jdreyer wrote on Aug 25, 2020, 18:28:
wtf_man wrote on Aug 25, 2020, 16:23:
Apple can charge 90% if they wanted to. It would be stupid of them to do so, but they can charge what they want for THEIR platform.
Sorry, but unregulated monopolies aren't legal. That's why we have anti-trust laws. The fact that the government hasn't finished it's investigation doesn't mean it's not true. And if the government drops the case, that just means we're living in an oligarchy, not a democracy:.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.
You should be really upset that Apple owns 57% of the app market and charge an egregious 30% for running a website and a few hundred servers. The app store probably costs them a few hundred mil to run per year, while pulling in $10B. You know who pays that difference? You do.
Democracy died ages ago, dude, sorry if you've been clinging to that hope all this time... But anyway, anti-trust laws aren't there to punish whoever so happens to be in any kind of dominant market position. They are for preventing the abuse of power that position wields and preventing the gaining of that position through illegal means.
Has Apple been charging that same rate this whole time, while their market share started from 0% in 2007, rose as high as 70% or so before COMPETITION brought it tumbling down by half of that in 2010, then came back up and held pretty stable at 50-60% throughout the past decade? (Talking about the US, only, here; Android has dominated everywhere else since 2012 and today there's a 75/25 split over iOS in the global market.) I don't know the answer, but if yes, then how is taking 30% considered an abuse of the dominant market position they hold today? You don't get to suddenly decide it's "egregious" now if the market found it acceptable to begin with, to the point where they grew to dominate said market over the span of more than a decade of charging that rate.
If they came upon that market position legitimately, it doesn't matter how obscene their profit margins are, or whether they are fit to be categorized a monopoly... It's not illegal. An anti-trust case would be about proving they have done something illegal to stay there. Like threatening would-be competitors with secret ninja death squads or some shit. Or explicitly price-fixing with Google.This comment was edited on Aug 26, 2020, 01:13.