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

601–610 of 631 posts

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#601

Post by ChrisRR »

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…

Because otherwise it means getting up from your desk and talking to people. Risk your malicious compliance being discovered or have to go for a walk?

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#602

Post by larsnystrom »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #372
larsnystrom wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Allowing third party payment systems does not mean they have to be less strict in the rest of their app vetting process.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#603

Post by Goronmon »

hajile wrote: post #527
freejazz wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a great application of reasonable: your post is incredibly unreasonable. It's a long rant that is not based in the law, the application of "reasonability" in the law, or other examples of "good faith" standards being used. It's made without any expertise or direct relevant knowledge, yet it is offered with the authority and conviction as if you understood more about the law than the judge in question. Reasonab…

You didn't read what I wrote and that is apparent in your response. You didn't address any of the facts and instead just blindly parroted back the equivalent of "it's true because they say it's true". If you think I'm the first person to argue that the reasonableness standard is unreasonable, you'd be mistaken. I stated that establishing reasonableness was hard enough with a jury of peers judging just one person in a…

You didn't read what I wrote and that is apparent in your response.

Are you writing these long nonsense posts specifically to make this claim? Because it certainly reads like you are.

You need to be better about writing more concisely. As it stands, it reads like you are trying to hide ignorance behind a large word count.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#604

Post by sunnybeetroot »

nilamo wrote: post #435
raincole wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why does it need to be labeled at all? Is opening netflix.com while in the Netflix app really an external website?

Because non-tech people are more susceptible to phishing attempts. It’s obvious to you or I, but my grandma needs all the help she can get to know whether she’s still in the app or an external website when she’s handing over her credentials.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#605

Post by skeaker »

hajile wrote: post #564
stale2002 wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, we don't have to do that. The current system works well as it is. > You want LOTS of laws specifying all kinds of unacceptable behaviors in great detail. I don't have a problem with detail. Instead, I am rejecting the idea that mass amounts of details is always necessary, or that the law somehow completely collapses when it doesn't have detail. No, the law is perfectly able to handle vague situations all the time…

Wrongful conviction rates range from 4% to nearly 16% depending on the study. That means between 1 in 25 and 1 in 6 people convicted of crimes are actually innocent. Is that what you consider a system that works well? Would you get on a plane that crashed 1 out of 25 times? Would you consider that plane to be working well? A huge percentage of those wrongful convictions happen because there wasn't any evidence, but t…

>Wrongful conviction rates range from 4% to nearly 16% depending on the study. That means between 1 in 25 and 1 in 6 people convicted of crimes are actually innocent.

This has nothing to do with the use of "reasonableness" in law as you argue. There are all kinds of reasons a wrongful conviction could happen, such as falsified evidence. Claiming that the number of wrongful convictions is entirely because of slight ambiguity in various laws needs extraordinary sources, sources, and sources, because that is an extraordinary claim. You don't seem to realize just how widely used intent and reasonable compliance is in law.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#606

Post by [deleted] »

hajile wrote: post #564
stale2002 wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, we don't have to do that. The current system works well as it is. > You want LOTS of laws specifying all kinds of unacceptable behaviors in great detail. I don't have a problem with detail. Instead, I am rejecting the idea that mass amounts of details is always necessary, or that the law somehow completely collapses when it doesn't have detail. No, the law is perfectly able to handle vague situations all the time…

Wrongful conviction rates range from 4% to nearly 16% depending on the study. That means between 1 in 25 and 1 in 6 people convicted of crimes are actually innocent. Is that what you consider a system that works well? Would you get on a plane that crashed 1 out of 25 times? Would you consider that plane to be working well? A huge percentage of those wrongful convictions happen because there wasn't any evidence, but t…

[deleted]

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#607

Post by stale2002 »

hajile wrote: post #564
stale2002 wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, we don't have to do that. The current system works well as it is. > You want LOTS of laws specifying all kinds of unacceptable behaviors in great detail. I don't have a problem with detail. Instead, I am rejecting the idea that mass amounts of details is always necessary, or that the law somehow completely collapses when it doesn't have detail. No, the law is perfectly able to handle vague situations all the time…

Wrongful conviction rates range from 4% to nearly 16% depending on the study. That means between 1 in 25 and 1 in 6 people convicted of crimes are actually innocent. Is that what you consider a system that works well? Would you get on a plane that crashed 1 out of 25 times? Would you consider that plane to be working well? A huge percentage of those wrongful convictions happen because there wasn't any evidence, but t…

Gotcha, so then basically your entire rant has almost nothing to do with the actual topic, you just want to overthrow the entire system or something.

I was previously thinking that your comments had something to do with the topic, but now that you are admitting that you just want to, like, over throw the entire system and get rid of very common concepts in the law, I can ignore it for being basically irrelevant.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#608

Post by dfedbeef »

poincaredisk wrote: post #454
jkestner wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet these superrich people crave respect so much that they endlessly poast on social networks, or buy a social network.

>these superrich people crave respect so much Don't we all? This is one of the very basic human needs. Since they don't need to worry about food and shelter, they focus on social status and entertainment.

I think you're supposed to learn to respect yourself so your self worth isn't based on how other people view you.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#609

Post by viridian »

stahtops wrote: post #588
Draiken wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 confor…

Why did you choose to write your first post in bad faith?

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#610

Post by thisisit »

paxys wrote: post #47
elpool2 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As described in the ruling, Apple hired a consulting group to estimate how much value developers get from the iphone platform, which found that (1) Apple’s platform technology is worth up to 30% of a developer’s revenue. (2) Apple’s developer tools and services are worth approximately 3%–16%. (3) Apple’s distribution services are worth approximately 4%–14%. (4) Apple’s discovery services are worth approximately 5%–14…

Hire a consulting firm to tell you exactly what you want to hear, then say "see the experts said it, not us". Classic.

The CYA industry for you. Something goes wrong, blame the consultants.
Post reply on HN