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

Google and Apple attacked on app store 'monopoly'

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 174 posts

Re: Google and Apple attacked on app store 'monopoly'

#81

Post by easton »

toyg wrote: post #74

This will be round 2 in the fight for formalizing the role of OS developers versus App developers. Round 1 was the MS antitrust case, the outcome of which was clearly too weak to survive in the long run. The definition of general-purpose Operating Systems should be formalized, and there should be a clear separation of roles: if you make an OS you cannot make apps and services, end of story. Then force Apple, Google,…

How much do you consider an OS? Because right now Apple could say “fine”, create “The Darwin and XNU Foundation”, and just keep their closed source window manager / core apps (SpringBoard/Finder calendar, mail, App Store). As long as they donated enough to the foundation to keep open builds coming for other platforms (even if you just get a shell with really old coreutils, although I bet it’d be better than that), the antitrust suit you’re suggesting would probably be covered.

Re: Google and Apple attacked on app store 'monopoly'

#82

Post by saurik »

_kbh_ wrote: post #62
geenew wrote: post #15

It's hard to argue with the claim - if you have an iOS phone or tablet, for example, it is a monopoly, since it's the only place you can buy a program for your computer. The walled garden has real benefits in security and privacy, but seems to require centralized control, and comes at the expense of user freedom. A solution to the monopoly pricing problem could be to treat app store controllers (currently A & G) to t…

AltStore allows you to run any app you want on your iPhone without a jailbreak. How does the App Store have a monopoly when there are literally alternatives too it. This ignores Cydia and the other app stores that require you to jailbreak your phone. Apple has no more of a monopoly on iOS app sales then Google has on android apps, Microsoft has on the Xbox store, Sony has on the Sony store, or Nintendo has on the Nin…

https://twitter.com/saurik/status/1337094724813918208

Re: Google and Apple attacked on app store 'monopoly'

#83

Post by tomjen3 »

toyg wrote: post #74

This will be round 2 in the fight for formalizing the role of OS developers versus App developers. Round 1 was the MS antitrust case, the outcome of which was clearly too weak to survive in the long run. The definition of general-purpose Operating Systems should be formalized, and there should be a clear separation of roles: if you make an OS you cannot make apps and services, end of story. Then force Apple, Google,…

There isn't an issue with making apps and an os - there is an issue with being the only one allowed to do special things, which is what got MS in trouble back in the the day.

Re: Google and Apple attacked on app store 'monopoly'

#84

Post by tomjen3 »

kemayo wrote: post #19
BoysenberryPi wrote: post #7

> She also accused Apple of preventing Tile from using the technology behind Apple's Find My function, giving AirTags an unfair advantage. I am not a person who uses Apple products so someone please clarify for me. Does Apple grant access to this to other people? Can I create a GPS-enabled product and use Apple's SDK to implement "Find My...?"

Apple recently allowed this. Tile's complaint now is that the Apple Find My integration requires that you only work with Find My, so Tile's app (and presumably related subscription products) becomes unnecessary.

If that can be proven, that should be considered a clear monopoly violation.

Re: Google and Apple attacked on app store 'monopoly'

#85

Post by tomjen3 »

hayst4ck wrote: post #51
tibbydudeza wrote: post #48

A simple solution to the problem - force Google/Apple to implement API's to allow the loading/code signing verification of applications on their respective platforms. On the PC we have GOG/Steam/EA/Windows Store etc ... why can't mobile device be the same ???.

Lets say we have an app ecosystem where you can OK third party apps, and one where that's not possible. Let's say people voted with their dollars that the one where it's not possible is a better ecosystem. Should the one with the closed ecosystem be forced open, especially if the company says that the ecosystem being closed is one of the primary factors in their success and why people prefer it? Apple dictated to com…

The two systems are not otherwise identical, so I don't see that "you could buy an Android" as a reasonable alternative (I own one).

I also don't see the issue in that you can install apps from another store, since it is fairly easy to put up a warning "Apple has not approved any of the apps you can buy from this store".

Re: Google and Apple attacked on app store 'monopoly'

#86

Post by ENGNR »

We need an Ethereum App Store to handle vouching for apps. Let apps pay a bond and ever reducing insurance to the people who vouch for them, based on auditing and perceived risk by the market

Apple doesn’t dare charge a fee to WeChat, we need something as big for the open community

Re: Google and Apple attacked on app store 'monopoly'

#87

Post by hyperman1 »

Someone wrote: post #75
erhk wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Make up a new word and fine them all the same. If you engage in anti consumer practices then I, a consumer, highly endorse anti corporate legislation.

Creating new law IMO, indeed is the way to go. Fining them for things they do now before such law exists, however, should not be pursued. Ex post acte law is forbidden in large parts of the world for good reason. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law : Ex post facto criminalization is also prohibited by Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 15(1) of the International Covenant on Civi…

Do human rights apply to corporations? E.g. in my country, Belgium, There is a difference between a law person vs natural person. I had assumed only a natural person can claim human rights, but I might be wrong here.

Re: Google and Apple attacked on app store 'monopoly'

#88

Post by toyg »

easton wrote: post #81
toyg wrote: post #74

This will be round 2 in the fight for formalizing the role of OS developers versus App developers. Round 1 was the MS antitrust case, the outcome of which was clearly too weak to survive in the long run. The definition of general-purpose Operating Systems should be formalized, and there should be a clear separation of roles: if you make an OS you cannot make apps and services, end of story. Then force Apple, Google,…

How much do you consider an OS? Because right now Apple could say “fine”, create “The Darwin and XNU Foundation”, and just keep their closed source window manager / core apps (SpringBoard/Finder calendar, mail, App Store). As long as they donated enough to the foundation to keep open builds coming for other platforms (even if you just get a shell with really old coreutils, although I bet it’d be better than that), th…

Nope, the definition of OS would have to cover at least the window manager and the equivalent of win32/cocoa libs, so that developers can build first-class “windowed applications”. I know it wouldn’t be a trivial effort to define it in legal terms, but even in imprecise terms it would lay the foundation for a body of law that could keep OS developers honest.

Re: Google and Apple attacked on app store 'monopoly'

#89

Post by username90 »

Someone wrote: post #72
RestlessMind wrote: post #66

I think governments should go after cartels rather than monopolies. Google and Apple combined have a >99% market share for mobile OS/app store market share. They also impose a synchronized 30% fee cut. There is a case to be made for an antitrust behavior from this cartel.

I don’t see that going anywhere. I would expect both parties to argue that this is conscious parallelism, which Wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_collusion#Conscious_para... ) states “is very hard to prosecute because it may occur without any collusion between the competitors”. They’ll also argue that they don’t keep prices high in their stores and provide value that makes that 15/30% cut worthwhile. An…

EU law already handled the credit card duopoly, should work the same here. The changes didn't propagate to US though.

Re: Google and Apple attacked on app store 'monopoly'

#90

Post by username90 »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #69

Apple is the best at getting consumers to buy software. US govt cracking down on that is shooting themselves in the foot. Google Play is mostly free ad-supported apps with a higher incentive to resell data.

People buy apple phones since they are fine with spending money, so then they spend more money in app stores as well. It has nothing to do with how Apple runs the store.
Post reply on HN