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

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

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 825 posts

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

#421

Post by AnthonyMouse »

threeseed wrote: post #378
echelon wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple is now a monopoly. They shouldn't be allowed to run an App Store, and they should probably have their services division peeled away into a separate company. All of the mega tech monopolies need to be broken up. What business do any of them have being movie studios, advertising firms, car dealerships (Apple?), banks, and fifteen different marketplaces rolled into one? This is absurd. Tech would be better if neit…

Your position is ridiculous and unworkable. By your definition companies like Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Epic Games, Intel, AMD, Nvidia, IBM, Stripe, Facebook, Samsung, Adobe etc would all need to be broken up as like Apple they are in multiple markets with similar market shares. YC itself would need to be broken up given your criteria.

I don't see the problem with separating every platform company from every app store. They can obviously be operated by two separate entities, like Steam on Windows.

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

#422

Post by martimarkov »

I can empathise with both sides. 30% is too high and Apple have costs and want to make money.

But my question is: if apple are to be running the App Store at cost are devs okay to pay for their apps? Let’s say you have a free app but now you have to pay a fee for App Store maintenance and that would be on every download and every app update. Are developers actually ok with that? Is that a fee that the users will bear?

Honestly not looking to pick a fight just asking on opinions.

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

#424

Post by varispeed »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #46

Since this is an EU case, that should mean it'll actually do something, and won't take a decade and a half to conclude. The penalty won't be the big deal here, it'll be what Apple is prohibited from doing. And it'll be really exciting if the precedent set blows back on the entire 30%-rent-seeking-platform-industry.

> Since this is an EU case, that should mean it'll actually do something

Are you joking, right?

Below is the quote from the linked article:

> The EU ruled in 2016 that Apple had to repay 13 billion euros ($15.7 billion) in unpaid taxes to the Irish government, after the latter granted “undue tax benefits.” Apple and the Irish government have contested the decision and the case is still in court.

I believe there is going to be many years, many meetings, dinners, salaries, bonuses funnelled out, and in my opinion, also money changing hands under a table, before anything really happens. EU is all sizzle without the steak.

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

#425

Post by pembrook »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #414
pembrook wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure you understand what monopoly means. Nobody is mad that Apple/Amazon/Netflix/etc are creating competition for banks, movie studios, car dealers, etc. The complaints about these companies are the specific areas where they hold a dominant position and unfair advantage over other companies. The App Store in the case of Apple/Google, advertising in the case of Google, etc. The areas where these companies have…

The reason you don't want a platform monopoly operating a payment service isn't that they (currently) have a monopoly on payment services. It's that they would leverage the platform monopoly into one, and then there would be less competition in payment services. Prohibiting vertical integration prevents that sort of leveraging without having to micromanage every multinational conglomerate. The platform company should…

> Prohibiting vertical integration prevents that sort of leveraging without having to micromanage every multinational conglomerate.

How is policing all forms of vertical integration in the corporate world not micromanagement of all businesses?

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

#426

Post by simondotau »

simion314 wrote: post #275
simonh wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, I like the fact that if Facebook want to be on my phone they have to meet Apple's security and privacy standards. That directly benefits me, and it's one of the reasons I buy iPhones. Forcing Apple to change their product to allow side loading and alternative stores takes that away from me.

The standards could be in the SDK and the sandbox. Like you don't allow location data or access to photos to any apo (not even Apple ones). So even if I sideload an app or start a Apple app I should get same prompts("Do you want to let this app ignore your firewall rules? This might be insecure The app dev is "Facebook/Apple/Unkown) . And if Apple does not like Facebook tracking people maybe they should lobby for ant…

You are eliding the distinction between rules that can be enforced by the API and rules that can only be enforced by pronouncement. Anyone can do the former. I buy an iPhone because Apple does a decent job of the latter.

Now of course if Apple is forced to permit third party stores, they’re going to be forced to make it really easy to get on these stores. Epic, Google and Amazon are going to make sure of that. So this isn’t going to be like obscure alt stores on Android that the nerdiest 2% tinker with, it’s going to be a shitshow.

If Google then makes Google Maps and Gmail exclusive for the iOS Play Store, all bets are off and the biggest reason why I prefer the iPhone is destroyed. And I will be sad and angry that other people wilfully supported its destruction.

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

#427

Post by sirsinsalot »

nolok wrote: post #391

Lots of comments around the line of "ok maybe 30% is too much, but we can all agree they offer a valuable service, so what percentage should they take ?" Uhhhh, not a percentage ? Do you imagine AWS billing you a % of your revenue instead of a given price for a given service ? Give a price to be listed in store, to be reviewed, to be downloaded by a user, ... And let company pay what they owe you. Let them pay throug…

Abstractly AWS sort of _do_ charge you a % of your revenue. For the resources you consume from AWS for $C, those resources should be generating a revenue for you of $R, if $RThis assumes that as your needs increase, your profit increases and so does your AWS bill. Granular, PAYG billing is really just a tax on what you _should_ be converting to profit in some sense.

At least, it's an interesting way to look at capital allocation and ROI.

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

#428

Post by ApolloFortyNine »

zibzab wrote: post #2

Unpopular opinion: This was a no brainer. Apple wanted 30% (or was it less for subscriptions?) on any business that used apps, no matter if they used apple infrastructure or not. Just think about it: one company is in practice entitled to 30% of what any other business makes (in any industry)!! Also, I think apple brought this to themselves by picking a fight with Spotify (on Watch support).

That we've allowed Apple to have a monopoly on all Apple apps this whole time is insane to me. Google at least does allow users to install apps and an entire app stores off the market place, even if many don't take advantage of it.

Walmart for example has an average margin of under 2% across their products. For every $1 they bring in, they only expect to make 2 cents. And here we have Apple, who often is simply providing a download button, advertising is extra, to take 30% off the top.

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

#429

Post by tedd4u »

Mindwipe wrote: post #51
beforeolives wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just think about it: one company is in practice entitled to 30% of what any other business makes (in any industry)!! 1. No, this is limited to the AppStore, those businesses can operate elsewhere. 2. What's the alternative? How is any business entitled to free or low-fee access to a platform that Apple built and maintain?

> How is any business entitled to free or low-fee access to a platform that Apple built and maintain? Because we have a regulatory system designed to ensure that happens as capitalism doesn't really function if you don't. Also "platform" is bullshit. By "platform" we mean "Apple used it's control of the hardware to force control of all software on an unprecedented level so they could rent seek." There is no right to…

Why should people be forced to use Honda engines with Honda cars? Honda ONLY offers Honda engines, not any other manufacturer. The are abusing their control of the integrated car to force control of the drive system and engine. People should be free to choose to use Honda engines or not.

Apple created an integrated product that billions of people prefer. I don’t think it’s for us to arbitrarily tell Apple which parts of their product have to be split into different categories we arbitrarily define for them.

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

#430

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

martimarkov wrote: post #422

I can empathise with both sides. 30% is too high and Apple have costs and want to make money. But my question is: if apple are to be running the App Store at cost are devs okay to pay for their apps? Let’s say you have a free app but now you have to pay a fee for App Store maintenance and that would be on every download and every app update. Are developers actually ok with that? Is that a fee that the users will bear…

How does it work now for free apps?
Post reply on HN