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

Google and Apple attacked on app store 'monopoly'

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 174 posts

Re: Google and Apple attacked on app store 'monopoly'

#141

Post by kergonath »

ksec wrote: post #110
kergonath wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You then have half of the discussion about the term "monopoly" which half of them dont understand and refuse to understand. And another half of the discussions about Apple's BS that they took and state they have very small market shares. The monopoly thing is an Americanism and is irrelevant as far as European law is concerned anyway. Companies are tried for anticompetitive behaviour or abuse of a dominant position…

Agree on everything you have said. It is the Anti-Competitive nature that is of concern. I think Benedict Evans puts it best, do other business "Fear" of losing market access because of certain company.

Oh yes, I am not disagreeing with you, on the contrary.

Well, apart for the "Apple apologist" bit. I would hate to be forced to install third-party app stores when they are allowed. We know the second they can get away with it, software from Adobe, Microsoft, and Facebook will be distributed only through their own app stores. I trust these companies far less than Apple as far as my personal and payment information is concerned.

But the points you alluded to are important and often overlooked in these discussions. The CJEU won't use the Sherman antitrust act or any legal definition from US laws. The EU has put competition as a supra-national religion, but they don't care about consumers in the way American courts do, and they definitely won't wait until someone has a monopoly.

I expect them to take the narrow view and ignore all security and safety aspects and force competition.

Re: Google and Apple attacked on app store 'monopoly'

#142

Post by jsnell »

moooo99 wrote: post #122
zepto wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they anti-consumer? Many people seem to disagree. I want a Linux based phone with the performance of an iPhone and a decentralized App Store with an auditable chain of trust. I also want an information appliance that is trivial to use and completely managed by a third party I trust. Why can’t I have both?

They definitely are anti-consumer and nobody who actually looked into the topic would disagree. Apple has a monopoly on software distribution on their mobile devices and they force companies to use their IAP api which comes with a heavy fine, which leads to developers (rightfully) increasing the prices. The same goes for Google, the only argument that could be made in the benefit for Google is that it is possible to…

> the only argument that could be made in the benefit for Google is that it is possible to install Apps from other sources.

That's already a pretty big difference by itself, but in addition to that the Play Store is much more permissive about use of third party payment providers. So e.g. Apple can (and does) sell Apple Music subscriptions on Android without a 30% tax. The converse is not possible.

Re: Google and Apple attacked on app store 'monopoly'

#143

Post by jsnell »

kergonath wrote: post #141
ksec wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree on everything you have said. It is the Anti-Competitive nature that is of concern. I think Benedict Evans puts it best, do other business "Fear" of losing market access because of certain company.

Oh yes, I am not disagreeing with you, on the contrary. Well, apart for the "Apple apologist" bit. I would hate to be forced to install third-party app stores when they are allowed. We know the second they can get away with it, software from Adobe, Microsoft, and Facebook will be distributed only through their own app stores. I trust these companies far less than Apple as far as my personal and payment information is…

Which of Adobe, Microsoft or Facebook distribute their software only via their own app store on Android?

Given the answer is "none of them", why do you think they'd do that on iOS?

Re: Google and Apple attacked on app store 'monopoly'

#144

Post by david-cako »

tomjen3 wrote: post #85
hayst4ck wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lets say we have an app ecosystem where you can OK third party apps, and one where that's not possible. Let's say people voted with their dollars that the one where it's not possible is a better ecosystem. Should the one with the closed ecosystem be forced open, especially if the company says that the ecosystem being closed is one of the primary factors in their success and why people prefer it? Apple dictated to com…

The two systems are not otherwise identical, so I don't see that "you could buy an Android" as a reasonable alternative (I own one). I also don't see the issue in that you can install apps from another store, since it is fairly easy to put up a warning "Apple has not approved any of the apps you can buy from this store".

So customers that want a more secure system should have no option?

Isn't it a fair assumption, based on how consumers see Apple, that all software running on an Apple device is approved by Apple? The App Store always had that concept built in. On your Mac you can still run anything you want outside of the App Store, but there's always going to be security instrumentation and app review that costs real time and money. Apple is your antivirus company when you buy Apple products, and the way they position the products means that they hold themselves accountable for privacy and security issues in a way that other vendors don't.

I think the fees are too high, but I wouldn't want app review and verification to go away. If they could make it free for any independent developer, great, but that doesn't seem to be the case yet.

Re: Google and Apple attacked on app store 'monopoly'

#145

Post by ksec »

tracer4201 wrote: post #139
ksec wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Android exists So another Mall also charges 30%. Do I have a third mall to choose from? Or can I set up a third mall ? What is the market entry barrier for a third mall ? Are these Mall a necessity in the community? I wish people would stop using over simplified analogy.

