Live data from Hacker News

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

9to5mac.com

141–150 of 411 posts

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

#141
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 .

The honest answer is that Apple shouldn't own iOS and its main app store at the same time. But there is not legal / regulation framework to prevent that. Case in point: Steam is taking 30% too. But you've heard much less fuss over it, right? Why? Is it because of players' cult-like behavior around Steam? (probably partially) But more importantly it's because Valve doesn't own Windows and Steam Deck is a far smaller f…

Valve has plenty of competition and let people buy from other stores even on the Steam Deck. Heck, you can even add games bought on other store to the Steam Launcher and still use Valve functionality like controller mapping in them.

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

#142
post #46
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.

This (1) ignores the extremely strong network effects purposely engendered by Apple's chronic refusal to implement interoperable standards in any of their products and (2) this is as much about app developers as it is about app consumers, and developers clearly have no choice but to meet their users where they are, which is on Apple devices. The other choice is going out of business.

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

#143
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 .

The honest answer is that Apple shouldn't own iOS and its main app store at the same time. But there is not legal / regulation framework to prevent that. Case in point: Steam is taking 30% too. But you've heard much less fuss over it, right? Why? Is it because of players' cult-like behavior around Steam? (probably partially) But more importantly it's because Valve doesn't own Windows and Steam Deck is a far smaller f…

> Steam is taking 30% too. But you've heard much less fuss over it, right? Why? Is it because of players' cult-like behavior around Steam?

It's because Valve doesn't routinely screw over developers and gamers. Steam never removed a game from Steam because it could cause "customer confusion" because it was too similar to one of Valve's own games. When Valve released the Steam Deck, they didn't layer on a bunch of trash for "safety", they sold gamers a portable Arch Linux box that, other than running Windows games on Linux, also runs local LLMs, games from GOG, and development environments. You can write games for Steam on a Steam Deck, compile them, and run them. It's the exact opposite of what Apple is doing - Valve offers total control, and you can use it to do awesome stuff without having to pay a tithe to some overlord corporation that thinks they still own hardware that you purchased from them.

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

#144
post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The nature of a free market is that someone wins the competition, and the winner is then happy to figure out ways to prevent anyone from competing at all (this kind of action doesn't require a complete winner either, but I'm focusing on a thought experiment here). Ergo, if you care about maintaining a free market, then you care about limiting what kind of moves you can make in the free market, in order to preserve a…

Other than capital what prevents a new player entering the smartphone market? In the US Apple is at ~50% market share and Samsung ~30%. These are not colluding entities so there must be enough theoretical freedom to create a smartphone that claims significant market share.

Other than capital does a lot of work in that argument. Companies will not pop up and optimize much less micro optimize the tradeoffs. This isn’t a stock exchange; it’s a real capital intensive product.

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

#145
post #60
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.

That's an incredibly naive take on economics and competition, because it ignores all of the forces that entrench existing participants and make new entrants basically impossible in many cases. You're coming off like a student of ECON100 who thinks they've got it all figured out.

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

#146
post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth pointing it out as the UK isn't in the EU anymore.

[flagged]

I understand what you're saying, but some on HN have issues with EU's fines against Apple, Google, Meta, etc. Some in the UK also like (or liked, before brexit) to deflect blame towards the EU.

So I think it's important to be clear about who made the decision: it was a London/UK court.

But moving on.

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

#147
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's pretty unfortunately but if you articulate some of your issues with the options, I'm sure I can find an Android option for you that works. Despite Google's attempts, Android is still quite open and many phones allow you to do whatever you want with them. Or if you only want to use iPhones then it seems like the downsides of the locked down app store aren't worth switching in which case it seems like you've alr…

Android itself is fine, but in most of the world you need Android with Google services , otherwise banking apps, contactless payments, some games, etc, don't work. The app sideloading changes they're about to introduce[0]? Affects their Pixels, Samsungs, OnePlus, Sony, etc, old and new. It can't be disabled. The work around is to use ADB to install apks. So while you have more choice of hardware, Android skins with m…

Whose fault is it if banks, etc require Google services? There's a line somewhere, where punishing a company for providing a great product that everyone chooses to use is blatantly unfair

