551–560 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It squashes competition with Netflix
But Apple didn’t decide that only Netflix could be on their platform. And they didn’t take money to cause problems for other streaming video services. That’s what Google did according to the verdict. They paid money to stop competitors. In fact Apple negotiated that deal to keep Netflix on the platform because Netflix wasn’t happy paying 30% (surprise). It’s not good that they’re playing favorites secretly, but it’s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And in Apple's case an extremely restrictive package manger. Want to send encrypted notifications? Got to request the entitlements.
Sorry but I don't want random apps spaming me with junk. If they want to send me notifications, then yes they should request my (the user's) permission.
I meant the Hidden Notification Entitlement. By default iOS requires you to display a notification when you receive one.
But that conflicts with the idea of encrypting notifications. See here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38545984
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's kind of wild to see someone confidently posting legal analysis while obviously lacking an understanding of - uh - precedent.
I clearly stated “I’m not an expert on this” and publicly corrected my mistake to not mislead readers. Don’t fulminate, my brother, see comment guidelines on HN for more info. There’s need to act like this and your comment doesn’t contribute anything to the discussion.
Does yours?
I mean that in earnest, not as a dig. You're posting legal analysis without even rudimentary legal knowledge, and I think that's worth noting and responding to.
It's also worth noting you only admitted you were not an expert once your initial post was debunked, and that in your corrigendum you manage somehow to add many additional substantive legal claims. Without any apparent additional legal knowledge.
If you did the same on a programming topic, there'd be an army of people ready to downvote you, because most of the wonderful folks here on HN are versed in programming, and could easily see through that. But this doesn't hold true for law, and you're in a position to mislead. Noting that contributes to the discussion by helping a reader discriminate signal from noise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And you can do that today by buying an Android device
Why do you defend apples 30% tax on ios apps, and being the sole approver of what apps you can install on your device?
For anyone curious why Google lost: >Epic v. Google [...] hinged on secret revenue sharing deals between Google, smartphone makers, and big game developers, ones that Google execs internally believed were designed to keep rival app stores down. Without finding the same thing in Apple, I doubt this will affect Apple's case much, but of course I should mention I'm not a lawyer; I'm perfectly happy to be schooled if som…
it sounds like the EU is going to slowly push on Apple t do the very thing Epic wants regardless. https://appleinsider.com/articles/23/11/08/apple-admits-thir...
So I guess Epic had the right idea but the wrong angle (or simply the wrong judges in the US. Probably a bit of both).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In that case consoles from Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo? Why stop there? Smart TV manufacturers? Cars?
if the Smart TV or Cars run Android (TV or Auto) then this case should extend to them too
And regulatory agencies and car manufacturers are never going to let you install what you want on car screens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Juries are free to give arbitrary decisions, that is unrelated to precedent, which has more to do with how a judge interpreted a law. Lookup "jury nullification" if you're curious to learn more about juries giving arbitrary decisions.
> Lookup "jury nullification" if you're curious to learn more about juries giving arbitrary decisions. Nullification only applies to criminal cases (the discussion here is about civil, not criminal, law) and only in one direction. Lookup "directed verdict of acquittal", "judgement as a matter of law", and "judgement non obstante veredicto ".
I think what loaph is saying is that a jury, when making a decision, can make any decision it wants, without consequences (except in exceptional cases, e.g. jury tampering).
The jury might never get to actually make a decision, and a guilty verdict can be overruled by a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (or as a result of an appeal, etc.), but legally, when a jury has made a decision, they can't be punished for making it, even if they were unreasonable in reaching that verdict.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Problem is that Google tried to have it both ways. Android is technically much more open, but then they would make deals to squash any other competition. It’s exactly the un-openness that Google’s gotten in trouble for. This article lists a bunch of the special deals Google made with various companies in order to prevent competition https://www.theverge.com/23959932/epic-v-google-trial-antitr... > One Google Play exe…
Do we know for a fact Apple made fewer deals like these? I don't think we do. Apple makes a lot of deals. A lot. I'd expect them to be about even.
Supposedly, the 15%-after-first-year rule for subscriptions that they instituted was because they were trying to entice Netflix to continue to take in-app payment for subscriptions. Rather than a sweetheart deal, they rolled it out as a platform change.
There are areas which I think are more questionable, such as their Apple TV partnerships with Amazon and a few others.
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…
If no iOS user wants a 3rd party store, no one will install them, all of them will fail and we wouldn't be talking about this.
So why are Apple so afraid of a little competition? I think some iOS users (me) are willing to use other stores. And that's why Apple blocking it is anti-competitive.