| > How is "let's make a platform more open and interoperable" a threat to anyone? It's not and I never said it was. I was replying to your "do unto others" quote which I find is not applicable in this case: I think in regulatory cases you shouldn't assume you know what's best for others (let them vote instead). So, if you say "we're a group of experts, we know you don't need product X, so we're pushing for additional taxation of it" it's a threat. Sorry if I was not clear enough the first time. But on another note, if I was selling a product based on exclusivity, would regulation forcing me to ditch the exclusive part not threaten my business if it was its main selling point? If people have a choice to buy something else, who am I hurting here and how? > "I know what's best for you: you must switch to Android". The irony. I was just trying to illustrate that she had a choice. I personally don't think regulation demanding that a game publisher either publish on every platform or on none in order not to discriminate users is needed or positive. > Word of the day: duopoly. First it was monopoly. Now it's duopoly. Tell me, when there are 3 dominating companies, will there be a "triopoly"? > This is literally one of the government functions: to dictate and force common ground, interoperability, common standards etc. This makes sense in a lot of cases, but less so when people have choices. |
My quote was in relation to the context about some unnamed activists and expertise that is somehow harmful to people.
> if I was selling a product based on exclusivity, would regulation forcing me to ditch the exclusive part not threaten my business if it was its main selling point?
Depends on the product, of course. E.g. you can sell an exclusive phone, and companies like Vertu made good money on it. What you can't do is make it non-interoperable with other phones, or phone networks, or...
> I was just trying to illustrate that she had a choice. I personally don't think regulation demanding that a game publisher
In short response you've now come up with the following attempts at analogies: additional taxation, game publishing, triopoly...
And none of them are applicable in this case.
> First it was monopoly. Now it's duopoly.
If you were discussing this in good faith, you wouldn't have typed this. I never claimed Apple was a monopoly. The EU never claimed it was a monopoly.
I described the situation as it exists, and why this regulation appeared. Yes, if there's a third company with the same size, influence, and problems, it will also be subject to the same regulation.
Since you are a fan of analogies: just like car manufacturers are subject to standards and regulations, and electronics manufacturers, and construction companies, and ship builders, and airlines, and food companies, and...
Why is this such a difficult concept to wrap your head around when it comes to supranational corporations, is beyond me.
While also ignoring the simple facts that people do want interoperability, and that it's government's literal job to enforce standards and interoperability.