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

Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 631 posts

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#181

Post by manmal »

elpool2 wrote: post #28
mrcwinn wrote: post #13

The heart of Apple's hypocrisy is this: they claim their 30% is necessary to support the developer ecosystem and fund its operations. But of course if that were true, they could easily charge a high enough platform membership fee directly to developers. Instead they opt for a structural tax to cover what are mostly completely opaque and secret operational costs. They're opaque and secret for obvious reasons: those ex…

As described in the ruling, Apple hired a consulting group to estimate how much value developers get from the iphone platform, which found that (1) Apple’s platform technology is worth up to 30% of a developer’s revenue. (2) Apple’s developer tools and services are worth approximately 3%–16%. (3) Apple’s distribution services are worth approximately 4%–14%. (4) Apple’s discovery services are worth approximately 5%–14…

> Apple’s developer tools and services are worth approximately 3%–16%

That must be a joke. Xcode is so bad, compared to Android Studio, it’s not even funny. As iOS dev I have to constantly apologize to my Android team members, that, no, Xcode can’t do this and that, and, no, we can’t do X in the build pipeline. And I‘m generally 10-20% slower than them because the tooling is just terrible and flaky.

BTW there was a promising IntelliJ option for Apple development, but Apple made life so hard for them that they had to give up. It was called „AppCode“ and some people are still sad that it doesn’t exist anymore.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#182

Post by tyre »

thealexliang wrote: post #44

"Apple willfully chose not to comply with this Court’s Injunction. It did so with the express intent to create new anti-competitive barriers which would, by design and in effect, maintain a valued revenue stream; a revenue stream previously found to be anti-competitive. That it thought this Court would tolerate such insubordination was a gross miscalculation. As always, the cover-up made it worse. For this Court, the…

“For this Court, there is no second bite at the apple.”

I love whichever clerk wrote this and then got it through. The real MVP

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#183

Post by brudgers »

rfrey wrote: post #174
brudgers wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can’t arrest a fictitious person.

Is your comment asserting that there are no people poor enough to steal food? Or are you claiming that poor people do not get arrested and are in fact treated with kindness and compassion by the various police agencies?

The “them” of Apple is a fictitious person.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fictitious-person

Your assumptions are absurd.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#184

Post by whateveracct »

firloop wrote: post #45
flawn wrote: post #2

https://archive.ph/ZQLtD

Apple News+ link: https://apple.news/AlNSjMktVT9afQICM2yRVYw

nice ty. i always have so much trouble finding these links but i have Apple News+. is there an easy way to do it? i always have to manually go through issues.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#185

Post by refulgentis »

eviks wrote: post #169
dchest wrote: post #97

"In Slack communications dated November 16, 2021, the Apple employees crafting the warning screen for Project Michigan discussed how best to frame its language. (CX-206.) Mr. Onak suggested the warning screen should include the language: “By continuing on the web, you will leave the app and be taken to an external website” because “‘external website’ sounds scary, so execs will love it.” (Id. at .2.) From Mr. Onak’s…

> I could never imagine Apple employees doing it like this. Curious why your imagination is so limited here regarding a pretty standard human behavior pattern. Do you personally know Apple employees or is it more of a general respect for their products or ...?

I pretty much grew up on this site. 19yo-37yo. economics dropout from nowhere => waiter => startup => sold => 7 year tenure at google => back to a new startup), and I honestly was absolutely horribly over-the-top stunned at how people were just...normal? to put it nicely?...at Google.

You're absolutely right that it's an unwarranted assumption, yet simultaneously, I just always assumed higher class == higher morals. If anything it seemed to select for senior year of HS math class score and sociopathy.

Stuff I used to hear as grousing, from tired, defeated, adults, that couldn't hack it now ring as universal truths.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#186

Post by stingraycharles »

tebbers wrote: post #177
stingraycharles wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Happens more than you’d think. Happened to me in the past as well in some business conflict. It was baffling how people can just lie in court under oath and get away with it.

What happened to the people who lied under oath? Were they found out?

No, it was their CFO who denied knowing about when he absolutely did. We ended up winning the lawsuit on all accounts, but they were never specifically called out about lying about this.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#187

Post by udev4096 »

eviks wrote: post #169
dchest wrote: post #97

"In Slack communications dated November 16, 2021, the Apple employees crafting the warning screen for Project Michigan discussed how best to frame its language. (CX-206.) Mr. Onak suggested the warning screen should include the language: “By continuing on the web, you will leave the app and be taken to an external website” because “‘external website’ sounds scary, so execs will love it.” (Id. at .2.) From Mr. Onak’s…

> I could never imagine Apple employees doing it like this. Curious why your imagination is so limited here regarding a pretty standard human behavior pattern. Do you personally know Apple employees or is it more of a general respect for their products or ...?

[flagged]

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#188

Post by brudgers »

layer8 wrote: post #176
brudgers wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can’t arrest a fictitious person.

Tim Cook isn't fictious, even if it sometimes appears that way.

Legally, Tim Cook is just another employee.

Apple is a corporation.

Legally, corporations are persons.

Corporations are often referred to as fictitious persons in legal contexts to reduce confusion.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#189

Post by udev4096 »

refulgentis wrote: post #185
eviks wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I could never imagine Apple employees doing it like this. Curious why your imagination is so limited here regarding a pretty standard human behavior pattern. Do you personally know Apple employees or is it more of a general respect for their products or ...?

I pretty much grew up on this site. 19yo-37yo. economics dropout from nowhere => waiter => startup => sold => 7 year tenure at google => back to a new startup), and I honestly was absolutely horribly over-the-top stunned at how people were just...normal? to put it nicely?...at Google. You're absolutely right that it's an unwarranted assumption, yet simultaneously, I just always assumed higher class == higher morals.…

> higher class == higher morals

Are you serious? First off, stop using the term "high class" for immoral people. They are well beneath the whole morale chain and the fact they managed to get to your-definition-of-high-class means that lots of dirty tactics were used which are well beyond what a normal human is capable of

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#190

Post by simondotau »

clhodapp wrote: post #178
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A fine isn't even necessary: Apple's App Store business just ended. Between app sales and IAP it has a 30% tax. If an app developer swaps out for a Stripe portal they're paying 3% and probably at least doubling their own profit margin. Only an idiot would still be selling apps through Apple's payments next week. The only way Apple will make any money at all on apps is if it drops it's fees to 10% or below.

A fine is still necessary because (as per the original ruling), they should have never foisted their store on people seventeen years ago when they first launched it and certainly should not have done so when the court ordered them to stop four years ago. If there isn't a fine, the message will be that it's fine to profit off of ignoring court orders until you face thread of contempt charges.

When Apple first launched the App Store, developers everywhere were praising Apple for offering such favourable terms.
Post reply on HN