actually argue that anything Apple/Google have done are illegal under current laws. I don't think the segment you are attacking for pure "It is free market therefore good" ideology exists.

It'll be interesting to see what happens if/when other countries, who aren't tied by the same conditions, start restricting this stuff.

0 comments

10 comments · 4 top-level

flavius296634y ago· 6 in thread

Everything was legal until it wasn't. It was the same for Standard oil before 1911: they said it's all legal to have such a monopoly on oil.

For some people at the time, it was obvious this was an unfair advantage on the market, so they fought to make it illegal.

It's the same now. Of course Google and Apple mostly respect the laws of the land, but if a large swath of the population/industry thinks they are unfair, their position will soon become illegal as well.

ericmay4y ago

The reality is that there's a vocal minority (looks around here) and the vast majority of people couldn't give a shit less.

Not once in my life has my dad, my grandma, or some random friend I met up with at a bar gone "jeez, Apple and Google sure do have a monopoly on pricing in their respective app stores and this harms me as a consumer". Nobody cares. In fact, most people probably think everything is amazing how it is now and don't think there's a problem. Personally, I'm knowledgable enough and I think things are way better now than they might be in a future state where this is changed. I know exactly what is going to happen. They are going to be forced to allow competing app stores (in the case of Apple) and then everybody I know is going to have like 5 stores installed, garbage apps spying and harvesting personal info, and it's going to just be a shit storm of stupid knock-offs, crappy products, and outright theft. There's no way around it and if you don't understand that you're now going to have to fix your grandma's iPhone now because Facebook wasn't on the Apple App Store but was on the whatever App Store you're living in a fantasy bubble where people are even moderately technically literate.

There's just a few disgruntled developers who don't like the rules so they complain loudly, and some billion dollar corporations who can make some money if they win legal cases. Small, but vocal players.

Unfortunately that's how a democracy in a country as large as the United States works. Most people don't care about something so one group can just shout loudly and eventually get their way, even if it is bad for the country as a whole. Then they get entrenched and laws are nearly impossible to repeal now. Then we overcorrect and pass new laws, but then these laws have loopholes or carve out exceptions. /rant

flavius296634y ago

You should read upon the woman who brought down Standard Oil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ida_Tarbell#Standard_Oil

It was basically a person that took on the largest monopoly in the world, and won.

What we have today is a significantly larger momentum against tech monopolies.

Look at some of the practices that brought the case forward:

"An office boy working at the Standard Oil headquarters was given the job of destroying records which included evidence that railroads were giving the company advance information about refiner's shipments.[85] This allowed them to undercut the refiners"

Does that sound familiar? Google knows everything that happens on your phone; and they can just undercut every other successful app if they wish so? Or how Amazon can simply analyze all the sales and create their own version of the successful products?

2 more replies

ksec4y ago

>Not once in my life has my dad, my grandma, o

Neither did any consumer complain to EU about credit card processing fees. Because they dont know. But EU business did. Just the same as App business in other country that are complaining now.

And EU took action on Visa and MasterCard processing fees.

And is the same argument, It is Apple's App Store, they can do what ever they want with it. Fine. Perfectly valid argument. But it is also EU's Market ( or in this case South Korean Market ), if Apple dont like it, do what the MacRumors comments have been telling Apple to do, Pull out of the EU and South Korean market to retaliate.

1 more reply

jollybean4y ago

It's probably true that the vast majority of people don't have an awareness of the impact and/or have little care but that doesn't make the issues unsubstantial.

dantheman4y ago

You should actually look at Standard Oil - it lowered prices, increased access, and by the time it was broken up was already losing market share and was not nearly as dominant. As with most anti-trust arguments -- market domination is temporary unless granted by the government, e.g. AT&T. In general it is sour grapes from those who can't compete.

AnimalMuppet4y ago

You should look at Standard Oil. Yes, it lowered prices and increased access. And it did things that were clearly blatantly unfair competition.

For one example, it demanded kickbacks from railroads on oil shipments - all oil shipments, including competitors'. It's pretty hard for a competitor to be able to compete in that environment.

1 more reply

nabla94y ago

> - New laws to restrict this are hard to write constitutionally (in the US)

This is obviously not true. The current Borkist interpretation of antitrust is barely 40 years old.

The movement towards "New Brandeis" antitrust philosophy is just going back to old normal with adjustments to new environment.

int_19h4y ago

That it doesn't look illegal under current laws is not because the laws as written didn't anticipate it, but rather because the laws were reinterpreted in a way that is more convenient to monopolies:

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2018/02/06/the-borking-of-amer...

So how about we just get back to the original intent of the law, for starters?

madeofpalk4y ago

Isn't that the point of laws and governments? That if enough people think something is bad or unfair, but is not currently illegal, then you introduce new laws to make it illegal?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

10 comments · 4 top-level

flavius296634y ago· 6 in thread

Everything was legal until it wasn't. It was the same for Standard oil before 1911: they said it's all legal to have such a monopoly on oil.

For some people at the time, it was obvious this was an unfair advantage on the market, so they fought to make it illegal.

ericmay4y ago

The reality is that there's a vocal minority (looks around here) and the vast majority of people couldn't give a shit less.

flavius296634y ago

You should read upon the woman who brought down Standard Oil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ida_Tarbell#Standard_Oil

It was basically a person that took on the largest monopoly in the world, and won.

What we have today is a significantly larger momentum against tech monopolies.

Look at some of the practices that brought the case forward:

2 more replies

ksec4y ago

>Not once in my life has my dad, my grandma, o

Neither did any consumer complain to EU about credit card processing fees. Because they dont know. But EU business did. Just the same as App business in other country that are complaining now.

And EU took action on Visa and MasterCard processing fees.

1 more reply

jollybean4y ago

It's probably true that the vast majority of people don't have an awareness of the impact and/or have little care but that doesn't make the issues unsubstantial.

dantheman4y ago

AnimalMuppet4y ago

You should look at Standard Oil. Yes, it lowered prices and increased access. And it did things that were clearly blatantly unfair competition.

For one example, it demanded kickbacks from railroads on oil shipments - all oil shipments, including competitors'. It's pretty hard for a competitor to be able to compete in that environment.

1 more reply

nabla94y ago

> - New laws to restrict this are hard to write constitutionally (in the US)

This is obviously not true. The current Borkist interpretation of antitrust is barely 40 years old.

The movement towards "New Brandeis" antitrust philosophy is just going back to old normal with adjustments to new environment.

int_19h4y ago

That it doesn't look illegal under current laws is not because the laws as written didn't anticipate it, but rather because the laws were reinterpreted in a way that is more convenient to monopolies:

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2018/02/06/the-borking-of-amer...

So how about we just get back to the original intent of the law, for starters?

madeofpalk4y ago

Isn't that the point of laws and governments? That if enough people think something is bad or unfair, but is not currently illegal, then you introduce new laws to make it illegal?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse