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

Apple apologizes to WordPress, won’t force the free app to add purchases

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 387 posts

Re: Apple apologizes to WordPress, won’t force the free app to add purchases

#341

Post by romanoderoma »

scarface74 wrote: post #178
tomnipotent wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not really practical to develop apps for iOS without owning an iPhone This applies to all platforms. I wouldn't want to do business with a developer that doesn't own the device they're developing for, we learned that lesson with Blackberry thank you.

The CEO of Google refused to use an Android device for years.... https://9to5google.com/2013/03/21/google-chairman-eric-schmi...

at least Eric Schmidt did it because he was used to Blackberry, which was better than iOS and Android when they both came out

Steve Jobs didn't let his kids around an iPad because it was dangerous for them

In an interview he said: “Actually we don’t allow the iPad in the home. We think it’s too dangerous for them in effect.”

I think we can trust Steve Jobs when he talks about his (baby) products

Re: Apple apologizes to WordPress, won’t force the free app to add purchases

#342

Post by LoSboccacc »

ShroudedNight wrote: post #329
LoSboccacc wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They should create legislation to control access to all app stores to prevent this rent seeking as long as there are alternatives, it's the user choice to get into the walled ecosystem. people enjoy the ease of mind of it, and while I'm not among them, I can say I find the play store and the 'apk downloaded from somewhere' experiences both grating compared to the apple store. a curated store has it's appeal, and it…

> as long as there are alternatives, it's the user choice to get into the walled ecosystem. Coercive bundling should warrant anti-trust scrutiny, whenever it occurs. It may only seldomly warrant action, but the very ability to coerce counter-parties appears to be a strong indicator that the traded good is not inherently fungible with another offering. > that is for the customer to decide, not the legislator. It's not…

> It's not clear to me what basis this claims factual authority beyond your personal understanding of the world.

likewise. that why you argue the argument, not the authority behind for a healthy discussion on anonymous forums.

> and equally glib

except I provided an argument for the benefit to the individual, while the whole of your post hinges on appeal to (un)authority

another case in point: all the pc stores exclusives. imagine having to have to install 5 different stores for accessing this or that publisher games on a phone. how can you argue that is pro-customer?

we already know that it is what is going to happen, because it has already happened. and it was not for the better; there was no reduction of prices (if anything, aaa went from 49$ to 69$) and a constant fight for user attention by undercutting each other stores with exclusives. so the price cut reduction did not materialize, and we have to fight against a tide of software spying each other on top of it.

> Coercive bundling should warrant anti-trust scrutiny

fair enough, but it still doesn't mean it has to be incorporated in law, where it gonna stay for a long time and likely used as hammer in all kind of unexpected ways.

> the traded good is not inherently fungible with another offering

or the consumers are happy with the locked platform. those who aren't, after all, can already sideload to their android. this seems more of a case of a minority wanting a cake and eat it too, not a real issue with predatory behavior.

Re: Apple apologizes to WordPress, won’t force the free app to add purchases

#343

Post by zerocrates »

nodamage wrote: post #263
zerocrates wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't speak for what other people have posted, but there's, to my mind, a quite analogous case for this situation: Kodak v. Image Technical Services. The case involved Kodak refusing to sell parts for its copiers to outside repair shops, and they were sued by the shops who claimed this was anticompetitive behavior. Kodak made a claim that since there was robust competition in the market for copiers, they couldn't h…

The key point in the Kodak case was that Kodak changed their policy on selling repair parts after people bought the original product, and the change in policy is what led the Supreme Court to decide that the market for repair parts was a separate and relevant aftermarket, because the people that bought Kodak copiers lacked information at the time of purchase about Kodak's repair policy and therefore were locked-in to…

Yes, the specifics of the case don't match up perfectly, but the context of the question was "show me a case where a single company had antitrust liability without a majority of the market," not "prove with a single citation that Apple will lose."

Re: Apple apologizes to WordPress, won’t force the free app to add purchases

#344

Post by travisjungroth »

dwaite wrote: post #259
travisjungroth wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Im not really into congress defining how apps get reviewed. I’d rather see it just get broken up in some way. Either you can’t have a phone and an app store (like the studio/movie model) or they at least have to support other app stores. Side note: my iPhone autocorrected app store to App Store, which I think is another example of overreach.

It also autocorrects Xerox, Siri, Microsoft, etc. as they are all formal names in its dictionary (in this case, registered trademarks).

Sure, it autocorrects other brand names. But I think it puts its own brands on uneven footing. App Store corrects. Google play store does not, even though the latter is less generic.

Re: Apple apologizes to WordPress, won’t force the free app to add purchases

#345

Post by tomnipotent »

scarface74 wrote: post #143
tomnipotent wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The below took me about a minute to find through Google. U.S. v Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S 150 (1940); United States v. Sealy, Inc., 388 U.S. 350 (1967); United States v. Topco Associates, Inc., 405 U.S. 596 (1972); Craftsmen Limousine, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 363 F.3d 761 (8th Cir. 2004), Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. US 356 US (1940); Agnew v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 683 F.3d 328 (7th Circ. 2012); or In…

And this is why HN users make bad lawyers. I picked one at random. “Topco, a cooperative association of about 25 small and medium-sized independent regional supermarket chains operating in 33 States.” I also looked up one about Ford vs a limo company that you deleted. They all involve multiple companies colluding. It has nothing to do with one company setting prices in their own store.

Your argument, if you can call it that, is completely incoherent.

