Live data from Hacker News

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

9to5mac.com

301–310 of 411 posts

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

#301
post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the fine amount is specific to the harm done by one product line, in one market. Whereas Apple’s profit figure reflects their total profit across all products and all markets combined. It’s meaningless comparing these, because it’s not an equal basis of comparison.

Why? You probably know just how long these cases take, so it is not like all other countries are now going to do the same. If that's the case then using their total profit seems the only proper measure. What it says is that these companies lose these cases but it's so infrequent that they can just price it in. It's a cost of doing business. If we were to fine Tim Cook 1000$ for doing something that paid him 1M would…

Countries with similar laws might very well consider doing the same after reviewing the case and considering how well it matches their own situation.

Other than that I agree with you - the fine doesn't make much of a difference unless the risk becomes so significant that it effectively threatens the jobs of people not to address it, and it will only threaten jobs if it becomes more expensive to continue ignoring these laws than paying fines if/when individual countries take them to court.

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

#302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You can't jail a company. And breaking one up is pretty much impossible considering the geopolitical pressures on huge companies like this.

[deleted]

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

#303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You can't jail a company. And breaking one up is pretty much impossible considering the geopolitical pressures on huge companies like this.

You can imagine things a country could do in this respect. Require the devices they sell in your country to be completely unlocked with respect to third party app stores and operating systems, but also with respect to regions so that people can buy the unlocked ones there and use them anywhere. Invalidate their copyrights in your country so that third parties can ship phones with iOS. It's punishment, they're not supposed to like it. There are plenty of things they wouldn't like.

Also, putting aside whether the UK could actually break them up, the US or the EU could actually break them up.

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

#304

> “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.

People don't necessarily choose the option that is better for them long term. The existence of monopolies stifles innovation, so users are worse off. For example, Apple's ecosystem works great if you go all in, but what would have happened if Apple had opened the garden to every one and embraced open standards?

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

#305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> has constrained OEMs from shipping devices with other stores installed Every Samsung phone comes with the Samsung Store. My Xiaomi phone came with a Xiaomi store. I don't know about any vendors that even wanted to ship app stores outside of their own, but I don't recall Google preventing them from doing that. > If alternative stores are a viable alternative, why do they have ~0% market share? Because people like Go…

> Every Samsung phone comes with the Samsung Store. My Xiaomi phone came with a Xiaomi store. Google got caught withholding search revenue from vendors who installed third party stores and punishing them in various other ways. The phone vendor stores are all useless specifically because they're from the phone vendors, which means they'll be terrible because hardware vendors are notoriously bad at software, and on top…

> Google got caught withholding search revenue from vendors who installed third party stores and punishing them in various other ways.

Interesting, do you have a link for that?

> Those are the phone vendor stores. Nobody wants those.

They have the same problem Apple's app store has: they lock you into a particular brand if you decide to spend money. Annoying, I agree, but 99% of app downloads are free anyway.

The real money is to be made with in-app purchases, but because people don't give alternative app stores a chance, they don't realize how much they're being scammed: https://www.reddit.com/r/TheSilphRoad/comments/bnbgmf/samsun...

> The phone vendor stores are all useless specifically because they're from the phone vendors, which means they'll be terrible because hardware vendors are notoriously bad at software, and on top of that they'll only be installed for people with that brand of phone, which again destroys the network effect.

The network effect never existed on desktop and Steam is doing just fine competing with the Microsoft Store.

As for software quality, 90% of smartphones is all software. If they were as bad at software as you say they are, smartphones would be unusable.

> Actual competitors would be the likes of Amazon or Epic or F-Droid, but Google's shenanigans have meant they all have negligible market share to the extent that Amazon even gave up.

F-Droid is widely used but only a fraction of consumers care about the things F-Droid cares about. Everyone who cares about open source on Android is served either by F-Droid directly or by another app leveraging the same ecosystem. There's no money to be made selling apps you can download for free elsewhere, though.

> you'd otherwise expect there to be a thousand bad ones and at least a dozen good ones since it's not that hard to set up an app store

But it is hard to set up an app store? The code for the app store itself isn't all that exciting, but convincing developers/publishers to use your app store is. Then things like localisation, payment, distribution, and in-app purchases pop up, which are technical challenges that are much harder to solve.

There's a reason Steam and GOG are essentially the only independent software stores left for video games other than buying games from publishers directly.

The lack of a network effect does make it hard to compete with the status quo, but part of that is that nobody really tries. What the big companies really want is to get the benefits of Google Play without having to pay the price. That's why they sued to "open up" the Google Play store rather than to force Google to make alternative app stores possible.

There are stores that do have the network effect, as they come pre-installed on billions of phones. But, as you said, "nobody wants those".

Trust me, I'd love for Google Play to get a repository feature where you can add and remove your own software sources so I wouldn't need to deal with the laggy F-Droid UI or the unmaintained Amazon App Store app, but the technical hurdles for getting app stores on phones is rather minimal.

For what it's worth, I think Netflix is the second biggest OS-independent proprietor of software apps, as their app comes with an Xbox Game Pass/Playstation Plus/Apple Arcade-style games catalogue available with your subscription. They use Google Play for binary distribution, but payment itself happens through your standard Netflix subscription. Again, a lot of people are angry that this alternative even exists because it's "bloat" but the network is there, ready to be leveraged.

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

#306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 arca…

Well you did claim that, but thank you for correcting. So that warning is bad for a developer because of confused and annoyed users, but in terms of actual user restriction it's not super bad. If defender is set to be too aggressive, that's a one time change, so about on par with Android. And for the normal (I think? Did the default change?) setting you just use run anyway. That's far away from how iOS makes it impossible.

Edit: Everything I can find says that taking away the "run anyway" button is not default. If a user or their sysadmin changes that setting I don't really blame Microsoft.

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

#307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You can't jail a company. And breaking one up is pretty much impossible considering the geopolitical pressures on huge companies like this.

You can't jail a company, but you can jail a CEO.

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

#308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine the response if the uk tried to break up apple

I'd love it if a government would decide that the hardware side of the company needs to split from the software side. Suddenly we could buy macos to run in a VM. Or we could buy iPhones running android.

But that would be like a sudden outbreak of common sense.

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

#309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Fines can work. We should continue fining them one day of revenue every day until compliance occurs.

You believe that breaking them up is geopolitically infeasible but a fine larger than the GDP of Finland would fly?

On top of that, giant bureaucracies are great at "compliance". That isn't the same as doing the thing you actually wanted though.

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

#310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't jail a company. And breaking one up is pretty much impossible considering the geopolitical pressures on huge companies like this.

You can't jail a company, but you can jail a CEO.

Always talking about bigger pay because of bigger responsibility. Might finally start making sense if they actually start putting them in jails.
Post reply on HN