EU says Apple’s App Store breaks competition rules after Spotify complaint • Hacker News Board

Re: EU says Apple’s App Store breaks competition rules after Spotify complaint

#321

Post by josephcsible » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 1:50 PM UTC

saurik wrote: post #230

endisneigh wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t understand why people say it’s a general computing device. It’s clearly not nor has it been advertised as such. If it actually was a general computing device you could just install an entirely different operating system onto it. If Apple allowed users to install Android on iPhones but didn’t change iOS would that be an acceptable solution? If so, what’s stopping someone from just getting an Android device now…

Most Android devices--and certainly all the good ones--are almost as locked down as iOS: Android has a bit more extensibility points, and sideloading has fewer restrictions, but it isn't like an Android device is some open "run anything you want" playing field (hell: the original Android G1 needed a jailbreak!!); and, really, if you analyze that market carefully, Samsung pretty much owns it with like 95% of the profi…

Do you think Pixels are locked down, or do you not consider them "good ones"?

Re: EU says Apple’s App Store breaks competition rules after Spotify complaint

#322

Post by weego » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 1:51 PM UTC

bennysomething wrote: post #84

teknopaul wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

starting first does not mean you are not abusing your monopoly. Another way of looking at this is that a 30% margin is preventing a lot of businesses from happening until Apple do it. The 30% is less of a concern that the fact that they can shut you down on a whim.

30 percent fee is not a 30 percent margin. You are factoring in any costs of running and developing the service.

That argument leads to the logical conclusion that Apple needs to be broken up so their music subsidiary have to pay their app store subsidiary the same 30% as Spotify do. Still not a logical defense.

Re: EU says Apple’s App Store breaks competition rules after Spotify complaint

#323

Post by ericmay » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 1:51 PM UTC

simion314 wrote: post #305

ericmay wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Idk what FUD means. But long story short, I like things as they are and don't want them to change. If developers don't like that they can kick rocks. I'd rather have no apps and no App Store than to see things change, frankly. > From your point of view iOS users are so stupid that they No.. that's not my point of view or relevant at all to anything I wrote. > shold not be allowed to use a OSX device or a browser Well…

FUD = fear , uncertainty and doubt. >But long story short, I like things as they are and don't want them to change. If developers don't like that they can kick rocks. I'd rather have no apps and no App Store than to see things change, frankly. Who would force you to change? you could buy the US iPhone version with the diamond handcuffs. >Well, judging by all the requests I get to fix things on computers versus iPhone…

> Who would force you to change? you could buy the US iPhone version with the diamond handcuffs.

I'm not sure how up to speed you are with the current state of the discussion around this topic, but the gist of it is that if you make changes to the App Store, then Apple's work with respect to privacy, security, etc. go out the window because major apps that want to abuse these things will move to third party app stores. Apple loses the ability to collectively bargain on behalf of users.

So, making the change almost surely will result in "forcing me to change". Maybe it won't, but I don't see a point in running that experiment.

> Then good job to Apple PR and fanboys, the stories about Apple malware and viruses were burried very deep.

Yea maybe they are. My own experience - nobody has ever had a problem with their iPhone. But PCs or even Macs? Yea I've had to do work. Almost always it's downloading and installing some thing they shouldn't have.

> So why this model will not work if you sideload an app? Do you need genius to check the menus of the app so you feel secure?

If you don't like iPhone and Apple so much why not just not use the products? I don't get this desire to change things that other people are quite happy with.

Re: EU says Apple’s App Store breaks competition rules after Spotify complaint

#324

Post by endisneigh » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 1:53 PM UTC

josephcsible wrote: post #316

breakfastduck wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A device having the capacity in raw computing power to be a general purpose computing device does not make it one. Nor does you wanting it to beone. I'm growing really frustrated with the attempts to force Apple via law to turn my 0 maintenance iPhone into another computer I've got to bloody manage.

Nobody's trying to force you to manage your iPhone. All we want changed is to have the choice to manage ours if we want to.

The inevitable problem is that fragmentation will occur. I'm curious, why not just get an Android phone?

