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

U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 258 posts

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute

#141

Post by amoitnga »

eridius wrote: post #136
amoitnga wrote: post #135

In today's world successful business often requires online presence online presence requires app to have an app my business "has to be approved by Apple" That's a freaking monopoly.

Why does an online presence require an app? Most "online presences" still don't have them and do just fine.

it is sort of "expected". People want a native experience.

To me, the entire concept seems wrong. It's like having to submit your website to chrome, and safari, and mozila, and be approved by them, for them to display your site... Don't you think it's wrong? Who are they to decide what I can or can not install on my device?

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute

#142

Post by AnthonyMouse »

scarface74 wrote: post #119
lwansbrough wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh okay, so as long as it's their MO to have a monopoly then it's fine. I'm sure plenty of iPhone users, for example, would like to have a PornHub app on their iPhone, but that's currently impossible because of Apple's guidelines. You could build a very high quality app and be denied for a reason strictly outside of the "UX, security 'or any other very valid reason'" that Apple arbitrarily decides.

And what would this pornhub app do that you couldn’t do from the website? Should Nintendo also be forced to sell a PornHub game?

> And what would this pornhub app do that you couldn’t do from the website?

Store files for offline use or untracked use, have better privacy because user settings can be stored locally rather than on the server, provide source code that can be audited rather than relying on javascript that can change at any time, etc. In general, anything an app can do that a website can't -- otherwise why do native apps even exist?

> Should Nintendo also be forced to sell a PornHub game?

They shouldn't be allowed to prevent someone else from distributing one.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute

#143

Post by AnthonyMouse »

kitsunesoba wrote: post #67

Perhaps it’s an unpopular opinion, but I’m hopeful that this doesn’t go anywhere for the simple fact that I don’t want to have to keep 5 different app stores installed to have access to everything. It would be cool to have an iOS equivalent of F-Droid, but I’d rather that not come at the cost of scattering commercial iOS apps across stores. I’m not keen on the idea of non-WebKit web engines on iOS either because it w…

> Perhaps it’s an unpopular opinion, but I’m hopeful that this doesn’t go anywhere for the simple fact that I don’t want to have to keep 5 different app stores installed to have access to everything.

Ideally what should happen is that someone makes a Store app that will install apps from arbitrary distribution services. Then there is still one interface for installing apps, but competition for distribution/payment/curation services.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute

#144

Post by scarface74 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #142
scarface74 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what would this pornhub app do that you couldn’t do from the website? Should Nintendo also be forced to sell a PornHub game?

> And what would this pornhub app do that you couldn’t do from the website? Store files for offline use or untracked use, have better privacy because user settings can be stored locally rather than on the server, provide source code that can be audited rather than relying on javascript that can change at any time, etc. In general, anything an app can do that a website can't -- otherwise why do native apps even exist?…

So let’s see, you downloaded the files from their server, now they have a unique id for each user and they can track you more.

Most commercial apps aren’t going to give you access to the source control.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute

#145

Post by AnthonyMouse »

delinka wrote: post #53
lbacaj wrote: post #29

Unfortunately for Apple, I do think the App Store being an exclusive and default way to purchase and load apps on iOS is in fact causing prices of Apps, in many cases, to be higher than they should be. The perfect example of this is the subscription services, right now you can get a cheaper subscription to a service such as Spotify if you buy it off the App Store. That is a prime example of how much the 30% payment t…

"...an exclusive and default way to purchase and load apps on iOS" If the court allows the definition of 'trust' to include "a company gatekeeping developer access to their own operating system" when that operating system represents a much smaller share of the market than the next biggest competitor.

> If the court allows the definition of 'trust' to include "a company gatekeeping developer access to their own operating system" when that operating system represents a much smaller share of the market than the next biggest competitor.

You're talking about two different markets, the devices themselves and the app distribution.

Suppose there are many truck manufacturers and none has majority share, but only one makes diesel trucks. Then that company gets into the market for diesel fuel and makes it so that customers can't use any other provider's fuel in their trucks. They've just leveraged their diesel truck monopoly into a diesel fuel monopoly.

