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

Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

nypost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 130 posts

Re: Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

#31

Post by archgrove »

ajross wrote: post #27
archgrove wrote: post #8

Genuine question: How are the restrictions placed by Apple on what's allowed in the App Store any different then the restrictions placed by console owners on what's published for the XBox or PS3? For example, the XBox XNA community games system requires people to use .Net - there's no technical reason for this (the XBox is clearly capable of running native code). However, Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo still seem to be allo…

You're missing the point. This is an anti-trust action. None of Microsoft, Sony or even Nintendo can be said to have the kind of dominant position in the console market that Apple does in smartphones. They're not a monopoly, but they're distressingly close. And they appear to be taking actions that can be pretty clearly seen as anticompetetive -- leveraging their dominance to make compatible applications for other pl…

But they're nowhere near "distressingly close" to a monopoly - even picking the most Apple friendly metrics, they have only 25% of the smartphone market, with Android constantly closing the gap (and e.g. Blackberry actually ahead of them in some areas). The Wii, on the other hand, has around 50% of the current generation console market.

They seem to have a monopoly on marketplace hype, I won't doubt that. But to claim they've a monopoly on smartphones is just plain wrong.

Re: Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

#32

Post by ergo98 »

archgrove wrote: post #8

Genuine question: How are the restrictions placed by Apple on what's allowed in the App Store any different then the restrictions placed by console owners on what's published for the XBox or PS3? For example, the XBox XNA community games system requires people to use .Net - there's no technical reason for this (the XBox is clearly capable of running native code). However, Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo still seem to be allo…

>How are the restrictions placed by Apple on what's allowed in the App Store any different then the restrictions placed by console owners on what's published for the XBox or PS3?

>For example, the XBox XNA community games system requires people to use .Net - there's no technical reason for this (the XBox is clearly capable of running native code)

XNA requires you to target the .NET runtime. It does not dictate what tools you use to generate the assemblies. If Microsoft had a clause saying that you had to use Visual Studio Ultimate on Windows 7, they would get demolished.

And you can target native, but you have to buy the expensive SDK and sign a revenue sharing agreement. That's the financial model behind consoles (where they are generally sold at a loss). Again, though, how you develop is not Microsoft's concern, and you have no limits on that, so long as you fall within the bounds of the runtime.

Apple's restrictions are not at all comparable.

If Apple implemented 3.3.1 as a clause that Apple will impose minimum quality levels, feature completeness (e.g. "you must use the current available features of the platform"), etc, that would be one thing and they would have been entirely within their rights to do that. That is not what they did, but instead they are saying that a super shitty, super inefficient crapshoot of an app that misuses and underuses the platform is okay, but one that is developed in a different manner is not just because.

Re: Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

#33

Post by jheriko »

As much as I would like to protect the world from Apple with law... I don't think Section 3.3.1/Anti-trust are the way to go.

I just don't see the connection... Apple aren't encouraging programmers to choose between Apple or other platforms - just the ones inept enough to need the crutch of Flash (or similar) to call themselves programmers to start with. Writing cross platform code is precisely as possible as it was before 3.3.1 - its just not so easy that every idiot can do it and submit their rubbish to the App store.

Re: Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

#34

Post by ajross »

archgrove wrote: post #31
ajross wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing the point. This is an anti-trust action. None of Microsoft, Sony or even Nintendo can be said to have the kind of dominant position in the console market that Apple does in smartphones. They're not a monopoly, but they're distressingly close. And they appear to be taking actions that can be pretty clearly seen as anticompetetive -- leveraging their dominance to make compatible applications for other pl…

But they're nowhere near "distressingly close" to a monopoly - even picking the most Apple friendly metrics, they have only 25% of the smartphone market, with Android constantly closing the gap (and e.g. Blackberry actually ahead of them in some areas). The Wii, on the other hand, has around 50% of the current generation console market. They seem to have a monopoly on marketplace hype, I won't doubt that. But to clai…

The iPhone is the first, and in some cases still the only, platform to target if you're doing anything in the mobile consumer space. RIM competes with businesses only, there is no meaningful "app market" there, nor with Windows Mobile. Android is doing well, but it remains a distant second.

Re: Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

#35

Post by mattmaroon »

ajross wrote: post #27
archgrove wrote: post #8

Genuine question: How are the restrictions placed by Apple on what's allowed in the App Store any different then the restrictions placed by console owners on what's published for the XBox or PS3? For example, the XBox XNA community games system requires people to use .Net - there's no technical reason for this (the XBox is clearly capable of running native code). However, Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo still seem to be allo…

You're missing the point. This is an anti-trust action. None of Microsoft, Sony or even Nintendo can be said to have the kind of dominant position in the console market that Apple does in smartphones. They're not a monopoly, but they're distressingly close. And they appear to be taking actions that can be pretty clearly seen as anticompetetive -- leveraging their dominance to make compatible applications for other pl…

Wrong and wronger. Each of the console gaming companies you mentioned has more market share in consoles than Apple has in smart phones (and Apple's share of mobile phones as a whole is trivial). While the iPhone might garner 95% of Hacker News entries, it's only selling about 15% of smart phones. (That's a lot, especially at the markup Apple gets off of it, but it's less than any of the console makers has.)

