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

Apple rejects Valve’s Steam Link game streaming app over ‘business conflicts’

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 304 posts

Re: Apple rejects Valve’s Steam Link game streaming app over ‘business conflicts’

#221

Post by tialaramex »

criley2 wrote: post #83
tialaramex wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Basically the GDPR is structured around a whole bunch of reasons why you might _need_ to store and process data about people ("Subjects"), for which you have implicit permission because it's necessary to something you're doing for the Subject. You need to make sure Subjects can find out what you needed, and why, and you can't change your mind later. These purposes do not need Consent. You don't need to Consent to…

>I'm sure somebody will try to claim it's "necessary" to their business to track people and sell everything they possibly can, and I expect European courts to decide that's laughable nonsense. Who pays the verge for the reporting that you wish to read? Is this verge reporting on this article made for free, by a volunteer, etc? Or were they paid? OK, so the Verge is a business, who has to make money. How do they make…

> Good luck suing them, but what would be the end game? Ruin their business model?

Are you another American? We seem to keep having Americans who have this idea that the regulation is about lawsuits. I understand that in the US the law enforcement regime is so broken that you end up with "Sued for wrongful death" rather than "Prosecuted for murder" and "Sued for breach of constitutional rights" rather than "Prosecuted for rape" and so on ad infinitum, but everybody else with the rule of law didn't replace their courts with elected politicians and their cops with a violent gang so they still actually have criminal law.

The GDPR doesn't create a new civil tort or anything like that, its an EU regulation, disobeying is a crime so the relevant government agency could _prosecute_ if they can't get you to obey.

The European courts don't have to decide that Europeans have a "right to free content", only that this business model in which you track people without permission isn't legal.

Suppose I have a great idea for a business, I'm going to set up a stall, I'll sell bottles of Coca-Cola for 10¢ each. Obviously at this price I can't buy them wholesale, but no problem, per your agreement that I have "to make money" I will just take them from the bottling plant. Simple.

The court doesn't care about how I needed "to make money", they care that it's a crime to steal the bottles, and I'll go to jail. Oh my 10¢ Coke bottle stall doesn't work as a business if I have to pay wholesale costs instead of just taking the bottles? Well boo hoo.

Re: Apple rejects Valve’s Steam Link game streaming app over ‘business conflicts’

#222

Post by Doctor_Fegg »

sgift wrote: post #176
Doctor_Fegg wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> actual monopolistic behavior > a significant share If it's only "a significant share" it's by definition not a monopoly.

The legislative term is "dominant market position", but that's too long, so everyone just uses monopoly, because it is far shorter and everyone can understand with a bit of thinking what is meant.

Sure. Given that 15-16% of smartphones sold worldwide are iPhones, "dominant" is about as much of a stretch as "monopoly".

Re: Apple rejects Valve’s Steam Link game streaming app over ‘business conflicts’

#223

Post by zimbatm »

cblades wrote: post #204
ballenf wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if you've paid for Amazon Prime then Amazon has become a platform similar your iPhone. Just like you can buy a cheap secondary phone for Steam Link, you can join another company's "free shipping membership program" to buy your Nest (or just pay shipping or get it locally, like you said). Regardless, I think the distinction is less clear than you make out.

Is that a serious suggestion to buy a second phone, or is it supposed to be absurd? How does having prime lock you into Amazon, at all? You're not disallowed to shop elsewhere after signing up for Prime. You don't even have to sign up for someone else's "free shipping membership program" to buy your Nest. You're argument doesn't work for me.

The argument on both sides is around financial burden:

* Pay more for delivery because not using Amazon Prime

* Pay more to buy an Android phone

When making this argument it's obvious that buying a new phone is much more expensive than Amazon Prime but this raises an interesting question; what is the financial threshold at which point one has to be considered a monopoly?

Re: Apple rejects Valve’s Steam Link game streaming app over ‘business conflicts’

#224

Post by Doctor_Fegg »

dnomad wrote: post #55

People who go on and on about the Google and Amazon "monopolies" -- which only benefit consumers with low prices and expansive services -- this is what actual monopolistic behavior looks like. Apple controls access to a significant share of the mobile application industry and it directly abuses that market power to harm customers by reducing competition and artificially raising prices. Apple is being sued in both US…

> People who go on and on about the Google and Amazon "monopolies" -- which only benefit consumers

Google being the de facto gatekeeper to the web, able to enforce its own whims (such as AMP), "only benefits consumers"? Please.

Re: Apple rejects Valve’s Steam Link game streaming app over ‘business conflicts’

#225

Post by kbutler »

bhnmmhmd wrote: post #195
zeveb wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Given that Apple - as a private company - is the owner of iOS, no one can blame them for what they wish to include/exclude from their ecosystem. Apple may own their property, but iOS-device owners own their devices, and Apple have no right to prevent them from running the software they wish to run on the devices they own.

