22july2013

I mentioned above how the government forced the Movie industry and the Automobile industry to change how they sold their products. While watching a cameraman at a political rally on the web today I just remembered a third situation. In 1954 Kodak had the strongest sales for both making camera film and separate process of photofinishing that film. The manufacturing and processing of film are two different businesses, and Kodak was using its strength in one field to make it difficult for competitors to enter the film manufacturing business. I don't know the precise details. So the US government sued Kodak in 1954, and the two parties settled. The settlement changed how Kodak did business, and one of the conditions, still in force today, prevents Kodak from "tying or otherwise connecting in any manner the sale of its color film to the processing thereof". So government meddling in stores is not unheard of in US history. And this is another law whose time has passed and should be cancelled, although I'm not sure if anyone cares about film processing any more.

A creative lawyer might draw some parallels between Kodak and Apple here. Kodak's product: film. Kodak's service: film processing. Apple's product: smart phone. Apple's service: software sales. Kodak used one of its two businesses to try to hamper its competitors in t he other field. Is Apple doing something similar? To be honest, I don't know. I recall Apple saying that they would prohibit some apps for the Apple Watch, like apps that tell the time. Perhaps some creative and lawyer and judge might think that's unfair and might force Apple to allow the sales of certain categories of apps that have been hitherto prohibited. I'm not trying to win any case here for Epic, I'm just trying to anticipate what their arguments might be. A good lawyer (or judge) needs to always consider both sides.

Beats said:

Mind your own damn business. Why should governments tell us how to run our stores?

At the risk of sounding like I'm arguing with myself, the US government has told Americans how to run their stores. For example, they broke up the movie production companies who used to own theatres, and now all theatres are independent. The movie production companies were told they could not manage their own theatres/stores. Are you in favour of going back to the old system where companies like Paramount owned movie theatres across the country? After all, "why should governments tell us how to run our stores?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc.  (you may need to add the trailing dot manually)

The same thing also happened with car manufacturers and dealerships. The US government told the auto industry they could not sell their own cars in their own dealerships! That's why dealerships are now independent from manufacturers. SIDENOTE: Tesla has found a loophole to this in many states by selling most of its cars online only, but they are under pressure in many states to use the dealership model. If Tesla loses in court, they could end up being less profitable. The main reason Tesla doesn't want dealerships is that they think consumers might not understand (!!) the advantages of electric cars when they see a gas combustion engine in the same dealership. Ie, Tesla thinks people are stupid. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_US_dealership_disputes

Personally I think the old historical reasons for restricting theatres and dealerships are obsolete now, primarily because the Internet allows more purchaser options. You can even get movies off the Internet, so consumer choice cannot be threatened. So I don't support how the government STILL restricts auto and movie ticket sales after 72 years. However if Epic wants to argue that the government needs to regulate software sales, I'm willing to listen to their arguments. They just better be cogent.

The day isn’t over yet.

Apple should respond, “Mark, you have exactly the kind of software company we are trying to protect our users from. So we will take your insult as a complement.”

SpamSandwich said:

Post-COVID-19 they’ll skyrocket.

If the Apple Watch 6 due in September contains an oxygen saturation sensor as some people say it will, that will create a huge demand for Apple Watches, because oxygen saturation sensors are able to detect one of the symptoms of COVID-19 (ie, lower values than "90" of "SpO2%"). I bought the last oxygen saturation sensor in my local medical supply store last week (for $80.) I think people may be catching on to this technology. This is what should be sold out in stores right now, not hand sanitizer or toilet paper. For now I'm manually entering my SpO2% values into the iOS Health App, but it would be much better to have this built-in to the Watch.