Why should we have to let things get worse. Break up Meta and Google and MS and then talk to me about how we don't need Apple's store anymore. Don't remove the solution and then tell me you'll fix the problem later.

This same argument can be used to block any action, forever. We have to start somewhere, and here is good enough.

So you do see downsides but you are personally willing to live with them?

It’s hard to believe this question was asked in good faith. What did they write that makes you think they admitted to there being downsides?

The commenter started by saying they didn't see any downsides. Someone replied referring to specific downsides which impacted them (""use Meta omni-permission store or get cut off from FB/IG/WhatsApp"). Then the commenter said downsides don't matter because they can be used to argue against any change. That's a different argument than where they started.

> "use Meta omni-permission store or get cut off from FB/IG/WhatsApp"

They replied to the comment which said this and wrote, "I see no downsides." I don’t see where they admitted to the downsides.

That's not the comment I replied to. I replied to the comment where they offered no argument for why someone else's downside was invalid, instead opting to say that it's better to not let downsides prevent action. The lack of argument implied they didn't have a response, which I sought to confirm.

Nope, no downsides.

You can believe whatever you want, but try not to impose it on others.

Likely they use Android, but are upset other people are using their devices wrong. So, to them, what downsides?

I mean… literally every complex judgement call in human history comes down to this answer; real life is mostly made of imperfect options with various tradeoffs.

"This is a complex judgment call, and I think forcing side loading is a reasonable conclusion in light of varied impacts" is a very different point of view than "I don't see any downsides."

>Break up Meta and Google and MS...

Don't threaten me with a good time.

Break them? More likely they'll continue their business as usual, with a slightly increased lobbying spending.

And yet somehow Apple hasn't managed to lobby this away, despite having more cash on hand than either Facebook or Google.

Apple has never been as big in lobbying as those are. Or as cooperative with various governments and state agencies.

Plus, they have those angles covered by token "open" BS like Android allowing sideloading, despite having total dominance on far more crucial for consumers and the economy in general areas that their OS, leaving Apple to be targeted.

According to Statista, Google spent $10.92 million on lobbying in 2022, whereas Apple spent $9.36 million.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1043061/lobbying-expense...

https://www.statista.com/statistics/277063/lobbying-expenses...

Please free yourself from going to bat for a company that wouldn't care if you lived or died.

Okay? No one thinks they would. We're in a business transaction.

Maybe people are going to bat for their own interests and recognize they align with the interests of a company they happily buy products from. Who are you to deny their preferences?

Those are the over the table numbers.

>Please free yourself from going to bat for a company that wouldn't care if you lived or died.

I care if my prefered mobile OS were to allow any kind of crap. How about that? Mind blown?

Apple spends very little money lobbying.

I don't see what breaking up Google or Facebook accomplishes, it changes absolutely nothing for consumers.

It changes at least one thing; now there is Google1 and Google2 and FB1 and FB2 and they offer the same services to different prices.

Now the consumer can chose between more competitors.

Almost every item you buy online has some Google 'tax' baked in. That alone isn't a problem, but since Google controls almost the entire ad market, there isn't any competition pushing that tax down. Notice the similarity to the App Store arguments?

If Google and YouTube were split up, I could see a future where both start competing for text and video search against each other. This competition would drive down ad rates across both platforms. It would also allow space for other competitors to come in.

Yes, please, let's do this. And Amazon too.

In general; let's take that whole monopoly thing serious again, together with regulatory capture.

I'm no free market liberal, quite the contrary. But competition is *good* and we should have more competition between these huge companies that basically make a living from extracting rent.

> I'm no free market liberal, quite the contrary. But competition is good

You sound at least a little bit as though you understand markets, though!

I strive to learn.

With markets I see it similarly as with democracy; it's the best of all the bad options we have. Given the challenges ahead (demographic crisis, climate crisis, environmental crisis) we must have a dynamic and flexible system to accommodate the to be expected strains, if we want to continue existing as a global civilization.

But markets also have flaws, such as externalization of costs and oligopolies that skew the market through their influence.

We've seen this with Google, that has started as a brilliant search engine, providing a valuable service. Nowadays it attempts to make more and more money through rent taking instead. Instead of creating value, these oligopolies capture value, sometimes even through illegal means (see; no-poaching agreements).