881–890 of 1001 posts
I consider HN users to be smarter and rational than average internet crowd. Surprised to see folks here comparing the Google Apple store to other business models like Starbucks, Donut shops, Restaurants? does not make sense to me. Consumers have a choice to switch all other businesses but not the mobile app stores. I can live without Starbucks or Netflix if I want to, or switch to different providers if needed. But t…
Even for non-average people, gatekeepers like Gentoo's or Debian's package maintainer(s) do a great deal of good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple doesn't need to strike secret deals to keep out alternative app stores because they've made alternate app stores completely impossible. 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!
Apple is horrible, but Google isn't blameless. Google and Apple are a duopoly that controls one of the most essential devices of our time. Their racket extends more broadly than Standard Oil. The smartphone is a critical piece of modern life, and these two companies control every aspect of them. - Tax 30% - Control when and how software can be deployed - Can pull software or deny updates - Prevent web downloads (Appl…
Also, the OS developer acting as a gatekeeper is necessary to prevent malware from getting onto devices. Without that, you have Windows where black hats trick the average user into installing malware constantly.
Almost everything you list is actually a positive thing, although I would be wasting my time to explain it to people who should take the time they put into complaining into developing their own competing platforms that align with their ideals. Please do put your energy into making a competing platform. We need more choices at the operating system level, and nothing people hope these lawsuits would accomplish would give us that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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 market. I mean, it's far more than that. Most importantly: >Historically they have been held to include exclusive dealing, price discrimination, refusing to supply an essential facility, product tying and predatory pricing. While IANAL - even as a pleb…
> Why should my choice of hardware or OS dictate the apps I'm allowed to install? Do you own an iPhone? I suspect that the vast majority of people complaining about Apple's "lock down" are people who don't even use an iPhone. If you do own an iPhone ... why the heck did you buy one knowing its limitations. It's like buying a pink shirt when you hate pink, despite the availability of shirts of other colors, then going…
> why the heck did you buy one knowing its limitations.
Because:
• Almost everyone I know uses iMessage exclusively.
• I very strongly dislike Android's UI design.
• I strongly prefer iPhone hardware.
Any two of these would be insufficient to offset how furious I am that I can't decide what code runs on my own damn phone! But taken together, Android just doesn't make sense.
I jailbroke my iPhone for years, despite the many inconveniences of running an outdated version of iOS, but Apple's security has just become too good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are completely different cases because Apple controls the manufacturing process of every iOS devices in every phase. But Google does not control the whole product lifetime of the every Android phone out there. On the latter monopoly abuse is bigger problem. But if you make, build, control and design everything from bottom to top on the product, then it is less about monopoly abuse. It is just single total produc…
I and I think many others disagree. Apple's case seems more egregious. Who are they to tell me what I can and can't do with my phone? Walled gardens may be a value add for some but it also spits in the face of first sale doctrine.
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 should be noted that this was a jury decision. Juries are instructed on the relevant law, but ultimately they can give back whatever answer they want, for whatever reason they want. So while we can speculate why the answer came back as it did... and that speculation may be correct if the jury was following instructions, we won't know for sure unless someone on the jury chooses to come forward and explain their dec…
If you hear of a judge that encourages juries to think for themselves and answer as they think, rather than prescribing how to think to them, let me know.
I consider HN users to be smarter and rational than average internet crowd. Surprised to see folks here comparing the Google Apple store to other business models like Starbucks, Donut shops, Restaurants? does not make sense to me. Consumers have a choice to switch all other businesses but not the mobile app stores. I can live without Starbucks or Netflix if I want to, or switch to different providers if needed. But t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Apple doesn’t offer an App Store market and never has nor ever represented otherwise, the app store is and always has been part of the operating system. "Apple doesn't offer an App Store market" is just assuming the conclusion. Nobody expects you to get competing app stores from Apple -- you get them from Apple's competitors. What Apple ought to be in trouble for is interfering with their operating system customers…
> What Apple ought to be in trouble for is interfering with their operating system customers' ability to patronize competing app stores. This isn’t illegal. Equivalent to a “No outside food and drink” sign or not letting randos sell things in your own storefront It’s not illegal just because you don’t agree with the philosophy of a closed ecosystem
Your phone isn't Apple's storefront. Their storefront is. Prohibiting their customers from patronizing any other store is clearly anti-competitive.
> It’s not illegal just because you don’t agree with the philosophy of a closed ecosystem
It's not legal just because you agree with the philosophy of a closed ecosystem. "A closed ecosystem" is inherently anti-competitive and should be illegal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Monopolies aren’t illegal. Only the abuse of a monopoly position to advance your interest in other markets is illegal. So for example, if you had a dominant market position for a particular category of phone operating systems, and you wanted to advance your interest in the market for app distribution...
> So for example, if you had a dominant market position for a particular category of phone operating systems, and you wanted to advance your interest in the market for app distribution... Except the App Store was added to the iPhone before it reached its current level of ubiquity. I believe Apple views the App Store as a feature of the iPhone that contributes to its value - the huge variety of apps available definite…
Why should that matter?
> I believe Apple views the App Store as a feature of the iPhone that contributes to its value
If people prefer to install apps from Apple's store they're free to do so. That doesn't require them to prohibit other stores -- let the customer choose.
> the huge variety of apps available definitely contributed to the iPhone’s success; see the Windows phone for an example of a phone without a good App Store.
You're referring to the platform's selection of available apps. That is something different than the method of distributing them or whether it has competitors.