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

Apple’s App Store fees are ‘highway robbery’ – House antitrust committee chair

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 147 posts

Re: Apple’s App Store fees are ‘highway robbery’ – House antitrust committee chair

#131

Post by tomatotomato37 »

mirchibajji wrote: post #104
sjwright wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fine, but how are you going to construct legislation that specifically targets Apple's walled garden without breaching the Fourteenth Amendment?

Genuinely curious. I was under the impression that Constitution applies to people, and the govt. I'd appreciate if you point to any references for Constitution being applied to corporations.

Corporations have had personhood for a while, it's why they also have free speech protection and stuff. 14th amendment protection specifically was decided in 1886 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southe...)

Re: Apple’s App Store fees are ‘highway robbery’ – House antitrust committee chair

#132

Post by [deleted] »

greggman3 wrote: post #78
sooheon wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The issue here is precisely that you cannot set up your own internet corner shop and ignore Apple, as that means you have no access to consumers who use Apple I don't understand why businesses are entitled to have access to consumers who use Apple. If you don't want to pay to play on their platform, imagine a world where Apple doesn't exist, and position your business accordingly. Nothing is actually forcing you to…

Are you really saying you'd be okay with the same idea in any other part of you life? How about a neighborhood where you're not allowed to bring in any products except those offered by the company that build the neighborhood? How about car that you're not allowed to carry any items inside or any people that are not officially blessed by the car manufacture? How about a fridgerator that only allows food designated by…

[deleted]

Re: Apple’s App Store fees are ‘highway robbery’ – House antitrust committee chair

#133

Post by sooheon »

greggman3 wrote: post #78
sooheon wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The issue here is precisely that you cannot set up your own internet corner shop and ignore Apple, as that means you have no access to consumers who use Apple I don't understand why businesses are entitled to have access to consumers who use Apple. If you don't want to pay to play on their platform, imagine a world where Apple doesn't exist, and position your business accordingly. Nothing is actually forcing you to…

Are you really saying you'd be okay with the same idea in any other part of you life? How about a neighborhood where you're not allowed to bring in any products except those offered by the company that build the neighborhood? How about car that you're not allowed to carry any items inside or any people that are not officially blessed by the car manufacture? How about a fridgerator that only allows food designated by…

Yes. As an example, think of the juicero debacle. They tried that game, and failed miserably because the whole offering was not attractive. Most of your ad absurdism examples fall along these lines. I have no problem with restrictions that improve overall experience—-if it sucks, a competitor should be able to do better.

Re: Apple’s App Store fees are ‘highway robbery’ – House antitrust committee chair

#134

Post by matheusmoreira »

sooheon wrote: post #121
matheusmoreira wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't understand why businesses are entitled to have access to consumers who use Apple. I don't understand how expecting a computer to just run software became entitlement. Why should anyone need Apple's permission to do anything?

Buy a non Apple device if you don't want to jump through Apple's hoops.

I did. I'm using a Galaxy Note 9. Apple device owners shouldn't have to abandon their favorite phones though. They should have software freedom and choice.

Re: Apple’s App Store fees are ‘highway robbery’ – House antitrust committee chair

#135

Post by routerhash »

gremlinsinc wrote: post #103

Imagine if Credit card processing companies took 30%. I mean it's a little more than that being a marketplace too, so maybe since Stripe takes 2-3%, apple could take 5-8% that would seem more 'reasonable'. IMHO.

That would work if apple force eCommerce companies that has an app in app store to sell through apple payment system and give a cut of 2-3% to apple

Re: Apple’s App Store fees are ‘highway robbery’ – House antitrust committee chair

#136

Post by kmlx »

lm28469 wrote: post #68
kmlx wrote: post #55

help me understand. why such big fuss for such a small platform? isn't google's android much much bigger? if apple's app store is still the place to be due to profits made on the platform then apple is doing something right, no? if they stopped would the app store still be the place for apps? p.s. haven't installed an app in over a year. i have no interest in mobile apps whatsoever.

The market share of the iPhone in the US is around 50%

the world is a much bigger place than just the US.

Re: Apple’s App Store fees are ‘highway robbery’ – House antitrust committee chair

#137

Post by kmlx »

greggman3 wrote: post #84
lm28469 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The market share of the iPhone in the US is around 50%

Yes, and the next largest phone maker's market share is Samsung at 20-25%. Android doesn't make phones. Google makes some phones but their market share is tiny.

ah, this is an interesting point. thanks.

Re: Apple’s App Store fees are ‘highway robbery’ – House antitrust committee chair

#138

Post by makecheck »

One of the things I never understood is why Apple doesn’t have tiers of pricing and support.

Why not “5% for app-upload capability and a plain store page with nothing else”, up to “30% for lots of nice bells and whistles” or even “50% for regular featuring to potential customers”?

People would not complain about 30% nearly as much if there were any alternative. (And they are right to complain about how little 30% gets them currently.)

Re: Apple’s App Store fees are ‘highway robbery’ – House antitrust committee chair

#139

Post by greggman3 »

sooheon wrote: post #133
greggman3 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you really saying you'd be okay with the same idea in any other part of you life? How about a neighborhood where you're not allowed to bring in any products except those offered by the company that build the neighborhood? How about car that you're not allowed to carry any items inside or any people that are not officially blessed by the car manufacture? How about a fridgerator that only allows food designated by…

Yes. As an example, think of the juicero debacle. They tried that game, and failed miserably because the whole offering was not attractive. Most of your ad absurdism examples fall along these lines. I have no problem with restrictions that improve overall experience—-if it sucks, a competitor should be able to do better.

There's nothing preventing you from having an unrestricted device but having your improved experience. Plenty of people chose only to rent movies at Blockbuster Video because it was a bright and clean store with no porn. That didn't require Blockbuster to make their own special VHS or DVD player that only played the movies they offered.

> I have no problem with restrictions that improve overall experience

I'm sure there are plenty of restrictions that would improve the overall experience for many people of many things that are still banned. Plenty of people would like all of a certain race banned from their apartment complex or town. I guess by your argument if they opt in to that experience because it's better for them it's should be no problem.

Re: Apple’s App Store fees are ‘highway robbery’ – House antitrust committee chair

#140

Post by sjwright »

tomatotomato37 wrote: post #131
mirchibajji wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuinely curious. I was under the impression that Constitution applies to people, and the govt. I'd appreciate if you point to any references for Constitution being applied to corporations.

Corporations have had personhood for a while, it's why they also have free speech protection and stuff. 14th amendment protection specifically was decided in 1886 ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southe... )

Correct.
Post reply on HN