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

331–340 of 631 posts

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#331

Post by srcreigh »

pasc1878 wrote: post #264
rafaelcosta wrote: post #251

There's a whole class of sh*t-software that only exists (and is profitable) because users subscribe to them and then forget – primarily because the subscription fee is charged as "Apple" on their Credit Card. I wonder what's gonna happen with this type of scam.

If through Apple it is easy to cancel and all subs are listed in one place. If done through third parties directly the scammers will not make unsubscribing easy and it will not be as easy to find out where you are subscribing. Thus I expect the scamming to increase.

It’s not easy on iOS either.

For me to get to it from App Store, I have to click a tiny profile pic (smallest allowed button on iOS?)

The next screen displays Purchase History and other items. However, no way to cancel from this page (insane?)

To get to subscriptions, I have to click my name at the top of that page (which doesn’t even look like a button) which loads for 3 seconds then pops up.

On this hidden account page, it shows Purchase History along with subscriptions list to cancel.

If any other site hid subscription cancelling behind a flat contact header secret account page, it’d be an issue, so yeah it’s an issue for Apple too.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#332

Post by neallindsay »

Apple should abandon the console model for iPhones (and iPads, etc.). It's corrosive. By my back-of-the napkin math (subtracting an estimate of Google's quarterly search payments from Apple's stated "services" revenue and comparing to iPhone revenue), Apple would make the same amount of money by just charging me an extra 25% when I bought a phone. I would gladly pay that up-front instead of indirectly when I buy apps.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#333

Post by Clubber »

Gareth321 wrote: post #299
autobodie wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The judge referred the case for review of contempt of court, which makes individuals responsible for their criminal actions, and carries possible prison sentences. The judge has clear evidence of lying under oath and withholding evidence, and people have gone to prison for less. Alex Roman appears primarily culpable, but given the evidence reported, Tim Cook may also be complicit, and others. There is a real chance t…

Lying under oath would catch a perjury charge as well.

In the United States, the general perjury statute under federal law classifies perjury as a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to five years.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#334

Post by tokioyoyo »

bitpush wrote: post #284
troad wrote: post #278

The court decision itself is worth reading for a revealing look behind the curtain. [0] >> In Slack communications dated November 16, 2021, the Apple employees crafting the warning screen for Project Michigan discussed how best to frame its language. Mr. Onak suggested the warning screen should include the language: “By continuing on the web, you will leave the app and be taken to an external website” because “‘exter…

Jesus Christ. How worse can they be? Willfully malicious

Honestly, I’ve seen way, waay, waaaaaaaaaaaaaay worse in internal comms in different companies. Not trying to defend Apple, but this just sounds like an average conversation to me.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#335

Post by MarioMan »

neallindsay wrote: post #332

Apple should abandon the console model for iPhones (and iPads, etc.). It's corrosive. By my back-of-the napkin math (subtracting an estimate of Google's quarterly search payments from Apple's stated "services" revenue and comparing to iPhone revenue), Apple would make the same amount of money by just charging me an extra 25% when I bought a phone. I would gladly pay that up-front instead of indirectly when I buy apps…

A 25% price jump would cause much grumbling. That being said, I’d like to believe that there’s a real market for bootloader unlocked iPhones.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#336

Post by johnisgood »

microtonal wrote: post #275
CalRobert wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems to depend on time of day

This is certainly the case. I have noticed this in voting patterns as well. I often comment strongly in favor of EU regulations (I believe capitalism is fairer and benefits consumers more with stronger regulations). During times the US is asleep such comments often get a lot of upvotes. During times where EU and the US are up, there seems to be much more contention in the voting, with votes swinging up and down a lot…

I have noticed this trend, too.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#337

Post by Clubber »

refulgentis wrote: post #215
udev4096 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> higher class == higher morals Are you serious? First off, stop using the term "high class" for immoral people. They are well beneath the whole morale chain and the fact they managed to get to your-definition-of-high-class means that lots of dirty tactics were used which are well beyond what a normal human is capable of

> it's an unwarranted assumption, I'm not sure why you're reacting indignantly. I'll reconsider being vulnerable and honest next time people ask a question.

He was virtue signaling. It's sadly all too common these days. As if he or any human isn't capable of horrible atrocities given the right circumstances. Don't let him or anyone stifle your speech. Say what you need to say regardless of the sniping. You can't turn in your karma points for anything anyway, not even a little eraser.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#338

Post by lores »

xp84 wrote: post #234
numbsafari wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the referral to the US attorney’s office, he actually might. Consider how painful that is going to be for Apple, and Roman, with how the current administration is abusing the DOJ. The repercussions of this could be huge.

Well in this case it wouldn’t be abuse. I hope they do convict him if he’s guilty of perjury. It will set an example for the other weasels. “Percentage of executives of Fortune 500 companies who do time for real crimes they committed” should be a big KPI for the DOJ in my book.

I really hope you're right, but I think we're more likely to see the case swept under the rug in exchange for totally voluntary donations from Apple to various organisations with 'Trump' in their name.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#339

Post by hajile »

troad wrote: post #278

The court decision itself is worth reading for a revealing look behind the curtain. [0] >> In Slack communications dated November 16, 2021, the Apple employees crafting the warning screen for Project Michigan discussed how best to frame its language. Mr. Onak suggested the warning screen should include the language: “By continuing on the web, you will leave the app and be taken to an external website” because “‘exter…

Unless the judge actually specified the type of language to be used, this seems completely compliant.

Are they supposed to say "Please use our competitor. You'll find your experience with them far superior to what we provide" or something similar?

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#340

Post by hajile »

kelvinjps10 wrote: post #293
PaulRobinson wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

iAd is stated as being built differently to how other adtech networks work. I personally believe that Apple is able to make different (better), choices in the name of a consumer privacy, than Google will. Android is built from the ground up to provide surveillance data to Google-controlled adtech - that's their revenue model. I don't begrudge them that, people should have choice, etc. but the revenue model is adtech…

You can use Android without Google

In practical terms, you can't without switching to another company with an android variant that is just as bad.
Post reply on HN