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

Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 631 posts

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#91

Post by girvo »

to11mtm wrote: post #80
ivanmontillam wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly my point! This would kick the wasp's nest of "they (Apple) don't need this much money to operate, they can do well with 10% profit!" Which is very hard to admit, that profit margins are arbitrary when you, indeed, dominate the market. Apple doesn't want (nor need) to give anyone a handle to anyone to make them accountable. It is not a charity. (Again, I'm not defending Apple, but I do defend corporate liberti…

When a company builds the moat too high (i.e. restrictions on external sub signups) it becomes monopolistic. Apple is honestly worse than Microsoft in so many ways as far as restrictions (nowadays, anyway) and yet it's taken this long even to get here. (To be clear, I am not a fan of Google's actions in the mobile space either...)

Mobile space

Ad space

Search space

And more!

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#92

Post by bpodgursky »

semiquaver wrote: post #87
sensanaty wrote: post #58

Is there any hope of a non-joke fine here? Or are we just looking at another kiss of the wrists as them and Google and all the other big tech cos fuck literally everyone over?

The important penalty isn’t a fine, it’s a forced change of behavior to comply with the injunction. The referral for criminal contempt charges will end up being a slap on the wrist if they are even charged though.

No this is actually going get Tim Cook's attention. Contempt can mean actual jail time for execs.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#93

Post by musicale »

mil22 wrote: post #4

About time. I'm tired of apologizing to customers who purchase subscriptions in my app only to discover they could have purchased the exact the same thing from my website for 15% less. "Why didn't you tell me?" Excerpt from the filing: "In stark contrast to Apple’s initial in-court testimony, contemporaneous business documents reveal that Apple knew exactly what it was doing and at every turn chose the most anticompe…

> To hide the truth, Vice-President of Finance, Alex Roman, outright lied under oath

Well that sounds rather damning.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#94

Post by stingraycharles »

musicale wrote: post #93
mil22 wrote: post #4

About time. I'm tired of apologizing to customers who purchase subscriptions in my app only to discover they could have purchased the exact the same thing from my website for 15% less. "Why didn't you tell me?" Excerpt from the filing: "In stark contrast to Apple’s initial in-court testimony, contemporaneous business documents reveal that Apple knew exactly what it was doing and at every turn chose the most anticompe…

> To hide the truth, Vice-President of Finance, Alex Roman, outright lied under oath Well that sounds rather damning.

Happens more than you’d think. Happened to me in the past as well in some business conflict. It was baffling how people can just lie in court under oath and get away with it.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#95

Post by JumpCrisscross »

ryandrake wrote: post #85
90s_dev wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally none, the DA must choose to pursue perjury charges, which basically never happens. In reality, nearly everyone commits perjury. Thomas More would not approve. Both versions (1966 and 1988) of A Man For All Seasons are highly worth watching several times and practically memorizing. "Would you benefit England by populating her with liars ?" [edit] in retrospect, there is one inescapable consequence of lying u…

I bet if a poor person struggling to hold down three jobs to survive were found to be lying under oath, the DA would throw the book at them.

> if a poor person struggling to hold down three jobs to survive were found to be lying under oath, the DA would throw the book at them

Have you been to a traffic court?

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#96

Post by snowwrestler »

echelon wrote: post #35
autobodie wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About time for what? Another company to get charged with something that they don't get punished for? The fines are always less than the companies' net gains from the practice. Gains are often indirect, risk-related, and/or part of a larger strategy, so they cannot be calculated. Everything short of prison is a waste of time, waste of tax dollars, and spits in the face of decent citizens.

100%. This doesn't deserve a fine. This deserves Apple to be given an ultimatum about their mob boss behavior with mobile. Apple and Google quickly built up their duopoly such that everyone doing anything with mobile phones has to pay them a tax. You can't even deploy your own apps at your own cadence, without strict review, using your own technology. You have to jump through unplanned upgrade cycles, you're forced t…

I understand people like this ruling and want Apple and Google to open up. But this is just silly rewriting of history:

> Apple and Google quickly built up their duopoly such that everyone doing anything with mobile phones has to pay them a tax.

Long before Apple and Google made phones, a huge mobile device ecosystem already existed, including app stores, and it was way more locked down and expensive than what we have now.

The iPhone did not even launch with an app store, its launch concept was 100% web apps. They only added the native SDK and app store after developers and customers demanded it.

Again: I know the world is different now. But the idea that this was all some swift inexorable coup by Apple and Google is totally inaccurate. Plenty of other companies had a chance to do things differently, many with huge head starts.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#97

Post by dchest »

"In Slack communications dated November 16, 2021, the Apple employees crafting the warning screen for Project Michigan discussed how best to frame its language. (CX-206.) Mr. Onak suggested the warning screen should include the language: “By continuing on the web, you will leave the app and be taken to an external website” because “‘external website’ sounds scary, so execs will love it.” (Id. at .2.) From Mr. Onak’s perspective, of the “execs” on the project, Mr. Schiller was at the top. (Feb. 2025 Tr. 1340:4–6 (Onak).) One employee further wrote, “to make your version even worse you could add the developer name rather than the app name.” (CX-206.4.) To that, another responded “ooh - keep going.” (Id.)

I could never imagine Apple employees doing it like this. I knew they had to have discussions about the scare screen, but come on! This is pure evil.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#98

Post by zik »

musicale wrote: post #93
mil22 wrote: post #4

About time. I'm tired of apologizing to customers who purchase subscriptions in my app only to discover they could have purchased the exact the same thing from my website for 15% less. "Why didn't you tell me?" Excerpt from the filing: "In stark contrast to Apple’s initial in-court testimony, contemporaneous business documents reveal that Apple knew exactly what it was doing and at every turn chose the most anticompe…

> To hide the truth, Vice-President of Finance, Alex Roman, outright lied under oath Well that sounds rather damning.

Surely he should receive a prison sentence for that alone?

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#99

Post by Terr_ »

Nevermark wrote: post #89
autobodie wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About time for what? Another company to get charged with something that they don't get punished for? The fines are always less than the companies' net gains from the practice. Gains are often indirect, risk-related, and/or part of a larger strategy, so they cannot be calculated. Everything short of prison is a waste of time, waste of tax dollars, and spits in the face of decent citizens.

I like the idea of civil judgements that require responsible individuals to remove themselves from the company. And void any forward looking renumeration in their contracts. Personal fines too, such as returning past remunerations during the problematic time in question. Salaries. Stock grants. There is no such thing as an incentive, that doesn't incentivize someone. Relatively small fines relative to revenues and pr…

> I like the idea of civil judgements that require responsible individuals to remove themselves from the company.

As long as their job isn't to P.L.E.A.S.E.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfWVV533RHE&t=85s

Post reply on HN