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

161–170 of 258 posts

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

#161

Post by scarface74 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #155
scarface74 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> So what sandbox is available for apps that don’t allow a native app to ascertain individually identifiable device information? That's the point. Currently nobody can build that because Apple doesn't allow it. > 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... "Many eyes" results…

That's the point. Currently nobody can build that because Apple doesn't allow it.

And where does this Sandbox wrapper for third party app stores exist for the Android ecosystem where it is both allowed and their are five time more devices?

Many eyes" results in fewer bugs over time, not zero bugs instantaneously. It doesn't have to be perfect to be better.

Have any statistics to back that up? Is Android more secure or less buggy than iOS?

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

#162

Post by scarface74 »

jimktrains2 wrote: post #156
scarface74 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Nintendo, Somy, and MS have monopoles on their stores. Just like if you don’t like what one console offers you are free to buy another one, if you don’t like what’s available for iOS, you are free to buy an Android.

> Nintendo, Somy[sic], and MS You don't need to purchase games directly from Nintendo, nor music or games or video directly from Sony, nor are Sony Videos only playable on Sony devices, nor do you have to only install Microsoft "blessed" executable for Windows.

No, but every game that you buy that runs on any of the consoles have been preapproved by the console manufacturers and each game has been cryptographically signed by the manufacturer - even those sold on disc.

You don’t have to buy music from Apple. Music you buy hasn’t been wrapped with DRM for a decade. You can buy movies from Google, Amazon or Vudu, download the Movies Anywhere app, connect the app to your various accounts and they automatically show up as iTunes purchases (completely legally), there is an Amazon Video, Google Play, and Vudu app available for iOS. You can go to the Amazon store in your web browser and buy a digital video just like you can buy anything else from Amazon.

We are talking about consoles. Just like the other console manufacturers, you can not sell a video game on disc that has not been approved by MS and without paying MS a licensing fee to run on the XBox.

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

#163

Post by AnthonyMouse »

scarface74 wrote: post #161
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So what sandbox is available for apps that don’t allow a native app to ascertain individually identifiable device information? That's the point. Currently nobody can build that because Apple doesn't allow it. > 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... "Many eyes" results…

That's the point. Currently nobody can build that because Apple doesn't allow it. And where does this Sandbox wrapper for third party app stores exist for the Android ecosystem where it is both allowed and their are five time more devices? Many eyes" results in fewer bugs over time, not zero bugs instantaneously. It doesn't have to be perfect to be better. Have any statistics to back that up? Is Android more secure o…

> And where does this Sandbox wrapper for third party app stores exist for the Android ecosystem where it is both allowed and their are five time more devices?

https://seap.samsung.com/sdk/knox-standard-android

https://yajin.org/papers/asiaccs15_appcage.pdf

> Have any statistics to back that up? Is Android more secure or less buggy than iOS?

Obvious confounder:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system)

But what metric would you use anyway? Number of discovered bugs doesn't work because the whole premise is that a higher percentage of the bugs will be found.

It's inherently difficult to measure. But refute the logic: Bugs found by vendor + everyone else > Bugs found by vendor alone. The only assumption is that bugs found by everyone else is non-zero, which is clearly true for any number of open source projects including both Android and Darwin.

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

#164

Post by dwaite »

sulam wrote: post #126
threeseed wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The argument holds irrespective of whether there is 1 store or a million stores. Spotify wants to use Apple's distribution channel without paying for it. That's unfair and doesn't reflect what happens in the real world. If I sell my software through a retail store they still take a cut.

Let’s use the Kindle app as an example then. The app cannot link to their site when I search for a book I don’t have. If it did, the app would be banned. So Apple is trying to extract a 30% premium from Amazon and the only way for them to avoid that is to give me a shitty experience that quantifiable harms me (I waste time to search for and then hop through the download behavior, adding friction to what should be a s…

I disagree with it being called an Apple premium.

Apple has a store. Amazon has a store. Who is to say that Amazon's portion of operational costs and profit isn't the premium?

Amazon could choose to have a Kindle experience which doesn't go through the App store, such as a HTML 5 app. They distribute in the store because of the discoverability (and likely because they prefer to have a native app that can enforce their store's content DRM.)

Amazon could choose to expose more functionality through their app, such as title search, being able to look at reviews, download sample chapters, and even be able to fetch new books through the kindle unlimited and other prime features. They prefer to drive everyone to their own store instead.

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

#165

Post by dwaite »

drawnwren wrote: post #107
threeseed wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The argument holds irrespective of whether there is 1 store or a million stores. Spotify wants to use Apple's distribution channel without paying for it. That's unfair and doesn't reflect what happens in the real world. If I sell my software through a retail store they still take a cut.

I suspect Spotify would prefer to have their app on iOS without using Apple's distribution channel if they could.

Only because they could then do direct sign-up and billing without having to pay anyone a cut.

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

#166

Post by dwaite »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #137
jm20 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is really only an issue with low-margin licensing subscriptions like Spotify and Netflix, where they would lose money on every purchase if 30% of their margins went to Apple. While I definitely think there are some problems with the App Store, the fact is that it is so easy and streamlined for people buying apps that it’s worth the 30% for the vast majority of developers.

