18 ms·

It's a company's job to be anti-competitive, in the sense of vanquishing its competitors. It gets pathological in the case of regulatory capture, but I don't t

by human20190310 7y ago

It's a company's job to be anti-competitive, in the sense of vanquishing its competitors. It gets pathological in the case of regulatory capture, but I don't think Apple has managed that.

asjw 7y ago
No, It isn't. The company job is doing well their core business. Mafia's job is to be anti competitive.
- IOT_Apprentice 7y ago
  The Mafia is not a business. Apple does well in their core businesses.
  - robdachshund 7y ago
    Mafia is straight up a business buddy
munk-a 7y ago
> It's a company's job to be anti-competitive No it isn't, it literally isn't. A company's job is to be competitive. While there may be all sorts of libertarian apologists out there anti-competitive action is still... anti-compeititive. Apple's walled garden of an app store among various other tactics aren't about producing a better product - they're about preventing competing products.
- chrischen 7y ago
  I beg to differ. The App store is known to have a higher quality bar for apps than the play store, and that’s helped by the $100 developer fee and strict review processes. Not to mention Google tries hard to employ the same practices (you have to do some really roundabout stuff to install non-Play store apks).
  - wor3q 7y ago
    You just need to uncheck one setting, which you are directed to when you first try to install an apk... Now tell me, how can I get an alternative app store, or an internet browser, that doesn't use crappy Webkit on iOS...
    - chrischen 7y ago
      https://www.cnet.com/how-to/how-to-install-amazon-appstore-on-your-android-device/ https://www.cnet.com/how-to/how-to-install-amazon-appstore-o... This article on how to install the Amazon App store and third party APKs pretty much sums up the situation. On the surface it seems like a great idea to allow third party apps, but in practice it actually leads to a degraded experience, viruses, and vulnerabilities, as evidenced by the editor’s note at the top of the article recommending against doing what the article is saying.
- human20190310 7y ago
  > they're about preventing competing products. The purpose of a business is to make money. Crushing the competition helps.
jasonlotito 7y ago
Take Apple's non-compete scandal with other tech companies that effectively kept the salaries of engineers across the entire industry down. If you are a programmer, Apple hurt you salary prospects. [0] Or what about collusion with other publishers for price fixing. Literally that Apple violated federal antitrust law. [1] It's not a company's job to do illegal things.[2] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_Inc. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation#Antitrust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation#Antitrus...
- threeseed 7y ago
  That last one in particular was ridiculous in hindsight. Apple never had a monopoly on either MP3 players or online music stores.
willtim 7y ago
They also pay 0.005% tax in Europe, sure it's legal, but is it morally ok? They certainly benefit from all the European infrastructure and academic research that they are not contributing back to. Some put the figure owed at 14.5 billion dollars: https://observer.com/2019/09/apple-ireland-tax-lawsuit-european-union-corporate-tax-dodging/ https://observer.com/2019/09/apple-ireland-tax-lawsuit-europ...
- _Understated_ 7y ago
  Oh bloody hell. Another day another complaint about the morality of company X not paying tax. I'm sick of hearing this: Tax is not a moral issue. If the government says to corporation X "we're increasing your tax by 20%" they'll just put their prices up to cover it and in the end YOU will end up paying THEIR corporation tax. Companies don't pay tax: people do!
  - arbitrary_name 7y ago
    Wrong. Companies pay tax depending on certain market characteristics. Additionally, people paying taxes rebalances their consumption behaviour and can realign incentives across the marketplace. I cannot move myself to a low tax jurisdiction very easily, but a large corporation or wealthy individual can - if we had international agreements in place, the corporation would be forced to pay a tax and would be unable to avoid it - just like me.
    - _Understated_ 7y ago
      With regards to you thinking I am wrong, this is a matter of simple accounting: costs go up (enforced tax in this case) therefore prices MUST/WILL go up. Customers will pay the tax bill. Imagine a shareholders meeting: "the government have just enforced an additional 20% tax onto us which is going to cost X Billion a year. We're going to eat that cost. Is that ok?" There's not a chance that the shareholders will accept that... prices WILL increase to cover it. Sure, they will likely squeeze suppliers and look for savings elsewhere but that will only cover some of it as I would imagine suppliers are squeezed hard as it is. So, yes, the government will likely get more tax in the short term but it won't be paid by the corporations.