Regardless, one does not need a monopoly to engage in anti-competitive actions and for them to be illegal.

Re: Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

#36

Post by roc »

_delirium wrote: post #5
tptacek wrote: post #2

Since Apple doesn't have anything resembling a monopoly in any market it operates in, and since all DoJ can do is file a suit that is predicated on them having one, this is unlikely to go anywhere.

I don't think tying claims need to prove an actual monopoly, just the somewhat lower standard that the seller has sufficient market power in the tying product's market for the tying arrangement to restrain trade in the tied product's market. It's been applied in the past to car manufacturers who tried to corner their own cars' replacement-parts market, even though the manufacturers didn't actually have a monopoly in…

3.3.1 is a section of the Terms of Use of developers seeking to use Apple's distribution channel. Apple isn't trying to make middle-ware-built iPhone apps illegal. It just doesn't want them on the app store. An important distinction between the car/part and printer/ink analogies.

Forcing Apple to repeal 3.3.1 doesn't allow offending software to be built and sold (as it already can be), it forces Apple to stock its shelves with it and thus take on users' expectations that Apple will support it (by making sure an OS update doesn't break hundreds of apps by running afoul of a popular middleware package).

Re: Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

#37

Post by gyardley »

I wonder if we'll also see an inquiry into 3.3.9, which is about data collection and impacts mobile ad networks. If Apple's own mobile ad network can leverage data for targeting that other ad networks can't, I really can't see those ad networks just acquiescing without exploring their legal options.

Re: Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

#38

Post by chc »

archgrove wrote: post #31
ajross wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing the point. This is an anti-trust action. None of Microsoft, Sony or even Nintendo can be said to have the kind of dominant position in the console market that Apple does in smartphones. They're not a monopoly, but they're distressingly close. And they appear to be taking actions that can be pretty clearly seen as anticompetetive -- leveraging their dominance to make compatible applications for other pl…

But they're nowhere near "distressingly close" to a monopoly - even picking the most Apple friendly metrics, they have only 25% of the smartphone market, with Android constantly closing the gap (and e.g. Blackberry actually ahead of them in some areas). The Wii, on the other hand, has around 50% of the current generation console market. They seem to have a monopoly on marketplace hype, I won't doubt that. But to clai…

Wrong metric. You may as well choose "Shiny plastic devices market" as "smartphone market," because neither directly affects third-party devs. What matters here is app market, and Apple is utterly dominant there.

Re: Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

#39

Post by roc »

ergo98 wrote: post #32
archgrove wrote: post #8

Genuine question: How are the restrictions placed by Apple on what's allowed in the App Store any different then the restrictions placed by console owners on what's published for the XBox or PS3? For example, the XBox XNA community games system requires people to use .Net - there's no technical reason for this (the XBox is clearly capable of running native code). However, Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo still seem to be allo…

>How are the restrictions placed by Apple on what's allowed in the App Store any different then the restrictions placed by console owners on what's published for the XBox or PS3? >For example, the XBox XNA community games system requires people to use .Net - there's no technical reason for this (the XBox is clearly capable of running native code) XNA requires you to target the .NET runtime. It does not dictate what t…

The distinction Apple is making is thus:

A "bad" behavior written into an app by hand may break on a new update, but it affects only itself.

A "bad" behavior written into middleware may break on a new update, and may take out dozens, hundreds or perhaps thousands of apps.

No-one would expect Apple to take special pains to avoid breaking a handful of random apps in the app store. But if some middleware bug effected thousands of apps, they would.

To deny that is to refuse to learn from all the intentionally-protected bugs and legacy behaviors in modern desktop operating systems, that linger solely because the platform provider doesn't want to break large swaths of legacy apps.

Re: Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

#40

Post by glhaynes »

fierarul wrote: post #18
jasonlbaptiste wrote: post #13

This is absolutely retarded. a) The market will figure this out. If developers don't want to code in just Cocoa touch or make apps for other platforms a priority because the language is easier, they will. b) Things are in such a nascent stage. Android is growing like a weed. A suit like this might make some partial sense a few years down the road if there was enough data there. c) The department of justice will proba…

How do you know something is substandard just because it's made with some other library / language ? Especially with an "yet to be created" library / language ? If you think "the market will figure this out" (which I think in itself is wrong) why don't we let the market figure out which language is better ? If the users don't like some products, they won't buy them. If all Cocoa touch apps make money and all the Flas…

It's a question of whether you want regulatory intervention preventing the possibility of there being "closed" systems in addition to there being "open" systems. If you prevent Apple from going their "closed" route, you lose the possibility of any benefits that might come from such a different model. When people say "let the market sort it out", they mean that if Apple's model puts out a significantly worse product than the more open models, they'll be forced to open up or die. So it's a question of whether all platforms have to be open: this would arguably lead to increased competition within each platform, but with less distinction between platforms and would prevent the possibility of exploring different models for whole platforms (and letting those models compete).
Post reply on HN