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

How Apple's Apps Topped Rivals in the App Store It Controls

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 215 posts

Re: How Apple's Apps Topped Rivals in the App Store It Controls

#201

Post by benologist »

snowwrestler wrote: post #189
benologist wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see it differently. Way back when Microsoft shipped Internet Explorer with Windows it ruined companies. We see companies being arbitrarily ruined by Apple's actions every month. This platform abuse triggered massive antitrust actions in the US and EU that Microsoft lost quite spectacularly, costing them a fortune and forcing many changes to their software. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_wars

Microsoft shipping IE in Windows did not ruin companies. What ruined companies (and what MS was actually prosecuted for) was Microsoft telling PC manufacturers "we will only sell you Windows OS if you agree to NOT install any other browsers on your computers." Those agreements were how MS abused their OS monopoly to wrongfully exclude other browsers from the market. Up to that point, Netscape was selling their browse…

The similarity is ruining companies via abuse of their platform position, which doesn't depend on market share or monopoly or replicating Microsoft's particular malfeasance.

Re: How Apple's Apps Topped Rivals in the App Store It Controls

#202

Post by gamblor956 »

coldtea wrote: post #156
gamblor956 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nintendo is a monopoly with respect to Nintendo games (but not Nintendo devices, since you can buy those all over). Monopolies aren't inherently illegal. See e.g., patents and copyrights, which are legally granted or protected monopolies. What is illegal is anti-competitive practices. This doesn't require a dominant or even majority market position--authorities in the US and EU have gone after companies with relative…

> Nintendo is a monopoly with respect to Nintendo games That's not what monopoly means legally. > Monopolies aren't inherently illegal That's true, but a vendor controlling their own store is not a monopoly. Monopoly is when the vendor has 100% of the overall market...

Yes it is. Nintendo is a monopoly with respect to licensing games for sale on Nintendo consoles. Monopoly is market-specific under US law, and the regulators can get very specific.

From the DOJ guidance on antitrust law (https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-...)

Regarding the first element, it is "settled law" that the offense of monopolization requires "the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market."(5) As discussed in chapter 2, monopoly power means substantial market power that is durable rather than fleeting--market power being the ability to raise prices profitability above those that would be charged in a competitive market.(6)

Re: How Apple's Apps Topped Rivals in the App Store It Controls

#203

Post by Wowfunhappy »

zaroth wrote: post #196
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm arguing the law (or our interpretation of it?) should be stricter than it currently is, in light of how much power modern technology gives platform holders, and the situation I outlined above.

I think as long as Apple does not have a monopoly, history has shown us that competition will take care of this. If Apple clamps down on 3rd party apps to the point where it is no longer serving its user-base, the user base has many good alternatives, and Apple would lose business. I think the Spotify example is a good one; if Apple kicked off Spotify, there could be millions of people switching to Android just becau…

> I think the Spotify example is a good one; if Apple kicked off Spotify, there could be millions of people switching to Android just because of that.

We'll never know unless/until it happens, but I think you are 100% wrong on this point—most would just switch to Apple Music. Phones are much too expensive to switch immediately, and while some users might initially want to switch at their next upgrade cycle, they would need to sign up for Apple Music in the interim, and then they'll become accustomed to it.

iPhone users are a captive market. The costs of switching are too high, both economically and in terms of inertia.

Re: How Apple's Apps Topped Rivals in the App Store It Controls

#204

Post by nixpulvis »

sixstringtheory wrote: post #177
nixpulvis wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You lost me with your analogy. Let me extend the pigskin thought exprement a bit. If I own the football team, and the field, and the city (hell, why not), then sure I can choose who plays QB, so I choose my son. Maybe at the start he's even not that bad of a QB, and our team wins some games. Everyone is happy. After a little while though, people realize there's no sense trying out for QB on my team. My son, now left…

> it's not just my team that gets worse, but the whole league I don't understand how you arrived at this conclusion. I figured that it'd mean nobody tries out for QB on your team, all the best QBs go to other teams, eventually your team starts to suck and lose fans and therefore revenue, and the market forces either force you to get a new QB or your business in the team suffers and maybe folds. Problem solved either…

I said "With enough control over the market ...", which is basically a way of saying I'm making these QB choices for not just my team, but some large enough set of the QBs in the NFL.

