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

Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 631 posts

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#501

Post by catlikesshrimp »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #486
thaumasiotes wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article is short enough that it makes more sense to quote it in full than to provide an archive link: > A federal judge hammered Apple for violating a ruling in an antitrust case that required the company to loosen certain restrictions it imposes on software-makers in its App Store. > Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered the iPhone-maker to allow developers to steer users to alternative methods of paying for serv…

For me, the archive.ph link now hits a CAPTCHA. Full article, works where archive.ph is blocked, no Javascript required, no tracking^1: https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/AA1DXcJN 1. Archive.{is,md,ph,etc.} puts the reader's IP address in a "spy pixel" URL. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spy_pixel https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23316085

I am not hitting any captcha.

On the other hand, the internet archive offers the same service with better credentials

web.archive.org

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#502

Post by freejazz »

SkyBelow wrote: post #414
DannyBee wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lawyer here - that's not how these things work. This is definitely non-compliant. Injunctions are, intentionally, required only to "describe in reasonable detail the act or acts restrained or required". The key being "reasonable". They are not required to specify every detail, or every wrong or right thing, especially when the party being enjoined knows more of the details of how things work than the court does. You…

>You seem to think this is game of try to find legal loopholes. That is a good way to get thrown in a jail by a judge. What I don't get is that sometimes it seems that is the game, sometimes the legal loopholes are accepted and other times they are not. It feels one of the big benefits of hiring a good lawyer is that they know which loopholes are accepted and which are seen as spiting the authority of the courts.

Jeez, it's almost like cases are different from each other. It's almost like sometimes some laws are different from others. It might even then follow that when the facts are different, different outcomes can result from the application of law.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#503

Post by enragedcacti »

kergonath wrote: post #494
enragedcacti wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> RCS update adds end-to-end encryption, Google and Apple confirm support https://9to5google.com/2025/03/14/rcs-end-to-end-encryption-...

The parent is technically wrong, but he was right at the time the decision got made.

In what sense, that we literally didn't know how to do e2e across messaging networks? The Signal protocol existed in 2016 when Schiller argued against cross-platform (also PGP for 30+ years). Even granting that, offering iMessage on Android would satisfy most people and doesn't require operating across networks so any argument about feasibility rings very hollow.

https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/27/22406303/imessage-android...

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#504

Post by freejazz »

hajile wrote: post #482
DannyBee wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is also wrong. Good faith is a requirement. Act in bad faith, and you can still be sanctioned. Do you have any background in this, or are you just asserting what you want reality to be? Because you are just spouting wrong information that, even for a non-lawyer, would take you 10 minutes to go find and read right information.

I know the current interpretation, but I also know that it's not logically sustainable. The key here is "reasonableness", but you can't read a judge's mind, so reasonable only means what a reasonable person would infer. That is completely subjective based on an individual's implicit biases and knowledge of all surrounding circumstances. For example, the dev team tasked with implementing this may not be familiar with…

Here's a great application of reasonable: your post is incredibly unreasonable.

It's a long rant that is not based in the law, the application of "reasonability" in the law, or other examples of "good faith" standards being used. It's made without any expertise or direct relevant knowledge, yet it is offered with the authority and conviction as if you understood more about the law than the judge in question. Reasonable isn't a state of mind, so when you ask things like "who is this judge to read these people's minds" it begs a million quesitons like, how can your worldview ever deal with laws that DO involve a state of mind? This isn't some huge problem in the legal world, we rely on evidence and the reasonable conclusions and inferences you can make from the evidence.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#505

Post by manoDev »

xuki wrote: post #107

> Internally, Phillip Schiller had advocated that Apple comply with the Injunction, but Tim Cook ignored Schiller and instead allowed Chief Financial Officer Luca Maestri and his finance team to convince him otherwise. The bean counters won. I guess Tim Cook does care about the bloody ROI after all. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2014/03/07/why-tim...

The "bean counters" always win in the current state of affairs.

