Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case • Hacker News Board

Re: Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case

#241

Post by colechristensen » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 4:51 PM UTC

ecf wrote: post #206

smnrchrds wrote: post #10

> “The court cannot ultimately conclude that apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws,” she writes in the ruling. “Nonetheless, the trial did show that apple is engaging in anti-competitive conduct under California’s competition laws.” It's nice to see that you don't have to be a monopolist to be legally barred from anti-competitive behaviour. I hope this puts a permanent stop to all the thr…

> It's nice to see that you don't have to be a monopolist to be legally barred from anti-competitive behaviour Can someone ELI5 why Apple is considered to be anti-competitive for not dedicating resources to assisting another business in creating a competitor to a market for a platform they and they alone created? If Epic wants to have their game on a phone, it makes sense they abide by the rules enforced by the compa…

Apple is in several markets in the same time and using its position in one to control the competition in another.

There are limits to what you can do in a vertically integrated business stack, especially when you invite third parties to participate in pieces of that stack.

As a consumer, I can't have a phone for every software vendor I want to purchase from, that's obviously ridiculous. If Apple wants to create a marketplace, it has to allow certain things to happen in that marketplace. If the App Store was an entirely separate business not tied to hardware, the restrictions would be significantly less.

Re: Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case

#242

Post by throw_m239339 » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 4:51 PM UTC

sombremesa wrote: post #134

AlexanderTheGr8 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Afaik they cannot ignore a ruling. And they don't need 30% fees for maintaining IOS ecosystem - when you buy an apple phone for $1000, you pay Apple enough for it to maintain its AppStore. Also they earn money from AppStore advertising (which apps out of the millions should the small screen show); so maintaining AppStore should not be a problem. I don't know about the bad-actors part though.

> they cannot ignore a ruling Why not?

> Why not?

That's a bizarre question.

They'd be in contempt of the court.

https://www.upcounsel.com/legal-def-contempt-of-court

The judge could sent Tim Cook or any number of Apple execs to prison.

Re: Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case

#243

Post by ethbr0 » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 4:51 PM UTC

simonh wrote: post #172

kodah wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my perspective folks are arguing two things: The current definition of a monopoly. Whether the current definition of a monopoly needs to change. If you are mixing the two arguments discourse can go nowhere because you're substantively discussing cause and effect. The current definition of a monopoly needs to change , imo, then we can talk about whether Apple is a monopoly. I'm also interested in discussing congl…

How would you like the definition of a monopoly to change? Or to avoid sniping over details if you're not sure of a definition text, how would you like it to change and to what objective?

Personally? I think we should get away from "monopoly" and move towards "excessively large market entity."

The problems now have more to do with market capitalization / revenue than they do with physical control.

Apple or Google aren't trying to buy all the railroad tracks between Cincinnati and Kansas City (app stores aside). They're trying to assemble a company that owns all the disparate but critical pieces in an ecosystem, then leverage those into extracting higher than free market rents.

Consequently, remedies shouldn't be the same as for monopolies (read: breaking up companies). They should instead of targeted on (1) classifying corporations by their size & (2) placing limits on their actions, in places where that size provides its own monopolistic-esque advantage.

Afaict, these should take the form of prohibiting acquisitions of competitors (Facebook shouldn't be able to buy Instagram or WhatsApp, but Instagram and WhatsApp should have been allowed to buy each other / merge) and stricter limits on market entry (FAANGM or SoftBank deciding they want to throw stupid money into a hole to poison the well and capture market share).

Re: Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case

#244

Post by xvector » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 4:52 PM UTC

simonh wrote: post #227

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One fact that has emerged is that Apple is pushing lock-in as a strategy. So to everyone who has ever felt like they are too "invested" in the ecosystem to leave- that is by design. You are victims.

How dare they make their systems work so well together and easy to use.

The Google Pixel works well and is easy to use but still lets you install custom ROMs.

Re: Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case

#245

Post by xvector » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 4:53 PM UTC

summerlight wrote: post #188

https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/blu... Should Apple appeal? I don't think so; they now have much bigger thing to worry about. If they decide to appeal, it'll generate even more publicity and congress and public are going to be more engaged. Apple desperately wants to get it over with as silent as possible.

Apple WILL appeal. This is 25% of their yearly revenue at risk. I think many people don't realize just how critical this case is to Apple.