Re: How Apple's Apps Topped Rivals in the App Store It Controls

#205

Post by thebigspacefuck »

frogpelt wrote: post #24
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #14

I'm not saying this isn't a problem, but it seems pretty minor compared to the fact that: 1) Apple's apps come preinstalled on every iPhone. 2) Apple's apps have permission to do things that 3rd party apps cannot. If I search for "Web Browser" on the App Store... well, technically I'll get results from third parties, but every single one is just a UI skin around Apple's own browser. That strikes me as a much larger p…

I see it differently. Since Apple makes the hardware and the software I don't have a problem with them preinstalling their own products. However, when a user is clearly searching for alternatives on the app store, it matters how far down you have to scroll to find a 3rd party app. Spotify being the 23rd result for a "music" search is absurd.

When I was new to iOS, I wasn't always looking for alternatives. Sometimes finding out an app was already on my phone related to what I was searching for was genuinely helpful. I didn't realize that "Books" could play Audiobooks, for example. It didn't end up being the best app for me, but it was useful to see Books as a search result so I knew that it could do something I was looking for another app to do.

Re: How Apple's Apps Topped Rivals in the App Store It Controls

#206

Post by evancox100 »

apricot13 wrote: post #12
evancox100 wrote: post #11

Seems like one of the fixes might be to provide a way to search for one's already installed apps without going to the app store.

swipe down on any homescreen page and type into the search box and iphone will do this.

Thank you, I'm a new iPhone user and did not know that. (Not exactly discoverable)

Re: How Apple's Apps Topped Rivals in the App Store It Controls

#207

Post by makomk »

fitzroy wrote: post #120
frogpelt wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see it differently. Since Apple makes the hardware and the software I don't have a problem with them preinstalling their own products. However, when a user is clearly searching for alternatives on the app store, it matters how far down you have to scroll to find a 3rd party app. Spotify being the 23rd result for a "music" search is absurd.

For me, Spotify is the 4th app when searching for "music", but it's the first app that doesn't contain the word "music" as the first or second word in the name. It goes: 1. Apple Music 2. Music 3. Music> 4. Spotify New music and podcasts

According to the article, Apple quietly changed the ranking of Spotify after they complained to European antitrust regulators about it.

Re: How Apple's Apps Topped Rivals in the App Store It Controls

#208

Post by klingonopera »

Fnoord wrote: post #143
tombrossman wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The advantage to using Google Play is that apps containing ads are clearly labelled as such. Apple won't tell you this in advance. (This was my biggest surprise, recently switching from Android after the CopperheadOS meltdown)

Honestly I care less about ads and more about trackers. Google Play says nada about trackers. Exodus project (and therefore F-Droid) does. If you come from CopperheadOS I can recommend /e/ or LineageOS + microG (/e/ also contains microG). microG does not implement GAds. You will still need to block trackers though.

Holy crap, how have I never heard of microG? Thank you!

Re: How Apple's Apps Topped Rivals in the App Store It Controls

#209

Post by dobleboble »

criddell wrote: post #121
penagwin wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the app itself (Gmail) is requesting to use Chrome. So each individual app would need to request Chrome, something I'm sure Google's apps can do, but [insert random app here] won't.

Do you know if you can shut that off? I'm sick of being asked if I want to open a link in some other application.

Every time you update the app it'll start asking again. It's the worst part about using Google's iPhone apps IMO.

Re: How Apple's Apps Topped Rivals in the App Store It Controls

#210

Post by gimmeThaBeet »

xenadu02 wrote: post #163
gimmeThaBeet wrote: post #110

I wouldn't say I have trouble considering this issue, I know what my opinion is. The ramifications feel uncomfortable because Apple is the Goliath, it feels bizarre their behavior should need defending. The idea I get hung up on is Apple doesn't control the market, they control access to the customers companies want. And those customers made a free choice to enter apple's ecosystem. They could get an Android, they co…

How is that any different than Nintendo's first-party games? They don't pay a license fee to themselves (and such an action would be a pointless accounting fiction if they did). When you buy a Switch it means you can only play games Nintendo has approved. Unlike the app store, the policies are much more restrictive there. Random Joe can't put a game on the Switch. When you develop for the Switch it means if you have…

That's the point, the behavior doesn't seem different, but the levels of scrutiny aren't even comparable, that's the question. Does the behavior matter as much as the size of the market in which the actor is in. Do people care because, apple is large, because the addressable app market is large, because politicians have iphones but don't give a toss about a mario game?
Post reply on HN