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

231–240 of 258 posts

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

#231

Post by binomialxenon »

sbuk wrote: post #186
binomialxenon wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, I used to be an iOS user, I'm not rich, and blowing $99 per year to sign apps is a lot of money for something that should be free. What if I'm just a normal techie who wants to use software that Apple doesn't like? Sure, bury sideloading in the settings or make it only able to be activated from a computer, but charging that much money for the privilege of loading software is ridiculous.

> ...for something that should be free What reason should it be for?

The reason that my devices belong to me.

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

#232

Post by Tsubasachan »

auslander wrote: post #221
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…

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.

And yet Apple restricts ad blockers... Same as Google.

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

#233

Post by Jyaif »

jsjohnst wrote: post #206
Jyaif wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 justi…

Whether you like it or not, the fee is 0%.

Regarding the other costs:

> What about the overhead of hosting the site?

Hosting a static bag of bytes (e.g. a mobile app) costs nearly nothing. Just the cost of apple developer program (99$/year) would cover a huge amount of downloads.

> The cost to develop it?

Those are the same when developing an iOS app, except that with the web you would be able to target a much bigger market... if Safari was not actively slowing down the web.

> Drive traffic to it?

Breaking news, you also have to drive traffic to your app.

> Credit card processing fees? Managing fraud on payments?

Other people mentioned 2.9% on stripe. And if you are feeling adventurous, nothing spots you from creating your own payment system.

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

#234

Post by sdinsn »

scarface74 wrote: post #230
sdinsn wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

I don't know what to tell you. I've flashed on a blank cart and used it on a real NES. Not sure what blank carts have done to circumvent it, but it's no work on my end.

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

#235

Post by scarface74 »

jimktrains2 wrote: post #223
dwaite wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 arm…

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.

Sure other game makers can sell games anywhere they want - as long as they do it in the console makers terms, get approved by the console maker,and pay the license.

Back in the cartridge days, only Nintendo could make the cartridges even for third parties.

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

Not for the Xbox.

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

#236

Post by scarface74 »

sdinsn wrote: post #234
scarface74 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

I don't know what to tell you. I've flashed on a blank cart and used it on a real NES. Not sure what blank carts have done to circumvent it, but it's no work on my end.

Yes it’s possibke to distribute home brew games by using circumvention. Good luck trying to make that a commercially viable option. That stands up about as well as saying you can distribute iOS apps outside of the App Store for jailbroken phones....

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

#237

Post by auslander »

Tsubasachan wrote: post #232
auslander wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And yet Apple restricts ad blockers... Same as Google.

It does not. I have Firefox Focus Content Blocker enabled in iOS Safari, and other Content Blocker apps for Mac Safari.

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

#238

Post by sulam »

dwaite wrote: post #164
sulam wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let’s use the Kindle app as an example then. The app cannot link to their site when I search for a book I don’t have. If it did, the app would be banned. So Apple is trying to extract a 30% premium from Amazon and the only way for them to avoid that is to give me a shitty experience that quantifiable harms me (I waste time to search for and then hop through the download behavior, adding friction to what should be a s…

I disagree with it being called an Apple premium. Apple has a store. Amazon has a store. Who is to say that Amazon's portion of operational costs and profit isn't the premium? Amazon could choose to have a Kindle experience which doesn't go through the App store, such as a HTML 5 app. They distribute in the store because of the discoverability (and likely because they prefer to have a native app that can enforce thei…

Have you used the Kindle app?

You can do title search, look at details of books, see reviews, download sample chapters, and download Kindle Unlimited books directly to your library with one click.

I presume what you _can_ and _can't_ do is directly dictated by Apple's policies, not what the Kindle team has been able to implement. As others have pointed out, native apps are a far superior user experience to HTML "apps".

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

#239

Post by mmebane »

auslander wrote: post #237
Tsubasachan wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet Apple restricts ad blockers... Same as Google.

It does not. I have Firefox Focus Content Blocker enabled in iOS Safari, and other Content Blocker apps for Mac Safari.

They have banned the use of VPN APIs to tunnel traffic through a filtering proxy. Apps such as AdGuard Pro used to use this to perform whole-device adblocking.

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

#240

Post by mmebane »

RKearney wrote: post #215
binomialxenon wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, I used to be an iOS user, I'm not rich, and blowing $99 per year to sign apps is a lot of money for something that should be free. What if I'm just a normal techie who wants to use software that Apple doesn't like? Sure, bury sideloading in the settings or make it only able to be activated from a computer, but charging that much money for the privilege of loading software is ridiculous.

You can sign and run apps on your own device for free now. You no longer have to pay $99.

You can, but you have to reinstall them once a week, AFAIK.
Post reply on HN