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

#148
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be confusing Masimo's patent infringement case against Apple over Apple Watch with the notion that Apple has some kind of a patented blood oxygen sensor in the iPhone. I don't think that supports your case that Apple's patent keeps other phones from being equivalent given that the sensor isn't in the iPhone and it's not even Apple's patent. For what it's worth, I'm typing this on a Pixel which is also a r…

You're typing that on a Pixel with a bump sticking out the back, which would mean it doesn't violate the design patent. I wasn't specifically thinking of that case, though it's likely why my mind chose that sensor as an example. Apple has patents on blood oxygen sensors, of course, because Apple has patents on basically everything they do. Here's a recent example that I just picked off of Google https://patents.googl…

I'm not seeing how other phones are being held back by any of this. Google and Samsung have design patents, too, and my Pixel Watch also has a blood oxygen sensor.

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

#149
post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the "think of the children" equivalent that is being regurgitated ad nauseam. Anyone who pretends that Apple cares about anything other than profit is lying to others and themselves. >I agree there should be personal accountability, but that clearly hasn't been working. It has been working on Android just fine. And if Apple is supposedly so concerned with security, then why did it take them so damn long to im…

Super confused. What do you mean its been working on Android just fine? Google just announced they are closing their ecosystem exactly for the reasons I stated. Most of the fraud at my job comes from the android platform, because the security model on android is much worse than Apples. Why is Google citing fraud as a reason to lock down android if "its been working on android just fine"? Apple is not a fast moving co…

>Super confused.

You aren't confused, you just have a preferred narrative. Hardcore Apple fans and Apple shareholders share a similar bias with different variations of 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'

>What do you mean its been working on Android just fine? Google just announced they are closing their ecosystem exactly for the reasons I stated.

It has been working just fine and Google's claim about their consolidation and its motivations are about as credible as a Rail Robber Baron claiming that his monopolization practices are actually about "security" and not profit, the response to such propaganda was the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and today it is the DMA.

More elaborate articles regarding these bogus claims about "security" and its refutation:

https://makeuseof.com/androids-sideloading-limits-are-anti-c...

https://infrequently.org/2025/09/apples-antitrust-playbook

>Most of the fraud at my job comes from the android platform, because the security model on android is much worse than Apples.

Your personal anecdotes are not credible evidence, especially when they are coincidentally contrived to serve as anti-competitive business practice apologia.

Apple's "security model" is supposedly so much better, yet iPhone theft was absolutely rampant on iPhones due to an Apple "feature" that literally helped thieves steal a user's entire digital life. Androids were unaffected.

"A Basic iPhone Feature Helps Criminals Steal Your Entire Digital Life" - The Wall Street Journal, https://archive.is/oW0lD#selection-1872.0-1872.1

>Why is Google citing fraud as a reason to lock down android if "its been working on android just fine"?

For the same reason that Apple is using bogus claims about "security", because they can hardly be honest and say "We can't allow any competition, because it would threaten our taxation funnel"

As Cory Doctorow writes:

"In the meantime, Google’s story that this move is motivated by security it obviously bullshit. First of all, the argument that preventing users from installing software of their choosing is the only way to safeguard their privacy and security is bullshit when Apple uses it, and it’s bullshit when Google trots it out:

https://www.eff.org/document/letter-bruce-schneier-senate-ju...

But even if you stipulate that Google is doing this to keep you safe, the story falls apart. After all, Google isn’t certifying apps, they’re certifying developers. This implies that the company can somehow predict whether a developer will do something malicious in the future. This is obviously wrong." - https://doctorow.medium.com/https-pluralistic-net-2025-09-01...

>Apple is not a fast moving company, but they do have a great product and have addressed many of the big issues the community has raised.

There is no "community" - there is Apple, its profit motive and the consumers. Apple was relentlessly pressured to deal with their reckless "feature" that made a mockery of modern security practices, gravely endangered its users and it still took Apple way too long to introduce a basic fix. Apple is a trillion dollar company, so euphemisms like "Apple is not a fast moving company" won't cut it, especially when it comes to security - you know, the thing they pretend to value above everything else.

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

#150
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 .

They can do whatever they want imo, if I'm allowed to install a third party apps and app stores.
Post reply on HN