[cmelbye]

I'd prefer the latter ("you have the right to not buy it") to the government interfering in the internal operations of Apple. If I didn't like how Apple was taking so long to decide on Opera Mini, I would have a world of alternatives. I could use an Android phone, use a Nokia phone, get a cheap flip phone, make my own phone, not use a phone at all. Apple does not have the obligation to approve every last web browser that developers submit, and I'm fine with that, so I've decided to use their phone.

[thingie]

Why? If I don't think that "government interfering in the internal operations of some company" is generally bad and morally wrong (and I don't [1]), is there any other reason to think this? Is there any objective reason why should the European governments let Apple do anything it likes at the expense of the European companies and customers? (This is not necessarily the case, but it's close.) I'm not saying that you are wrong and I don't think that some government should "interfere" in this case, but I'd like to know your reasons why it should not. Just curious.

[1] I don't even think that we're speaking about "internal operations", there are numerous external companies and customers involved, how is that an "internal operation"?

[netcan]

Are you asking in the very general sense? Of course there are reasons, both "moral" and practical.

One important one is that when courts and politicians get involved, manoeuvring in the system is more important then manoeuvring in the market. This becomes the central focus of managers. Managers without talent or experience in this area give way to managers that are.

Remember, this is not just a matter of flipping a switch. The case against Microsoft took years. During that time, the beginning of the PC revolution, the most important thing the most important company could do was win a court case and preserve a public image.

This is damage that happens so long as the system stays clean. Another problem with this sort of action is that it creates terrible incentive for corruption. Fortunes can be won or lost depending on a political decision. The owners of those fortunes will try to influence the process.

On the flip side, it isn't obvious that there is much return to this sort of "intervention." Microsoft & IBM, the two great monopolies of the computer industry both failed to do much harm. The both were clearly affected by competition. The markets stayed competitive. New products appeared. Innovation happened. They made high profits (MS still has great profits), but no obvious damage happened.

To see this at work look at telcos and other infrastructure owning companies around the world, where government intervention is usually highest. Look at the CEOs of these companies. These are guys who know how to oil the system, not lay copper wire and certainly not how to answer a customer service call. It is not uncommon for corruption to be present. Many countries have telcos owned by members of a political elite.

[thingie]

I wasn't trying to be so general, and wanted to talk mostly about Apple and Appstore :-) But thank you, it's a good answer. Anyway, I think that while market will usually find a workable solution, we cannot expect it to ever find the best one (well, and especially socially responsible one, whatever it means :-)). Of course, regulation, even in the best interests, can fail badly and make things much much worse. Still, I think it would be better for us all if Apple was forced to make iPhone development more open, and the risks of doing so are not so great. But I agree that those risks could be seen as a good reason to avoid it. After all, we can live quite happily even with closed iPhone (or no iPhone at all :-)).

[netcan]

If you are interested in rule of law, it's pretty risky. You need to decide who has the power to decide what a company can and can't do. In this case, the only way to do that is with fairly arbitrary power and that is bad for rule of law.

They would need to be able to scrutinise then change Apple's appstore approval process/policy and make sure that it is indeed being followed. Apart from affecting their macro policies, this precludes that Apple's ability to decide arbitrarily which is pretty important to what they are trying to do. If you do take a more general/macro view, which I think you need to, you need to take into account how this affects Apple's behaviour and the general effect on the market.

The idea that apps need to be babysat and approved is controversial, but worth testing. This is what APple is doing right now, in the market. They are testing a hypothesis: 'An authoritarian marketplace will result in better apps and a better user experience.' Other hypothesis such as: 'some babaysitting is good but we should let people opt out and install whatever they want' will also probably be tested.

[mattmanser]

I find your position to be tenable at best, what is and is not an addictive food additive? What recreational drugs are and are not good for the public health? All these are arbitrary decisions too.

I doubt you would suggest the US should get rid of the FDA. It is not such a jump to conclude that if drug companies must be watched for practices which damage consumers, why not a retail firm? The line America has drawn for regulation is just as arbitrary as the one European countries do, Europe is just a bit more suspicious of laissez-faire capitalism than America.

And I highly doubt they are baby sitting this app because of quality.

[netcan]

First, I am not American and have no special feelings for their position. I'm not trying to prove a metaphysical point either.

To put all this in context, I was responding to a comment that could be paraphrased 'Most of us agree what Apple is doing sucks, European (Commission?) should make them do it differently. The only reasons not to are some hazy moral theories I don't believe in.' I was talking about some of the practical reasons not to, the costs. One of those is rule of law.

Food, medicine, narcotics, etc. all these regimes also require relatively arbitrary regulatory powers too. That is also not good for rule of law. We make tradeoffs. Purer, direct democracy for stronger institutions. Rule of law of regulations. Laws for liberty. Each of these has a cost. Sometimes it's worth it.

Maybe regulating the appstore is a good idea. I don't think so. I'm trying to argue that the costs typical to this kind of a decision are high hear while the gains are low, perhaps nonexistent.

BTW, I don't think that Thingie was being unreasonable either. Like he says, the current reality is that it is not that crucial to find the best way of getting iphone apps.

[MWinther]

I don't agree that iPhone development isn't open. There are free tools and free documentation readily available, albeit not for all platforms. This is of course no different than many other developer environments, such as the tools for Windows 7 Phone will be.

So open would mean "if Apple was forced to lower the demands on the applications submitted to the app store" in this case, I guess? To which I would say, "Quite the contrary." I think Apple should enforce higher requirements when it comes to human interface guidelines, for instance. But it's of course a process that's evolving, and it will take some time to get it right.

One could argue that the demands put on the Apps in the App store is increasing competition, since it encourages developers not wanting to be subjected to them to develop for alternate platforms. I just hope the courts will see it that way, if it comes to it.

[ZeroGravitas]

On what basis are you claiming IBM and Microsoft didn't do any harm?

If the free market economies didn't exist, how would the Soviets know that they'd fallen behind?

I'm not saying it's an easy question to answer, it's not, but you apparently think it is.

[netcan]

Well, this is the problem with any sort of empirical answers to economics questions. That said, we see some strong signals here. If you agree with some or all of them, it is an indication:

- Both IBM & MS do not feel as intimidating today as they did at their peek. - Technology moved forward in ways that made their monopolies less important. - Innovation in competing products happened - Innovation within these companies happened. - There was fast paced borrowing of concepts from competing products - Prices decreased

Out of all of these, the first is IMO the important one. MS' position in 96 didn't guarantee its position in the future. Generations in technology are relatively fast and create opportunities to break monopolies. Even if it is bad (I agree that this is up for discussion), you can just wait it out.

Compare this to telephone lines or rail roads and it seems like software, even if it is a platform, is not in as much danger.

[Tycho]

Companies are just extensions of the rights/properties of individuals. You might as well ask whether the it's morally bad for the government to insist JK Rowling use/promote other authors' characters in her novels.

[biafra]

Governments protect companies all over the world. Why shouldn't they protect consumers (or in this case companies against other companies) as well?