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

341–350 of 631 posts

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#341

Post by MarioMan »

srcreigh wrote: post #331
pasc1878 wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Getting there via the App Store is just one option. You can also get there from Settings under Apple Account > Subscriptions.

And if that’s too tricky, you can just type “Subscriptions” (shows up after just typing “sub” for me) into Spotlight Search, and it’s the top option.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#342

Post by jkirsteins »

hajile wrote: post #339
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?

Malicious compliance is a thing. They're supposed to use neutral language.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#343

Post by snowwrestler »

clhodapp wrote: post #175
snowwrestler wrote: post #102

It’s a shame Phil Schiller has gotten sidelined. He always seemed like a good guy and a big part of the “soul” of Apple as it made its resurgence under Jobs after the NeXT merger.

Phil Schiller was one of the strongest voices against cross-platform messaging interoperability. He's just as bad as the rest of them.

You can’t guarantee E2E across messaging networks. Apple still doesn’t do it, and neither does Signal, WhatsApp, Messenger, etc.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#344

Post by klabb3 »

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…

Its not a dollar value. It’s an ongoing percentage based tax on your business relationships and consumption with other providers.

For instance, say Netflix has an iOS app with 10M installs. Apple wants 30% of the subscription revenue even though their costs are static. The only variable cost is payment infrastructure which to some degree is proportional to amounts (fraud etc). But what is the market value of that? A couple percent at most? Are apple even taking any risk?

And honestly, Apple could easily take 5-10% and I’m sure lots of vendors would still use them due to user preference - it’s trustworthy, provided an overview of ongoing subscriptions, and importantly you can cancel without being on a 30min retention call with absolute garbage companies.

But that needs to be played out by the markets. Competition will make Apples option cheaper and most likely competitors will step up to match the UX at lower prices. Free markets, like democracy, have this paradox of tolerance, ie bad faith players can abuse the very system to destroy it in self-interest.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#345

Post by m_st »

srcreigh wrote: post #331
pasc1878 wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What version are you using? Click 'Settings' -> 'Profile' (huge button on top) -> 'Subscriptions'. I don't know how it could be easier than that. Ah wait, pull down on the home screen for search, type 'subscriptions' and tap on the result for direct access to the setting. From there you can see and cancel any subscription made in the App Store.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#346

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

fsckboy wrote: post #173
ribosometronome wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough, I replied poorly, but the judgment doesn't appear to be based on Apple being monopoly or size of the business, as far as I can tell. The issue appears to be of anti-steering, more than the number of customers/its market share. Epic notably failed to prove Sherman act violations, didn't it? The actual judgment: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25924283-epic-v-appl... >After a bench trial, this Cour…

the judgment doesn't appear to be based on Apple being monopoly or size of the business our anti-trust laws are not about being a monopoly or the size of your business: they are about abusing market dominance (where up or downstream has no choice) with unfair business practices. a monopoly that charges fair prices and does not abuse suppliers and customers will not encounter any legal difficulty

Correct. You're a "monopoly" if you act like one because in a competitive environment if you abuse customers and partners you will lose.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#347

Post by ensignavenger »

Spooky23 wrote: post #32
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,…

But game developers can sell steam keys directly or cia other resellers and avoid the steam commision entirely. So Valve is goving them a fee service and only chargeing a commision when valve themselves generate the sell.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#348

Post by damonll »

lazide wrote: post #300
Gareth321 wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She also referred Alex Roman's actions and everyone else complicit for review of contempt of court, which carries a possible prison sentence. I never thought Apple would outright defy the courts to the degree they'd risk a prison term for the executives.

Give the current situation with people ignoring the court ( cough into the presidency) with no consequences, what do you expect them to do? Take the courts seriously? Now, practically speaking, that exposes them to the Court taking all their frustration out on the execs. Oops.

You do realize that they ignored the court order -during- Biden's administration, not Trump's, right?

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#349

Post by avar »

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…

The most shocking thing to me about that isn't the malicious compliance, but that even after a court injunction, and fully knowing that there could be subsequent discovery, they have people putting something like that in writing.

Seriously, this is one of the top 10 largest companies in the world, and they're playing chicken with the court in order to preserve their ongoing revenue. These weren't random employees, but people part of "Project Michigan", Apple's "activities relating to Injunction compliance".

How doesn't every single person that's a part of that project have an Apple lawyer hovering over them every time they get near any sort of device that can put anything on the record?

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#350

Post by larsnystrom »

hajile wrote: post #339
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?

Why are they using any language at all? Why not just let the app maker open the payment screen directly?
Post reply on HN