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

581–590 of 631 posts

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#581

Post by antiframe »

jimbokun wrote: post #552
PaulHoule wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government should require credit card companies to introduce a system for recurring billing which would let you see all your subscriptions on your credit card web site and cancel them there. For the 3.5% they charge in fees it is the least they can do.

Sure but until that happens the App Store is the next best option.

I as a consumer would like a choice in the matter. Pay 30% more for a subscription dashboard or pay 30% less and cancel from the developers website.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#582

Post by kalleboo »

resource_waste wrote: post #307
caseyy wrote: post #272

Many people blame the EU for targeting US companies when it passes anti-monopoly and pro-consumer laws, or penalizes the companies for breaking them. Now that US courts are doing it more, it seems that corporations abusing their monopoly powers are the problem, not EU laws. But what do I know.

I don't really know this issue, I don't study it. But from afar: >An EU law stiffles all companies, not just the trillion dollar companies. I've essentially not considered EU audiences because I'm small and focus on the engineering + product directed toward 'everyone except Europe' because it feels like near anarchy. >This is precision work. These companies get too big and anger the wrong person, so they get knocked.…

> An EU law stiffles all companies, not just the trillion dollar companies

The arguments from Americans against the recent EU regulation is usually the opposite - that it is laser targeted at large US companies "because the EU is jealous that they don't have any large tech companies of their own and just want to cash in on fines"

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#583

Post by cyberax »

rk06 wrote: post #262
cyberax wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consoles are sold at-cost to consumers, or sometimes even at a loss: https://www.pcmag.com/news/microsoft-loses-up-to-200-on-ever... iPhones are sold at a _premium_. If iPhones were sold at-cost to consumers, then Apple would have been right to ask developers to pay 30% fees.

If consoles are sold at loss to gain "monopoly power", then that is anti competitive and should not be allowed. This would lead (or maybe already resulted) to pathetic printer and ink cartridge situation

I'm ambivalent about consoles.

However, for the consoles to make sense, they _have_ to be an oligopoly. There can't be 100 brands of competing consoles.

The main feature of traditional consoles that would be lost in this scenario: guaranteed compatibility of games.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#584

Post by guelo »

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.

What does external mean here? Why are Apple services not external?

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#585

Post by rk06 »

cyberax wrote: post #583
rk06 wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If consoles are sold at loss to gain "monopoly power", then that is anti competitive and should not be allowed. This would lead (or maybe already resulted) to pathetic printer and ink cartridge situation

I'm ambivalent about consoles. However, for the consoles to make sense, they _have_ to be an oligopoly. There can't be 100 brands of competing consoles. The main feature of traditional consoles that would be lost in this scenario: guaranteed compatibility of games.

Why not? Game devs want to be compatible with multiple consoles. Users want games to be compatible to be with their console.

So, who is causing this friction? Console companies. Now, there may be technical limitations due to games being such a unique kind of software. But at the end of day, they are software. Games can be packaged to support multiple formats or a standard interface.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#586

Post by cyberax »

rk06 wrote: post #585
cyberax wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm ambivalent about consoles. However, for the consoles to make sense, they _have_ to be an oligopoly. There can't be 100 brands of competing consoles. The main feature of traditional consoles that would be lost in this scenario: guaranteed compatibility of games.

Why not? Game devs want to be compatible with multiple consoles. Users want games to be compatible to be with their console. So, who is causing this friction? Console companies. Now, there may be technical limitations due to games being such a unique kind of software. But at the end of day, they are software. Games can be packaged to support multiple formats or a standard interface.

> Why not? Game devs want to be compatible with multiple consoles.

Console games are typically highly optimized for particular console hardware. This coupling allows great-looking games for hardware that is cheap to make.

As a result, it's typical for consoles to far outperform regular PCs of the same price range. Especially at the beginning of the console lifecycle.

So it can be argued that consumers benefit from this arrangement: they get cheap special-purpose devices for gaming that can't be obtained if consoles are prohibited.

> Games can be packaged to support multiple formats or a standard interface.

Sure. But for AAA-type games that push the envelope, it's not at all trivial.

However, it seems that this pattern is fading with the recent consoles. So perhaps they also need to be unbundled.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#587

Post by FMecha »

syndeo wrote: post #550
amelius wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been running Linux on Intel/AMD boxes for decades without any such problems.

Heard of the Intel Management Engine? https://www.zdnet.com/article/minix-intels-hidden-in-chip-op... Little doubt AMD has something similar.

AMD brands it AMD Secure Technology/Platform Security Processor, and the same backdoor concern is there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Platform_Security_Processo...

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#588

Post by stahtops »

Draiken wrote: post #296
stahtops wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You go where your customers are. Companies can't ignore Apple if they want to sell in the US so they're forced into their ecosystem. It's not a preference like you imply. I'll never understand how people defend blatantly anti-competitive behavior even when it hurts themselves.

Our priorities just aren't aligned, I am not being measurably hurt by any of the AppStore rules cyberax laid out.

I don't want to be forced or even prompted to fill out my personal information on every apps website. To me that sounds like an increased burden of my time, and it puts my personal information at higher risk to be gathered and sold or leaked. I prefer the transaction to happen within the app on iOS conforming to the UI/UX standards that Apple has established.

I know exactly what happens when we just let the free market "manage" anything. Utter chaos. We get an internet that is completely and utterly infected with ads, spam, and scams.

No thanks.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#589

Post by FMecha »

t_sawyer wrote: post #37
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Get ready to answer why an iPhone is different than an xbox

Which… while we’re at it. Gaming would be much better if consoles didn’t exist anymore. Games would be more optimized for PC and manufacturers would just be building prebuilt gaming PCs. We also would have more Switch competition in the ARM gaming space instead of x64 handhelds and Android windows emulation if these walled gardens didn’t exist.

>manufacturers would just be building prebuilt gaming PCs

Which, given the sentiment against the very existence of these things in PC gaming circles (as a desktop, at least) in favor of self-building, would be just laptops and handhelds (Steam Decks/ROG Allys) at best.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#590

Post by tokioyoyo »

int_19h wrote: post #537
tokioyoyo wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I mean, that's just evidence that they really are doing illegal shit and should be punished for it.

Eh, every single group chat I've been a part of is littered with this kind of a talk.
Post reply on HN