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

591–600 of 631 posts

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#591

Post by pornel »

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.

Apple could have offered APIs for managing 3rd party subscriptions from that screen, but it's more convenient for them to have a closed system, private APIs, and use their own non-extensibility as an excuse for their closed payment system.

It's also Apple's specialty to create false dichotomies and shit sandwich bundles: it's either the 30% cut or daylight robbery. No third option (in reality PayPal is more consumer-friendly and allows managing subscriptions in one place from more than iOS).

The whole App Store model is a false dichotomy between the 30% cut and Disney-like moderation vs raging malware that will take down the whole mobile network. No third option (so you can't have Fortnight, or any app showing a nipple).

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#592

Post by NotPractical »

jimbokun wrote: post #548
malwrar wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The prohibition against dynamic code, lying about the reason that an app needs a certain permission, and all the trust and safety policies are all stuff an OS can't do. It _is_ something a community of people empowered to control their devices can organize and achieve, but we were stripped of this capability when a small set of private concerns unilaterally locked us out. They just told us that they were the only o…

It's not impossible according to the laws of physics or anything, but is there a real world example of a non-profit community run repository of software similar in scale to the App Store, with similar guarantees of quality and security that the App Store provides?

F-Droid [1] has a squeaky clean track record when it comes to malware [2]. Might be mostly just because the number of users is relatively low. Quality of course varies wildly, but that's to be expected.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-Droid

[2] According to the Wikipedia article there were (are?) some old unmaintained apps using vulnerable native libraries but that's not intentional malware and every app store has apps with vulnerabilities of some sort.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#593

Post by avar »

DannyBee wrote: post #530
avar wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you are doing > something wrong, stop. You may be a lawyer, but this is clearly bad advice if your client was Apple. It's not like they couldn't afford competent legal advice, and surely they either knew they were flaunting the injunction, or could have predicted that the judge would take this view of their activity. So, they're set on doing the "wrong" thing, but could still use legal advice. What I'm amazed at…

"So, they're set on doing the "wrong" thing, but could still use legal advice." As a lawyer, that is your time to exit the scene. There are no airquotes that should be around wrong here. This isn't advocacy for some not-ethically-amazing legal position that has yet to be decided on. They lost already. They have already been found guilty. You are now under an active (IE not stayed) court order. If your client then is…

If you read e.g. page 36-38 you can see that the court was able to use Apple's prior internal discussions to contradict their subsequent claims, in that case the use of the word "scary".

The only reason they can do that is due to Apple's own internal workflows. If it was another company, or even Apple from the 80s-90s they wouldn't have been able to do that. The document is full of those sorts of examples.

They may be trying to hang you, but you don't have to provide the rope.

    assume [...] that the lawyers
    involved are not morons. Assume
    they are instead, very smart
    people.
I'm not assuming that. I assume someone at legal warned them about the dangers, but they were overridden by executives.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#594

Post by avar »

Osiris wrote: post #523
avar wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you are doing > something wrong, stop. You may be a lawyer, but this is clearly bad advice if your client was Apple. It's not like they couldn't afford competent legal advice, and surely they either knew they were flaunting the injunction, or could have predicted that the judge would take this view of their activity. So, they're set on doing the "wrong" thing, but could still use legal advice. What I'm amazed at…

At some point it has to be documented as to the decisions made and the reasoning. If there is literally no documentation up until the final moment, doesn't that itself act as evidence that they were consciously and deliberately not wanting their reasoning documented? Why not just do the right thing. Damn.

    > At some point it has
    > to be documented as to
    > the decisions made and
    > the reasoning.
It really doesn't, I've worked in large organizations where almost all text strings shown to customers were the decision of some UX design sitting at their desk, with no "paper trail".

In this case (approximately page 35-40) you can see the "execs" had clearly provided guidance on the interface needing to be "scary"

The teams tasked with implementing that then proceed to create an extensive and incriminating on-the-record discussion, including things that the court could subsequently use to contradict their testimony.

