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

Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B

9to5mac.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 411 posts

Re: Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B

#261

Post by philipallstar »

isodev wrote: post #223
scarab92 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that the profit for the App Store specifically, in the UK specifically? If not, you’re comparing apples to oranges.

Why the UK specifically? The App Store monopoly is driven by its world-wide presence, I think it should be global revenue, and a fine to match.

Because it's a UK fine. The "monopoly" is driven by Apple making very good products for a long period of time and the UK putting its money almost anywhere but into people who might invent the next iPhone-like thing and make people's lives better worldwide.

Re: Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B

#262

Post by bondarchuk »

shuckles wrote: post #188
criddell wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What else would you expect? It’s from a tribunal. They make judgements.

Judgment can be grounded in reality or it can be picking a random subrange of a list of somewhat random ranges and then picking a midpoint because why not.

It cannot be grounded in reality precisely because it's a monopoly. The whole point of laws against monopolies is to let the market figure out the fair rate, or to define the "fair" rate as the one that emerges in a competitive market. So by definition of what the whole case is about it is impossible to give a fair rate in this case. If you don't want to be subjected to guesswork, stop being a monopoly and let the market figure it out.

Re: Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B

#264

Post by BrenBarn »

laughing_man wrote: post #246
BrenBarn wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As long as Apple requires they make use of those services for me to install software on the computer I bought, and they prevent others from producing equivalent competing devices via patents (i.e. government granted monopolies), zero. Right, that's the thing. And zero should also be their revenue and their asset value as long as they continue along that path. The fines should continue to escalate, and should also b…

That's a big enough number that the likely result is Apple would pull out of the UK altogether.

Then good riddance.

Re: Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B

#265

Post by wiz21c »

johnfn wrote: post #206
somenameforme wrote: post #197

I find headlines like this much more appropriate when placed in terms of days of revenue: "Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near 2 days of revenue!" For somebody that makes the median income, of about $50k, this is a fine of $273 for years of largescale systematic abusive behavior, done for profit.

That's not really a meaningful comparison, either. If you assume every engineer makes ~300K at Apple, perhaps a more meaningful comparison is "Apple loses ~7K engineers for 1 year", which seems a bit more than a slap on the wrist as you are suggesting.

except that the money doesn't go only to the engineers.

Re: Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B

#266

Post by AnthonyMouse »

somenameforme wrote: post #197

I find headlines like this much more appropriate when placed in terms of days of revenue: "Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near 2 days of revenue!" For somebody that makes the median income, of about $50k, this is a fine of $273 for years of largescale systematic abusive behavior, done for profit.

> I find headlines like this much more appropriate when placed in terms of days of revenue: "Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near 2 days of revenue!"

I feel like fines aren't even an appropriate remedy for this. They're both inherently arbitrary and not something that actually fixes it. And that combination gives governments a perverse incentive, because they get $2B to put in their own pockets while leaving the monopolist to continue monopolizing so they can come back and extract more later instead of actually solving it.

What they should be doing is breaking up companies that do this sort of thing.

Re: Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B

#267

Post by heavyset_go »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #252
heavyset_go wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything that isn't signed with certs from Microsoft-blessed CAs, anything that is signed with certs that were revoked either by Microsoft or their blessed CAs, and anything newly signed with old certs that weren't renewed for a $100+/yr fee. That, or you upload your app to Azure for cloud signing where Microsoft decides to bless it or not, and you might pay less than going with a full code signing cert from a CA. Ra…

Sorry you hit that bug but you can definitely run unsigned code on windows.

Never claimed you couldn't, try distributing that unsigned code and see if your users can figure out how to run it, or if their OS will gaslight them into thinking they just downloaded a virus, or if they get past that, if they can get past the additional warning window that purposely doesn't show[1] the "Run anyway" button that lets you run what you want.

Running signed apps doesn't require you to know a cursed arcane ritual to run the apps you want to run, you just double click them. Having to travel through several circles of hell, each time being urged to turn around immediately, just to run unsigned code means the vast majority of users are shit out of luck when it comes to running something they want if it's not in good standing with Microsoft.

[1] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/answers/questions/4270245/...

Re: Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B

#268

Post by kelthuzad »

nandomrumber wrote: post #194
kelthuzad wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well you realize it’s not a good look to post a citation and then immediately say the article is wrong I did not say that the article is wrong, don't misquote me. You are also still failing to understand what the crucial difference is: An iPhone was vulnerable to the pin-hijack, because of its limited security options - a security aware user was as vulnerable as an amateur. An Android phone was only vulnerable if i…

If you’d just said all of this upfront, it would’ve come across as more honest / less confrontational.

>If you’d just said all of this upfront, it would’ve come across as more honest / less confrontational.

"I should have elaborated even further, because I already suspected that someone would nitpick that phrasing . So let me explain the difference:" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45690226

After me clarifying what I've meant, the response wasn't "Oh I see now what you intended to say, thanks for elaborating", but misquoting me and making hostile and snide comments. That is someone who wants to be confrontational and lacks honesty in trying to understand what was meant in the first place.

Re: Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B

#269

Post by AnthonyMouse »

vladvasiliu wrote: post #232
thisislife2 wrote: post #216

> “developers were overcharged by the difference between a 17.5% commission for app purchases and the commission Apple charged, which Kent’s lawyers said was usually 30%.” > “The CAT also ruled that app developers passed on 50% of the overcharge to consumers.” And that's why I stopped buying Apple products - ultimately it is the end user that pays for everything. Apple exploits both developers and its consumers.

In which situation does the end user not pay for everything? Even a fine or a tax on a company ends rolled up in the price paid by the end user. Same thing with programs paid for by the government. It’s the taxpayers who foot the bill. I’m kinda split on the whole Apple situation. I’m firmly in the camp of “monopoly bad”, but apparently people are fine with apple’s practices. It’s not like they have to buy an iPhone.

> I’m kinda split on the whole Apple situation. I’m firmly in the camp of “monopoly bad”, but apparently people are fine with apple’s practices. It’s not like they have to buy an iPhone.

There are many things that now require you to have a phone that runs iOS or Google-approved Android. They both monopolize their respective markets and charge 30%, locking out competitors with attestation systems etc.

Two incumbents that each divide up the customer base between them while locking out other competitors is called a cartel and it's not actually a competitive market.

Re: Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B

#270

Post by kelthuzad »

itake wrote: post #172
kelthuzad wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Super confused. You aren't confused, you just have a preferred narrative. Hardcore Apple fans and Apple shareholders share a similar bias with different variations of 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.' >What do you mean its been working on Android just fine? Google just announced they are closing their ecosystem exactly for the reasons I state…

Your premise has the false dilemma: "If we can't perfectly block fraudsters from by-passing security checks, then we might as well have no security checks." Another simple test is we can compare the amount of malware running on closed ecosystems with open systems. Which system hosts more malware: linux/windows or iOS? I want to clarify that I'm not saying there are no financial benefits for Google/Apple. I am saying…

There is no false dilemma. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.

"In the meantime, Google’s story that this move is motivated by security it obviously bullshit. First of all, the argument that preventing users from installing software of their choosing is the only way to safeguard their privacy and security is bullshit when Apple uses it, and it’s bullshit when Google trots it out:

https://www.eff.org/document/letter-bruce-schneier-senate-ju...

But even if you stipulate that Google is doing this to keep you safe, the story falls apart. After all, Google isn’t certifying apps, they’re certifying developers. This implies that the company can somehow predict whether a developer will do something malicious in the future." - https://doctorow.medium.com/https-pluralistic-net-2025-09-01...

Post reply on HN