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

Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 357 posts

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#71

Post by CivilianZero »

ckastner wrote: post #59
DannyBee wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks like there is a tremendous amount of downvoting of simple factual info in this thread, unfortunately (the subjective opinions, sure, whatever)

I've noticed with my own posts that some people here tend to downvote purely factual information simply because they find it unpleasant. Although that usually happens on some of the more controversial topics (and much more frequently on weekends, IMO). This post isn't really controversial...

You can count on anything about Apple to be considered controversial, especially if it's not a blanket and unconditional bashing of Apple, even if what you say isn't even positive towards Apple.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#72

Post by cmorgan31 »

0_gravitas wrote: post #48
chirau wrote: post #41

Is this not similar to when you buy an item from a department store? When you buy a jacket from say, Tommy Hilfiger, in Macy's.. . who are you buying from?

But this isnt as easy as Steam vs Epic, Apple is the only "department store" on their platform, it's like if McDonalds took over every restaurant in the country- you can order whatever you want from the menu, but you're in their power.

Hmm, might be more apt to say you purchased an Apple self driving car whose GPS only takes you to places apple approved and listed. It doesn’t let you drive and it doesn’t let you input your own destination but it’s pretty damn cute looking and it’s pretty safe. You can choose to use another method to reach similar destinations so long as it’s not Apple. You lose your choice by accepting the perceived benefits of the platform. The end users are the ones who can sue Apple if this ends up being ruled a monopoly.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#73

Post by brians »

fastball wrote: post #27

It would be nice if people in this thread could stop expressing surprise that Justice Kavanaugh sided the way he did when these people presumably have no idea which way Kavanaugh has decided for similar cases in the past.

Well, how has he? I don’t know how to get a succinct list of such; it’s not like he has a github.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#74

Post by thechao »

belltaco wrote: post #60
kbf wrote: post #15

How can Apple’s App Store prices be monopolistic if the App Store has driven software prices so low that a lot of developers are having a hard time making money? Before the App Store, software licenses for Mac software could be priced in the $40-$70 range for software that might have had feature parity with what you get in a $3-$10 app on iOS these days. That’s not even taking into account the fact that paying for a…

>How can Apple’s App Store prices be monopolistic if the App Store has driven software prices so low that a lot of developers are having a hard time making money? But Apple is the one that's skimming all the revenue and making huge profits on their forced 30% cut. Apparently they made $12 billion just from the app store in Q3 2018. How is it surprising that a lot of developers are having a hard time making money?

My understanding is that argument would have standing in the EU (competitive harm monopolistic practices), not the US (consumer harm monopolistic practices).

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#76

Post by briandear »

jdsully wrote: post #70
kbf wrote: post #15

How can Apple’s App Store prices be monopolistic if the App Store has driven software prices so low that a lot of developers are having a hard time making money? Before the App Store, software licenses for Mac software could be priced in the $40-$70 range for software that might have had feature parity with what you get in a $3-$10 app on iOS these days. That’s not even taking into account the fact that paying for a…

Standard oil used to dump product in competitive markets too. Low prices do not preclude a monopoly nor does the existence of some competition.

So hundreds of thousands of app developers are conspiring to keep app prices low? That would involve coordination which is essentially impossible for the numbers of app developers. The developer of Tiny Wings isn’t calling Rockstar Games to agree on prices. Without such coordination, there isn’t any “dumping.” Standard Oil was a sole supplier, while the App Store has thousands of suppliers who all set their prices based on what the market supports. A dumping argument in this case makes no sense since Apple does not set app prices.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#77

Post by oflannabhra »

chirau wrote: post #41

Is this not similar to when you buy an item from a department store? When you buy a jacket from say, Tommy Hilfiger, in Macy's.. . who are you buying from?

It is similar, but not identical. A department store buys physical goods from a vendor, and then sells them to consumers. An App Store provides distribution and payment services to vendors and consumers.

For a department store, it is very clear that you are buying from the department store. They own the physical goods at the time of sale.

For an App Store, most people would agree that the Store does not own the digital goods they are selling to consumers.

So, while a superficially similar transaction occurs, both the nature of digital goods and the difference between goods and services makes for pretty vast differences under the surface.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#78

Post by holy_city »

derefr wrote: post #28
cabaalis wrote: post #5

Am I reading correctly that this argument has now been going on for 8 years, or at minimum nearly 6? [1] An argument about who I am buying from when I type my credit card into Apple's system, click a purchase button on an Apple device, and then use the results of that purchase solely on Apple devices? [1] https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-204

I see what you’re implying, but tweak one little thing and the answer seems vastly different: Instead of an Apple device, say you’re using a Google-manufactured Android device (something-or-other), and have installed a third-party App Store on it. But that third-party App Store turns around and uses Google Pay as its payment processor. All the same qualifications still apply: you essentially used a “Google POS device…

>And if that’s true, then where’s the line between that and “each app you purchase is purchased from its own little stall in this digital mall, which is owned and operated by the software author”? Is there one?

To use your analogy, the line is if someone can set up their own shop outside the mall. As a consumer, if I have no way to avoid purchasing from a store inside a single mall then I'm effectively purchasing from the mall itself.

At least in my opinion. I'm not a lawyer.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#79

Post by briandear »

ltbarcly3 wrote: post #36
lalos wrote: post #9

Question: How can Apple have a monopoly if a customer can decide to buy a competitor's phone to use as they please (Android, etc). That's where I get lost. The Windows/Netscape made sense since the claim was that Windows dominated the market almost completely (around 90% on those times?). Can I sue any other hardware device company (smart fridges, smart tvs, rokus) for monopoly since I can't load my own apps on them?…

To my understanding, anti-trust laws are generally designed to discourage the ability of companies to use success in one area to capture customers and thus have monopolistic pricing ability in another area. In this case I think it is going to be a hard sell to demonstrate an anti-trust issue, but "A vertical arrangement may violate the antitrust laws, however, if it reduces competition among firms at the same level (…

iOS is about 53% of the US market in the US, Android being about 47%.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#80

Post by holy_city »

danesparza wrote: post #63
cullenking wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot do this. I run a website and mobile app ecosystem, which started as a website with standard credit card billing. If you want to mention that you have a website, or link to the website, you must provide every option the website has for purchasing, in your app, using apple's payment system. There is one exception, which is for physical goods/services, see Lyft and the like. Sorry, but you have to take the 30…

Interesting. I suppose the distinguishing factor with apps like Amazon or Home Depot is they deal in physical goods?

I'm pretty sure the distinguishing factor is that Apple takes a cut of all revenue that passes through the app. That was the beef Spotify had at least.
Post reply on HN