That’s insanity. Under those terms, most suppliers would be at the whims of platform owners.
Congrats, you found one of the many problems with the concept of capitalism.
Microsoft asking Valve for a 50% cut? Sure. Google delisting a website because the owner criticized their CEO? Absolutely. Amazon telling you to sell at a loss or not sell at all? Why not.
Yes. That is how all that works. Because they are all private companies and it is voluntary to use their services.
If you think those services should be neutral, congrats, you’re advocating for communism. I think communism is pretty cool and there should be a state-run online marketplace that is entirely non-profit. But you seem to think you should or could force companies to be that public entity. That’s not only not realistic and not how the world has ever worked under capitalism, but it’s just simply a bad idea. Look at the USPS for why you should not have a private entity perform a public service.
But you seem to think you should or could force companies to be that public entity. That’s not only not realistic and not how the world has ever worked under capitalism, but it’s just simply a bad idea.
I disagree. There are plenty of success stories of companies being forced by governments to act in the best interest of consumers, from adopting USB-C to removing lead from gasoline.
Look at the USPS for why you should not have a private entity perform a public service.
You are conflating very different things here, I’m afraid.
You are conflating very different things here, I’m afraid.
I’m really not. You want a neutral marketplace that just provides a service without a profit motive. That’s what it comes down to. Because any service that requires a profit will naturally protect that profit, and that includes excluding suppliers that are actively sabotaging it.
Materially & historically speaking it absolutely is too much to ask, sooner or later someone inevitably gains enough wealth to rig the game, the only way anyone in history has ever managed to get anything resembling good faith out of “marketplaces” has been at gunpoint
There is nothing illegal being done by steam kiddo. And ‘good faith’ is defending themselves against sabotage, which is what ubisoft is suing for the ability to do here.
Nice exercise of brand loyalty, but irrelevant in this scenario.
Incorrect, this is an ‘exercise’ of explaining a very basic fact of capitalism that has been happening longer than the word ‘capitalism’ has existed. This policy is the default for all stores on Earth.
You are very clearly out of your depth here, and very much wrong, so maybe drop the patronizing tone a little bit.
They did in the 1980s with walmart, kiddo.
Unless you can quote the exact precedent, I’m going to take the Sherman Antitrust Act over whatever you say.
Incorrect, this is an ‘exercise’ of explaining a very basic fact of capitalism that has been happening longer than the word ‘capitalism’ has existed. This policy is the default for all stores on Earth.
Marketplaces can set the prices of the items sold at their locations. They cannot set the prices of items outside of them. Doing so is price fixing, plain and simple.
Congrats, you found one of the many problems with the concept of capitalism.
Yes. That is how all that works. Because they are all private companies and it is voluntary to use their services.
If you think those services should be neutral, congrats, you’re advocating for communism. I think communism is pretty cool and there should be a state-run online marketplace that is entirely non-profit. But you seem to think you should or could force companies to be that public entity. That’s not only not realistic and not how the world has ever worked under capitalism, but it’s just simply a bad idea. Look at the USPS for why you should not have a private entity perform a public service.
I disagree. There are plenty of success stories of companies being forced by governments to act in the best interest of consumers, from adopting USB-C to removing lead from gasoline.
You are conflating very different things here, I’m afraid.
I’m really not. You want a neutral marketplace that just provides a service without a profit motive. That’s what it comes down to. Because any service that requires a profit will naturally protect that profit, and that includes excluding suppliers that are actively sabotaging it.
No, I want marketplaces to operate in good faith and following the law. Don’t think that’s so much to ask.
Materially & historically speaking it absolutely is too much to ask, sooner or later someone inevitably gains enough wealth to rig the game, the only way anyone in history has ever managed to get anything resembling good faith out of “marketplaces” has been at gunpoint
There is nothing illegal being done by steam kiddo. And ‘good faith’ is defending themselves against sabotage, which is what ubisoft is suing for the ability to do here.
That’s for the courts to decide, “kiddo”.
Nice exercise of brand loyalty, but irrelevant in this scenario.
They did in the 1980s with walmart, kiddo.
Incorrect, this is an ‘exercise’ of explaining a very basic fact of capitalism that has been happening longer than the word ‘capitalism’ has existed. This policy is the default for all stores on Earth.
You are very clearly out of your depth here, and very much wrong, so maybe drop the patronizing tone a little bit.
Unless you can quote the exact precedent, I’m going to take the Sherman Antitrust Act over whatever you say.
Marketplaces can set the prices of the items sold at their locations. They cannot set the prices of items outside of them. Doing so is price fixing, plain and simple.