It's a company's job to be anti-competitive, in the sense of vanquishing its competitors. It gets pathological in the case of regulatory capture, but I don't think Apple has managed that.

asjw 7y ago

No, It isn't. The company job is doing well their core business. Mafia's job is to be anti competitive.

IOT_Apprentice 7y ago
The Mafia is not a business. Apple does well in their core businesses.
- robdachshund 7y ago
  Mafia is straight up a business buddy

munk-a 7y ago

> It's a company's job to be anti-competitive No it isn't, it literally isn't. A company's job is to be competitive. While there may be all sorts of libertarian apologists out there anti-competitive action is still... anti-compeititive. Apple's walled garden of an app store among various other tactics aren't about producing a better product - they're about preventing competing products.

chrischen 7y ago
I beg to differ. The App store is known to have a higher quality bar for apps than the play store, and that’s helped by the $100 developer fee and strict review processes. Not to mention Google tries hard to employ the same practices (you have to do some really roundabout stuff to install non-Play store apks).
- wor3q 7y ago
  You just need to uncheck one setting, which you are directed to when you first try to install an apk... Now tell me, how can I get an alternative app store, or an internet browser, that doesn't use crappy Webkit on iOS...
  - chrischen 7y ago
    https://www.cnet.com/how-to/how-to-install-amazon-appstore-on-your-android-device/ https://www.cnet.com/how-to/how-to-install-amazon-appstore-o... This article on how to install the Amazon App store and third party APKs pretty much sums up the situation. On the surface it seems like a great idea to allow third party apps, but in practice it actually leads to a degraded experience, viruses, and vulnerabilities, as evidenced by the editor’s note at the top of the article recommending against doing what the article is saying.
human20190310 7y ago
> they're about preventing competing products. The purpose of a business is to make money. Crushing the competition helps.

jasonlotito 7y ago

Take Apple's non-compete scandal with other tech companies that effectively kept the salaries of engineers across the entire industry down. If you are a programmer, Apple hurt you salary prospects. [0] Or what about collusion with other publishers for price fixing. Literally that Apple violated federal antitrust law. [1] It's not a company's job to do illegal things.[2] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_Inc. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation#Antitrust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation#Antitrus...

threeseed 7y ago
That last one in particular was ridiculous in hindsight. Apple never had a monopoly on either MP3 players or online music stores.

willtim 7y ago

They also pay 0.005% tax in Europe, sure it's legal, but is it morally ok? They certainly benefit from all the European infrastructure and academic research that they are not contributing back to. Some put the figure owed at 14.5 billion dollars: https://observer.com/2019/09/apple-ireland-tax-lawsuit-european-union-corporate-tax-dodging/ https://observer.com/2019/09/apple-ireland-tax-lawsuit-europ...

_Understated_ 7y ago
Oh bloody hell. Another day another complaint about the morality of company X not paying tax. I'm sick of hearing this: Tax is not a moral issue. If the government says to corporation X "we're increasing your tax by 20%" they'll just put their prices up to cover it and in the end YOU will end up paying THEIR corporation tax. Companies don't pay tax: people do!
- arbitrary_name 7y ago
  Wrong. Companies pay tax depending on certain market characteristics. Additionally, people paying taxes rebalances their consumption behaviour and can realign incentives across the marketplace. I cannot move myself to a low tax jurisdiction very easily, but a large corporation or wealthy individual can - if we had international agreements in place, the corporation would be forced to pay a tax and would be unable to avoid it - just like me.
  - _Understated_ 7y ago
    With regards to you thinking I am wrong, this is a matter of simple accounting: costs go up (enforced tax in this case) therefore prices MUST/WILL go up. Customers will pay the tax bill. Imagine a shareholders meeting: "the government have just enforced an additional 20% tax onto us which is going to cost X Billion a year. We're going to eat that cost. Is that ok?" There's not a chance that the shareholders will accept that... prices WILL increase to cover it. Sure, they will likely squeeze suppliers and look for savings elsewhere but that will only cover some of it as I would imagine suppliers are squeezed hard as it is. So, yes, the government will likely get more tax in the short term but it won't be paid by the corporations.