I refer you to read Apple's Software License Agreements carefully. They're here: https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/ Specifically it states: " The software (including Boot ROM code, embedded software and third party software), documentation, interfaces, content, fonts and any data that came with your iOS Device (“Original iOS Software”), as may be updated or replaced by feature enhancements, software updates or system r…

Would you agree to those terms if you had a realistic alternative?

Is this contract written in a way that provides equitable consideration to the user for the provisions that solely benefit Apple?

Doesn't seem like it.

The ability of Apple to include those take-it-or-leave-it terms suggests a dominant market position (strong market power) held by Apple, regardless of other mobile device platforms.

The license is a "Contract of Adhesion" "where the terms and conditions of the contract are set by one of the parties, and the other party has little or no ability to negotiate more favorable terms and is thus placed in a "take it or leave it" position.

While these types of contracts are not illegal per se, there exists a very real possibility for unconscionability." (Wikipedia)

with unconscionability being "a doctrine in contract law that describes terms that are so extremely unjust, or overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of the party who has the superior bargaining power, that they are contrary to good conscience. Typically, an unconscionable contract is held to be unenforceable because no reasonable or informed person would otherwise agree to it. The perpetrator of the conduct is not allowed to benefit, because the consideration offered is lacking, or is so obviously inadequate, that to enforce the contract would be unfair to the party seeking to escape the contract."

Re: Apple rejects Valve’s Steam Link game streaming app over ‘business conflicts’

#226

Post by djrogers »

Like many other time this has happened, I expect we'll find out that everything we've heard in the first 24 hours was incomplete or just plain wrong, and in a few days this will all get resolved.

Of course the angriest out there will simply claim it was the result of Apple buckling to public outcry rather than self-correcting over a mistake or misunderstanding, but then those people will always choose to see malevolence in any corporate actions they don't like.

Re: Apple rejects Valve’s Steam Link game streaming app over ‘business conflicts’

#227

Post by _Mazza_ »

zimbatm wrote: post #223
cblades wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that a serious suggestion to buy a second phone, or is it supposed to be absurd? How does having prime lock you into Amazon, at all? You're not disallowed to shop elsewhere after signing up for Prime. You don't even have to sign up for someone else's "free shipping membership program" to buy your Nest. You're argument doesn't work for me.

The argument on both sides is around financial burden: * Pay more for delivery because not using Amazon Prime * Pay more to buy an Android phone When making this argument it's obvious that buying a new phone is much more expensive than Amazon Prime but this raises an interesting question; what is the financial threshold at which point one has to be considered a monopoly?

Most people shop on multiple websites, most people don't carry around two phones.

Re: Apple rejects Valve’s Steam Link game streaming app over ‘business conflicts’

#228

Post by OrganicMSG »

sidlls wrote: post #212
asfasgasg wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary. If you care about the intersection of gaming and mobile, you are almost certainly using an iOS device.

The intersection of the set of "intersection of gaming and mobile" and the set of "hardcore gamers" is small.

I know a few of them, they are all game developers.

Re: Apple rejects Valve’s Steam Link game streaming app over ‘business conflicts’

#229

Post by baxtr »

dnomad wrote: post #55

People who go on and on about the Google and Amazon "monopolies" -- which only benefit consumers with low prices and expansive services -- this is what actual monopolistic behavior looks like. Apple controls access to a significant share of the mobile application industry and it directly abuses that market power to harm customers by reducing competition and artificially raising prices. Apple is being sued in both US…

This is like saying BMW, Toyota and the like have a monopoly because you can’t use your own infotainment software.

There are enough alternatives to the iPhone.

Re: Apple rejects Valve’s Steam Link game streaming app over ‘business conflicts’

#230

Post by dahart »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #167
dnomad wrote: post #55

People who go on and on about the Google and Amazon "monopolies" -- which only benefit consumers with low prices and expansive services -- this is what actual monopolistic behavior looks like. Apple controls access to a significant share of the mobile application industry and it directly abuses that market power to harm customers by reducing competition and artificially raising prices. Apple is being sued in both US…

Given that iPhones account for just 35% of US mobile phones [1] and only around 15% of phone shipments worldwide [2], this is in no way monopolistic. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/13/ios-and-samsung-market-sha... [2] https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/05/02/apples-iphone-buc...

> Given that iPhones account for just 35% of US mobile phones [1] and only around 15% of phone shipments worldwide [2], this is in no way monopolistic.

What is monopolistic to you? Does it need to be over 50%? I don't think economists define it that way, they only argue that one company has excessive influence in a market, which means more power than the other companies in that market. That does seem to be true of Apple in the mobile app market.

Your statement reminds me of a reporter who said that Walmart can't possibly be a monopoly because it's revenues are "only" 5% of US consumer spending. It's scares me to death that a single company takes that much of the total, and it's silly to suggest that the largest company in the world by revenue can't possibly be a monopoly.

FWIW, the distribution of phones isn't the same as the distribution of revenue from apps. Apple brings in more app revenue than Google, even though more phones sold run Android.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/259510/revenue-distribut...

Post reply on HN