Your argument is that they don't have a truck monopoly, because other people make lots of gasoline powered trucks and electric trucks etc., and truck buyers could reasonably choose them instead. Many of them do. But those aren't relevant when we're talking about the market for diesel fuel. You can't use gasoline in a diesel truck. You can't use an Android app on iOS or install iOS apps on an iPhone with Google Play.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute

#146

Post by forrestthewoods »

pvg wrote: post #94
forrestthewoods wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a tricky claim to make for Apple. But it’s easy to make across the full ecosystem of digital app stores which are near universally 30 percent rakes. I’m including games in that list; Xbox, PlayStation, Steam, etc. That said, even if mobile apps are cheaper than they used to be many could be even cheaper if Apple took a 10% cut. I don’t like living in a world where almost every major distribution platform has com…

The game app stores have also driven prices way down from their 'traditional' retail prices. The argument for government remedy has to be based on some kind of actual harm to consumers rather than a feeling that 30% is too damn high.

And those prices would be reduced even further with a lower rake or storefront alternatives.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute

#147

Post by AnthonyMouse »

scarface74 wrote: post #144
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And what would this pornhub app do that you couldn’t do from the website? Store files for offline use or untracked use, have better privacy because user settings can be stored locally rather than on the server, provide source code that can be audited rather than relying on javascript that can change at any time, etc. In general, anything an app can do that a website can't -- otherwise why do native apps even exist?…

So let’s see, you downloaded the files from their server, now they have a unique id for each user and they can track you more. Most commercial apps aren’t going to give you access to the source control.

> So let’s see, you downloaded the files from their server, now they have a unique id for each user and they can track you more.

Which you can verify they aren't doing if they provide the source code. Or the non-Apple app distributor could verify that they aren't or otherwise sandbox the apps they distribute to prevent that from happening -- another advantage to competition.

> Most commercial apps aren’t going to give you access to the source control.

For something like that, why wouldn't they? Especially when there is a specific reason to, because it's something people are unusually privacy-sensitive about.

And it's not as if a community-developed Pornhub app that did would be accepted into the App Store either.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute

#148

Post by sunflowerfly »

lbacaj wrote: post #29

Unfortunately for Apple, I do think the App Store being an exclusive and default way to purchase and load apps on iOS is in fact causing prices of Apps, in many cases, to be higher than they should be. The perfect example of this is the subscription services, right now you can get a cheaper subscription to a service such as Spotify if you buy it off the App Store. That is a prime example of how much the 30% payment t…

Apple does not hold a monopoly, Android is the dominate platform. To use antitrust law you must first prove a monopoly exists, then prove the monopoly is being used in anti-competitive ways.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute

#149

Post by pvg »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #146
pvg wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The game app stores have also driven prices way down from their 'traditional' retail prices. The argument for government remedy has to be based on some kind of actual harm to consumers rather than a feeling that 30% is too damn high.

And those prices would be reduced even further with a lower rake or storefront alternatives.

The prices would be even lower if Apple decided to have a profit margin of 4% instead of 40%. The question wasn't 'how could the prices be lower', it was 'what's the evidence Apple has engaged in illegal, consumer-harming practices'.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute

#150

Post by scarface74 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #147
scarface74 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So let’s see, you downloaded the files from their server, now they have a unique id for each user and they can track you more. Most commercial apps aren’t going to give you access to the source control.

> So let’s see, you downloaded the files from their server, now they have a unique id for each user and they can track you more. Which you can verify they aren't doing if they provide the source code. Or the non-Apple app distributor could verify that they aren't or otherwise sandbox the apps they distribute to prevent that from happening -- another advantage to competition. > Most commercial apps aren’t going to giv…

Which you can verify they aren't doing if they provide the source code. Or the non-Apple app distributor could verify that they aren't or otherwise sandbox the apps they distribute to prevent that from happening -- another advantage to competition

So what sandbox is available for apps that don’t allow a native app to ascertain individually identifiable device information?

You also now have to trust the non Apple App Store to check the source code. The entire open source community let the HeartBleed bug stay in open source software for a year and a half...

Post reply on HN