Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 258 posts

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute

#61

Post by rickycook »

dirkgently wrote: post #21
BurritoAlPastor wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that more apt? Why shouldn’t I expect it? Apple didn’t even invent the walled-garden digital software store; Microsoft was using it on the X-Box in 2005. If you go back to before digital distribution, Sony and Nintendo had total authority over third-party software releases for their platforms since the 90s and 80s respectively. I understand the free-software arguments for why I should be able to run arbitrary…

> Why shouldn’t I expect it? Why should I, as a consumer? I don't understand this argument from Apple apologists. > Apple didn’t even invent the walled-garden digital software store; Microsoft was using it on the X-Box in 2005. So if it wasn't called out then, it should never be called out ever?

plenty of reasons. the difference between android and apple is pretty stark, and they both have merit but dont dismiss the arguments against the more closed ecosystem

the apple method allows a really easy UX for every single purchase and install on ios; if you allow a developer to decide that they’re only releasing on NewOpenAppStore, a user has to go ahead and somehow install that, which is a mess. apple don’t want that, because it just looks bad for the whole ecosystem

the security implications are obvious; if a user wants a pirated app, they will follow the “technical instructions” to click through menus and allow 3rd party installs so they can download their package from legitnotmalware.com

there are plenty more in the same kinda thinking, but overall they are different approaches but the walled garden should not be dismissed. you can argue that the down sides outweigh the upsides, but don’t just dismiss anyone that decides the upsides are worth it as “apple apologists” in an effort to condescend and shut down conversation

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute

#62

Post by delinka »

GeekyBear wrote: post #57
delinka wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"...an exclusive and default way to purchase and load apps on iOS" If the court allows the definition of 'trust' to include "a company gatekeeping developer access to their own operating system" when that operating system represents a much smaller share of the market than the next biggest competitor.

Didn't we already go through this in the courts when game consoles like Nintendo, XBox, and PlayStation put the same restrictions on game developers?

Honestly I don’t recall. Do you have any links I could read?

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute

#63

Post by shaggerty »

lbacaj wrote: post #29

Unfortunately for Apple, I do think the App Store being an exclusive and default way to purchase and load apps on iOS is in fact causing prices of Apps, in many cases, to be higher than they should be. The perfect example of this is the subscription services, right now you can get a cheaper subscription to a service such as Spotify if you buy it off the App Store. That is a prime example of how much the 30% payment t…

How is it a problem for consumers if you can get a cheaper subscription to Spotify by buying it off the App Store?

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute

#64

Post by 43920 »

rixrax wrote: post #60

Answer is not to give choice in where to download apps. If you don't like Apple app store, then maybe switch to Android or BlackBerry. Or something else. I like being able to go to just one store and get my Apps there. Imagine the horror of having to get the apps from AT&T or Vz store for iPhone, or having to choose if I need to get an app from official store or from another one run by some east European dude from hi…

If you think the services the Apple app store provides are worth the price increase, then you as an individual consumer could choose to buy apps just from that store.

Or you could buy an app directly from the developer, whom you presumably trust (and even if you don't, the app is sandboxed, so the chances of something bad happening are pretty low).

Or you could buy the app from an alternative store that's more trustworthy than just "some east European dude from his basement", which would someone would almost certainly create if they had the option to.

Plus, Apple isn't just getting rid of the "worst offenders", it's also banning apps with content it dislikes, or that hurt its business model:

https://bgr.com/2018/05/25/steam-link-for-iphone-download-io...

https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/30/apple-rejects-app-...

