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

111–120 of 631 posts

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#111

Post by bigyabai »

elpool2 wrote: post #28
mrcwinn wrote: post #13

The heart of Apple's hypocrisy is this: they claim their 30% is necessary to support the developer ecosystem and fund its operations. But of course if that were true, they could easily charge a high enough platform membership fee directly to developers. Instead they opt for a structural tax to cover what are mostly completely opaque and secret operational costs. They're opaque and secret for obvious reasons: those ex…

As described in the ruling, Apple hired a consulting group to estimate how much value developers get from the iphone platform, which found that (1) Apple’s platform technology is worth up to 30% of a developer’s revenue. (2) Apple’s developer tools and services are worth approximately 3%–16%. (3) Apple’s distribution services are worth approximately 4%–14%. (4) Apple’s discovery services are worth approximately 5%–14…

You don't pay consulting agencies to put you in legal jeopardy. The judge is right.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#112

Post by ribosometronome »

socalgal2 wrote: post #60
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Get ready to answer why an iPhone is different than an xbox

One has billions of users, the other has millions. One has 100s of thousands of companies trying to to do business with that platform's users, the other has 100s of companies trying to do business with that platform's users. scale and usage matters. Apple has > 50% market share in the USA (the place relevant to USA law). So, being a monopoly they get treated differently than a non-monopoly. Even if they had less than…

No, it doesn't. They're not enforcing this under anti-trust law.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#113

Post by marcus_holmes »

amazingamazing wrote: post #56

all these big companies being hypocrites. congress should just pass a law that you can't be big and end the charades.

I think that's actually the effect of anti-trust/anti-monopoly laws.

There's a point where companies get "too big to fail"/"too big to jail" and have outsize effect on the country (especially if the country is stupid enough to pass a Citizens United law that explicitly allows them to do this). Anti-trust laws are the main way that the government tries to prevent this, and haven't really been used since Reaganomics decided that big == efficient. Until recently.

Passing a law that companies cannot exceed a certain size (market cap as a percentage of GDP, I guess?) would probably be a simpler way of achieving this. Though, obviously, the accounting profession would roll up its collective sleeves and declare "challenge accepted".

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#114

Post by arresin »

m463 wrote: post #53
cyberax wrote: post #7

Finally. The AppStore rules are ridiculous. Apple has zero moral justification for them. They are quadruple-dipping: 1. Consumers pay premium prices for Apple devices. 2. Developers have to pay $100 a year to be able to publish an app. 3. Developers need to buy expensive Apple hardware to develop for iOS. XCode doesn't work on Linux or Windows. 4. And on top of it, Apple also wants 30% of all the gross app sales. All…

also, you can't install software on your own device. Even when you can, you have to ask apple permission.

The broader consumer base will install anything a bad actor wants them to and then blame the manufacturer for not stopping them with some draconian rule.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#115

Post by 90s_dev »

usefulcat wrote: post #57
90s_dev wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally none, the DA must choose to pursue perjury charges, which basically never happens. In reality, nearly everyone commits perjury. Thomas More would not approve. Both versions (1966 and 1988) of A Man For All Seasons are highly worth watching several times and practically memorizing. "Would you benefit England by populating her with liars ?" [edit] in retrospect, there is one inescapable consequence of lying u…

I've not seen the one from 1988; I'll have to check that out. I've long enjoyed the one from '66. I also heartily recommend both seasons of Wolf Hall. About Cromwell rather than More, but still fascinating.

The 1988 one stars Charlton Heston as Thomas More and was a made for TV movie based on the original 1965 play by Robert Bolt. Very, very good. Different from the 1966 movie. But both good in different ways. Neither is better.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#116

Post by ledauphin »

wmf wrote: post #106
ethbr1 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Apple were worth 30% of revenue, then they'd have no problem allowing competing app stores on their devices, because they support their rate with their value. The fact that they're deadset against competition should tell the courts all they need to know about how competitively supportable the 30% is.

I thought Apple's argument was that the 30% pays for iOS itself, not that the 30% pays for the App Store. Under that theory there's no reason to allow other app stores.

this would be a silly argument - surely the customers buying the devices should be paying directly for the operating system?

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#117

Post by wolpoli »

snowwrestler wrote: post #96
echelon wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100%. This doesn't deserve a fine. This deserves Apple to be given an ultimatum about their mob boss behavior with mobile. Apple and Google quickly built up their duopoly such that everyone doing anything with mobile phones has to pay them a tax. You can't even deploy your own apps at your own cadence, without strict review, using your own technology. You have to jump through unplanned upgrade cycles, you're forced t…

I understand people like this ruling and want Apple and Google to open up. But this is just silly rewriting of history: > Apple and Google quickly built up their duopoly such that everyone doing anything with mobile phones has to pay them a tax. Long before Apple and Google made phones, a huge mobile device ecosystem already existed, including app stores, and it was way more locked down and expensive than what we hav…

Sure, but parallel to the mobile device (featurephone) ecosystem, there was also the old smartphone ecosystem which grew out of the PDA market where you could install your own program without paying the middleman. I would argue that modern day smartphone is more similar to the old smartphones than the featurephones.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#118

Post by zelphirkalt »

mil22 wrote: post #4

About time. I'm tired of apologizing to customers who purchase subscriptions in my app only to discover they could have purchased the exact the same thing from my website for 15% less. "Why didn't you tell me?" Excerpt from the filing: "In stark contrast to Apple’s initial in-court testimony, contemporaneous business documents reveal that Apple knew exactly what it was doing and at every turn chose the most anticompe…

And what happens now to those who lied under oath? Can we get those people properly punished and send some signals? Or are they above the law somehow?

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#119

Post by scarface_74 »

mil22 wrote: post #4

About time. I'm tired of apologizing to customers who purchase subscriptions in my app only to discover they could have purchased the exact the same thing from my website for 15% less. "Why didn't you tell me?" Excerpt from the filing: "In stark contrast to Apple’s initial in-court testimony, contemporaneous business documents reveal that Apple knew exactly what it was doing and at every turn chose the most anticompe…

Will Walmart let you have a label on your product saying you could get it cheaper from Amazon?

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#120

Post by cyberax »

sureIy wrote: post #66
cyberax wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consoles are sold at-cost to consumers, or sometimes even at a loss: https://www.pcmag.com/news/microsoft-loses-up-to-200-on-ever... iPhones are sold at a _premium_. If iPhones were sold at-cost to consumers, then Apple would have been right to ask developers to pay 30% fees.

I think this is the real answer, however it would be difficult to use it as an excuse for the model since there are laws also against selling at a loss to undercut competitors.

It's a more difficult argument. Consoles are not competing with regular general-purpose computers, and the console manufacturers go out of their way to make it impossible to install unapproved third-party software on them.

And since all the console manufacturers are selling the hardware at loss or with low margins, they can argue that it's just how the market works (free razors but expensive razor blades).

Post reply on HN