That’s different though. There aren’t only 2 landlords in the world, so making laws that affect landlords makes sense.
But how do you design a law that corrects the bad behavior of 2 monopolists, while at the same time not adding a burden to any potential competitors (and thereby strengthening the existing monopolies)?
Forcing competition makes more sense to me. No need to get into endless debates about the risks to innovation, or government being too big, etc. Just open the gates to competition and call it a day.
If the mobile app store market goes to shit in the future, then we can start getting into the weeds of it. But for now, there’s no need for that; the answer is obvious.
> while at the same time not adding a burden to any potential competitors (and thereby strengthening the existing monopolies)
Expecting some level of support being provided, especially in a paid B2B engagement, doesn't stifle competition. If a competitor can't provide basic support, especially when they're just starting up, then it's best that that business fails.
They're essentially modelling their business plan based on Google's worst attributes. That's not competition I'd like to see develop a foothold, or the type of competition we should be encouraging, let alone structure our laws to support.
But how do you design a law that corrects the bad behavior of 2 monopolists, while at the same time not adding a burden to any potential competitors (and thereby strengthening the existing monopolies)?
Forcing competition makes more sense to me. No need to get into endless debates about the risks to innovation, or government being too big, etc. Just open the gates to competition and call it a day.
If the mobile app store market goes to shit in the future, then we can start getting into the weeds of it. But for now, there’s no need for that; the answer is obvious.