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

Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 357 posts

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#191

Post by threeseed »

delinka wrote: post #123
sethhochberg wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody has ruled on whether the practices are actually monopolistic or not - this ruling just allows a suit against Apple to proceed, which will then make that determination about their business practices. The debate in this case was all about whether the end user was Apple's customer (thus able to sue Apple directly) or the developer's customer.

I think this debate is interesting, but I don't expect Apple to be happy about the final outcome. A developer publishing solely on Apple's App Store (and relying solely on Apple features to provide functionality) has no direct access to the customer* - Apple prevents that fairly well. In this case, I feel like, as a consumer, I'm Apple's customer. I think courts, and especially juries, would agree. That said, I don't…

It's standard for a "channel to market" to hide the customer.

If my product is being sold in any retail store e.g. Best Buy then I typically don't have access to the customer's contact details that may be collected at the checkout. It's up to me to capture that information when a user uses my product.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#192

Post by ashelmire »

ttul wrote: post #161
outside1234 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what is great about it being a lifetime appointment. There is literally nothing else for these folks to strive for except being well regarded in the history books, so they can finally do what they regard as the best thing to do.

A ten year term ought to do the trick, though. And would allow the passage of time to undo any stacking of the court that a particular president wants to engage in.

6 year staggered appointments. So 3 justices terms are up every 2 years. Means one president doesn't get to completely stack the court, but each has a fair impact on it, and we aren't stuck with judges with outdated ideologies forever (unless people vote for it).

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#193

Post by threeseed »

wayneftw wrote: post #162
Majromax wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That said, I don't see how the App Store is a monopoly. How would "monopoly" be defined to even formulate a case against Apple? I think the argument would be fairly straightforward: the App Store is the exclusive avenue to distribute paid applications to iPhone users. In so doing, it acts as a single seller of applications to consumers and a single buyer of applications from developers, and its arbitrarily-set fees…

There was a story recently about how "83% of US teens have an iPhone, Android 9%" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19610357 So, they're certainly a monopoly in that market today and possibly in the general market in the near future. I have also read that you don't even need to have a higher than 50% market share to be considered a monopoly. You simply need to affect the entire market, which Apple certainly does…

It's ridiculous to think that Apple will be a monopoly in the future.

The overwhelming trend is towards Apple losing share as Chinese phone manufacturers start to increasingly capture the middle market.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#194

Post by ThatPlayer »

intopieces wrote: post #109

If Apple were to be required to allow third party App Stores or side loading apps, could it legally deny interoperability with Apple services as a “security measure,” like a sandbox? For example, you can download a game, but it won’t hook into their gaming social network. No ability to share in iMessage, or sync data to iCloud. Basically cripple the apps so that for the end user it isn’t worth saving the money on the…

I'm sure both the developers and the consumers will still choose to use the sideloaded app depending on the app. Look at how Fortnite on Android skipped the entire Google Play Store because they can provide the entire infrastructure themselves anyways.

Or apps that get denied from the Apple App Store. Emulators come to mind, but also the recent Steam Link app is still not allowed on the App Store.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#195

Post by jethro_tell »

luckylion wrote: post #186
outside1234 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what is great about it being a lifetime appointment. There is literally nothing else for these folks to strive for except being well regarded in the history books, so they can finally do what they regard as the best thing to do.

"Being well regarded in the history books" is something that a president or a king should strive for. A judge really shouldn't ever look out for his popularity when making decisions.

This isn't in reference to popularity now, but more being on the right side of history later.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#196

Post by ashelmire »

analognoise wrote: post #46
criddell wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing illegal about having a monopoly, is there? Don't you have to abuse that power before regulators step in?

Notably Walmart has been examined for as a monopoly but because in every case that was examined they decreased prices to consumers, no action was taken. I hate that they use federal money to subsidize their workforce' paychecks (non-living wages, supplemented by food stamps), but...they're great for the consumer.

> they're great for the consumer

They are only great at the point of purchase. They make it harder to run a competing business, they create a tax burden by paying low wages, they distort local markets and cause local economies to suffer, they benefit foreign suppliers of products produced at wages and in conditions below American legal minimums (at the expense of American companies that compete with them, which affects American workers at those companies).

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#197

Post by bduerst »

kolbe wrote: post #126
khawkins wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the fact that he sided with the liberal justices in favor of Planned Parenthood was less expected [1]. Especially considering his hearings were plagued with disruptions and protests from pro-choice activists. [1] https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/10/supreme-court-plan...

It shouldn't be surprising. Nothing about his testimony or judicial history indicated he would be particularly conservative on women's rights.

Except Kavanaugh did argue against immigrant women being able to have an abortion while in detention. [1]

What you say may be a true statement, but it also selectively ignores the sexual assault accusations made by three women he has known. Whether or not you believe the accusations are true or false doesn't change the fact that they factor into his expectations as a judge.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/opinion/abortion-kavanaug...

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#198

Post by dodobirdlord »

theshrike79 wrote: post #147

So I could now sue Microsoft because I can only buy XBox games from their store? Or Sony, because they are the only vendor of Playstation games?

> So I could now sue Microsoft because I can only buy XBox games from their store?

Yes, though I have no idea if you would win. This decision doesn't decide that Apple has a monopoly or that Apple is abusing a monopoly. It decides that the end-user purchasers of apps on the app store are Apple's customers, not customers of the app developer only. It follows that they are entitled to raise a suit that Apple is abusing monopoly powers in a way that harms them. Whether Apple has a monopoly, and if so, whether Apple is abusing that monopoly both remain to be decided. (My guess is neither.)

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#199

Post by luckylion »

jethro_tell wrote: post #195
luckylion wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Being well regarded in the history books" is something that a president or a king should strive for. A judge really shouldn't ever look out for his popularity when making decisions.

This isn't in reference to popularity now, but more being on the right side of history later.

"The right side of history" is for politicians to pursue, not for judges. They aren't supposed to make policies or create laws, their job is to apply the laws. If they do their job correctly, and you disagree with the constitution and therefore also with their decisions, that should never be an issue for them.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#200

Post by bduerst »

Fellshard wrote: post #177
pier25 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> believes they are buying a general computing device that they can use for any purpose and customize freely, which is simply not the case So you are arguing that an iPhone is a very sophisticated calculator and not a general purpose computer?

I am arguing it is constrained by its manufacturer and that consumers are well aware of those constraints on purchase. That is sufficient for the consumer to take on liability if the choice does not meet their needs.

Again, a consumer using something doesn't justify anti-competitive behavior with companies. If the bar for antitrust was whether or not a person bought it, then there wouldn't be a need for antitrust law.
Post reply on HN