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

371–380 of 631 posts

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#371

Post by gpm »

xp84 wrote: post #233
gpm wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Walls to keep apps out should be fine, but they should have to have gates to let the consumers out - i.e. a method to install other apps (not through the app store) that have every bit the same level of access as the device manufacturer's apps. There should be two levers used to achieve this. One is anti-trust style legislation. The other is patent misuse legislation. If you try and prevent consumers from running sof…

Is anyone proposing making Apple distribute software? If so, though, pretty sure just allowing sideloading instead would satisfy all of Apple’s critics including the government. It’s Apple who insists that all roads onto the iPhone must go through them (and give them 30% of your gross revenue)

> Is anyone proposing making Apple distribute software?

That's what the plain language of this injunction does.

Admittedly if Apple had come to the court (or even potentially came to the court now) and agreed to the alternate solution of allowing sideloading the court might have issued a different injunction (or modify this injunction).

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#372

Post by lotsofpulp »

larsnystrom wrote: post #357
scarface_74 wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because users will then blame Apple when they get scammed. There are a lot of websites that give you a warning when you click on a link outside of their control.

But this is from a non-Apple app. You’re already on a page outside of Apples control.

I have my parents use iOS because they couldn’t help themselves from downloading malware on Android. It wasn’t from Google, but it didn’t matter, because the whole Android system’s reputation was reduced because of it.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#373

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 »

raincole wrote: post #361
kmfrk wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's so jarring to get these kinds of message, especially for compliance with EU directives, because it's so obviously designed to look un-Apple-like which triggers some sort of malware or scam heuristic without the typical nice Apple presentation. Ironically it ends up getting flagged as some deliberate Apple malicious compliance BS which just sours you on the whole iOS experience.

I'm not even sure how "external website" is malicious compliance. Yes, I know the intention is to sound scary. But external website is the correct, neutral term which means... external website.

To you and me, sure. On the other hand, I wonder if is intended to scare people who like and want the safety of the apple ecosystem and perceive everything as outside of it as dark web. Come to think of it, that is kinda how I see dark web.. is there a scarier place on line than that?

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#374

Post by mensetmanusman »

sneak wrote: post #236
xuki wrote: post #107

> Internally, Phillip Schiller had advocated that Apple comply with the Injunction, but Tim Cook ignored Schiller and instead allowed Chief Financial Officer Luca Maestri and his finance team to convince him otherwise. The bean counters won. I guess Tim Cook does care about the bloody ROI after all. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2014/03/07/why-tim...

Now Tim Apple has gotta call up Trump and remind him he donated to the inauguration fund and is getting fucked by the tariffs (and furthermore has to spend many billions to hedge against what the USA is going to need to do in Taiwan) and get him to threaten the appellate judge.

[flagged]

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#375

Post by Wobbles42 »

Gareth321 wrote: post #297
caf wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The phrase "incandescent with rage" comes to mind when reading that order. A couple of choice quotes: To hide the truth, Vice-President of Finance, Alex Roman, outright lied under oath. This is an injunction, not a negotiation. There are no do-overs once a party willfully disregards a court order. Time is of the essence. The Court will not tolerate further delays. As previously ordered, Apple will not impede competit…

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.

Is it surprising? If the revenue realized by the ongoing defiance of the courts exceeds the cost of replacing the executive (including any risk premium caused by the risk of jail time in that job) then it seems rational for Apple as an entity to continue to defy the law.

Even if these executive positions carried a guarantee of a several year term in minimum or medium security prison, for the salaries involved they should be able to find someone who is reasonably competent and willing to do the job.

It's not like the corporate entity itself can be threatened with state violence, and it's owners (probably half the US!) are insulated from any real consequences. An entity like Apple really has diffused responsibility to the point that it transcends the law at this point, and it becomes perfectly rational for it to defy the courts.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#376

Post by 90s_dev »

Jcampuzano2 wrote: post #108
90s_dev wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally none, the DA must choose to pursue perjury charges, which basically never happens. In reality, nearly everyone commits perjury. Thomas More would not approve. Both versions (1966 and 1988) of A Man For All Seasons are highly worth watching several times and practically memorizing. "Would you benefit England by populating her with liars ?" [edit] in retrospect, there is one inescapable consequence of lying u…

To be honest companies practically incentivize having no moral compass and lying to succeed. Every major company's executives incorporate lying judiciously to their employees and their users alike and encourage their reports to lie to theirs and so on. Adhering to complete honesty is a one way ticket to HR. Sit on any all-hands call for a major company and it is practically guaranteed large chunks of the presentation…

> we are now a culture built on lying.

Are now? I mentioned Thomas More to show that this exact same thing happened 500 years ago. The whole point of the movie A Man For All Seasons is to show that this is always how it has been throughout human history, and that only a few people stand out as putting the truth higher than their own interests, such as Thomas More and Joan of Arc, which deeply impress even non-religious people like Robert Bolt and Mark Twain.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#377

Post by gpm »

pbh101 wrote: post #168
leptons wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm fine with Google and Apple having App stores, so long as I'm not forced to use them. They should compete like everyone else. The walls of the walled garden have to be torn down. They still get to have a garden, they just can't lock unwitting people inside of it.

I think the realistic possible end-states are either effectively Facebook controls the app store that matters or Apple/Google do.

That's not the end-state that was achieved on macs, why would it be on the one achieved on iPads or iPhones?

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#378

Post by toomuchtodo »

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote: post #370
mytailorisrich wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People put everything in writing and in videos nowadays and don't even think about it. Often it's "not so smart" criminals but we see again and again that even people are the highest levels do the same...

It is not always a question of smart of vs not smart. At times, you will see people say something in an email or chat for no other reason than 'now it is part of the record'.

CYA, always be building a paper trail in systems of record. "Will this be committed to something with a retention schedule and that is subject to a potential legal hold?" hits return

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#379

Post by eptcyka »

kubb wrote: post #240
openplatypus wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN is mostly US audience. EU = bad US = good

But weren't people here supposed to be intellectually curious, and have the cognitive tools to overcome things like instinctive tribalism?

In my subjective opinion, when it comes to Apple specifically, all kinds of unpaid labor will emerge from the ether to defend them on anonymous or pseudonymous message boards.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#380

Post by buyucu »

pornel wrote: post #232
xuki wrote: post #107

> Internally, Phillip Schiller had advocated that Apple comply with the Injunction, but Tim Cook ignored Schiller and instead allowed Chief Financial Officer Luca Maestri and his finance team to convince him otherwise. The bean counters won. I guess Tim Cook does care about the bloody ROI after all. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2014/03/07/why-tim...

This worries me beyond anti-competitive stuff. If Tim Cook is willing to lie and cheat for extra revenue, I can't trust that Apple is honest about their privacy commitments. Services revenue line must keep going up, and their ad business is a growth opportunity.

Everybody knows that Apple's privacy commitments are a joke. Closed source software can't commit to privacy.
Post reply on HN