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

81–90 of 258 posts

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

#81

Post by samat »

pmontra wrote: post #26
rand0mthought wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just downloaded Firefox and Chrome from App Store. Do I miss something?

They are skins around Safari. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_for_iOS > Unlike Firefox on Android, Firefox for iOS does not support browser add-ons. Additionally, it uses Apple's Webkit rendering engine, rather than Mozilla's Gecko. Both of these limitations are in accordance with Apple's rules for submitting apps to the App Store. Search for safari, webkit or WKWebView in https://github.com/mozilla-mobile…

Calling them skins is not correct at all. Being able to auto translate whole pages or sync all bookmarks and browsing history or passwords in iOS chrome is not merely a skin.

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

#82

Post by vedantroy »

kitsunesoba wrote: post #67

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 w…

I think its good to force Apple to allow non-WebKit web engines on iOS. Right now Apple can forcefully cripple technologies like progressive web apps by not supporting the latest web technologies. This allows Apple to force companies to develop native applications.

Similarly, Apple has been slacking off on improving Webkit and making it as good as V8. By getting rid of Apple's monopoly on web engines, developers will be able to push websites to new levels that are currently hard to attain.

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

#83

Post by kodablah »

tptacek wrote: post #6

Isn't the premise of this case, that Apple's "monopoly" on the app store and 30% toll on developers is effectively jacking up app prices for consumers, pretty hard to support with evidence? My impression is that the modern app store coincides with (if it didn't actually cause , which is possible as well) an industry-historic decline in software prices for consumers. Things we pay $0.99 today for used to cost $50.

The rising tide lifts all technological boats, so it makes little since to compare today with historical water levels. Things can be overall cheaper compared to the past, but still anti-competitively hamstrung. If you can compare to costs of things in the past, you probably won't find any technology more expensive.

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

#84

Post by vedantroy »

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…

Trump/GOP/conservatives aren't exactly pro-consumer. I would be surprised if they implemented regulations (e.g - GDPR like stuff) that would help the average person.

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

#85

Post by dirkgently »

rickycook wrote: post #61
dirkgently wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You must be joking if your argument is that a closed system is in any way superior to an open one.

Android lets you install apps outside of play store, without any hard tech knowledge. That's not possible on Apple devices unless you are tech savvy and can go through a 10 step process.

Whatever upside you think they have flies in the face of openness.

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

#86

Post by kodablah »

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…

> I like being able to go to just one store and get my Apps there.

But nobody is saying you can't or that it won't be curated or anything. The unfortunate part is some liking what ways others get their apps, not themselves. (granted I don't believe user freedom in this case should be government enforced, but we should all strive not to assume that our app retrieval methods are the best for others)

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

#87

Post by bilbo0s »

vatueil wrote: post #70
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.

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…

>(44.3% to Android's 54.5% as of May 2018)...

???

Doesn't that mean iOS has the minority market share?

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

#88

Post by bilbo0s »

delinka wrote: post #62
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?

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

I think he is referring to the Tengen case.

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

#89

Post by jasonlotito »

BurritoAlPastor wrote: post #18
dmead wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but don't they? i think a more apt analogy would be your trash can manufacturer having a monopoly on trash bags. You shouldn't really expect that to be the case at all.

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…

> Apple didn’t even invent the walled-garden digital software store; Microsoft was using it on the X-Box in 2005.

I can't install software I buy in a store or direct from someone else without going through Apple. Even with the XBox, I could buy from a store, or second hand and play the game. Apple has invented the computer that forces you to pay Apple for for software or services you want to buy because of their store.

> What I don’t get is the monopoly argument.

The argument is this: Apple has a monopoly on iOS devices. Whether you think that has standing or is an issue in the smart phone market is a different issue. But at least you now understand what the argument is.

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

#90

Post by Y7ZCQtNo39 »

BurritoAlPastor wrote: post #9

Here’s what I don’t get: in what sense is this a monopoly? Consumers have knowledge that the App Store is the only game in town on an iPhone, and they have the option to buy a different phone if they don’t want to use the App Store. That’s like saying that the manufacturer of my vacuum has a monopoly on vacuum bags.

I think it's strange since I can download software for MacOS anywhere. The only reason that it's accepted that you must use the App Store is because Apple was first to the smartphone scene.

Had Apple tried to force everyone into using a gatekeeping App Store after smartphones took hold, end users would've rejected it.

Post reply on HN