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

171–180 of 258 posts

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

#171

Post by chipotle_coyote »

Folks here on HN are (understandably) leaping on the notion that this will force Apple to allow other app stores, or sideloading, or something else that keeps the App Store from being the exclusive distributor of iOS apps. But, a few notes that are important to keep in mind:

(1) Apple is the petitioner here. They're the ones asking the Supreme Court to make a ruling, specifically on whether the complainant has the legal standing to bring this case at all.

(2) If Apple loses at the Supreme Court, this just gets sent back to a lower court. It's not going to force Apple to do anything at this point.

(3) Most importantly, there's no guarantee that if Apple does ultimately lose that the remedy will be opening the iOS ecosystem up to other app stores.

The complaint in Apple v. Pepper is literally that Apple's lock on app distribution drives up app prices. If app prices are not being driven up by that lock, the argument has a very good chance of falling apart.

This is not a case about what restrictions Apple puts on the app store , about software or device freedom, and it's not even a case about whether Apple's mandatory 30% cut is "fairly priced" by whatever definition of fair you care to use -- the case as filed literally hinges on the claim that iOS app prices are artificially inflated by that cut. And I think that in a world where people have been trained to think that $4.99 is a crazy high expensive price for software, that could be a real tough case to prove.

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

#172

Post by dwaite »

tokyodude wrote: post #152

IIUC if Apple loses then there may finally be better way to get GPLed software on iOS/tvOS. I currently run Kodi on my Apple TV but I had to compile and sign it myself because they can't put it on the Apple store without an alternate license AFAICT. Unfortunately while I personally think Apple should allow other app stores I don't think this particular suit will succeed. https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/20/17479480/su…

IMHO, the reason some GPLed software is not allowed on iOS/tvOS is because RMS and others don't want their GPL code on iOS/tvOS.

In particular, the argument I've seen used in the past to contest GPL code in App Store apps is that Apple (as distributor) must distribute the source directly on the App Store, rather than the application or the App Store description having a link to the source via the developer's website or another third party site.

This isn't something Apple really cares about - but if someone says your app has a license violation, Apple will of course push dealing with said people onto you.

This has always stuck out to me as pedantic and hardly a violation of the spirit of the license. Such politics are what have and will continue to relegate the FSF to being a small social group rather than the originally intended purpose (whether you consider that a revolution, or a reversion back to software freedom)

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

#173

Post by dwaite »

blfr wrote: post #38
coin wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similar to ink cartridges for inkjet printers

Which is crazy as well, right?

Sort of. Some printers have built the print head (with low MTBF) into the ink cartridge itself. You can refill once, but by the second time the output will be really bad.

Some printers ship with only partially-filled cartridges. This winds up being destructive on several fronts - users feel buying a whole new printer is cheaper than buying all the refill cartridges, not understanding that the new cartridges are different than what they had. This means the printer company is constantly selling new printers at a loss, with functional printer hardware thrown away to make space.

The print cartridges also usually sell with an XL-size option that appears cheaper overall. However, people who feel they should buy a new printer rather than cartridges are typically people who are at an ultra-low usage level (HP rolled out a printer monitoring/ink subscription service which may solve these problems - assuming people feel it is financially sound to subscribe.

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

#174

Post by dwaite »

dirkgently wrote: post #85
rickycook wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

plenty of reasons. the difference between android and apple is pretty stark, and they both have merit but dont dismiss the arguments against the more closed ecosystem the apple method allows a really easy UX for every single purchase and install on ios; if you allow a developer to decide that they’re only releasing on NewOpenAppStore, a user has to go ahead and somehow install that, which is a mess. apple don’t want…

You must be joking if your argument is that a closed system is in any way superior to an open one. Android lets you install apps outside of play store, without any hard tech knowledge. That's not possible on Apple devices unless you are tech savvy and can go through a 10 step process. Whatever upside you think they have flies in the face of openness.

Side-loading apps used to require switching the phone to a developer mode which disabled certain security restrictions in Android. They made it so any user could do it, including users without the technical chops to understand the ramifications.

Likewise, rather than having Apple review entitlements and for entitlements to privacy-impacting features like location or the camera be approved by the user at runtime, Google put a screen that asked users without the proper technical knowledge to make an evaluation a decision - either allow things that sound scary, or abort running the app.

The App Store review process is an abstraction that allows normal users to decide they trust the system to limit abuse so that they don't have to learn how to evaluate entitlement policies. Putting roadblocks to side loading apps (as you seem to know, still possible on iOS, but harder) means you don't have third parties convincing users to agree to security changes they don't understand.

This is not an open vs closed argument, since it is theoretically possible to build an open system with such features exposed opt-out with sufficient gymnastics. But that is a lot harder, and there is no financial motivation by Apple (or Google, or Microsoft, or any of the console vendors) for doing so.

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

#175

Post by askafriend »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #160
RKearney wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This provides no basis for comparison because the App Store has been the only way to install apps on iOS This has never been the case. You’ve always been able to side load apps that are either signed by an Enterprise code signing cert (used to be $300/yr), or your own developer code signing certificate ($99/yr). The former allowed for redistribution outside of the App Store.

Neither of those methods permits the general public to install the app.

Good, imo.

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

#176

Post by metildaa »

GranPC wrote: post #169
dwaite wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

They are arguing that the janky, hamstrung progressive web app infrastructure for iOS is a replacement for a native app.

Sadly, due to Apple forcing everything to use Safari's browser engine, PWAs are redheaded stepchildren on iOS: https://mobile.twitter.com/jbogard/status/104788904642763161...

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

#177

Post by dwaite »

blfr wrote: post #40
zachwood wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He bashes Amazon because Bezos owns a newspaper he doesn't like.

Perhaps it's a proxy attack but he criticized Amazon's tax practices for putting smaller shops out of business and the supposed preferential treatment by the USPS. Anyway, my point was that it doesn't matter. His administration could do good here for purely partisan reasons.

The USPS allegation was 100% untrue as reported by the postmaster general (who you think would be someone Trump would have consulted).

The tax stuff is really none of his damn business (because it is really a state tax code issue at this point, not a federal issue)

If Trump does anything to attack Apple, it will be because he things doing so will benefit the US economy (likely because someone else told him it would). Things like convincing Apple to make certain parts in the US, even if doing so would increase prices in the US (and dramatically do so elsewhere in the world).

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

#178

Post by nickm12 »

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…

Setting aside the question of the impact of prices completely, the fact that Apple controls the sites that apps can link to should be abhorrent to anyone. At one point, they even tried to control what programming languages were used to write apps for iOS.

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

#179

Post by prewett »

myhf wrote: post #121
ihuman wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How long have you been using the iOS app store for? IMO App prices now are lower than they were when the app store first opened in iPhoneOS 2, and way lower than they were before the iPhone. I remember simple games for Palm OS costing at about $20 [0] . Nowadays that game would either be [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20040418012411/http://astraware....

Price of "Angry Birds" in 2009: $0.99 one-time Price of the same "Angry Birds" in 2018: $0 to install, $1.99 per 80 gems, no way to disable in-app ads or purchases. Free-to-play is an increase in price.

Even if it is an increase in price (debatable), that doesn't mean that Apple's distribution monopoly is responsible. I expect that prices on Android have done the same thing, and Google doesn't even monopolize the distribution there.

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

#180

Post by nickm12 »

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…

You're really in favor of Apple controlling what software can and cannot be run on your computers for convenience sake? Android allows multiple app stores and multiple browser engines and it hasn't caused the problem you fear at all. I can't think of a major app that is not available in the Google Play store.
Post reply on HN