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

221–230 of 258 posts

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

#221

Post by auslander »

auslander wrote: post #182
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…

> 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…

Apple cut the oxygen to Adtech business models.

iOS Apps have no way to identify user's devices, apps can only store two bits of info locally, DeviceCheck. Location while using the app option, hello Android? :)

Safari's ITP 2.0 clears tracking cookies in a way, that no tracking is longer possible. Adtech not happy.

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

#222

Post by cm2187 »

jsjohnst wrote: post #220
cm2187 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When was the last time I bought software in a brick and mortar store? It's been so long I can't remember. I have bought software on Amazon in the past year though. That still doesn't negate my point though, Gamestop shelves are covered in video games, electronic stores sell software of all types. Do you legitimately think they would be on the shelves if they didn't sell? My root point was to step outside of your bubb…

Well, keeping in mind the reason why video games are still sold in physical format is that they require enormous binaries which downloading is very problematic for people in remote locations (plus it gives a physical object to wrap for a gift). But even that is going away. There are rumors of a disc-less xbox [1]. This binaries size problem isn't really relevant to anything that is meant to run on a smartphone.

https://www.thurrott.com/xbox/192184/microsofts-building-a-d...

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

#223

Post by jimktrains2 »

dwaite wrote: post #167
jimktrains2 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nintendo, Somy[sic], and MS You don't need to purchase games directly from Nintendo, nor music or games or video directly from Sony, nor are Sony Videos only playable on Sony devices, nor do you have to only install Microsoft "blessed" executable for Windows.

You realize that Nintendo controls the title signing keys, their own App Store, and the physical manufacturing of cartridges right? They also require merchants to sign contracts saying they will not have a posted price below the retail sale price without approval. I fail to see how saying you don't have to purchase "directly" from Nintendo matters. FWIW, a similar setup to Playstation (you seem to have conflated Sony…

Yes, I realize that for console gaming you need to be "approved" to write games.

However, my understanding is that this suite is about apple abusing the app-writing monopoly to also let only them sell apps, which is why I thought the console game analogy was sound.

As for merchants, I'm sure second hand stores and those at flea markets have signed all of these contracts. /S

Yes, I was sort-of referencing multiple arms of Sony. Sorry if that complicated things.

Yes, I know Microsoft has a blessed app storeb however, like Android, you can still install your own, unsigned executables or use another app store (there are some more recent package managers for Windows iirc? It's not really what I deal with.)

I remember the issues with the arm based surfaces. Iirc one of the current selling points of a surface ia that you can run any software on them.

I think this case will be interesting because there are platforms that come close to, but don't have quite, the control apple does over both who can generate applications as well as who can sell them. Where those platforms evolve 8s directly related to the outcome here I think.

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

#224

Post by jsjohnst »

cm2187 wrote: post #222
jsjohnst wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When was the last time I bought software in a brick and mortar store? It's been so long I can't remember. I have bought software on Amazon in the past year though. That still doesn't negate my point though, Gamestop shelves are covered in video games, electronic stores sell software of all types. Do you legitimately think they would be on the shelves if they didn't sell? My root point was to step outside of your bubb…

Well, keeping in mind the reason why video games are still sold in physical format is that they require enormous binaries which downloading is very problematic for people in remote locations (plus it gives a physical object to wrap for a gift). But even that is going away. There are rumors of a disc-less xbox [1]. This binaries size problem isn't really relevant to anything that is meant to run on a smartphone. https…

There's games in the App Store which are > 2gb in size for initial download. It is very much still a problem for folks not in cities in the US.

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

#225

Post by daveFNbuck »

auslander wrote: post #219
daveFNbuck wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Free apps are most likely to sell your data. Don't be a product, or if its your app, charge decent price and don't sell user's data :)

That may be good advice, but it has nothing to do with whether price controls restrict competition.

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

#226

Post by daveFNbuck »

jsjohnst wrote: post #204
daveFNbuck wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

So you agree that Apple is using its market position to increase prices compared to what they would be if apps were available from other sources?

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

#227

Post by chipotle_coyote »

daveFNbuck wrote: post #226
jsjohnst wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So you agree that Apple is using its market position to increase prices compared to what they would be if apps were available from other sources?

I'm not convinced that "Apple's refusal to let developers set app prices at a more granular level is an unfair predatory practice" is a slam dunk argument.

Additional later note: the actual court case here does, in fact, argue that requiring that all app prices end in 0.99 means Apple is dictating pricing terms, which on some level is of course absolutely true, i.e., it's Apple's fault I can't price my app at $1.49, or $3.33, or whatever. But (1) that still doesn't prove that the 30% cut is harming consumers, which is what American antitrust law is relentlessly focused on, and (2) if that's the crux of the argument, it can be addressed simply by removing that restriction. It can probably be met even if Apple says "you can price your apps anything you want to, but if your app is not free, we're going to take a minimum 29¢ cut."

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

#228

Post by sdinsn »

scarface74 wrote: post #139
sdinsn wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've developed homebrew games on multiple platforms. I know that NES, GBA, PSP, and DS have little to no restrictions. The Wii has a few restrictions, but not many.

So exactly how did you get those games on actual hardware or did you run them on an emulator? You definitely didn’t get games distributed on unmodifurd PlayStations, Nintendos, or XBoxes. Nintendo has had a lockout system since the SNES days. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Games_Corp._v._Nintendo_... .

Flash to a empty cartridge for DS/GBA/NES. There is no lockout. The GBA homebrew scene especially is actually quite active.

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

#229

Post by chipotle_coyote »

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.

I think it's worth asking whether Apple's 30% cut is too high, and worth asking whether they would still be able to have that cut if there were official ways to load commercial apps onto iOS devices other than the App Store. (By "commercial" I'm explicitly excluding enterprise software and TestFlight.) But I don't think it's the question that's going to be answered by this court case, whether or not that was the original intent of the plaintiffs.

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

#230

Post by scarface74 »

sdinsn wrote: post #228
scarface74 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So exactly how did you get those games on actual hardware or did you run them on an emulator? You definitely didn’t get games distributed on unmodifurd PlayStations, Nintendos, or XBoxes. Nintendo has had a lockout system since the SNES days. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Games_Corp._v._Nintendo_... .

Flash to a empty cartridge for DS/GBA/NES. There is no lockout. The GBA homebrew scene especially is actually quite active.

So you’re claiming there is no lock out chip even though there was a Supreme Court case - Atari vs Nintendo where Atari circumvented it and this article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIC_(Nintendo)

Post reply on HN