I’m a consumer. I have many, many apps installed on my iPhone, and for the pretty much all of them I’ve paid $0. Your issue exists only with paid apps. Apple is providing you the infrastructure and means to distribute your software. It makes sense to me that they get a cut. And it also makes sense to me that you have to go through them. I specifically bought an iPhone because Apple seems to actively regulate what app…

>I specifically bought an iPhone because Apple seems to actively regulate what apps are allowed in the App Store while favoring customer privacy and security.

That is perfectly acceptable. Except when they ban it for competitive advantage. Which is the whole point of the discussion. And Apple even wrote it in their email as such.

Re: Google and Apple attacked on app store 'monopoly'

#146

Post by cblconfederate »

zepto wrote: post #118
cblconfederate wrote: post #3

i think it's not productive to call it a literal/actual/effective monopoly, since it's designed to be monopoly. The problem is not so much that it's a monopoly but that it advertises itself to developers and to users as being an open more or less market, which it isn't since it's by design rigged and censored. There's a legal gap here probably because such situations are unprecedented (where a company builds a market…

> it advertises itself to developers and to users as being an open more or less market This is about as false as a statement can get. Every developer signs a contract agreeing to the rules, and Apple’s marketing page for the store highlights the curation and review as a selling point. Tim Cook says out loud we believe in curation and review at every possible opportunity. Nowhere does Apple ever suggest that the App S…

First sentence in Apple's developer agreement:

> no legal partnership or agency relationship is created between you and Apple

So developers have no legal obligation to follow the rules

Here's the app store descrption:

> The App Store for iPhone, iPad, Mac, Apple Watch, Apple TV, and iMessage, makes it easy for over a billion customers around the world to discover and download your apps. There are no hosting fees and Apple handles all payment processing.

Re: Google and Apple attacked on app store 'monopoly'

#147

Post by ksec »

kergonath wrote: post #141
ksec wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree on everything you have said. It is the Anti-Competitive nature that is of concern. I think Benedict Evans puts it best, do other business "Fear" of losing market access because of certain company.

Oh yes, I am not disagreeing with you, on the contrary. Well, apart for the "Apple apologist" bit. I would hate to be forced to install third-party app stores when they are allowed. We know the second they can get away with it, software from Adobe, Microsoft, and Facebook will be distributed only through their own app stores. I trust these companies far less than Apple as far as my personal and payment information is…

>I expect them to take the narrow view and ignore all security and safety aspects and force competition.

Yes. Again agreeing on everything. I want a middle ground. And I want to push for a middle ground. Except it is such a rare view, and the whole discourse is dominated by both extreme ( so to speak ).

Re: Google and Apple attacked on app store 'monopoly'

#148

Post by paulryanrogers »

kergonath wrote: post #103
RestlessMind wrote: post #66

I think governments should go after cartels rather than monopolies. Google and Apple combined have a >99% market share for mobile OS/app store market share. They also impose a synchronized 30% fee cut. There is a case to be made for an antitrust behavior from this cartel.

It is very difficult to prosecute though, because convergence is something that happens without collusion. You need to have a smoking gun to convict a group of companies under anti-collusion laws. Case in point, the 30% fee for digital stores existed before both Apple’s and Google’s stores.

30% on specialized game consoles, yes. On general purpose computers digital distribution was diversified among many websites. (At least apart from games or before Steam.)

IOS and Android are increasingly marketed as general purpose devices which are needed for more and more parts of life.

Re: Google and Apple attacked on app store 'monopoly'

#149

Post by fastball »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #77
fastball wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

macOS is definitely less secure than iOS.

What's your definition of "secure" here?

Same as everyone else's, I'd expect – less possibility (higher difficulty for attackers) of viruses / data exfiltration / etc.

Re: Google and Apple attacked on app store 'monopoly'

#150

Post by vbezhenar »

dzonga wrote: post #105

to the people that have experience designing Operating Systems - how difficult is it to have proper application sandboxing ? If everything is user level sandboxed. app can only access it's data. then apple | google wouldn't need to charge 30% to vet apps. if data is to be shared - it has to be explicit.

Browser environment provides a living example that it's possible to have a proper application sandboxing. Even with multiple different produciton-quality implementations.

A more interesting and practical question is how difficult is it to have proper application sandboxing, while keeping reasonable backwards compatibility level with existing code. I think that it's near impossible, that's why I don't hold high hopes regarding any existing OS sandboxing. But new systems like Fuchsia might actually bring us Android successor able to run any code without fear.

Post reply on HN