They could have just ... not done any of that.

Whatever "exec" involved could have written the copy themselves.

The court could still infer that the interface was in violation, as they're doing here, but didn't need to be handed incriminating statements on a silver platter.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#595

Post by avar »

mananaysiempre wrote: post #436
registeredcorn wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>they did try to hide some of this stuff, by abusing attorney client privilege I don't know a thing about the legal system: if someone gets caught doing that sort of thing, does that incur additional punishments? I mean, if you do something illegal, and when the police arrest you they prove that you were trying to hide it from them, that's another charge. How does that work if the court catches you doing it?

> THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that Apple’s abuse of attorney-client privilege designations to delay proceedings and obscure its decision-making process warrants sanction to deter future misconduct. Apple is SANCTIONED in the amount of the full cost of the special masters’ review and Epic’s attorneys’ fees on this issue alone through approximately May 15, 2025, the anticipated date of completion. So pretty mild thus far.…

That's not even "mild". From Apple's perspective that sounds great.

They were trying to delay the proceedings, were successful in doing so, and as a result need to pay for the attorneys' fees incurred.

Fees that probably add up to mere seconds of worldwide revenue resulting from these monopolistic practices.

"Don't threaten me with a good time" comes to mind.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#596

Post by avar »

jlokier wrote: post #359
snowwrestler wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Sure you can. The services just need to agree protocols. The tech & cryptography part is not difficult these days. We've had guaranteed E2E for email since PGP in 1991, though not many people cared enough to use it. None of the services you listed do it, but that's because they don't want to, not because it can't be done. It's a business decision problem, not a technical problem.

It's also a technical problem, the overall security model of these apps isn't just the E2E encryption, but e.g. Signal not saving attachments to local storage, message expiry (which inherently requires clients to cooperate).

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#597

Post by sokoloff »

int_19h wrote: post #536
sokoloff wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same (perceived) reason my bank and brokerages (and I think even my kid's school website does this) pop up a warning every time I click on a link that will take them outside their website. I think there's a valid reason to think "if it's OK and common for banks and brokers to do it, it's OK for me to do it" and also to think "this will help protect users from being scammed by other apps who might pop open random link…

But in this case, it's not taking the user out of Apple's website. It's taking them out of Epic's app into Epic's website.

You and I both know the underlying reason Apple wants to do this.

The fig leaf reason is “it’s an app we approved and we need to protect our customers.”

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#598

Post by jjav »

avar wrote: post #349
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, b…

The arrogance of power is very difficult (perhaps nearly impossibly difficult) for humans to overcome. Apple is worth more than many countries, so employees are going to feel immune to everything. And for the most part, that is true. Big money buys both laws and courts. Only rarely does this assumption fail.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#599

Post by amelius »

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.

Yeah but ultimately it's the US government doing that, not Intel. There is no business model behind it.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#600

Post by dns_snek »

rahkiin wrote: post #403
galleywest200 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered the iPhone-maker to allow developers to steer users to alternative methods of paying for services or subscriptions offered in the App Store. The company also can no longer impose fees in such scenarios or restrict the ability of software-makers to offer links or otherwise communicate alternate payment options with consumers. The ruling means this starts immediately it seems, as…

So : make a free app. Ask people to buy the non-free version on a website. Apple gets 0. No revenue at all for providing stable apis and sdks? How’s that sustainable? The app store itself would be a gigantic loss leader that has to be paid for by iphone sales. If console makers have to do the same, consoles triple in price

Do you also believe that Apple and Microsoft are entitled to a 30% cut when you subscribe to Spotify, Netflix or buy a game on Steam on a desktop device? Right now Apple and Microsoft both get 0, no revenue at all for providing stable apis and sdks, how's that sustainable?

Where does it stop, should Microsoft, Nvidia, and Intel get a cut when I place an order on my PC that uses APIs and SDKs provided by those companies? Does this entitlement extend to anyone who facilitated the transaction, like my power company and ISP?

Post reply on HN