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

Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B

9to5mac.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 411 posts

Re: Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B

#61

Post by chongli »

monkmartinez wrote: post #49
chongli wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As soon as you open the door to side-loading, you'll have scammers and data-siphoners force all their users to side-load so that they can completely bypass Apple's privacy controls and security features. The entire iOS ecosystem is built on the App Store review process as a gatekeeper for entitlements and the capabilities they grant (through API access). How do you solve that problem for side-loaded apps?

Does Apple have an explicit guarantee that apps can not scam or data siphon from an iPhone or iPad app?

Yes, assuming that iOS's entitlement security has not been broken.

Re: Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B

#62

Post by gpm »

cedws wrote: post #52
gpm wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did not have a choice to buy another equivalent phone because patents legally forbid other companies from producing equivalent phones. If Apple wants to take that defence, they should be required to have abandoned every patent they own on iPhones prior to my purchase of the device.

Equivalent in what way? A Samsung, a Xiaomi, a Google phone have all of the necessary capabilities to live a modern life.

Equivalent in the way of having the numerous features small and large that Apple has patents on. Whether that's being a rectangle with rounded corners (yes they have a patent on that, or at least did, and successfully defended it in court. Not sure what's happened in the meantime), or whatever random patents Apple has on making blood oxygen sensor technology just that little bit better.

If Apple believes their portfolio of patents protecting the iPhone is worthless, they should abandon them. That they haven't precludes the argument that they are.

Re: Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B

#63

Post by Deathmax »

chongli wrote: post #61
monkmartinez wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does Apple have an explicit guarantee that apps can not scam or data siphon from an iPhone or iPad app?

Yes, assuming that iOS's entitlement security has not been broken.

As if the App Store had any sort of those guarantees. I know of people have been scammed via WebView wrappers that purported to be some benign app to pass app store review, which were then pointed at fake exchange websites afterwards. GitLab which was hosting their C&C mechanism took action faster than Apple or Google did to take down multiple scam apps across multiple different developer identities, but the scammers spun up new apps the next day.

Re: Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B

#64

Post by [deleted] »

ryandrake wrote: post #29
dmix wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

apparently people will make this same comment every single time whether it's a $2M fine or a $2B fine

Why even have fines when they amount to an insignificant cost of doing business? What is the purpose? If the purpose is to deter companies from doing some thing, then a fine that equals a tiny number of days revenue is not providing any kind of deterrence.

[deleted]

Re: Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B

#66

Post by kadoban »

cedws wrote: post #60
bitpush wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you plug in a non-Apple USB cable to charge your iPhone, or use a third-party phone case, or use Anker power bank .. do you wish you had none of these choices, but only use whatever Apple branded cables, and phonecase and power banks existed? If you want to buy Apple cables because you think it is better, sure - that's great. But preventing ugreen cables from working makes no sense. You shouldnt say 'buy a diffe…

Being on the side of the consumer means being on the side of the free market. If you don’t like the charging options of an iPhone, don’t buy an iPhone. If you don’t like the OS of a Pixel, don’t buy a Pixel. If the consumer is choosy and doesn’t like the options available then there is a market opportunity for new entrants.

> If the consumer is choosy and doesn’t like the options available then there is a market opportunity for new entrants.

And if new entrants can't enter the market because the existing monopolies make it impractical, then what?

Re: Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B

#68

Post by cedws »

gpm wrote: post #62
cedws wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Equivalent in what way? A Samsung, a Xiaomi, a Google phone have all of the necessary capabilities to live a modern life.

Equivalent in the way of having the numerous features small and large that Apple has patents on. Whether that's being a rectangle with rounded corners (yes they have a patent on that, or at least did, and successfully defended it in court. Not sure what's happened in the meantime), or whatever random patents Apple has on making blood oxygen sensor technology just that little bit better. If Apple believes their portfo…

It sounds like your problem is with the patent system then. The point of patents is to grant exclusive rights to a technology in exchange for sharing information.

Re: Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B

#69

Post by chongli »

Deathmax wrote: post #63
chongli wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, assuming that iOS's entitlement security has not been broken.

As if the App Store had any sort of those guarantees. I know of people have been scammed via WebView wrappers that purported to be some benign app to pass app store review, which were then pointed at fake exchange websites afterwards. GitLab which was hosting their C&C mechanism took action faster than Apple or Google did to take down multiple scam apps across multiple different developer identities, but the scammers…

WebView wrappers don't have any more ability to siphon data out of the phone than any other app. Scammers can always scam users if they can trick them into entering data into a website. There's nothing anyone can do about that (besides blocking web access).

Re: Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B

#70

Post by makeitdouble »

cedws wrote: post #46
gpm wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as Apple requires they make use of those services for me to install software on the computer I bought, and they prevent others from producing equivalent competing devices via patents (i.e. government granted monopolies), zero. It's not that it's not worth something, it's that they're abusing their patents and monopoly to extract further compensation after I already bought the device.

You had the choice to buy another phone.

And Apple now have the choice to change their business practices.
Post reply on HN