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

91–100 of 411 posts

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

#91

Post by Ylpertnodi »

fhennig wrote: post #78
cedws wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't like any of the options but still need a phone, now what?

>I don't like any of the options but still need a phone, now what?

I've always used this method: work out what are the most benefits, with the fewest annoying 'features', between various manufacturers that have items within your budget, and choose something. In my country we call it 'shopping'.

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

#92

Post by gpm »

dialup_sounds wrote: post #86
gpm wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You seem to be confusing Masimo's patent infringement case against Apple over Apple Watch with the notion that Apple has some kind of a patented blood oxygen sensor in the iPhone. I don't think that supports your case that Apple's patent keeps other phones from being equivalent given that the sensor isn't in the iPhone and it's not even Apple's patent. For what it's worth, I'm typing this on a Pixel which is also a r…

You're typing that on a Pixel with a bump sticking out the back, which would mean it doesn't violate the design patent.

I wasn't specifically thinking of that case, though it's likely why my mind chose that sensor as an example. Apple has patents on blood oxygen sensors, of course, because Apple has patents on basically everything they do. Here's a recent example that I just picked off of Google https://patents.google.com/patent/AU2024216430B2/en?q=(Oxyge...

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

#93

Post by mvdtnz »

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.

> Being on the side of the consumer means being on the side of the free market.

What makes you think the "free market" always produces the best outcome for consumers?

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

#94

Post by fruitworks »

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.

not really. I have two options: android or ios. And android is following ios lockstep with practices like the recent changes to play integrity.

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

#95

Post by jahewson »

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.

Isn’t this a counter factual that can’t be proved? How do you know it won’t deter other companies?

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

#96

Post by kelthuzad »

cedws wrote: post #87
kelthuzad wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that is exactly the problem that is being solved. It's not about "consumers screaming", but companies, consumers and governments realizing that anti-competitive behavior is harming everybody except the gatekeeper. The solution is competition. Since Apple is such a great and innovative company, they surely won't be afraid of competing on merit.

It just props up the monopoly. Appeased consumers have no reason to buy other products. There is no financial motive for Apple to do good because they can do bad until government forces their hand, and they have no reason to fear competition. It’s an admission we’re all at the mercy of Apple until daddy government steps in.

The fact that even a whiff of potential competition incentivized Apple to half their tax for specific cases shows that anti-trust regulation works and that it's the only thing that will ever force a gatekeeper to reconsider their anti-competitive business practices.

>It’s an admission we’re all at the mercy of Apple until daddy government steps in.

That has always been the case when market participants become too dominant e.g.

United States v. Paramount Pictures (1948)

United States v. AT&T (1984)

United States v. Microsoft (2001)

Anti-trust regulation would have dealt with Apple, Google and co by now if the lobbying weren't so out of control compared to previous times.

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

#97

Post by dreamcompiler »

crims0n wrote: post #11

Honest question, what do people think is a fair percentage? The platform development, app hosting, payment processing, and quality control is surely worth something .

So you believe quality control is part of the App Store review process?

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

#98

Post by abdullahkhalids »

raincole wrote: post #22
crims0n wrote: post #11

Honest question, what do people think is a fair percentage? The platform development, app hosting, payment processing, and quality control is surely worth something .

The honest answer is that Apple shouldn't own iOS and its main app store at the same time. But there is not legal / regulation framework to prevent that. Case in point: Steam is taking 30% too. But you've heard much less fuss over it, right? Why? Is it because of players' cult-like behavior around Steam? (probably partially) But more importantly it's because Valve doesn't own Windows and Steam Deck is a far smaller f…

Steam sells games, which is mostly a "want" good. App Store has apps that have large scale economic and political implications - banking apps, messaging apps, etc. So it is understandable that people/governments care a lot more about reigning in the App Store than the Steam store.

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

#99

Post by npinsker »

raincole wrote: post #56
npinsker wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Steam's cut decreases to 20% after a certain amount of money. Also Steam does a lot more to earn their cut than any other platform, by far -- for example, they do a lot of promotion for you, both algorithmic and through things like Daily Deals, for free, whereas on iOS it is very difficult for ad spend to not be a significant part of your budget. The rule of thumb I've heard is, for every organic sale you make, Steam…

> for every organic sale you make, Steam's algorithm will get you one more sale I'm not sure what you mean. Every game dev now refers what Steam algorithm gives you "organic sale."

Maybe my wording wasn't good -- I meant a sale driven primarily through a channel other than Steam (streamer, Reddit, ads, friend recommendation).

It's difficult for me to really trust this stat though because purchasing decisions are complicated.

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

#100

Post by bmandale »

awillen wrote: post #10

"The CAT said in its ruling that developers were overcharged by the difference between a 17.5% commission for app purchases and the commission Apple charged, which Kent's lawyers said was usually 30%." Where does the 17.5% come from? I can't find it here or in the link Reuters article. Is that just the number that the tribunal decided was fair? If so I'd love to read the analysis of how they got there.

"""

919. The comparators available to us (the Epic Games Store, the Microsoft Store and Steam’s lower headline rate) suggest that the competitive rate of commission would be in the range of 12 to 20%. We do think it is reasonable to make some adjustment to that range to accommodate the points made by Apple about its premium brand, the quality of its offering and its established market position. However, we do not think those would be sufficient to displace the upper end of the range and are likely to operate mainly at the lower end, where the offerings are arguably less attractive to users for those reasons.

920. Applying again an approach of “informed guesswork”, on the basis of the evidence before us, we find that the likely range of Apple’s Commission for iOS app distribution services in the counterfactual is between 15% and 20%. For the purposes of quantifying the overcharge (for both the exclusionary abuses and the excessive and unfair pricing abuse) we will use the mid-point of that range, which is 17.5%.

Post reply on HN