> While I definitely think there are some problems with the App Store, the fact is that it is so easy and streamlined for people buying apps that it’s worth the 30% for the vast majority of developers. If people would still choose it even if there were competitors, then why is competition prohibited? The answer is that the App Store would still exist, but might have to charge less or lose business to lower cost compe…

The security model is based on an entitlement system. Which other stores are trustworthy enough to be allowed to issue entitlements?

If the idea would be that an arbitrary other store can publish apps with limited entitlements, doesn't that just shift the "abuse" argument around?

If the idea is that users would be able to vet which apps or app stores should get entitlements... well, we've seen how well that works on Android.

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

#167

Post by dwaite »

jimktrains2 wrote: post #156
scarface74 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Nintendo, Somy, and MS have monopoles on their stores. Just like if you don’t like what one console offers you are free to buy another one, if you don’t like what’s available for iOS, you are free to buy an Android.

> Nintendo, Somy[sic], and MS You don't need to purchase games directly from Nintendo, nor music or games or video directly from Sony, nor are Sony Videos only playable on Sony devices, nor do you have to only install Microsoft "blessed" executable for Windows.

You realize that Nintendo controls the title signing keys, their own App Store, and the physical manufacturing of cartridges right? They also require merchants to sign contracts saying they will not have a posted price below the retail sale price without approval.

I fail to see how saying you don't have to purchase "directly" from Nintendo matters.

FWIW, a similar setup to Playstation (you seem to have conflated Sony, which makes your point confusing considering that Sony has other subsidiaries that publish music and video). Playstation has a music and video store which will give you media DRM locked to your console.

Finally, Microsoft has an App Store which distributes "blessed" executables. There have been several editions of windows which only allow applications distributed through this store to run, such as the first iteration of the Microsoft Surface that ran ARM. There is speculation that this move is what prompted Valve to release their own Linux distribution, because Steam would be severely impacted if they no longer had an ability to run their own store.

Luckily for Valve, those limited distributions haven't made much headway.

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

#168

Post by AnthonyMouse »

dwaite wrote: post #166
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> While I definitely think there are some problems with the App Store, the fact is that it is so easy and streamlined for people buying apps that it’s worth the 30% for the vast majority of developers. If people would still choose it even if there were competitors, then why is competition prohibited? The answer is that the App Store would still exist, but might have to charge less or lose business to lower cost compe…

The security model is based on an entitlement system. Which other stores are trustworthy enough to be allowed to issue entitlements? If the idea would be that an arbitrary other store can publish apps with limited entitlements, doesn't that just shift the "abuse" argument around? If the idea is that users would be able to vet which apps or app stores should get entitlements... well, we've seen how well that works on…

> The security model is based on an entitlement system. Which other stores are trustworthy enough to be allowed to issue entitlements?

That's up to the user to decide. It's a lot easier to choose curators from among well-known companies like Apple and Amazon than to choose individual apps that are inherently developed by small shops or individuals.

> If the idea is that users would be able to vet which apps or app stores should get entitlements... well, we've seen how well that works on Android.

Exactly. Some of them do a better job than Google itself. There is probably less malware in F-Droid than on iOS.

And if you like Apple's store then... keep using it. Just because other stores would be available doesn't require you to use them.

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

#169

Post by GranPC »

dwaite wrote: post #164
sulam wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let’s use the Kindle app as an example then. The app cannot link to their site when I search for a book I don’t have. If it did, the app would be banned. So Apple is trying to extract a 30% premium from Amazon and the only way for them to avoid that is to give me a shitty experience that quantifiable harms me (I waste time to search for and then hop through the download behavior, adding friction to what should be a s…

I disagree with it being called an Apple premium. Apple has a store. Amazon has a store. Who is to say that Amazon's portion of operational costs and profit isn't the premium? Amazon could choose to have a Kindle experience which doesn't go through the App store, such as a HTML 5 app. They distribute in the store because of the discoverability (and likely because they prefer to have a native app that can enforce thei…

Wait, so are you arguing that an HTML5 app is a perfect replacement for a native app?

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

#170

Post by hamandcheese »

nothrabannosir wrote: post #110
threeseed wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple provides a service for that 30% though. They handle the payment processing, they build, moderate and curate the App Store apps and they provide a lucrative channel to market for app developers. So allowing Spotify et al to get all the benefits of the channel without paying for it is actually unfair to Apple.

> Apple provides a service for that 30% though. Money is universally reviled, and rightfully so: it is a dark, vile, evil thing. It brings out the very worst in the very best of us. It brings entire countries to their knees. Money corrupts. Money is awful. But there is one thing that money does better than anything else, bar nothing. No contest. No competitor on the horizon. Many have tried, all have failed. Money qu…

> Money quantifies value

Money quantifies value... in our money based economy. Which is basically a tautology. Money in many cases fails to quantify utility and the same quantity of money has wildly varying utility from market to market.

Post reply on HN