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

Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 357 posts

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#141

Post by bduerst »

Fellshard wrote: post #134
pier25 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that the hypothetical third party Android App Store could use any payment service it wanted, or even the user could use any App Store it preferred. With iOS not only you can't buy from a third party, you can't even install an app that hasn't been signed by Apple.

I would argue the point of consumer choice is at device selection. If they choose the ecosystem with the heavy markup, when they had alternatives, then they are responsible for incurring their own additional costs. The information is public regarding app costs between devices and marketplaces. This seems to me a bad ruling based on that.

Blaming the consumer in this case doesn't fly because the consumer owns the device once they purchase it, and it is anticompetitive for Apple to lock out competing services on the consumer's device. The "Just don't buy it" argument also doesn't work for The Right to Repair movement.

Either way, end users have the right to sue Apple here, not just the developers.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#142

Post by esmi »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #127
Spivak wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you resolve this with the fact that exclusives exist and are tolerated in just about every industry. You can only buy the new Jordan's from X stores, only available on PS4, exclusively at Target, etc. And places that sell things are well within their right to choose their vendors unless you want to demand that the BMV dealership be leglly required to sell Ford trucks if Ford desired. Put exclusivity and vendor…

> You can only buy the new Jordan's from X stores, only available on PS4, exclusively at Target, etc. When this matters is when you have a dominant market position. Target doesn't have to sell Nike because you can reasonably buy them at Walmart. Nike doesn't have to sell to Target because Target can reasonably buy from Reebok, which is a reasonable substitute. The issue here is that there is no reasonable substitute…

> So Apple has a dominant position in iOS app distribution

Is iOS app distribution a thing that can be dominated though, legally? In your example I get how stores and shoes are both things that can be dominated but what category of thing does iOS app distribution fall into? Is it still in the same category if one deletes iOS and just calls it in "app store"? Would Apple still dominate apps?

It's all confusing to me. I'm asking sincerely because I honestly don't know.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#143

Post by Majromax »

delinka wrote: post #123
sethhochberg wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody has ruled on whether the practices are actually monopolistic or not - this ruling just allows a suit against Apple to proceed, which will then make that determination about their business practices. The debate in this case was all about whether the end user was Apple's customer (thus able to sue Apple directly) or the developer's customer.

I think this debate is interesting, but I don't expect Apple to be happy about the final outcome. A developer publishing solely on Apple's App Store (and relying solely on Apple features to provide functionality) has no direct access to the customer* - Apple prevents that fairly well. In this case, I feel like, as a consumer, I'm Apple's customer. I think courts, and especially juries, would agree. That said, I don't…

> That said, I don't see how the App Store is a monopoly. How would "monopoly" be defined to even formulate a case against Apple?

I think the argument would be fairly straightforward: the App Store is the exclusive avenue to distribute paid applications to iPhone users. In so doing, it acts as a single seller of applications to consumers and a single buyer of applications from developers, and its arbitrarily-set fees are incorporated into prices.

The fine parsing comes in whether "iPhone users" are a sufficiently distinct market to effectively make the App Store a monopoly, and I think reasonable people could have different opinions here.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#144

Post by bduerst »

jimktrains2 wrote: post #100
oflannabhra wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is similar, but not identical. A department store buys physical goods from a vendor, and then sells them to consumers. An App Store provides distribution and payment services to vendors and consumers. For a department store, it is very clear that you are buying from the department store. They own the physical goods at the time of sale. For an App Store, most people would agree that the Store does not own the digit…

> For a department store, it is very clear that you are buying from the department store. They own the physical goods at the time of sale. Just to bit pick and it doesn't really change your point, but I thought a lot of places basically do consignment now for their vendors and don't own much of their stock?

This is true. A lot of inventory in big box retail isn't owned by the retailer, but the distributer/manufacturer. More and more big box retailers are moving into the business of leasing out floor space, and ditching buying and selling inventory.

The difference is that big box retailers won't force you to only make purchases with their credit cards or other vertical integration limitations.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#145

Post by bduerst »

cmorgan31 wrote: post #72
0_gravitas wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But this isnt as easy as Steam vs Epic, Apple is the only "department store" on their platform, it's like if McDonalds took over every restaurant in the country- you can order whatever you want from the menu, but you're in their power.

Hmm, might be more apt to say you purchased an Apple self driving car whose GPS only takes you to places apple approved and listed. It doesn’t let you drive and it doesn’t let you input your own destination but it’s pretty damn cute looking and it’s pretty safe. You can choose to use another method to reach similar destinations so long as it’s not Apple. You lose your choice by accepting the perceived benefits of the…

That's still anticompetitive if the 'approved' Apple list excludes competition. It's like the right to repair - just because you bought the car from a certain manufacturer doesn't mean you can only repair it at the 'licensed' dealer.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#146

Post by [deleted] »

kolbe wrote: post #126
khawkins wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the fact that he sided with the liberal justices in favor of Planned Parenthood was less expected [1]. Especially considering his hearings were plagued with disruptions and protests from pro-choice activists. [1] https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/10/supreme-court-plan...

It shouldn't be surprising. Nothing about his testimony or judicial history indicated he would be particularly conservative on women's rights.

[deleted]

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#148

Post by perpetualpatzer »

curt15 wrote: post #104
khawkins wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the fact that he sided with the liberal justices in favor of Planned Parenthood was less expected [1]. Especially considering his hearings were plagued with disruptions and protests from pro-choice activists. [1] https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/10/supreme-court-plan...

Kavanaugh agreed with Merrick Garland most of the time during his tenure at the DC court of appeals.

Presumably true, but that stat may be less telling than you think...

Last year, every Supreme Court Justice agreed with every other justice most of the time, except Sotomayor/Alito (they agreed 49% of the time)[0].

[0] https://www.scotusblog.com/statistics/

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#149

Post by [deleted] »

sethhochberg wrote: post #19
kbf wrote: post #15

How can Apple’s App Store prices be monopolistic if the App Store has driven software prices so low that a lot of developers are having a hard time making money? Before the App Store, software licenses for Mac software could be priced in the $40-$70 range for software that might have had feature parity with what you get in a $3-$10 app on iOS these days. That’s not even taking into account the fact that paying for a…

Nobody has ruled on whether the practices are actually monopolistic or not - this ruling just allows a suit against Apple to proceed, which will then make that determination about their business practices. The debate in this case was all about whether the end user was Apple's customer (thus able to sue Apple directly) or the developer's customer.

[deleted]

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#150

Post by Fellshard »

bduerst wrote: post #141
Fellshard wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue the point of consumer choice is at device selection. If they choose the ecosystem with the heavy markup, when they had alternatives, then they are responsible for incurring their own additional costs. The information is public regarding app costs between devices and marketplaces. This seems to me a bad ruling based on that.

Blaming the consumer in this case doesn't fly because the consumer owns the device once they purchase it, and it is anticompetitive for Apple to lock out competing services on the consumer's device. The "Just don't buy it" argument also doesn't work for The Right to Repair movement. Either way, end users have the right to sue Apple here, not just the developers.

That requires making the case that the consumer believes they are buying a general computing device that they can use for any purpose and customize freely, which is simply not the case.

Furthermore, repair applies to the hardware of the device, not the software ecosystem. You have to make a separate, very different argument for software as it is more malleable and less restricted than hardware components are.

Post reply on HN