"There is no difference (in this context) between a digital and non-digital market."
There is a huge difference between a digital and non-digital market. In a digital market - one company can control (or curate) everything that occurs. This kind of control has only been made possible by digital technology.
--
"If you wanted to go sell products in Costco, or Walmart, you would have to play by their rules."
Costco or Walmart purchase products which they later resell. The AppStore provides an economic space where people can sell direct to the consumer. There's a distinction.
If I produce a product that can be sold in Costco or Walmart - and I don't like their policies, I can take my product and sell it elsewhere.
If I produce a product for sale via the AppStore, and I don't like their policies I have to redevelop my product to sell it via a different marketplace.
--
"If you, as a developer, or user, don't like those rules, then thankfully we have superb open source operating systems, such as Linux, and OpenBSD that give you almost 100% freedom to build, sell, and use the applications of your choice."
We're talking about the emerging IP-marketplaces, which are currently only viable for a handful of commercially operated platforms. The problem isn't that commerce is allowed to take place - it's that the rules of commerce can be artificially influenced by a corporation.
--
"In fact, if you have a jail-broken IOS device, then you can even purchase apps for those devices from places other than Apple's curated store."
This isn't a desirable scenario for many users, and isn't an economically viable market for many developers.
--
"The Droid, RIM, and WP7 platforms also provide varying degrees of freedom."
The problem is, there are no safeguards in place to stop these other platform vendors from artificially influencing the economic sub-markets associated with their own platforms.
A situation could quite easily develop where platform vendors unanimously agree to progress in a direction that inhibits developer (and/or user) freedoms. What happens then?
There is definitely a barrier to entry to the platform vendor market - because a huge amount of capital is needed get a business into a position where it can compete with the larger players.
--
"If, in fact, Apple had a defacto monopoly, then their behavior might come under some form of legislative oversight - but, they certainly don't have a Monopoly on the mobile computing platform, and we really don't need some external body providing regulatory oversight as to what/how Apple should approve applications landing in the store."
I think we need a body regulating the behaviour of all emerging curated IP-marketplaces. Digital commerce is very open to abuse - measures need to be put in place now while the stakes are relatively low.
There is a huge difference between a digital and non-digital market. In a digital market - one company can control (or curate) everything that occurs. This kind of control has only been made possible by digital technology.
--
"If you wanted to go sell products in Costco, or Walmart, you would have to play by their rules."
Costco or Walmart purchase products which they later resell. The AppStore provides an economic space where people can sell direct to the consumer. There's a distinction.
If I produce a product that can be sold in Costco or Walmart - and I don't like their policies, I can take my product and sell it elsewhere.
If I produce a product for sale via the AppStore, and I don't like their policies I have to redevelop my product to sell it via a different marketplace.
--
"If you, as a developer, or user, don't like those rules, then thankfully we have superb open source operating systems, such as Linux, and OpenBSD that give you almost 100% freedom to build, sell, and use the applications of your choice."
We're talking about the emerging IP-marketplaces, which are currently only viable for a handful of commercially operated platforms. The problem isn't that commerce is allowed to take place - it's that the rules of commerce can be artificially influenced by a corporation.
--
"In fact, if you have a jail-broken IOS device, then you can even purchase apps for those devices from places other than Apple's curated store."
This isn't a desirable scenario for many users, and isn't an economically viable market for many developers.
--
"The Droid, RIM, and WP7 platforms also provide varying degrees of freedom."
The problem is, there are no safeguards in place to stop these other platform vendors from artificially influencing the economic sub-markets associated with their own platforms.
A situation could quite easily develop where platform vendors unanimously agree to progress in a direction that inhibits developer (and/or user) freedoms. What happens then?
There is definitely a barrier to entry to the platform vendor market - because a huge amount of capital is needed get a business into a position where it can compete with the larger players.
--
"If, in fact, Apple had a defacto monopoly, then their behavior might come under some form of legislative oversight - but, they certainly don't have a Monopoly on the mobile computing platform, and we really don't need some external body providing regulatory oversight as to what/how Apple should approve applications landing in the store."
I think we need a body regulating the behaviour of all emerging curated IP-marketplaces. Digital commerce is very open to abuse - measures need to be put in place now while the stakes are relatively low.