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

71–80 of 258 posts

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

#71

Post by nradov »

zaidf wrote: post #65

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,…

In principle there's nothing stopping Android device manufacturers from respecting privacy by using AOSP without Google services. However in practice such devices have either been market failures, or are even worse from a privacy standpoint (i.e. infested with Chinese government spyware).

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

#72

Post by EGreg »

rootusrootus wrote: post #56
EGreg wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never understood why 40% is too little to be considered free and clear from monopoly laws. Why not have a smooth gradient

I can't imagine how you would implement such a scheme. For example, forcing Apple to allow non-Safari browsers in the app store is a binary choice, not something you can implement on a gradient. On top of that, market share tends to move around, sometimes a lot, so you would be changing the rules of the game constantly. 40% definitely is low enough to escape scrutiny as a monopoly, in any case. More than half of ever…

So if every top vendor did that, you'd have something like a cartel, except it wouldn't just be high prices, it would be "once you're in our ecosystem, no more interchangeable parts for you, we own the whole stack". It's a bit like feudalism!

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

#73

Post by samat »

threeseed wrote: post #45
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…

Apple provides a service for that 30% though. They handle the payment processing, they build, moderate and curate the App Store apps and they provide a lucrative channel to market for app developers. So allowing Spotify et al to get all the benefits of the channel without paying for it is actually unfair to Apple.

This argument will easily hold if there were any way to have a competing store on iOS devices. Apple banning any competition in that field makes ‘buy they provide value for the money’ look like forcing consumers hand.

Not sure if I want to have a second AppStore (APNS, etc, etc.)

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

#74

Post by nradov »

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 only got in trouble because they started selling IE as a separate product, then later added it to Windows. If they had just included it as a native Windows "accessory" from the beginning like Minesweeper or Calculator for no extra charge then it would have been tougher to make a case against them.

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

#75

Post by kodablah »

shaggerty wrote: post #63
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?

I think it's "off" meaning "outside of". It's a problem for consumers when confusing marketplace rules coupled with single-company-enforced limited options unnecessarily cost them more. That said, not sure I would want it illegal.

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

#76

Post by Apocryphon »

HatchedLake721 wrote: post #35
friendstock wrote: post #19

30% is a lot to take away from the developers. It's good to have some pressure on Apple to lower their percentage.

Yeah? Have you ever tried pushing your software during Windows Mobile era?

And 30% was a rate that was concocted during that same era, or shortly after. Why should it still hold true now, when Apple's revenue is far greater?

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

#77

Post by vatueil »

blfr wrote: post #24

Not being American, this is the one thing I wish Trump/GOP/conservatives did in the US: bust the tech trusts. They're taking the courts, they can surely find state or federal attorneys to bring the cases, and the executive would provide them with cover and enforcement. I'm surprised they haven't done it already. It would make sense for purely partisan reasons because tech companies are very liberal and extremely host…

Any outcome would be tainted by the nakedly partisan motives. It would send a clear message to companies that they must bend to the administration's ideology.

Anyone who opposes the administration would be short-sighted to allow themselves to be used as puppets in this manner.

Speaking selfishly from the outside the short-term effects might not seem so bad, but the I wouldn't relish the long-term consequences.

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

#78

Post by samat »

nradov wrote: post #71
zaidf wrote: post #65

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,…

In principle there's nothing stopping Android device manufacturers from respecting privacy by using AOSP without Google services. However in practice such devices have either been market failures, or are even worse from a privacy standpoint (i.e. infested with Chinese government spyware).

Until very lately there were secrect mandatory agreements with google which made device manufacturers unable to sell devices with and without googles software at the same time. You had to choose one.

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

#79

Post by dingaling »

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…

And yet if an ISP blocked Netflix and made you buy from ISPFlix there'd be wailing and rending of garments.

I mean, you could just change ISP to ISP2 if you didn't like it.

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

#80

Post by lwansbrough »

rickycook wrote: post #49
rkagerer wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Apple said it is acting only as the agent for app developers who sell the apps to consumers through the App Store." Sure, an agent who just so happens to control the platform, the API's and building blocks, all the rules, the horizontal, the vertical, and unilaterally decides which apps are allowed to exist. But, "we're just an agent". I'm not familiar enough with the case to form an opinion on the whole thing, but…

i wouldn’t pin that all on anti competitive behaviour though... the end to end control of the platform is kind of Apples MO, and is a fairly distinguishing feature between the Android ecosystem and the Apple ecosystem. it’d be nice to have another distribution option, but not at the expense of a simple UX, security, or any other very valid reason to only allow a tightly controlled experience

Oh okay, so as long as it's their MO to have a monopoly then it's fine. I'm sure plenty of iPhone users, for example, would like to have a PornHub app on their iPhone, but that's currently impossible because of Apple's guidelines. You could build a very high quality app and be denied for a reason strictly outside of the "UX, security 'or any other very valid reason'" that Apple arbitrarily decides.
Post reply on HN