Apple loses UK App Store monopoly case, penalty might near $2B • Hacker News Board

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

#361

Post by array_key_first » Fri, Oct 24, 2025, 4:11 PM UTC

chongli wrote: post #42

someotherperson wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much of a fee do you think you should pay to install applications on your computer? The same amount as that. Or provide alternative ways to install software. This is a problem of their own creation.

As soon as you open the door to side-loading, you'll have scammers and data-siphoners force all their users to side-load so that they can completely bypass Apple's privacy controls and security features. The entire iOS ecosystem is built on the App Store review process as a gatekeeper for entitlements and the capabilities they grant (through API access). How do you solve that problem for side-loaded apps?

Apple has literally zero "security features" that rely on the app store.

They do not review source code. There is malware on the Apple app store, because they do not review apps for malware. Because they do not review source code.

Any other opinion is just not true.

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

#362

Post by pessimizer » Fri, Oct 24, 2025, 4:12 PM UTC

wkat4242 wrote: post #296

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #266

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.

> considering the geopolitical pressures on huge companies like this.

This seems backwards. The reason they can't be broken up is because of the pressure that huge companies like this put on individuals in government.

No different than why a small town mayor can't jail the organized crime ring that runs his town. If he tries anything, they will shoot him; or at least put up posters all over town accusing him of being a pedophile (and pay somebody to file charges against him that will eventually be dismissed for lack of evidence.) He wouldn't have become mayor in the first place if they hadn't supported him and attacked his potential competitors.

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

#363

Post by array_key_first » Fri, Oct 24, 2025, 4:13 PM UTC

flomo wrote: post #125

anonymous908213 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sideloading, AKA "installing software on your device", is something PCs have been handling just fine for decades. It's fine to warn the user when they're going off the beaten trail, but do not lock them in a cage to prevent them from doing so. If they ignore the warnings and get scammed because they are unable to identify reputable software from disreputable software, they learn a life lesson. Life goes on. There sho…

There was some point around 15 years ago when it was nearly impossible to download and install Windows software without getting some extra adware and etc. This was true even for 'legit' vendors like Sun and Adobe. (Plus Google would offer up wrapped installers for Firefox, OpenOffice, etc.) Honestly if you thought "things were fine", you were ignoring the Linux/Mac people laughing about it.

Having an app store does literally nothing to prevent adware. Almost all apps currently on the Apple app store or Google play store are adware.

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

#364

Post by array_key_first » Fri, Oct 24, 2025, 4:15 PM UTC

chongli wrote: post #187

cco wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My precise location data and credit card transactions are freely available on the market. Just by companies listed on the stock market who got that data "legally" in our current walled and "safe" garden. I appreciate a lockdown for kids and elders, but let's not pretend our data is locked safely away in this walled garden.

Credit card and location data is one thing. If we opened up these devices to the Wild West we’d have spyware that tracks every single thing you do on the phone in real time (and logs all your conversations and everything else). We’d also have malware that gets root access to the phone and breaks into your bank accounts. It would be a total disaster!

1. The app store is already mostly spyware.

2. Apps are actively encouraged by Apple and Google to be spyware.

3. An app store cannot prevent spyware.

4. Sandboxing is unrelated to an app store.

5. Most source code is not available on the app store, and Apple and Google are actively hostile to open source apps.

6. There is zero source auditing done on the app store.

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

#365

Post by array_key_first » Fri, Oct 24, 2025, 4:17 PM UTC

chongli wrote: post #186

Rohansi wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is Apple isn't really helping with the problem because the weakest link is people. If you can get someone to install malicious software how much more difficult is it to have them willingly give it via phishing?

I don’t see how going back to the Wild West of the PC era is supposed to help these nontechnical users be safer. The App Store isn’t perfect but it’s far, far safer than that. I have vivid memories of loads of relatives in the Windows XP era with browsers laden with toolbars that spy on everything they do and slow the computer to a crawl. Those users see something like the iPhone as a massive breath of fresh air. Not…

> Nothing you install on the App Store can inject adware into the rest of the operating system like that.

