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

101–110 of 411 posts

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

#101

Post by echelon »

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.

There are two phones on the market. Android and iPhone.

The Government needs to break up this duopoly.

Mobile should have hundreds of choices, three or four OS options, and free web-based installs without a gatekeeper or taxation.

Mobile providers shouldn't be able tyrannically set defaults for search, payments, or anything else either.

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

#102

Post by dreamcompiler »

chongli wrote: post #42
someotherperson wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much of a fee do you think you should pay to install applications on your computer? The same amount as that. Or provide alternative ways to install software. This is a problem of their own creation.

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?

How is it that I can load MacOS apps from anywhere, and yet they don't "completely bypass Apple's privacy controls and security features"?

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

#104

Post by [deleted] »

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."

[deleted]

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

#106

Post by anonymous908213 »

chongli wrote: post #42
someotherperson wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much of a fee do you think you should pay to install applications on your computer? The same amount as that. Or provide alternative ways to install software. This is a problem of their own creation.

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?

Sideloading, AKA "installing software on your device", is something PCs have been handling just fine for decades. It's fine to warn the user when they're going off the beaten trail, but do not lock them in a cage to prevent them from doing so.

If they ignore the warnings and get scammed because they are unable to identify reputable software from disreputable software, they learn a life lesson. Life goes on. There should be no societal expectation that everyone is prevented from ever taking an action that could bring themselves harm, by preventing them from taking actions at all.

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

#107

Post by echelon »

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.

An unregulated market leads to monopoly and anti-competitive practices.

Capitalism is one of the best models we've discovered, but its markets must be appropriately regulated.

Capitalism should be difficult. An eternal treadmill. You shouldn't be able to wedge yourself into a market as a quarter-century long hegemon.

You shouldn't be able to capture the key touch point of all consumers to their digital life and then tax it for eternity. It's putting incredible strain on innovation and all other market participants.

Companies should die and be replaced by younger startups regularly. It's a renewing forest fire that de-ossifies technology.

Rewarding startups puts the capital rewards in the hands of innovation capital rather than large institutions. Large companies do everything they can to minimize labor costs. Venture funds are even hurting in that the monopolies put a cap on the number of startups that can reach decacorn or centacorn status.

And before I field any complaints that consumers don't care about this - most consumers are laypeople and do not understand what is happening to them. They can't articulate these points. This is why we require regulators to police the system.

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

#108

Post by itake »

gpm wrote: post #41
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 .

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.

Mobile apps mobile app fraud empties life savings accounts. I agree there should be personal accountability, but that clearly hasn't been working. Installing an app shouldn't eliminate 30 years of life savings.

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

#109

Post by yupyupyups »

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 .

Allow developers to distribute their apps outside of the app store, the cost apart for firmware maintenance and development will be 0.

Apple is not bringing its users value by prohibiting sideloading of arbitrary apps. Rather, this is an extreme example of rent-seeking which has affected almost all countries around the world. It needs to be regulated away.

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

#110

Post by aydyn »

bitpush wrote: post #54
cedws wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You had the choice to buy another phone.

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…

What if im on the consumer's side but I dont like britbongs
Post reply on HN