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

201–210 of 258 posts

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

#201

Post by scarface74 »

kd5bjo wrote: post #198
scarface74 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And now we are redefining “monopoly”. This has been going on for 30 years. The console manufacturers have had lock out chips on their cartridges, specially made disk, etc forever.

Not forever. This all started with the death of Atari, which was commonly blamed on poor-quality 3rd-party games ruining their reputation with consumers. I haven't looked into the history enough to judge whether this perception is accurate in hindsight. Like most things, I expect it's a lot messier than the popular narrative.

As I said, “for over 30 years”.

It started at least with the original Nintendo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIC_(Nintendo)

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

#203

Post by jsjohnst »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #171

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 le…

This isn’t an Apples to Apples comparison (no pun intended), but all the folks who think 30% is high, I question if they’ve ever sold physical goods via a store/marketplace.

Say I want to sell my sprocket I designed, built, packaged, and marketed 100% on my own on Amazon. Anybody want to guess how much Amazon takes? I’ll give you a hint, many companies selling on Amazon would kill for 30%.

Think it’s better in brick and mortar land? Try again! Say you go buy a new TV from a major electronics store like Best Buy. Their effective margins are usually 50% or more. It gets even worse in other categories. Take shoes for example, in some cases 80% of the purchase price goes to the middleman.

Let’s also not forget that getting into the App Store, while us developers (myself included) whine about it like it’s the worst abuse, is far far easier than retailers like Amazon, Walmart, etc. Of course staying in the store is important too, talk to any businesses who were pulled due to low sales volume for their not even niche product. When has Apple really done that?

In conclusion, do I think what Apple is doing is fair, maybe, maybe not. I do however wish everyone would get out of their bubble though and realize as much as we like to complain, it’s really been a disruption to what was the status quo before.

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

#204

Post by jsjohnst »

daveFNbuck wrote: post #190
auslander wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Folks here on HN are (understandably) leaping on the notion that this will force Apple to allow other app stores I'm leaning in quite opposite way. Apple enforces security and privacy policies of its store apps, which is main reason why it is much safer to use than Android. As for app prices, Apple Store is an open competitive market, no apps are restricted to compete. I see the point being moot. Adtech industry wo…

> no apps are restricted to compete Apps are restricted from competing on price. I can't release a 79 cent app to compete with a similar 99 cent app.

At some point the race to the bottom is a losing battle where no one wins. Apple decided to put that bottom point at 99 cents.

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

#205

Post by Jyaif »

jsjohnst wrote: post #203
chipotle_coyote wrote: post #171

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 le…

This isn’t an Apples to Apples comparison (no pun intended), but all the folks who think 30% is high, I question if they’ve ever sold physical goods via a store/marketplace. Say I want to sell my sprocket I designed, built, packaged, and marketed 100% on my own on Amazon. Anybody want to guess how much Amazon takes? I’ll give you a hint, many companies selling on Amazon would kill for 30%. Think it’s better in brick…

Like you said, your comparison is worthless. A better comparison is the web, where the fee is 0%.

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

#206

Post by jsjohnst »

Jyaif wrote: post #205
jsjohnst wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t an Apples to Apples comparison (no pun intended), but all the folks who think 30% is high, I question if they’ve ever sold physical goods via a store/marketplace. Say I want to sell my sprocket I designed, built, packaged, and marketed 100% on my own on Amazon. Anybody want to guess how much Amazon takes? I’ll give you a hint, many companies selling on Amazon would kill for 30%. Think it’s better in brick…

Like you said, your comparison is worthless. A better comparison is the web, where the fee is 0%.

Guess I should’ve expected such a quality response to my factual and detailed comment. But I’ll bite.

0% you say? What about the overhead of hosting the site? The cost to develop it? Drive traffic to it? Credit card processing fees? Managing fraud on payments? Etc etc.

There’s no such thing as a free lunch. If you prefer one avenue’s cost basis over another’s, feel free to use it. But don’t make bogus claims to justify your choice.

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

#207

Post by detaro »

belltaco wrote: post #100
BurritoAlPastor wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct. From Apple’s original petition: “The question presented is: Whether consumers may sue for antitrust damages anyone who delivers goods to them, even where they seek damages based on prices set by third parties who would be the immediate victims of the alleged offense.”

Not true, nothing ever goes to the Supreme court without a lower court considering and rendering a decision on the same question. Otherwise the court would be swamped and unable to function.

I think you misunderstood the thread. Of course the question asked to the Supreme Court has been looked at in detail by the lower courts, but other questions in the case haven't yet.

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

#208

Post by cm2187 »

jsjohnst wrote: post #203
chipotle_coyote wrote: post #171

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 le…

This isn’t an Apples to Apples comparison (no pun intended), but all the folks who think 30% is high, I question if they’ve ever sold physical goods via a store/marketplace. Say I want to sell my sprocket I designed, built, packaged, and marketed 100% on my own on Amazon. Anybody want to guess how much Amazon takes? I’ll give you a hint, many companies selling on Amazon would kill for 30%. Think it’s better in brick…

When is the last time you bought a software in a brick and mortar store? Every software is now downloadable, including video games. There are no cost other than hosting.

I don't think the "it could have been distributed at much greater cost with a horse carriage a century ago" argument is very compelling.

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

#209

Post by jasode »

cm2187 wrote: post #208
jsjohnst wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t an Apples to Apples comparison (no pun intended), but all the folks who think 30% is high, I question if they’ve ever sold physical goods via a store/marketplace. Say I want to sell my sprocket I designed, built, packaged, and marketed 100% on my own on Amazon. Anybody want to guess how much Amazon takes? I’ll give you a hint, many companies selling on Amazon would kill for 30%. Think it’s better in brick…

When is the last time you bought a software in a brick and mortar store? Every software is now downloadable, including video games. There are no cost other than hosting. I don't think the "it could have been distributed at much greater cost with a horse carriage a century ago" argument is very compelling.

>There are no cost other than hosting.

If one is trying to sell non-free software, it requires a payment processor like PayPal, Stripe, DigitalRiver, or paying a bank a monthly maintenance fee for a full-blown merchant account to accept credit-cards. A cursory google of Steam says they charge 5% fees for video games. They all have fees based on a percentage of the sales price. Even something outside of traditional payments infrastructure such as Bitcoin has fees.

If the cost is truly $0 like a sibling comment mentioned, how are people selling software for money without paying any fees to any intermediaries?

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

#210

Post by rasteau »

jsjohnst wrote: post #203
chipotle_coyote wrote: post #171

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 le…

This isn’t an Apples to Apples comparison (no pun intended), but all the folks who think 30% is high, I question if they’ve ever sold physical goods via a store/marketplace. Say I want to sell my sprocket I designed, built, packaged, and marketed 100% on my own on Amazon. Anybody want to guess how much Amazon takes? I’ll give you a hint, many companies selling on Amazon would kill for 30%. Think it’s better in brick…

What you describe could also be used to argue that prices are higher than they would be in a competitive market, i.e., that for the 30% ratio it's not that the numerator is too small, but that the denominator is too large.
Post reply on HN