Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

nypost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 130 posts

Re: Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

#11

Post by houseabsolute »

ig1 wrote: post #7
tptacek wrote: post #2

Since Apple doesn't have anything resembling a monopoly in any market it operates in, and since all DoJ can do is file a suit that is predicated on them having one, this is unlikely to go anywhere.

Look at the antitrust lawsuits against printer manufacturers for ink refills. You don't have to have a monopoly in a sector (printers) to be subject to anti-trust laws, having a monopoly on consumables designed to work with your product can be sufficient.

Seems to me like the harmful to consumers aspect of the antitrust case will be the hard part to prove here. It seems like people are in near-universal agreement that printer companies were/are price-gouging on their inks in a way that is exclusively harmful to consumers. However, Apple's whole narrative on this TOS section is that doing otherwise would in the long run harm consumers by slowing down the evolution of the platform. Hard to see how the DOJ is going to prove otherwise.

Re: Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

#12

Post by archgrove »

houseabsolute wrote: post #9
archgrove wrote: post #8

Genuine question: How are the restrictions placed by Apple on what's allowed in the App Store any different then the restrictions placed by console owners on what's published for the XBox or PS3? For example, the XBox XNA community games system requires people to use .Net - there's no technical reason for this (the XBox is clearly capable of running native code). However, Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo still seem to be allo…

The main way they're different is that people have always expected consoles to be walled gardens. They have expected the same things of phones, but because the developer of this phone is Apple, they thought that the model would be more similar to the way desktop applications are developed. The only significant difference is one of expectations.

But "I expected it to be different" doesn't seem like a sound legal foundation for anti-trust action. In many ways, the iPhone has been the founding of "open" phone development. Prior to the iPhone, there was virtually no real development allowed on phones that achieved any levels of success (carriers had the platform locked down hard). Post iPhone, we've seen actual competition in this space - the entirely open Android strategy (though their App Store also has restrictions, they just apply them post-release rather than pre-release); the semi-closed iPhone and Nokia Ovi models, the web app model of all the platforms. People claiming that Apple has created a locked-down environment have very short memories - even the closed nature of the App Store via 3.3.1 would have been considered insanely open only 5 years ago.

Google have bet that unfettered platform mutability with (almost) totally free development is good for their business model. Great, and more power to them. Apple have bet that allowing a freeforall would cause their business model damage; OK, that's their call. Other platform holders are trying other strategies. The point being, the free market seems to be about allowing them to try these ideas, and fail if consumers don't like them. Whilst Apple are nowhere near a monopoly on smartphones (and they're frankly miles away from one), they should be free to adopt whatever model they think works best for them.

Re: Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

#13

Post by jasonlbaptiste »

This is absolutely retarded.

a) The market will figure this out. If developers don't want to code in just Cocoa touch or make apps for other platforms a priority because the language is easier, they will.

b) Things are in such a nascent stage. Android is growing like a weed. A suit like this might make some partial sense a few years down the road if there was enough data there.

c) The department of justice will probably hire a bunch of people with no real domain expertise to look into the subject.

d) The potential precedent set could be scary. @archgrove mentioned the xbox example. So now, microsoft might HAVE to allow us to build XBLA games using any tools out there. If I were microsoft, I wouldn't want sub standard crap getting in there.

Re: Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

#14

Post by houseabsolute »

archgrove wrote: post #12
houseabsolute wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main way they're different is that people have always expected consoles to be walled gardens. They have expected the same things of phones, but because the developer of this phone is Apple, they thought that the model would be more similar to the way desktop applications are developed. The only significant difference is one of expectations.

But "I expected it to be different" doesn't seem like a sound legal foundation for anti-trust action. In many ways, the iPhone has been the founding of "open" phone development. Prior to the iPhone, there was virtually no real development allowed on phones that achieved any levels of success (carriers had the platform locked down hard ). Post iPhone, we've seen actual competition in this space - the entirely open And…

> doesn't seem like a sound legal foundation for anti-trust action . . .

Don't get me wrong. I'm right with you there.

Re: Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

#16

Post by doron »

archgrove wrote: post #8

Genuine question: How are the restrictions placed by Apple on what's allowed in the App Store any different then the restrictions placed by console owners on what's published for the XBox or PS3? For example, the XBox XNA community games system requires people to use .Net - there's no technical reason for this (the XBox is clearly capable of running native code). However, Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo still seem to be allo…

Maybe the issue is that in order to develop for the iphone or Ipad you are forced to use the SDK which in turn requires apple hardware (MAC) and apple software (OSX) to run. software that you are also prohibited from virtualizing?

Re: Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

#17

Post by apgwoz »

doron wrote: post #16
archgrove wrote: post #8

Genuine question: How are the restrictions placed by Apple on what's allowed in the App Store any different then the restrictions placed by console owners on what's published for the XBox or PS3? For example, the XBox XNA community games system requires people to use .Net - there's no technical reason for this (the XBox is clearly capable of running native code). However, Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo still seem to be allo…

Maybe the issue is that in order to develop for the iphone or Ipad you are forced to use the SDK which in turn requires apple hardware (MAC) and apple software (OSX) to run. software that you are also prohibited from virtualizing?

The way I always thought Apple avoided Anti-trust is that it controls the entire stack from software to hardware. The fact that they let you develop any apps at all, for any of their platforms, is their choice which they should be able to deny at will. You as the consumer don't have to buy their things if you don't like their policies.

Contrast this with Windows on any number of manufacturers of PCs. Where Microsoft went wrong is that they said, "We'll give you OEM pricing if you agree to this, this, this and this. Otherwise we'll make it difficult for you to compete." It's that sort of bullying that's a problem, because they don't own the entire stack.

Re: Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

#18

Post by fierarul »

jasonlbaptiste wrote: post #13

This is absolutely retarded. a) The market will figure this out. If developers don't want to code in just Cocoa touch or make apps for other platforms a priority because the language is easier, they will. b) Things are in such a nascent stage. Android is growing like a weed. A suit like this might make some partial sense a few years down the road if there was enough data there. c) The department of justice will proba…

How do you know something is substandard just because it's made with some other library / language ? Especially with an "yet to be created" library / language ?

If you think "the market will figure this out" (which I think in itself is wrong) why don't we let the market figure out which language is better ? If the users don't like some products, they won't buy them. If all Cocoa touch apps make money and all the Flash apps lose money the market will fix itself, no ?

Re: Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

#19

Post by apgwoz »

tptacek wrote: post #2

Since Apple doesn't have anything resembling a monopoly in any market it operates in, and since all DoJ can do is file a suit that is predicated on them having one, this is unlikely to go anywhere.

They monopolize their own stack. Hardly a monopoly in my book.
Post reply on HN