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute

#65

Post by zaidf »

I have recently found myself reconsidering my views on Tim Cook. He has generally positioned himself as the voice of reason, especially on matters of privacy. He’s gone as far as attack companies like Google and Facebook. And yet, all of this masks a simple truth abt Apple: any extra privacy or consumer protection comes at a very hefty cost, making most of its products unaffordable for most of the world. In contrast, Google’s Android is affordable for many large markets Apple doesn’t find worthy of competing in.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute

#66

Post by MBCook »

GeekyBear wrote: post #57
delinka wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"...an exclusive and default way to purchase and load apps on iOS" If the court allows the definition of 'trust' to include "a company gatekeeping developer access to their own operating system" when that operating system represents a much smaller share of the market than the next biggest competitor.

Didn't we already go through this in the courts when game consoles like Nintendo, XBox, and PlayStation put the same restrictions on game developers?

Back in the NES era with licensing restrictions, yes. I believe it was Tengen vs Nintendo? Also Atari vs Activision?

But the Switch, PS4, and XBox One ALL have closed app stores exactly the way Apple does.

If Apple loses a lot of people will have to find a new business model.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute

#67

Post by kitsunesoba »

Perhaps it’s an unpopular opinion, but I’m hopeful that this doesn’t go anywhere for the simple fact that I don’t want to have to keep 5 different app stores installed to have access to everything. It would be cool to have an iOS equivalent of F-Droid, but I’d rather that not come at the cost of scattering commercial iOS apps across stores.

I’m not keen on the idea of non-WebKit web engines on iOS either because it will inevitably enable a huge contingent of lazy web developers to just display a “screw you and your device’s battery, go download Chrome” message rather than bother with crafting their sites and web apps in a web engine agnostic way. It’ll be just like when IE was the dominant browser, except this time around the dominant engine is favored by web devs and will continue to be thanks to Google’s web-centrism.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute

#68

Post by p1necone »

MBCook wrote: post #66
GeekyBear wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't we already go through this in the courts when game consoles like Nintendo, XBox, and PlayStation put the same restrictions on game developers?

Back in the NES era with licensing restrictions, yes. I believe it was Tengen vs Nintendo? Also Atari vs Activision? But the Switch, PS4, and XBox One ALL have closed app stores exactly the way Apple does. If Apple loses a lot of people will have to find a new business model.

I would love game consoles to have third party stores. As it stands I almost never buy console games through the PSN store/xbox store/whatever because (at least with AAA titles) games remain at initial launch price way too long, and are usually more expensive than retail stores.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute

#69

Post by MBCook »

meepmorp wrote: post #7
aftbit wrote: post #4

I don't understand why Apple isn't getting slapped for only allowing Safari-based browsers in the App Store. I don't understand anti-trust laws that well, but didn't Microsoft settle out of a very similar case related to bundling Media Player and IE with Windows?

Microsoft had a monopoly on the desktop OS market, and so pushing IE was anti-competitive. Apple isn’t anywhere near having a monopoly in phones, in the US or anywhere else. It’s not just the behavior that’s against the law, it’s the behavior plus the market position.

Plus at the time Netscape sold for $$$. MS basically dumped & devalued their market to $0.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute

#70

Post by vatueil »

delinka wrote: post #53
lbacaj wrote: post #29

Unfortunately for Apple, I do think the App Store being an exclusive and default way to purchase and load apps on iOS is in fact causing prices of Apps, in many cases, to be higher than they should be. The perfect example of this is the subscription services, right now you can get a cheaper subscription to a service such as Spotify if you buy it off the App Store. That is a prime example of how much the 30% payment t…

"...an exclusive and default way to purchase and load apps on iOS" If the court allows the definition of 'trust' to include "a company gatekeeping developer access to their own operating system" when that operating system represents a much smaller share of the market than the next biggest competitor.

It's true that iOS has a smaller share of the market globally, including many parts of Europe, but this overshadows the fact that iOS is almost on par with Android in the United States (44.3% to Android's 54.5% as of May 2018), probably higher among affluent users, and the leading mobile operating system in other countries such as Britain: https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-share-held...

I feel this is often overlooked in discussions where users from certain areas where iOS is less prevalent don't understand the perspective of users from other regions where iOS is more popular.

Post reply on HN