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

Apple rejects Valve’s Steam Link game streaming app over ‘business conflicts’

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 304 posts

Re: Apple rejects Valve’s Steam Link game streaming app over ‘business conflicts’

#231

Post by shawnz »

baxtr wrote: post #229
dnomad wrote: post #55

People who go on and on about the Google and Amazon "monopolies" -- which only benefit consumers with low prices and expansive services -- this is what actual monopolistic behavior looks like. Apple controls access to a significant share of the mobile application industry and it directly abuses that market power to harm customers by reducing competition and artificially raising prices. Apple is being sued in both US…

This is like saying BMW, Toyota and the like have a monopoly because you can’t use your own infotainment software. There are enough alternatives to the iPhone.

> This is like saying BMW, Toyota and the like have a monopoly because you can’t use your own infotainment software.

Maybe if BMW or Toyota were the market leaders in infotainment hardware

Re: Apple rejects Valve’s Steam Link game streaming app over ‘business conflicts’

#232

Post by cpuguy83 »

bhnmmhmd wrote: post #183
ensignavenger wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can buy a Nest Thermostat from any of thousands of websites and it would work just fine in my home. I can't even get a Steam Link app for free from anyone and have it work effortlessly on my iOS device. These two are not the same, no matter which side you are on.

Given that Apple - as a private company - is the owner of iOS, no one can blame them for what they wish to include/exclude from their ecosystem. A mistake many people make these days is they think just because some services are so prevalent and worldwide, they ought to be under control of the law and government. The same thing happens when people complain about Google/Amazon/Facebook for their policies. They're priva…

The same arguments were made back during the Microsoft anti-trust era.

The fact is once a company reaches a certain size different rules do apply. Here Apple is definitely abusing their control over the ecosystem to lock out a competitor. The question is is this control great enough to prevent anyone from truly competing with Apple, which is what anti-trust law is designed to protect against.

Re: Apple rejects Valve’s Steam Link game streaming app over ‘business conflicts’

#233

Post by bovermyer »

asfasgasg wrote: post #35
skc wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt there is much overlap between the hardcore gamer market and Apple anyway.

On the contrary. If you care about the intersection of gaming and mobile, you are almost certainly using an iOS device.

Every single one of the hardcore gamers that I know is dismissive of mobile games, at best.

Re: Apple rejects Valve’s Steam Link game streaming app over ‘business conflicts’

#234

Post by shawnz »

_Mazza_ wrote: post #227
zimbatm wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument on both sides is around financial burden: * Pay more for delivery because not using Amazon Prime * Pay more to buy an Android phone When making this argument it's obvious that buying a new phone is much more expensive than Amazon Prime but this raises an interesting question; what is the financial threshold at which point one has to be considered a monopoly?

Most people shop on multiple websites, most people don't carry around two phones.

Most people also don't pay for a subscription service that gives you cheaper prices. If you look specifically at Prime subscribers, I bet you'd find that they make efforts to do all their shopping through Amazon where possible.

Re: Apple rejects Valve’s Steam Link game streaming app over ‘business conflicts’

#235

Post by pyrale »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #203
zeveb wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Given that Apple - as a private company - is the owner of iOS, no one can blame them for what they wish to include/exclude from their ecosystem. Apple may own their property, but iOS-device owners own their devices, and Apple have no right to prevent them from running the software they wish to run on the devices they own.

Sure, but the argument there is that Apple should allow iOS to run binaries signed by entities other than themselves (or not signed at all). The App Store is a service owned, operated and paid for by Apple, so they should certainly get to decide what they allow on it.

Well, they are totally free to exit markets located in jurisdictions they don't intend to abide.

Re: Apple rejects Valve’s Steam Link game streaming app over ‘business conflicts’

#236

Post by cpuguy83 »

simonh wrote: post #219
lostmsu wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO, it is time to redefine monopoly. Something, that affects a billion of users should not be let policing things like this.

Suppose a majority of those users are perfectly fine with it, and enjoy the benefits of a carefully curated system? The fact that Apples policies are widely known and people still buy iPhones in the millions is pretty good evidence that Apple has a much better grip on what their users prefer than you do.

At the same time (as an example) I have something like 150 movies I've bought on iTunes that I cannot bring to any other platform.

So Apple locks-in users to their platform (as is everyone else) then they are using the control they have over their user base to lock out competition.

This is the very definition of anti-competitive behavior.

Re: Apple rejects Valve’s Steam Link game streaming app over ‘business conflicts’

#237

Post by dahart »

dnomad wrote: post #55

People who go on and on about the Google and Amazon "monopolies" -- which only benefit consumers with low prices and expansive services -- this is what actual monopolistic behavior looks like. Apple controls access to a significant share of the mobile application industry and it directly abuses that market power to harm customers by reducing competition and artificially raising prices. Apple is being sued in both US…

> let's hope this ridiculous practice is stopped soon.

I agree that these are monopolies, but it's interesting to me that the behavior in question is viewed as competitive and healthy when a company is small. The primary thing that makes the practice ridiculous is success; becoming so large that what were competitive behaviors become anti-competitive. The same things that people applauded Apple for when it was underdog 20 years ago, are now criticized.

Re: Apple rejects Valve’s Steam Link game streaming app over ‘business conflicts’

#238

Post by 282883392 »

krisdol wrote: post #115
LiquidFlux wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they were wrapped up in a single package that was marketed towards buying and playing those games, using the same logic they quite probably would be.

So steam should release a game streaming app that’s separate from a store app.

But they disabled the store on the streaming app. So in function it was separate.

Re: Apple rejects Valve’s Steam Link game streaming app over ‘business conflicts’

#240

Post by paulmd »

013a wrote: post #182
emodendroket wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alright, then how about removing Adblock from their stores? Android is a little better, but it's by no means totally free.

You can install android apps or chrome extensions from any source, not just the Google-managed store. This sounds minor, but its absolutely a major reason why the stores aren't monopolies. I find it startling how few people on HN remember the fact that stores have a right to decide what they want to sell and not. We don't live in communist Russia. Walmart doesn't have to sell Whole Foods-branded food, H&M doesn't hav…

Much like obstruction of justice, anticompetitive behavior is an intent that transforms behavior that would otherwise be perfectly legal into something that is not.

It is perfectly legal for Amazon to decide they don't want to carry Apple products in their store. If they decide they don't want to carry Apple products because they're releasing their own lines of phones and tablets, that may not be legal. Intent and context do matter.

Post reply on HN