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

Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 631 posts

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#31

Post by scq »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #21
medhir wrote: post #15

once again will ask why iPhones are treated any differently from other computing devices — we need legislative solutions that allow consumers to load software (or even other operating systems) on any computing device they own. restricting software distribution on any platform under the guise of needing to be kept “secure” always seemed anticompetitive to me - that should apply regardless of Apple’s particular behavio…

Get ready to answer why an iPhone is different than an xbox

Xbox, PlayStation, and Switch should be forced to open up as well.

Closed ecosystems only benefit the corporations that control them.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#32

Post by Spooky23 »

mrcwinn wrote: post #13

The heart of Apple's hypocrisy is this: they claim their 30% is necessary to support the developer ecosystem and fund its operations. But of course if that were true, they could easily charge a high enough platform membership fee directly to developers. Instead they opt for a structural tax to cover what are mostly completely opaque and secret operational costs. They're opaque and secret for obvious reasons: those ex…

They don’t make that claim. That’s the service they are selling and the margin they choose. The royalty is similar to software retailer margins going back a long time. Steam charges a similar rate.

It’s pretty trivial to bypass. Just don’t charge for your software, and use the app to access paid resources purchased outside the platform. My company distributes a few dozen apps to thousands of employees, Apple gets $0, because they utilize an existing subscription or license unconnected to Apple.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#34

Post by mvdtnz »

ivanmontillam wrote: post #22
mrcwinn wrote: post #13

The heart of Apple's hypocrisy is this: they claim their 30% is necessary to support the developer ecosystem and fund its operations. But of course if that were true, they could easily charge a high enough platform membership fee directly to developers. Instead they opt for a structural tax to cover what are mostly completely opaque and secret operational costs. They're opaque and secret for obvious reasons: those ex…

Were they transparent, what would inhibit developers from bargaining against the costs and benefits shown? Sometimes that also outweighs the benefits of transparency. You just can't show anything to anyone without kicking a wasp's nest. I am not defending Apple, if anything, I am pro-Android here, but I understand the pickle they'd be in, were they be transparent with the cost structure.

> what would inhibit developers from bargaining against the costs and benefits shown?

Another word for that is "competing". And yeah, exactly.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#35

Post by echelon »

autobodie wrote: post #19
mil22 wrote: post #4

About time. I'm tired of apologizing to customers who purchase subscriptions in my app only to discover they could have purchased the exact the same thing from my website for 15% less. "Why didn't you tell me?" Excerpt from the filing: "In stark contrast to Apple’s initial in-court testimony, contemporaneous business documents reveal that Apple knew exactly what it was doing and at every turn chose the most anticompe…

About time for what? Another company to get charged with something that they don't get punished for? The fines are always less than the companies' net gains from the practice. Gains are often indirect, risk-related, and/or part of a larger strategy, so they cannot be calculated. Everything short of prison is a waste of time, waste of tax dollars, and spits in the face of decent citizens.

100%. This doesn't deserve a fine. This deserves Apple to be given an ultimatum about their mob boss behavior with mobile.

Apple and Google quickly built up their duopoly such that everyone doing anything with mobile phones has to pay them a tax. You can't even deploy your own apps at your own cadence, without strict review, using your own technology. You have to jump through unplanned upgrade cycles, you're forced to use their payment rails and signup flows (and don't get to know your customer or get them to use your website). You pay the taxes on everything. And even then, they let your competitors advertise against your name or trademark.

This is rotten to the core.

Neither Google nor Apple should have an app store. Apps should be web installs. The only reason things work the way they do is so that Apple and Google can tax and exert control. A permissions system, signature scans, and heuristics are all that are needed to keep web installs safe - and all of those pieces are already in place. There's no technical or safety limitation, Apple and Google just want to dominate.

These two companies were innovative 20 years ago, but their lead then doesn't entitle them to keep owning the majority of most people's computing surface area for the rest of time. They have to give up the reigns. There are still billions of dollars for them to make on mobile, even if regulators tell them to stop treating developers as serfs and locking them in cages.

No. More. App. Stores.

Regulate big tech's hold over mobile, web, search, and advertising.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#37

Post by t_sawyer »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #21
medhir wrote: post #15

once again will ask why iPhones are treated any differently from other computing devices — we need legislative solutions that allow consumers to load software (or even other operating systems) on any computing device they own. restricting software distribution on any platform under the guise of needing to be kept “secure” always seemed anticompetitive to me - that should apply regardless of Apple’s particular behavio…

Get ready to answer why an iPhone is different than an xbox

Which… while we’re at it. Gaming would be much better if consoles didn’t exist anymore. Games would be more optimized for PC and manufacturers would just be building prebuilt gaming PCs.

We also would have more Switch competition in the ARM gaming space instead of x64 handhelds and Android windows emulation if these walled gardens didn’t exist.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#38

Post by abtinf »

medhir wrote: post #15

once again will ask why iPhones are treated any differently from other computing devices — we need legislative solutions that allow consumers to load software (or even other operating systems) on any computing device they own. restricting software distribution on any platform under the guise of needing to be kept “secure” always seemed anticompetitive to me - that should apply regardless of Apple’s particular behavio…

> once again will ask why iPhones are treated any differently from other computing devices

And then you immediately state a way they should be treated differently (worse).

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#39

Post by Laremere »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #21
medhir wrote: post #15

once again will ask why iPhones are treated any differently from other computing devices — we need legislative solutions that allow consumers to load software (or even other operating systems) on any computing device they own. restricting software distribution on any platform under the guise of needing to be kept “secure” always seemed anticompetitive to me - that should apply regardless of Apple’s particular behavio…

Get ready to answer why an iPhone is different than an xbox

It isn't. Consoles at this stage are general purpose computers with hardware and software explicitly designed to prevent consumers using it as such. If consumer rights had any real teeth, any hardware device would be required to allow their owners to install any piece of software of their choosing, including replacing the operating system.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#40

Post by MattRix »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #21
medhir wrote: post #15

once again will ask why iPhones are treated any differently from other computing devices — we need legislative solutions that allow consumers to load software (or even other operating systems) on any computing device they own. restricting software distribution on any platform under the guise of needing to be kept “secure” always seemed anticompetitive to me - that should apply regardless of Apple’s particular behavio…

Get ready to answer why an iPhone is different than an xbox

One is a general computing device and one is for a specific task (gaming).
Post reply on HN