The pressure of the financial capitalism on the industrial capitalism is too high. Any company that produces anything is eventually forced into rent-seeking to keep delivering what has come to be expected YoY growth. C-level that won't let that happen will see the way out.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#506

Post by karaterobot »

Gareth321 wrote: post #297
caf wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The phrase "incandescent with rage" comes to mind when reading that order. A couple of choice quotes: To hide the truth, Vice-President of Finance, Alex Roman, outright lied under oath. This is an injunction, not a negotiation. There are no do-overs once a party willfully disregards a court order. Time is of the essence. The Court will not tolerate further delays. As previously ordered, Apple will not impede competit…

She also referred Alex Roman's actions and everyone else complicit for review of contempt of court, which carries a possible prison sentence. I never thought Apple would outright defy the courts to the degree they'd risk a prison term for the executives.

I wonder if Alex Roman was pulled aside by the caporegime and told that if he takes the fall for this one, he'll be a made man once he's out of prison.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#507

Post by clhodapp »

AnonHP wrote: post #322
clhodapp wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Phil Schiller was one of the strongest voices against cross-platform messaging interoperability. He's just as bad as the rest of them.

But isn’t that orthogonal to this topic? Being strong on not allowing or losing to competition from a business standpoint vs. advocating that it’s a good idea to follow the judicial directives without playing around?

He was an advocate for illegal anti-competitive business behavior.

How do I know it was probably illegal? Because Apple finally caved and implemented RCS once it started leaking through backchannels that a legal case was being built against them.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#508

Post by hajile »

freejazz wrote: post #499
hajile wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something like reckless endangerment is criminal rather than civil. It will involve subject matter experts (SMEs) presenting both sides. It will involve a jury of peers with various perspectives rather than just the Judge's perspective making it less subject to individual bias. It will involve one person (the accused) or multiple people only if it can be clearly proven that they worked in direct concert with each oth…

Do you think experts don't testify in civil cases? I find these really elaborate rants about the law, which are based on nothing but presumptions, and in this case, presumptions that do not even arise from actual personal experience, to be incredibly exhausting and in service of creating more confusion than anything else. Like, you just said upthread that courts shouldn't rely on the word reasonable? I cannot think o…

I'm familiar with what exists -- I simply think it is flawed.

I never said SMEs don't testify in civil cases. My contention was that the judge should have consulted SMEs when defining parts of the ruling outside her expertise.

You aren't making a case for reasonableness as a concept. You are simply asserting that it exists, so it must continue to exist with the implication that it is good. You seem to be further implying that an assertion of reasonableness by a judge should carry the same weight as an assertion of reasonableness by SMEs or a jury of peers.

Can you defend these assertions?

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#509

Post by bluedevilzn »

saagarjha wrote: post #286
PaulRobinson wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

iAd is stated as being built differently to how other adtech networks work. I personally believe that Apple is able to make different (better), choices in the name of a consumer privacy, than Google will. Android is built from the ground up to provide surveillance data to Google-controlled adtech - that's their revenue model. I don't begrudge them that, people should have choice, etc. but the revenue model is adtech…

iAd doesn't exist anymore.

Yes but this exists - ads.apple.com

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#510

Post by SpaceManNabs »

tombert wrote: post #490
jim201 wrote: post #432

I am concerned that the App Store has become the norm. For many young people, iPhones and iPads have been their only computer. Many have never seen a world where app developers can distribute independently. The NYT had an article out about ruling, and the number of people supporting the App Store was astounding. I think Apple has done a great job marketing the App Store as the reason for the security/UX of their plat…

My brother in law (25 years old) mostly uses his phone for everything, which is obviously fine, but he needed help with something on his computer recently so he called me. It was just asking for help getting stuff of a portable hard drive from work, so I tell him to plug it in and open up the file explorer. He didn't know what the file explorer was, so I say "uh, the thing with the folders and shit in it, the little…

one of my interns didn't know how to create a folder.
Post reply on HN