441–450 of 1001 posts
Therefore Apple is also a monopoly. Don't let the comments above and below fool you. tldr it is just a different monopoly.
I fail to understand how HN and the court system do not think the same against Apple
"The same against Apple" is very broad so I'm not sure what you're referring to, but Apple is presently less evil than Google. * Google started out pure good and turned pure evil. * Amazon started out mostly decent and turned mostly sleazy. * Apple started out sort of in the middle and stated there. "Middle" for Apple includes extremes in both directions. They do some pretty bad things with DRM, locking down devices,…
The lesson is loud and clear: if you want to destroy normal consumer protections, do it using technologic dictatorship like Apple and the gaming console companies, not through an open platform and then soft power with your vendors. Feels like a "if you run somebody over with your car it's better to back up and kill them" moment of perverse legal incentives.
I fail to understand how HN and the court system do not think the same against Apple
Earlier quoted context omitted.
HN does generally feel the same about Apple. 30% cut is egregious especially when they give favors to certain app owners. “Court System” is very contextual: the Texas Supreme Court just blocked a woman getting an abortion for a non-viable pregnancy.
Apple charges 30% on your second $million. For many of us, their fee is 15%. And for a lot of people it’s more like 25%.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The lesson should be: do not get caught paying off companies to not compete with you when you already have a monopoly because you will get pilloried by a jury. Because that is what Google just got punished for doing. They paid off companies to not ship third party app stores pre installed, pressured software companies to not make third party app stores, and gave money to companies to not compete with Google play
But if they had made it impossible to install another app store, they wouldn't have gotten punished.
Do I have this straight? Apple: no sideloading Google: yes sideloading Apple: no alternate app stores Google: OS-native APIs for facilitating third-party app stores Apple: no monopoly Google: yes monopoly Just wondering if I have this straight. Edit- > And it was all decided by a jury, unlike the Apple ruling. Oh, OK. Google will take this to SCOTUS, and their record there (The Author's Guild, Oracle) is pretty good.…
Apple: iOS only on iPhone. No way to get one without the other.
Google: Android is open source and everyone can build their own hardware. Play Store is optional for manufacturers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is this not all true for Apple and its app store?
Well, it’s common law, not civil law. So lawyers, juries, judges and so on all heavily influenced the Epic Games v Apple outcome, as they did in Epic Games v Google. The next time someone sues Apple for this, there will be precedent. But then again, Epic Games v Apple might be used as precedent in Google’s appeal. EDIT/correction: Apparently, only appellate and higher courts can set precedent for case law. So it migh…
Note, US Supreme Court recently overturned 50 years of precedent of Roe vs. Wade.
I wonder what the remedies will be -- sideloading is already allowed, so allowing third party in-app billing? That seems to be the actual thing the juries said -- that Google used their dominant position to do anticompetitive things, among which is taking their 30% cut on everything. Hope that this happens to Apple eventually too.
Hope it doesn't happen to Apple as I like and prefer that I can only buy stuff and most importantly have a single place to cancel all my subscriptions without dark patterns like having to talk to a person to cancel. I'll again make my argument that the developers should respect the choice of the users. If the user chose iOS maybe they chose it because they wanted the curated experience and the locked it product. I ce…
This would make a lot more sense in a world where users have more choice. If you want to make this argument, you probably need regulators to step in and enforce standards and interoperability such that consumers have more choice, along more different axes than they currently do (2-ish operating systems, determined by the hardware you buy).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If the result of this case is "you can have a monopoly as long as your device and ecosystem are 100% locked down", that's terrible! Monopolies aren’t illegal. Only the abuse of a monopoly position to advance your interest in other markets is illegal. E.g. It’s not illegal to be the only seller of gasoline in the country. It is illegal though to bundle laundry powder with gasoline sales to corner the laundry powder…
> Only the abuse of a monopoly position to advance your interest in other markets is illegal. Two markets ARE at play for consumers: mobile phone hardware (with OS) and mobile app stores/apps. Apple is using it's monopoly in the former to create/enforce a monopoly in the latter. You can tell there are two separate markets because you, the consumer, make (at least) two separate purchases to participate.