You seem to be under the impression that anti-trust is isolated to monopolies, when clearly it is not. Apple and Google do not need to have a monopoly for the government to decide that their app store business model is anti-competitive, and there doesn't need to be precedence.

Re: Apple apologizes to WordPress, won’t force the free app to add purchases

#346

Post by simonh »

tpxl wrote: post #287
simonh wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument is that the review process gets away with being crappy due to the monopoly position, not that it is leading to the monopoly. It’s a symptom, not a cause. Also it’s possible that specific clauses in the guidelines are anti-competitive. Fir example a guideline that simply disallows any app that competes with one of Google’s Apps might be seen this way. So those are coherent arguments I think, I just don’t…

>The reason customers went with Google Play is simply because it had momentum and scale, and customers don’t want multiple stores. The reason customers went with the default is mostly because it's the default. Given the choice, we'd see a lot more competition. >If someone wanted to develop a better store, with libraries better than ‘play services’, what stops them? The anti-competitive google behavior where they forb…

Yes Google was found in violation of Antitrust regulations and corrected that behaviour. I'm not here to sing Google's praises, but that issue has been resolved.

Google only gets to decide what the default store is on Google's own phones. Samsung's phones come by default with their own store for example.

Customers only want choice if it gives them value and benefits. Choice without value is confusion and drudgery. A one stop shop that has everything at reasonable prices and vets out the rubbish is, by itself, a good thing for customers. Of course there is scope for abuse, the EU ruling is an example of that, but to me I don't see anything wrong with the basic approach. These are their products, I don't see that anyone else has much of a right to dictate how they design them.

Re: Apple apologizes to WordPress, won’t force the free app to add purchases

#347

Post by klyrs »

scarface74 wrote: post #161
klyrs wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're conveniently ducking that they 100% control the market of software for their phones. And anyway, I didn't say that case was equivalent. You asked for a case where a company with less than 50% was subject to an antitrust ruling and I provided one. And I'll remind you, I'm not a lawyer. Technically, zero lawyers is a good number of lawyers, so I must insist that makes me a good lawyer. Just, I'd suck in court.

A company that was subject to antitrust because it colluded with other companies in the market has nothing to do with what’s going on in the app market. Collusion is always illegal -except for the sports leagues. Yes and consoles makers have control of their consoles, Roku has control of their platform, as does LG with their WebOS based TVs. Yet and still when you were challenged to come up with an analogous example,…

Do you realize that I said "if apple gets hit with an antitrust ruling"? I'm not certain of the outcome; I see room for argument on both sides of this. You've apparently picked this 50% hill to die on. I wish that you were taking a curious approach to this conversation, because we might both learn something. Instead, I regret responding to you in the first place.

I recognize your username and I recall seeing good and thoughtful comments from you. I hope to meet you again in a more productive conversation.

Re: Apple apologizes to WordPress, won’t force the free app to add purchases

#348

Post by mensetmanusman »

Apple proclaims to be on the side of consumers.

This behavior looks like anti-developer in many cases.

On one hand, Apple will lose some ability to say they are protecting consumer privacy if they open their phones to any software, android is proof of that. Someone else’s freedom is always someone else’s constraint.

I know many consumers benefit from being able to hand their grandparents a phone that will work smoothly and be updated for 5 years.

Re: Apple apologizes to WordPress, won’t force the free app to add purchases

#349

Post by burnte »

bostik wrote: post #250
burnte wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

30% of the app price is high, but not insane. They're handling 100% of the distribution, installation, verification, and payment processing. 30% of recurring revenue is highway robbery, because they offer NOTHING to subscription content.

30% cut from one-off payments is highway robbery. On top of that... > They're handling [...] payment processing. That has a tone-deaf shade. This piece of news is particularly volatile because Epic and Apple are now going to court over Apple expressly forbidding a developer doing their own payment processing. These are mafia-like tactics. I've said it before: 30% is way, way too much. A very good agent gets 15%, and…

I agree with you that it's high, but can be argued except for teh recurring subscriptions, which they earn zero part of. I agree there should be third party in-app processing.

Re: Apple apologizes to WordPress, won’t force the free app to add purchases

#350

Post by parasubvert »

romanoderoma wrote: post #322
parasubvert wrote: post #153

I find the group think here to be incredible, and you all will likely be very disappointed when the legal system winds up supporting Apple. Regulating retailers because you don’t like their cut is price controls, which is completely contrary to a free market, and ultimately undermines the end user experience of having a trusted, secure store. Perhaps Google or Apple’s power is so strong as to warrant regulation - but…

> Regulating retailers because you don’t like their cut is price controls That's not the point though The point is that if Apple Store (or Play Store) is the only way to ask for money to users, Apple cannot decide who's in and who's out on their whim, they have to allow anybody and only act post-facto on the apps that misbehaved In real life you are not arrested for attempted homicide because you carry a knife with y…

Apple absolutely can decide who is in or out: it’s their platform. Governments with even regulated markets generally don’t force stores to carry certain products.

Amazon absolutely has a say of what they carry in their store, and most consumers hate the terrible curation of their marketplaces lately.

If what Apple runs is not a product, it’s a utility. I think people underestimate what it means to declare the App Stores a utility: freeing up the App admission rules likely might not be one of the outcomes.

> They have two choices: relax the rules of the store or accept other stores that can apply different rules, giving more choice to developers, publishers and users

Or they have a third choice: status quo. It is currently a fantasy to think otherwise.

Post reply on HN