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

51–60 of 130 posts

Re: Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

#51

Post by ergo98 »

archgrove wrote: post #42
ergo98 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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) XNA requires you to target the .NET runtime. It does not dictate what t…

The specifics are different, no doubt - but the ethos is the same. Microsoft force you to use .Net (of some form) and their APIs because that fits their business model (i.e. ties you to the XBox). They're restricting me from using my platform portable pure C code, which is their choice. I obviously don't know, but suspect if large amounts of code started targeting XNA in a cross platform way, they'd come down on that…

"They're making choices based on what they think is best for their platform, and letting the market chose."

The former is absolutely true. The latter is absolutely not. Hence why the government is looking into it.

Apple's actions are completely inexcusable and borderline illegal. It is only by incredible bravado and arrogance that they could have ever thought that 3.3.1 would be acceptable. They could have accomplished the same goal more subtly, but, probably due to Jobs universe-sized ego, they had to bring this upon themselves.

"This is how the free market is supposed to work."

No, it isn't at all how the free market is supposed to work. 3.3.1 is the exact opposite of a free market.

Re: Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

#52

Post by roc »

ergo98 wrote: post #49
roc wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The distinction Apple is making is thus: A "bad" behavior written into an app by hand may break on a new update, but it affects only itself. A "bad" behavior written into middleware may break on a new update, and may take out dozens, hundreds or perhaps thousands of apps. No-one would expect Apple to take special pains to avoid breaking a handful of random apps in the app store. But if some middleware bug effected th…

This justification is one of the most astonishingly vapid ones around. I'm not quite sure how it keeps getting repeated as if it has credence, when technically it has no legs to stand on. The distinction Apple is making is that they have a temporary mindspace monopoly of the smartphone markets and they want to cement it in by forcing developers to help the Apple cause.

> I'm not quite sure how it keeps getting repeated as if it has credence, when technically it has no legs to stand on.

So you've never encountered a standard/API/platform that perpetuates bugs, support for bad practices or misuse of old interfaces to avoid breaking legacy apps?

Re: Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

#53

Post by terrellm »

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…

>> 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).

Windows Mobile / Windows CE phones have been around for years. I still remember the joy of writing my first app in Visual Studio to run on my Samsung i700. Also I spent many hours playing Monopoly on that same phone.

Re: Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

#54

Post by ebiester »

tvon wrote: post #47
ergo98 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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) XNA requires you to target the .NET runtime. It does not dictate what t…

> If Microsoft had a clause saying that you had to use Visual Studio Ultimate on Windows 7, they would get demolished. But XCode is free with every copy of OSX. If the same were true for Visual Studio Ultimate, I don't think it would be an issue.

OS X isn't.

Re: Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

#55

Post by gdee »

roc wrote: post #36
_delirium wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

3.3.1 is a section of the Terms of Use of developers seeking to use Apple's distribution channel. Apple isn't trying to make middle-ware-built iPhone apps illegal . It just doesn't want them on the app store. An important distinction between the car/part and printer/ink analogies. Forcing Apple to repeal 3.3.1 doesn't allow offending software to be built and sold (as it already can be), it forces Apple to stock its s…

>> It just doesn't want them on the app store.

Where else exactly could they go?

>> Forcing Apple to repeal 3.3.1 doesn't allow offending software to be built and sold (as it already can be), it forces Apple to stock its shelves with it

Those two things are the same, by Apple's design.

Re: Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

#56

Post by ptomato »

ergo98 wrote: post #51
archgrove wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The specifics are different, no doubt - but the ethos is the same. Microsoft force you to use .Net (of some form) and their APIs because that fits their business model (i.e. ties you to the XBox). They're restricting me from using my platform portable pure C code, which is their choice. I obviously don't know, but suspect if large amounts of code started targeting XNA in a cross platform way, they'd come down on that…

"They're making choices based on what they think is best for their platform, and letting the market chose." The former is absolutely true. The latter is absolutely not. Hence why the government is looking into it. Apple's actions are completely inexcusable and borderline illegal. It is only by incredible bravado and arrogance that they could have ever thought that 3.3.1 would be acceptable. They could have accomplish…

You're missing the bit where Apple isn't by any means the only phone manufacturer around.

Re: Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

#58

Post by archgrove »

gdee wrote: post #48
archgrove wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>> 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). cough The development for mobile phones partially sucked (and still does, partially; it's in the nature of the beast I suppose, for now) before the iPhone, but I don't know about it being not allowed. You have to draw a distinction between so called featur…

Your entire response seems to have missed my "allowed on phones that achieved any levels of success" qualifier. Name me any pre-iPhone development platform allowing development that had ever created a truly viable marketplace. There were a few faltering attempts with Windows Mobile and Symbian, but frankly, they were terrible. And yes, I am conflating development and the distribution channel, but this seems fine to me - if you develop, and noone ever runs it, did you develop anything?

Having seen [2], I think my point is even stronger - first class smartphone development really began with the iPhone (the App Store predates any other competitor). Of the third party services, only 4 predate the iPhone by more than a month or two (and of those, only 2 achieved even the level of success needed for a Wikipedia page).

Re: Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

#59

Post by archgrove »

ergo98 wrote: post #51
archgrove wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The specifics are different, no doubt - but the ethos is the same. Microsoft force you to use .Net (of some form) and their APIs because that fits their business model (i.e. ties you to the XBox). They're restricting me from using my platform portable pure C code, which is their choice. I obviously don't know, but suspect if large amounts of code started targeting XNA in a cross platform way, they'd come down on that…

"They're making choices based on what they think is best for their platform, and letting the market chose." The former is absolutely true. The latter is absolutely not. Hence why the government is looking into it. Apple's actions are completely inexcusable and borderline illegal. It is only by incredible bravado and arrogance that they could have ever thought that 3.3.1 would be acceptable. They could have accomplish…

How are Apple preventing you from buying the ever more popular Android phones? Or Web OS phones? You, a member of the market, buy the phone with the features you want. If you don't like Apple products, or the app store they provide, buy one of the many hundreds of alternative smartphones, many of which have large adoption.

Re: Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

#60

Post by dchest »

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…

What if market can't figure this out? It's an exaggeration, but what if discrimination by programming language ("Applications must be originally written in ...") is the version of [insert your favorite type of discrimination] applied to programming? You can't program in X for iPhone, so go write your programs for Android == you can't work in our company, but you can go work on plantation.

Maybe it's not the antitrust issue, but it's definitely a law issue: i.e. what can be enforceable by contracts.

Post reply on HN