81–90 of 156 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We’ve already had it. Ask Epic
Rulings change all the time. You just mentioned an incoherent one in the thread about Amazon ebooks. Let's see how this one goes.
https://qz.com/103169/how-apple-tried-to-turn-the-e-book-ind...
> Since the developer had no idea what it was supposed to have done wrong, it was unable to meet Apple’s appeal requirement of explaining what happened, and how it has resolved the issue. The appeal was thus denied. If nothing else, Apple should fix this. There is ZERO reason to be anything other than 100% transparent.
Ignorantia juris non excusat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rulings change all the time. You just mentioned an incoherent one in the thread about Amazon ebooks. Let's see how this one goes.
Why does everyone act like 2013 is ancient history? https://qz.com/103169/how-apple-tried-to-turn-the-e-book-ind...
> Since the developer had no idea what it was supposed to have done wrong, it was unable to meet Apple’s appeal requirement of explaining what happened, and how it has resolved the issue. The appeal was thus denied. If nothing else, Apple should fix this. There is ZERO reason to be anything other than 100% transparent.
Ignorantia juris non excusat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So whose viewpoint should I believe in whether Apple did anything wrong, a real judge or a random commenter on HN?
Neither? Judges are also just random people chosen to interpret "the law". That doesn't mean their interpretation can accurately determine what is or isn't monopolistic. Judges make historically "wrong" decisions all the time.
It’s a textbook case, yet the hundreds of times we’ve heard this story before the lawsuit went nowhere. Perhaps reality isn’t as cut and dried as this article makes it look.
Or perhaps Apple has really good lawyers, and whenever a case looks like it might set precedent they settle out of court?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does everyone act like 2013 is ancient history? https://qz.com/103169/how-apple-tried-to-turn-the-e-book-ind...
Non sequitur
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised since people are ignoring a judges ruling that Apple isn’t a monopoly and saying it’s irrelevant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is ZERO reason to be anything other than 100% transparent. The customary rationale, at least around here, goes something like "B...b...b...but if we actually document the rules and tell you what you did wrong, it helps the BAD GUYS!!!11!!"
I think the app store monopoly is literally the thing that lets the bad guys participate in the first place. Consider competing app stores. Some of them would be stricter than Apple and do a far better job of curation IMO. For example, apps that exist to trick children into in-app purchases could be forbidden. Or maybe someone would start a store for games that only allows up-front sales, no subscriptions, and no ads…
Yes! I've been arguing for a long time that the crApp Store is actually a honeypot for criminals. It's a single point of failure, and Apple's reviewers can only spend a few minutes on each submission.
Before the crApp Store, indie devs already set up their own web stores, did their own marketing, etc. Apple has now made it trivial for anyone to publish an app, and that includes criminals! Criminals don't want to make an effort like serious indie devs do. They don't want to bide their time and build up a loyal audience. Criminals just want the quick easy scam money.
Not to mention that it's vastly easier and less expensive to game crApp Store search—and also to buy crApp Store Search Ads!—than it is to game Google search.
The worst part of the crApp Store is that Apple tells consumers, falsely, that the crApp Store is safe. It lowers their guard when they should be suspicious and careful. And of course crApp Store crowdsourced ratings and reviews can't be trusted at all. They're easily faked and/or purchased. Even when ratings and reviews are real, they're often ignorant and badly written, not done by professional reviewers. (As a developer myself, it drives me nuts that reviewers never contact support before writing, and they also put feature requests and bug reports in there instead of writing an actual review of the app.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really care to defend Amazon in this, but your argument here is pretty weak. Which is why nobody has really accused Amazon of this in court. Note that antitrust lawsuits have been brought against them, but from what I can find, they were dismissed. https://www.reuters.com/legal/amazon-major-publishers-win-di... This is all a side discussion, which I confess is fun; but it seems you agree that Apple has been g…
https://qz.com/103169/how-apple-tried-to-turn-the-e-book-ind...
More, your argument was that sales of physical books were impacted. But, to show that you would have to be able to actually show it. With book sales continuing to climb, that will be hard to say "but it could have been even bigger!" Indeed, most evidence is that the ebooks were additional sells.
That all said, and I quote your article, "In a major rebuke, a federal judge has ruled that Apple violated antitrust laws..." Again, the point I was raising is that antitrust is more than just monopoly laws.
You can try and argue that the case was ruled incorrectly, but Apple was unable to do that with probably some of the best lawyers that you can get. Appeal was struck down and they were guilty of antitrust. Pretty convincingly.