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

21–30 of 130 posts

Re: Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

#21

Post by pedalpete »

danh wrote: post #3
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.

Depends on your view of what a market is. Apple's app store is pretty dominant in the market for "mobile apps".

To further your comment danh, Apple has an absolute monopoly on App Stores on iPhone devices. I can't get an app onto the device without going through them.

If i have an xbox, I can get a game from Best Buy or Amazon, etc. Even though those are closed systems.

If I have an iPhone, I can only get apps from the Apple store.

I'm not positive if this is unique to Apple in the mobile space or not. I know I can get blackberry apps from anywhere, same with WinMo. I'm not sure about Android or Palm.

Re: Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

#22

Post by apgwoz »

jacquesm wrote: post #4
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.

Having a monopoly is not a requirement, all it takes is anti-competitive behaviour and the restriction of free trade.

I don't understand how they are being anti-competitive. They control the entire stack from hardware to software. The fact that you can write any software for their platforms is more of a privilege than a right.

Re: Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

#23

Post by exit »

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…

does microsoft also prohibit 3rd parties from producing compatibility layers on top of .Net?

Re: Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

#24

Post by rubinelli »

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.

AFAIK, console makers require developers to use their SDKs, but they don't care about what happens before that point in the pipeline. What Apple did was more like forcing 3D models to be created exclusively with Maya.

Re: Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

#25

Post by ptomato »

pedalpete wrote: post #21
danh wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on your view of what a market is. Apple's app store is pretty dominant in the market for "mobile apps".

To further your comment danh, Apple has an absolute monopoly on App Stores on iPhone devices. I can't get an app onto the device without going through them. If i have an xbox, I can get a game from Best Buy or Amazon, etc. Even though those are closed systems. If I have an iPhone, I can only get apps from the Apple store. I'm not positive if this is unique to Apple in the mobile space or not. I know I can get blackbe…

If you have an xbox, all games must still be approved by Microsoft before they can be sold.

Re: Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

#26

Post by nkohari »

exit wrote: post #23
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…

does microsoft also prohibit 3rd parties from producing compatibility layers on top of .Net?

No, as far as I know, Microsoft does not contractually obligate developers to use their tools. The .NET CLI is an ECMA standard, and there have been a few alternative languages developed for it (same as the JVM). I'm not aware of anything that would stop you from writing an XNA game using Boo, for example.

Re: Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

#27

Post by ajross »

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…

You're missing the point. This is an anti-trust action. None of Microsoft, Sony or even Nintendo can be said to have the kind of dominant position in the console market that Apple does in smartphones. They're not a monopoly, but they're distressingly close. And they appear to be taking actions that can be pretty clearly seen as anticompetetive -- leveraging their dominance to make compatible applications for other platforms more expensive to develop.

So yeah, I think an inquiry is an appropriate course of action here, for the same reasons it was in the 90's with microsoft. If you "tend to agree with antitrust action most of the time", but not this time, I think you might be better served by introspection than posting a defense of Apple.

Re: Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

#29

Post by extension »

_delirium wrote: post #5
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.

I don't think tying claims need to prove an actual monopoly, just the somewhat lower standard that the seller has sufficient market power in the tying product's market for the tying arrangement to restrain trade in the tied product's market. It's been applied in the past to car manufacturers who tried to corner their own cars' replacement-parts market, even though the manufacturers didn't actually have a monopoly in…

hey we should institute this policy to stop people from porting our apps to Android

Remember when he replied to that blogger saying he agreed with Gruber followed by something sort of like the above? Would be mighty ironic if one if his tiny glib emails ended up taking down the company.

Re: Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

#30

Post by lutorm »

apgwoz wrote: post #17
doron wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They avoided anti-trust because they have a single-digit percentage of the PC market. It seems their position with the iPhone in the smartphone market is much more dominant, though I don't know what the numbers are.
Post reply on HN