Re: EU says Apple’s App Store breaks competition rules after Spotify complaint

#325

Post by IndySun » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 1:53 PM UTC

If 30% goes to Apple AND the quality & privacy of every app was high and secure, as they boast, I wouldn't mind - but it is not. So I wonder what Apple ARE doing with that 15%-30% because it is not quality control or tight privacy across the board.

The figure will come down to 10%-20%, and we can move on.

Re: EU says Apple’s App Store breaks competition rules after Spotify complaint

#326

Post by moffatman » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 1:53 PM UTC

MichaelApproved wrote: post #174

slver wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So then if Apple Music internally pays 30% to App Store, we're all good by this definition.

That’s good for internal bookkeeping but it’s not enough to prevent the unfair advantage. Take this example: Apple Music “pays” 30% to parent Apple Corp. That 30% payment cuts into Music’s revenue and now they’re operating at a 25% loss. However, that rough calculation still allows parent Apple Corp to consider Music to be profitable, since it’s a net profit for Apple Corp. It’s happy to take the 25% “loss” in the mu…

I don't think you considered the loss of the 30% from each apple music customer's previous subscription to a competitor. There's no unfair advantage, the maximum profit apple can make by switching a customer away from spotify is spotify's profit.

Re: EU says Apple’s App Store breaks competition rules after Spotify complaint

#327

Post by bennysomething » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 1:53 PM UTC

simion314 wrote: post #160

bennysomething wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is apple entitled to 30 percent of what any other business makes? Apple developed a platform and says to developers "pay is 30 percent to use it" sounds fair to me. Huge streaming service comes along "I want to use you platform but not pay the fee". How is that remotely fair? No one is making Spotify use it. What right has any one or any company got to demand special treatment. Many other app developers are fine…

Think about the regular people or the artists, not the giant. Say we are a group of musicians and we hate the fact that a big chunk of our money is going to giants including ones from authoritarian countries... so we the musicians think . "let's make our own steaming platform, all the profit goes to the musicians"... what is the problem then? Did you found it ? If mobile devices, consoles and computers are locked the…

No one is making anyone use apple platforms. They are free to choose from others.

Re: EU says Apple’s App Store breaks competition rules after Spotify complaint

#328

Post by endisneigh » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 1:54 PM UTC

gambiting wrote: post #312

endisneigh wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably stores would have exclusives which would mean it’s now more inconvenient for the same outcome.

But that's like saying that you shouldn't have more than one store per street, because they might stock exclusive items and that would be really annoying for customers to have to visit two stores for their shopping rather than one. Surely it's better to have only one store, even if it means your selection is limited by the store owner, think of all the inconvenience saved by not having any choice! I'm being sarcastic…

The argument you're making can be used to say just buy an Android phone which already can do what you're describing, no?

Re: EU says Apple’s App Store breaks competition rules after Spotify complaint

#329

Post by timmg » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 1:54 PM UTC

slver wrote: post #188

falcor84 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem is with 'internally'. As I understand it, the antitrust regulations could force Apple to spin Apple Music out.

Let's take a step and ponder wouldn't you find it bizarre to have this sequence of events: 1. Apple creates iPod, and iTunes serves as its music store. 2. Apple creates iPhone, which has an iPod app. 3. Apple introduces App Store so other apps can be used on the iPhone. 4. iPod (Apple Music) competitors emerge. 5. EU says "that's it, Apple can't have iPod anymore on the phone unless iPod (Apple Music) becomes a separ…

If Apple never had an App Store, then this wouldn't be a problem, true. There would be no "30% cut for almost nothing".

But would people buy as many iPhones if they were restricted to Apple-only services? Some might. I would expect more people would buy into more "open" ecosystems. I could be wrong -- and Apple has every right to shut down their App Store to find out.

Re: EU says Apple’s App Store breaks competition rules after Spotify complaint

#330

Post by frereubu » Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 1:54 PM UTC

breakfastduck wrote: post #238

frereubu wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that's relevant is it?

Yes, considering apple have been in the music business longer than App Stores have even existed.

I don't think that can be right. On the surface you're suggesting that if a company worked in a particular area before another company then the first company is entitled to use anti-competitive practices, which clearly isn't true.