Re: Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case

#246

Post by echelon » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 4:53 PM UTC

shadowgovt wrote: post #187

echelon wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a new game, and we need new definitions. Famgopolies [1] behave different than monopolies. But they're every bit, if not more, dangerous. They use their incredible market power and cash piles to enter new markets with ease and put price pressure on the incumbents. It's hard to compete with free. Then all the other famgopolies enter the space too, and it's just a famgopoly watering hole. Their objective: capturin…

I don't think we need a new word for this. What you've described is a cartel [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel ]. To the extent that they restrain trade, prohibit competition, or artificially increase costs on consumers, cartels are already illegal in the US.

Is "cartel" fitting? These companies aren't always associated. (Though recent leaks do seem to indicate behind-doors conversations are taking place.)

Some of the prevailing themes:

- These companies are after attention across any vertical a person may touch

- These companies build platforms that scope creep into other platforms and verticals. They connect and entrench them.

- They make it impossible to access consumers without them, and then they tax the entry points

- They make switching costs high

Re: Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case

#247

Post by boolemancer » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 4:53 PM UTC

ecf wrote: post #206

smnrchrds wrote: post #10

> “The court cannot ultimately conclude that apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws,” she writes in the ruling. “Nonetheless, the trial did show that apple is engaging in anti-competitive conduct under California’s competition laws.” It's nice to see that you don't have to be a monopolist to be legally barred from anti-competitive behaviour. I hope this puts a permanent stop to all the thr…

> It's nice to see that you don't have to be a monopolist to be legally barred from anti-competitive behaviour Can someone ELI5 why Apple is considered to be anti-competitive for not dedicating resources to assisting another business in creating a competitor to a market for a platform they and they alone created? If Epic wants to have their game on a phone, it makes sense they abide by the rules enforced by the compa…

Because those rules are anti-competitive.

I don't think anyone is saying that they need to provide support for third-party payment processors themselves, but their rules can't restrict someone else from supporting them.

I don't know why that would be controversial.

Imagine a world where Google required a 30% cut of everything bought through Chrome. How is what Apple's doing any different from that?

Re: Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case

#248

Post by encryptluks2 » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 4:55 PM UTC

barkerja wrote: post #147

madeofpalk wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how am I supposed to trust 50 different gateways? Do you not buy things online currently? Do you not use Amazon, or Lyft, or Netflix, or Spotify?

My concern is less about random one-off purchases but more the management of on-going subscriptions. Having Apple handle that, is a blessing, from a user perspective. I have a single place to manage all the random $1 - $10 subscriptions that I have, making it easy to change/cancel at any moment's notice, and from any device.

What is to stop you from searching for services that still let you use Apple Pay? No one is stopping you from living in your tight-knit Apple world, but you seem discontent with the idea that people will no longer have to live there and would rather find ways to force them to stay there with you.

Re: Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case

#249

Post by mertd » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 4:55 PM UTC

sudhirj wrote: post #223

Think Apple has already seen the writing on the wall - both S. Korea & the US are now probably going to push back against the IAP restrictions, and they can / should do a couple of things, which might actually increase revenue. 1. Cut down the IAP commission to 15% for everyone. 2. Cut down the commission to 5% for those who pay for a Business Account, say at $5,000 a year. The thing is no customer wants to use any c…

Why do you think people would implement their own IAP? It would most likely be a few competing platforms like Shopify for web purchases.

Re: Court issues permanent injunction in Epic vs. Apple case

#250

Post by oblio » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 4:56 PM UTC

kodah wrote: post #84

smnrchrds wrote: post #10

> “The court cannot ultimately conclude that apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws,” she writes in the ruling. “Nonetheless, the trial did show that apple is engaging in anti-competitive conduct under California’s competition laws.” It's nice to see that you don't have to be a monopolist to be legally barred from anti-competitive behaviour. I hope this puts a permanent stop to all the thr…

From my perspective folks are arguing two things: The current definition of a monopoly. Whether the current definition of a monopoly needs to change. If you are mixing the two arguments discourse can go nowhere because you're substantively discussing cause and effect. The current definition of a monopoly needs to change , imo, then we can talk about whether Apple is a monopoly. I'm also interested in discussing congl…

In my opinion we don't need to change the definition of monopoly, we need to integrate "conflict of interest" more into anti-competitive practice discourse.

Apple, Google, etc. are having their cake and eating it, too. They have platform which they charge others to use (ok), and then they study usage data (somewhat shady) and then launch direct competitors (> shady).

That's the root of the problem in many cases.

Of course, this needs to be coupled with stronger anti-cartel enforcement. Because tech is rarely a pure monopoly, but extremely often is ends up under the control of a cartel.