10 ms·
U.S. Justice Dept Considering Apple Probe: Sources
- tastygreenapple 7y agoI hope so, it's bogus the app store is locked down like it is. I own my iPhone, I should be able to download a gab app.
- tracker1 7y agoI happen to agree, that sideloading should definitely be an option. Unfortunately too many people believe that censorship is appropriate, and that letting multinational corporations control and prohibit speech is a good thing. A lot of the liberal left has gone, only to be replaced by the identitarian left. It's pretty bad when the middle-left liberal democrat identifies more with Republicans than they do most of their own party's candidates.
- notfromhere 7y agoSo are we just resorting to making things up now?
- tracker1 7y agowhich part? https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/pew-research-center-study-shows-that-democrats-have-shifted-to-the-extreme-left/ https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/pew-research-c...
- zepto 7y agoIf the App Store is forced open, say goodbye to privacy and security on iOS.
- anbop 7y agoWhy? Apple doesn’t vet apps for privacy or security. The API surface is what affects these.
- shuckles 7y agoAPIs that depend on policy to prevent abuse will now just not be available at all.
- anbop 7y agoAs it should be. Apple doesn’t have the ability to verify what you do with the data that gets to your app, so they should not pretend to be able to certify it.
- nemothekid 7y agoWhat? Apple, today, has enforced the ability to ensure that a flashlight app isn't vacuuming up your location data.
- freehunter 7y agoThey absolutely do. Every permission you request has to have a valid justification and the user can only be asked when the permission is actually needed. The API allows you to specify every single permission and require them at app launch, it's the human reviewer who makes sure they're being used appropriately. I say this as someone who has had apps denied by reviews for requesting a permission that was not needed inside of the version of the app I submitted to the store. They absolutely do review and vet apps for privacy and security.
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago> If the App Store is forced open, say goodbye to privacy and security on iOS There are shades of grey between "Apple takes 30%, gets to reject apps for any or no reason, and gets to auto-install Apple Music in competition with Spotify" and flipping the App Store to the Android model.
- zepto 7y agoApple has never rejected an app for no reason. If apple was constrained from shipping apps that have competitors, they would effectively be prevented from shipping any apps at all.
- ceejayoz 7y ago> Apple has never rejected an app for no reason. Sure they have. https://www.businessinsider.com/iphone-app-rejections-2009-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/iphone-app-rejections-2009-1... > Why did the folks at Tweetie add swear words to their program? Actually, they didn't. But something crude happened to be trending on Twitter at the time the app was submitted for review. Or Google Voice: https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-blocks-google-voice-app-for-iphone/ https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-blocks-google-voice-app-for-...
- zepto 7y agoNope. Not for no reason. By mistake, for sure, and in both cases the mistake was rectified.
- saagarjha 7y agoSee: macOS.
- tomatotomato37 7y agoYou know if you reframe it as moving to a Windows/desktop model instead of moving to an Android model that could be seen as a positive. I like that I can install some obscure weekend GitHub project to do some task for me without having to fight my own OS over it
- r00fus 7y agoSorry I left the Windows model 10 years ago mainly because of downsides any process easily metastasizing into an exploit vector. Walled gardens have less thugs and shady alleys.
- darkpuma 7y agoIn the past few days or so there have been articles about potential antitrust stuff against Apple, Facebook, and Google. What is going on here? Facebook article, three hours ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20084703 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20084703 Google article, three days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20066288 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20066288 Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty excited to see these companies get smacked around because I think all are too powerful, too influential, but with these three in a row in such quick succession I have to wonder if the motivation is political. Edit: Here is a similar article for Amazon (one day ago), that slipped through the cracks: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20074593 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20074593
- golem14 7y agoI wonder why this is downvoted. The timing is really curious.
- darkpuma 7y agoThe Amazon/WaPo article notes the timing as well and hints that it might not be totally partisan. > "Antitrust also has become an early flash point among Democrats vying for the White House ahead of the 2020 election. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) recently threatened major investigations of Amazon, Apple and Facebook. This week, she offered early support in response to news that the Justice Department could bring such an investigation against Google." Maybe this is a case of numerous parties having a diverse set of motivations that all line up? Democrats who blame these companies for Trump's election (makes the least sense in the specific case of Apple or Amazon...), and Republicans who say these companies are censoring them (makes the least sense in the specific case of Apple or Amazon...) Maybe these companies are just running out of friends in Washington.
- zepto 7y agoSeems like this takes the wind out of her presidential campaign. So maybe partisan after all.
- golem14 7y agoI wonder whether the 3 threatened investigations (Google by DoJ, Facebook by FTC, now Apple bu DoJ) are not so subtle signaling by the current administration to fall in line (China trade war, working with Pentagon on AI, etc) "or else". There's little evidence, but the fact that these 3 major companies are now moved against in roughly the same timeframe while the administration and DoJ have already their hands more than full is suggestive ...
- darkpuma 7y ago> "the 3 threatened investigations (Google by DoJ, Facebook by FTC, now Apple bu DoJ)" Maybe four, Amazon too: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/06/02/amazon-could-face-heightened-antitrust-scrutiny-under-new-agreement-between-us-regulators/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/06/02/amazon-...
- jcadam 7y agoWell, AWS has been pretty egregious in their behavior toward the open source community.
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago> subtle signaling by the current administration to fall in line Everyone who's been lobbying for one of these investigations has been lobbying for the other three. A couple key folks at the DoJ started prioritizing tech antitrust, in part due to some other time-consuming matters having recently been sunset. (Previously, it was being pursued as a civil matter though the regulators. Big legal teams have an easier time squashing those compared.) No need for a political conspiracy. (In any case, these investigations take a long time to get going. None of these efforts were started in even the last months.)
