In short, because they can’t persuade to voluntarily accept their ideas, they prove the lack of values of their ideas by using the legislative approach. Good ideas don’t require force.
This is fallacious at best. Plenty of good (even necessary) ideas are unprofitable, therefore a low-regulation, profit-focused market will never provide them. For example, there's a reason the US federal government had to step in and make the interstate freeway system. Private roads can only be profitable enough to justify the investment at small scale or with very few vehicles (e.g., train routes).
Government exists to use force to compel people to do things which they otherwise would not, such as paying taxes. Democratic government exists to use this power in furtherance of the public interest, such as by providing public schooling. Arguing about what is in the public's interest is important.
Ironically you accuse me of engaging in logical fallacy while engaging in begging the question fallacy. That is, assume the validity of your argument as support for your argument. You also engaged in circular reasoning, and in so doing utterly fail to establish your attempted refutation of my premise that good ideas don’t require force. That force is used in a lazy effort to establish a positive end is not a proof for the necessity of force. At best, it establishes evidence of either ethical failure, lazy thinking, or both. Roads are not evidence of the need for taxation any more than procreation is a justification for sexual assault.
If there's to be any regulation, it should be on apps "productivity" time vs. "ad" time. The number of games that display ads for 30 seconds in between 10 to 20-second game plays is super frustrating!
In short, because they can’t persuade to voluntarily accept their ideas, they prove the lack of values of their ideas by using the legislative approach. Good ideas don’t require force.
This is fallacious at best. Plenty of good (even necessary) ideas are unprofitable, therefore a low-regulation, profit-focused market will never provide them. For example, there's a reason the US federal government had to step in and make the interstate freeway system. Private roads can only be profitable enough to justify the investment at small scale or with very few vehicles (e.g., train routes).
Government exists to use force to compel people to do things which they otherwise would not, such as paying taxes. Democratic government exists to use this power in furtherance of the public interest, such as by providing public schooling. Arguing about what is in the public's interest is important.
You are correct in one respect. There are places where it is better for everyone if the government steps in and mandates certain things. To continue your highway system analogy, car standards are another area. If we didn’t have national standards we would have cars that were 16 feet wide taking up two lanes on the road. Safety features would never have been included. The list goes on and on.
This is not the same thing however. This is equivalent of some company demanding federal legislation to force Target and Walmart to sell particular brands. Even further it’s them demanding that the government step in and mandate how apple’s business run, not because apple is doing anything wrong, but because these companies don’t want to play by the rules. Look at what MS did today with their gaming platform. XBox Cloud will now run on iOS devices. They faced the same limitation, and solved the problem. The group that is taking things to Congress though doesn’t want to solve the problem. They want to use the government to use its big stick to beat Apple into submission.
What they are doing is deceptive, disingenuous, against free enterprise, and wrong. wrong on so many levels there isn’t space to cover them all here.
I never said the end they're trying to achieve is good, just that pushing for governmental intervention does not, prima facie, prove it is a bad idea. Plenty of good ideas require force.
This idea in particular is bad for other reasons, but not because the people pushing it are doing so through government.
Turns out the person I was replying to apparently thinks either freeways aren't a good thing or the market would provide them without governmental intervention. Neither position is worth engaging.
This is not a cut and dried issue as far as I see it. On one hand, Apple has a right to its ecosystem. Don't like it? Go to Android. On the other hand, they are nearly a monopoly (or a duopoly with Google) and do wield unbelievable power. The question is whether they are illegally harming competition by pushing their own apps over competing apps. They may be highlighting their own apps, but that in itself is probably not illegal. Nor is the fact that their TOS mandates their in-house payment system. In the end, I think their arguments of security, privacy and quality/integration prevail over monopoly concerns. That doesn't mean they're perfect...they clearly need to keep working to be more fair, consistent and better to developers. But asking the courts to force them to be like Windows or Mac OS? No.
In the end, I think their arguments of security, privacy and quality/integration prevail over monopoly concerns. That doesn't mean they're perfect...they clearly need to keep working to be more fair, consistent and better to developers. But asking the courts to force them to be like Windows or Mac OS? No.
The best thing they can do for the developers would be to kick out a fair number of useless clones, outdated apps and crapps from the stores. The second best is to keep strict rules wrt privacy, safety and quality for apps in the store.
Customers are more likely to buy/download if they trust the content and its easy to find the useful apps - good for developers.
Comments
This idea in particular is bad for other reasons, but not because the people pushing it are doing so through government.
Turns out the person I was replying to apparently thinks either freeways aren't a good thing or the market would provide them without governmental intervention. Neither position is worth engaging.
In the end, I think their arguments of security, privacy and quality/integration prevail over monopoly concerns. That doesn't mean they're perfect...they clearly need to keep working to be more fair, consistent and better to developers. But asking the courts to force them to be like Windows or Mac OS? No.
The second best is to keep strict rules wrt privacy, safety and quality for apps in the store.
Customers are more likely to buy/download if they trust the content and its easy to find the useful apps - good for developers.