You and idm both make good arguments, they don't seem exactly the same. Both are reasonable. I'll throw in a third. Although "Being arbitrary and protective about what products you allow people to build onto your own products is not inherently a restraint of trade", perhaps some forms of it should be. Do we have to wait for a form of monopoly control that fits the DoJ's intervention before we fix things that may obviously be broken? DMCA protections aside, maybe its time our gov does take a stand on companies precluding us from doing what we want with something after we purchase it.
Your set-top box perhaps only should be protected if modifying it could cause serious harm to the core service provided, a service that is supposed to be neutral in what it carries. That narrow protection (if it even applies to your set-top box) should most certainly not apply to value-added user apps on a pocket computer.
If a role of government is to ensure economic growth, is it wise to use Apply as the foothold case to create rules to disallow this level of protectionism? Would the PC market have created the level of economic growth it did if IBM had controlled what software could be installed? Is it acceptable in terms of economic potential that simply because companies have the means to control such distribution now that they be allowed to?
I'm not going to say your argument is crazy, but I see the other side of it, which is that companies should be free to build product offerings they way they want to build product offerings.
So in that respect, I have zero problem with Apple locking down the iPhone. It's their show, they should be able to put it on the way they want it to.
Now, AT&T's business practices in preventing arbitrary handset manufacturers from bringing products to market is a problem, especially because they don't compete with any vendor that welcomes free handset innovation. AT&T and its mobile network competitors are colluding to restrain competition.
But I don't buy that we should be making Apple the proxy for that problem just because they managed to break a small crack in that barrier.
I may be crazy in that I don't think the gov should see this as protecting Google, but as using the case to clarify consumer rights. I'm obviously a huge fan of "I bought it, its mine, stay out of my way". Additionally, as a fan of the potential of free markets (we rarely get to see one in action, so who knows, maybe I'd change my mind if I actually lived in one), I feel Apple and other's behavior potentially creates less-free markets (its one of the many things "I believe but can't prove").
Let me setup a really crazy example:
A home builder AppleHomes is selling high quality homes at hefty discounts from other builders. Made in China, "designed" in California. About a year into selling a few million houses, AppleHomes turns on their AppleCam network. A million homes live for everyone to enjoy their reality fetish. Sorry, you can't turn off your ShowerCam, its embedded into your product. Doing so is a violation of rule 234.43B in the 1984-page ThinkOfTheChildredAct. AppleHomes is being quite generous in discounting your AppleEnergy power bill with 50% of the revenue it generates from viewers of your AppleCams.
This example is meant to sound crazy. But according to your views on business can do what it wants, isn't this scenario just as possible (though hopefully not probably)?
That's a pretty bad analogy in any case: it's like you deliberately bought a house from Apple without being able to install any additional appliances, but they will sell you more appliances, most of which made by third parties, most of which are totally unnecessary and destined to be thrown away after a day or two, but all of which have hidden cameras in them. You can install appliances Apple doesn't sell you, but then Apple will refuse to support the appliances you already have in your house, the house itself, or your lawn chair.
sorry, my example wasn't meant to mirror too much the AppStore. I was only using the Apple names as satire. My point is to show what can happen when products are sold as services and/or when a product or service can be controlled after the initial transaction.
I have no hatred of Apple. I am a fan of their products and use them daily. I think they are doing pretty much what any other company in its position would do. If society doesn't want this sort of behavior, we have to regulate against it. That's how we control the boundaries of what companies can do.
I think this case of Apple/ATT/Google is a good battleground for fleshing out these issues before for example, the nature of things like books changes drastically. Apple isn't the only one testing these boundaries. We've seen the music companies try. Now we're seeing inroads in Books. What happens when every product becomes a service? What happens when every product must be extended through the same provider that you made the initial transaction?
There are enough competitors to ensure that Apple isn't stifling economic growth. The last thing we need is the government saying what policies any arbitrary company can or cannot have with regard to its products. That is a sure way to prevent economic growth.
Please don't encourage government involvement. SOX did a good job of killing the IPO market. We don't need more of that love.
Your set-top box perhaps only should be protected if modifying it could cause serious harm to the core service provided, a service that is supposed to be neutral in what it carries. That narrow protection (if it even applies to your set-top box) should most certainly not apply to value-added user apps on a pocket computer.
If a role of government is to ensure economic growth, is it wise to use Apply as the foothold case to create rules to disallow this level of protectionism? Would the PC market have created the level of economic growth it did if IBM had controlled what software could be installed? Is it acceptable in terms of economic potential that simply because companies have the means to control such distribution now that they be allowed to?