- golem14 7y agoAgreed, but again, the fact that these all happen in the same time frame is weird. I guess each of the investigations will tie up a lot of resources, but all 4 at the same time seem pretty taxing to an already busy admin. Also, noone here has been suggesting a conspiracy.
- epistasis 7y agoI hope that this is a sign of increased scrutiny overall, that will lead to the ISP/media conglomerates too. Comcast is extremely exploitive of it's regulatory capture of my local government and has a far more detrimental direct effect on my life than Google does, because I am able to block Google and use alternatives. Though perhaps the investigation around Google is mostly about their customers and not their users, I.e. ad purchasers.
- notfromhere 7y agoWhat about this administration suggests they're really into antitrust enforcement on its merits? Only reason the GOP is interested in regulating tech is because they believe tech platforms should be forced to carry their political message without restrictions.
- epistasis 7y agoForgive my naivete, but based on what I've seen elsewhere I think this administration is so incompetent that they can't get the levers of government to do much of anything, unless it's unilateral actions like tariffs. So I'm not sure that much of the choice to pursue this even comes from temporary political appointees. Some of the Democratic candidates (e.g. Warren) also support similar measures, so it's not required that this is purely a political play.
- gwright 7y agoCable franchises are legal monopolies. What could go wrong?
- treis 7y agoCharter/Comcast have pretty paltry profit margins compared to Google (especially if you look at the non-NBC parts of Comcast). If they've managed to snag a monopoly through anti-competitive behaviors they're doing a bad job profiting off of it.
- tick_tock_tick 7y agoInteresting Elizabeth Warren's campaign just bought up some big billboard in SF stating this as one of her major campaign promises.
- b_tterc_p 7y agoIs this a popular sentiment in SF? I haven’t seen any of it in Massachusetts where she is from but I would think it would be more popular here.
- tick_tock_tick 7y agoThey are a very visible industry so they get used as scapegoat as the city fails to provide basic services to its population.
- yalogin 7y agoI can see Amazon and Google. What is the complaint against Apple and Facebook?
- snazz 7y agoThe control over what iOS developers can do has been the source of a lot of contention recently. Facebook is Big Bad as we all know, but I agree that they’re not as much a monopoly.
- treis 7y agoDuopoly isn't much better than a monopoly. Especially when the other half does basically the same anti-competitive behaviors. Really, of all of these, Apple is seemingly the most blatant in their anti-competitive behaviors. Google and Facebook at least offer choice even if that choice is a somewhat of an illusion. Apple just flat out forbids competing with it in distributing iOS apps and vigorously guards its cut of subscription revenue.
- vkou 7y agoApple has far more insidious control over the iEcosystem then Microsoft did during its brush with the 1999 anti-trust courts. This is bad for developers, and may be bad for users. Facebook owns ~95% of the 'social media' market in the US. (And is proving surprisingly capable at buying its way out of irrelevancy.) This may be bad for advertisers, for users, or for competitors.
- r00fus 7y agoExcept Apple isn’t a monopoly on mobile devices. How can you be said to have a monopoly on your own platform when that platform itself is a small % of the market? The argument is ridiculous on its merits unless you are willing to ignore years of established case law (which is the basis of our Jurisprudence)
- DannyBee 7y agoI mean, things like https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/3/18651344/wwdc-2019-apple-force-ios-developers-sign-in-third-party https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/3/18651344/wwdc-2019-apple-f... are definitely gonna run Apple into trouble. This is basically the definition of what is known as "tying". See, https://www.theantitrustattorney.com/antitrust-laws-prohibit-tying-products-services-together-sale/ https://www.theantitrustattorney.com/antitrust-laws-prohibit... for a fairly good description. (This was the claim against MS - tying OS and browser).
- bhouston 7y agoI expect Amazon to be next.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- brenteldorf 7y agoSo when are the telecoms going to be looked at?
- outside1234 7y agoI think the only surprise here is that Amazon hasn't been named yet, but maybe they are setting the table here, so that that one doesn't look politically motivated. :)
- m0zg 7y agoI feel like this is just a gentle reminder to the "masters of the universe" about who really runs the country. They've been getting into politics a little too much lately. If nothing else, this should cool down that ambition. I can only welcome increased scrutiny for trillion-dollar entities that, to a large extent, control the flow of information like never before.
- b1daly 7y agoI don't see how any anti-trust laws based on having monopoly-level market control could possibly be applied to Apple. Apple simply does not have a monopoly in any market, from either a narrow "by the book" perspective or in a broader functional perspective. Unless the DoJ Apple is unfairly monopolizing the market for Apple's products and services...
- oceanplexian 7y agoJust because someone can go buy an Android doesn't mean it's not a monopoly. Having only two options for mobile phone operating systems, both with locked-in, walled gardens that take a cut from developers isn't competition, it's a rigged system.
- b1daly 7y agoYes it does mean it’s not a monopoly! That’s the literal definition. You could describe it as a duopoly but I think it’s pretty clear that Apple and Google are fierce competitors. And Apple has minority market share by far. Neither company has anywhere near a well protected position in the market. The mobile computing market has not seen companies establish long running monopolies. Two of the top competitors in the sector, BlackBerry and Nokia, are long gone, shells of their former selves. The problem you complain about is due to structural elements in the market, specifically that network effects are inevitable in the market for operating systems. The purpose of anti-trust laws is to protect people against predatory markets practices, not to interfere with market function because it doesn’t support a product. FWIW, there are other mobile OS options available. You just don’t want to use them because they have not reached a market share significant enough to support the kind of rock app ecosystem we expect.