That has literally fuck all to do with the app store. That's called sandboxing - the app store has nothing to do with sandboxing. They are different things.

Why are we being dishonest.

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

#366

Post by gpm » Fri, Oct 24, 2025, 4:48 PM UTC

sehansen wrote: post #339

gpm wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did not have a choice to buy another equivalent phone because patents legally forbid other companies from producing equivalent phones. If Apple wants to take that defence, they should be required to have abandoned every patent they own on iPhones prior to my purchase of the device.

I don't think you're entitled to an equivalent phone. If we're talking patents on essential things like a cryptographic algorithm required for banking or a technology required to implement 5G, sure, the patent holder should be required to license the patent to anyone at a reasonable price. But not licensing patents on non-essential features like Face ID or health monitors are OK. And all of that is independent of whe…

I don't think I'm entitled to an equivalent phone either. I merely think I'm entitled to either (at Apple's option) an equivalent phone OR apple not using it's monopoly on producing equivalent phones to extract further money from me after patent rights are exhausted at the time of the purchase of the phone from Apple.

I.e. I'm entitled to anti-trust protection. Or I'm entitled to patent-misuse protection. I don't really care which set of laws you put it under.

Even if Apple were 10% of the phone market they would still have 100% of the distributing software to devices with Apple's patented technology market, and that should be enough for anti trust protection to kick in.

(I'm also mildly anti patent, but I've been carefully selecting only arguments in this thread that I believe are entirely consistent with a pro patent belief system. E.g. if Apple treated their phones like their laptops - where they also have patents - all the positions and arguments I've taken would not have an issue with their behavior)

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

#367

Post by troupo » Fri, Oct 24, 2025, 4:51 PM UTC

shuckles wrote: post #360

troupo wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have a literal section "(6) Description of the “comparator” platforms" where the very first item is "(a) Google and other Android platforms" There's a section "112. On 10 June 2022, the CMA published the final report in its MEM Study, which contains a number of findings in relation to both Apple and Google." It's amazing that you never even tried to read the actual document but already immediately assume a posit…

> comparable yet notably omitted from the ranges the tribunal considered Interesting to accuse people of not reading the document in a post where you don’t read a 3 sentence comment (and reply to the wrong one, but we can chalk that up to HN UI).

This is the correct comment to reply to.

Imagine if you actually read and understood the document instead of pressing on with your ignorance.

The court considered Google Play. And explained how Google Play has the exact dame issues as AppStore. So whatever Google Play is doing is irrelevant to a case against Apple.

It's not a difficult document to read and understand. Just lengthy.

I would quote relevant sections, but that would be a completely wasted effort.

Adieu.

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

#368

Post by bigyabai » Fri, Oct 24, 2025, 5:02 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #313

jeroenhd wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 rea…

> Interesting, do you have a link for that? https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/19/22632806/google-epic-prem... They adopt the Google framing that they were "being paid" to exclude third party stores, but that's a subjective description. If you get paid X for search revenue and you get Y less if you include third party app stores, that's a penalty. > The network effect never existed on desktop and Steam is doing just fin…

> No it isn't. It's good, but it has ~0% market share

Oh, I'll go tell my dad and brother who have been happily using it to update NewPipe for years. They'll be heartbroken but otherwise unbothered.

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

#369

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Oct 24, 2025, 5:09 PM UTC

shuckles wrote: post #176

JimDabell wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> During the first 12 years of the App Store, everyone paid 30%. This is still not correct. The original claim was “every single business on the planet”. That’s ridiculously overstated. Even if you massively narrow the scope to only businesses that have iOS apps that make money directly through the app, it’s still not true. The 30% specifically applies to buying digital goods and services through iOS apps. Take Uber,…

Or Spotify, a common complainant, who pays Apple $0 because they only sign up accounts on their website.

[deleted]

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

#370

Post by captainbland » Fri, Oct 24, 2025, 5:20 PM UTC

wkat4242 wrote: post #296

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #266

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.

Yeah I guess the "fix" would be legislating that such platforms require OS makers to provide an open market of software either by allowing manual installation or third party app stores.