U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by koolba » Sun, Nov 25, 2018, 10:52 PM UTC

vedantroy wrote: post #82

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…

I’d be more than happy for a WebKit browser with a fully customizable noscript and cookie policy.

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

#92

Post by jasonlotito » Sun, Nov 25, 2018, 10:53 PM UTC

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…

The Democrats have been the ones looking into tech companies for years (just do some searching and you'll find it's been going on for years). The only reasons Republicans would jump on this now is for political reasons.

To double down on this: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/wild-west-no-longer-h...

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

#93

Post by throwaway34241 » Sun, Nov 25, 2018, 11:01 PM UTC

vedantroy wrote: post #82

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…

As long as Safari remains the default or very popular, sites will probably have to support it anyway regardless of if other browser engines are available.

There's also some conflict of interest if say Chrome were to come to be the dominant browser on iOS since they also control Android. Would battery life, performance etc be prioritized as highly on iOS as their own platform?

I think it would be nice to be able to load apps from outside the app store especially on devices like the iPad Pro, but I think that's a separate issue from web standards. I think the only practical way to advance web standards is for the major browser vendors to agree and implement them, even if that sometimes takes a while.

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

#94

Post by pvg » Sun, Nov 25, 2018, 11:02 PM UTC

forrestthewoods wrote: post #48

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.

It’s a tricky claim to make for Apple. But it’s easy to make across the full ecosystem of digital app stores which are near universally 30 percent rakes. I’m including games in that list; Xbox, PlayStation, Steam, etc. That said, even if mobile apps are cheaper than they used to be many could be even cheaper if Apple took a 10% cut. I don’t like living in a world where almost every major distribution platform has com…

The game app stores have also driven prices way down from their 'traditional' retail prices. The argument for government remedy has to be based on some kind of actual harm to consumers rather than a feeling that 30% is too damn high.

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

#95

Post by tptacek » Sun, Nov 25, 2018, 11:05 PM UTC

kodablah wrote: post #83

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.

That's a colorable argument on a message board, but in court, if intervention is to be premised on harm to consumers through overcharging, Apple's opponents will need to present empirical evidence, not counterfactuals. Be that as it may: all the evidence available to me suggests that mobile app stores have drastically reduced the cost of retail software to consumers.

If anything, what I've seen is the opposite concern, which is that app stores make prices too favorable for consumers, at an untenable cost to the developers.

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

#96

Post by askaboutit » Sun, Nov 25, 2018, 11:05 PM UTC

Apples total lack of PWA support is a real pain. Making a mobile app is 10x the investment of a PWA and most ‘apps’ would be better off as a website. This issue is annoying me more and more lately as Apple simply wants to hold back so many things. All so they can take 30%.

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

#97

Post by zuminator » Sun, Nov 25, 2018, 11:17 PM UTC

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.

So if Ann's a developer and doesn't want their payment processing, and Bruce is a consumer and doesn't want their curation, then the buyer and seller should be able to dispense with the surcharge if they dispense with the "service." But they can't (without jumping through hoops.) And what's more, if Trusty App Corp. were to come along and set up a 20% cut Trusty App store that could be conveniently installed via an exploit, they would be undoubtedly sued for IP violations, due to the state protecting Apple's exclusive right to Apple IP. This is pure rent-seeking on the part of Apple, and ultimately antitrust laws exist to discourage rent-seeking even more than discouraging monopolies per se.

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

#98

Post by belltaco » Sun, Nov 25, 2018, 11:31 PM UTC

MBCook wrote: post #69

meepmorp wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft had a monopoly on the desktop OS market, and so pushing IE was anti-competitive. Apple isn’t anywhere near having a monopoly in phones, in the US or anywhere else. It’s not just the behavior that’s against the law, it’s the behavior plus the market position.

Plus at the time Netscape sold for $$$. MS basically dumped & devalued their market to $0.

And thus set off the internet revolution without a $$$ barrier to entry.

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

#99

Post by danaris » Sun, Nov 25, 2018, 11:32 PM UTC

dingaling wrote: post #79

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.

It's easier to change from iOS to Android than it is to change ISPs in huge portions of the US.

At least changing from iOS to Android (or vice versa) doesn't require you to buy a new house and move—probably move far enough that you need to find a new job, too.

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

#100

Post by belltaco » Sun, Nov 25, 2018, 11:35 PM UTC

BurritoAlPastor wrote: post #47

detaro wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But it’s in the Supreme Court so it can’t be completely without legal merit. From my understanding, the lower courts haven't looked at that argument yet, since the question "do these people even have standing to sue" comes before any arguments.

Correct. From Apple’s original petition: “The question presented is: Whether consumers may sue for antitrust damages anyone who delivers goods to them, even where they seek damages based on prices set by third parties who would be the immediate victims of the alleged offense.”

Not true, nothing ever goes to the Supreme court without a lower court considering and rendering a decision on the same question. Otherwise the court would be swamped and unable to function.