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

191–200 of 631 posts

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#191

Post by Aloisius »

socalgal2 wrote: post #143
Aloisius wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The majority of phone users replaced their computers with a phone Source? I can't find anything that backs that up.

https://intelpoint.co/insights/only-2-2-of-internet-users-wo... Are you pushing back on the word "majority" or on the concept that many people use their phones for nearly everything they used to use their computers for but that next to no one does the same with an Xbox?

That the majority has replaced their computers with smartphones.

That link though doesn't say that. It simply shows global ownership of smartphones is higher than computers which is rather different altogether.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#192

Post by [deleted] »

xuki wrote: post #107

> Internally, Phillip Schiller had advocated that Apple comply with the Injunction, but Tim Cook ignored Schiller and instead allowed Chief Financial Officer Luca Maestri and his finance team to convince him otherwise. The bean counters won. I guess Tim Cook does care about the bloody ROI after all. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2014/03/07/why-tim...

[deleted]

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#193

Post by udev4096 »

scq wrote: post #31
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Get ready to answer why an iPhone is different than an xbox

Xbox, PlayStation, and Switch should be forced to open up as well. Closed ecosystems only benefit the corporations that control them.

At the very least, sony doesn't get offended with new jailbreaks while nintendo will chase you down for even browsing an emulator's website

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#194

Post by bigyabai »

ribosometronome wrote: post #109
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Get ready to answer why an iPhone is different than an xbox

Basically every reply gets it wrong. The answer is that the Xbox isn't developed in California. This judgment was applied under California's UCL, not any federal anti-trust law, despite being in federal court. Epic wasn't able to prove Apple a monopoly, because it's not. Applying California's UCL to Microsoft, Sony, etc is going to be a harder sell in courts.

> Epic wasn't able to prove Apple a monopoly, because it's not.

Unless your name is T. Cook, you lack the authority to make that statement conclusively. The judge claims that Apple is guilty of perjury, and never corrected the executive that made misleading statements. If that testimony was fabricated, then there is every reason to believe Apple is obstructing information that could benefit the prosecution. There is no other feasible alibi in this scenario besides their lawyers all calling in sick. It's one thing to make a mistake, it's another thing to insist it's truth.

Let's not forget that Apple was headed down this same road with the DOJ, too. They are being investigated for a pattern of behavior that is not new, meaning they very well could be guilty of monopoly abuse right this very second. Saying "because it's not" is like telling Lance Ito to drop the OJ charges. Apple is not guilty until proven innocent; but claiming their innocence in certainty is a base lie. You do not actually know, either.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#195

Post by tsimionescu »

lwo32k wrote: post #71
echelon wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100%. This doesn't deserve a fine. This deserves Apple to be given an ultimatum about their mob boss behavior with mobile. Apple and Google quickly built up their duopoly such that everyone doing anything with mobile phones has to pay them a tax. You can't even deploy your own apps at your own cadence, without strict review, using your own technology. You have to jump through unplanned upgrade cycles, you're forced t…

Its not possible for them to make "billions of dollars" any other way - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_economy

If it's possible to prove that they could only make their billions thanks to this illegal practice, that would be awesome - the government could claw back the billions.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#196

Post by clhodapp »

simondotau wrote: post #190
clhodapp wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If the terms were so great and the value to developers so high, it should definitely have been able to succeed in a competitive market, and need not have been forced on people.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#197

Post by bigyabai »

simondotau wrote: post #190
clhodapp wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think most of the praise was because before the App Store, you quite literally could not install software on iOS. If the Mac worked the same way, people would absent-mindedly praise Apple for it too.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#198

Post by mil22 »

Jcampuzano2 wrote: post #108
90s_dev wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally none, the DA must choose to pursue perjury charges, which basically never happens. In reality, nearly everyone commits perjury. Thomas More would not approve. Both versions (1966 and 1988) of A Man For All Seasons are highly worth watching several times and practically memorizing. "Would you benefit England by populating her with liars ?" [edit] in retrospect, there is one inescapable consequence of lying u…

To be honest companies practically incentivize having no moral compass and lying to succeed. Every major company's executives incorporate lying judiciously to their employees and their users alike and encourage their reports to lie to theirs and so on. Adhering to complete honesty is a one way ticket to HR. Sit on any all-hands call for a major company and it is practically guaranteed large chunks of the presentation…

This matches my own personal experience of corporate America, and is one of the primary reasons I left.

And it’s not just the lying that’s the problem - it’s the lack of critical thinking, the gullibility, the willingness to suspend disbelief and give benefit of the doubt and credit where it’s not due, amongst those being lied to, be they employees, or voters.

The way out is to see through it, to question it, and to stop acquiescing to it. If we all do that, the liars will never ascend to the positions of power we have allowed them to have over us today.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#199

Post by tsimionescu »

Nevermark wrote: post #89
autobodie wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About time for what? Another company to get charged with something that they don't get punished for? The fines are always less than the companies' net gains from the practice. Gains are often indirect, risk-related, and/or part of a larger strategy, so they cannot be calculated. Everything short of prison is a waste of time, waste of tax dollars, and spits in the face of decent citizens.

I like the idea of civil judgements that require responsible individuals to remove themselves from the company. And void any forward looking renumeration in their contracts. Personal fines too, such as returning past remunerations during the problematic time in question. Salaries. Stock grants. There is no such thing as an incentive, that doesn't incentivize someone. Relatively small fines relative to revenues and pr…

I think both things are needed. Despite what you're saying, shareholders have the ultimate responsibility and control over the company: they own it, they name the executives, and all the profits are ultimately returned to them. So it's absolutely necessary for the shareholders to be penalized, massively, if they profitted massively off of illegal business practices. Even if the executives were hiding this illegality from them, they are still responsible for having set up the company in a way that allowed that.

If you only punish the executives for illegal business practices, but leave the company alone, then you create an incentive to hire patsies as executives, continue letting them do illegal stuff, go to jail, and pay them handsomely after they get out.

Ultimately it has to be the company that's losing money when the company made money from illegal business, otherwise the company can just find other people willing to continue and provide for everyone who gets caught.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#200

Post by Mountain_Skies »

FireBeyond wrote: post #130
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if a poor person struggling to hold down three jobs to survive were found to be lying under oath, the DA would throw the book at them Have you been to a traffic court?

Yeah. I was pulled over and told I had an "invalid" license. "My license isn't suspended!" "No, it's not, it's just invalid." Not expired. Not counterfeit. Just invalid. "What does that mean?" "You'll have ask the DOL. And here's a ticket. And you can't drive from here." Go home, go to the DOL's website. Green text, "VALID". Weird. "Pay any monies owing on your license." Let's try that. "There are no monies owed." Hu…

Federal prosecutors have insanely high "winning" percentages but the closer you get to the local level, the more that drops. I suspect that local prosecutors, in addition to often having a poor understanding of the law, often try to up their win percentage by pushing cases like yours because they know most people will find it easier to just pay whatever token amount it takes to make it go away.
Post reply on HN