8 ms·

This 100%. Government needs to get involved. Apple is clearly using its monopolistic power as shield against any kind of accountability. Devs have absolutely no

by fjabre 7y ago

This 100%. Government needs to get involved. Apple is clearly using its monopolistic power as shield against any kind of accountability. Devs have absolutely no recourse against this monopoly.

pdonis 7y ago
> Government needs to get involved. I don't see how this would improve the situation, and it would most likely make it worse. > Devs have absolutely no recourse against this monopoly. Devs have no right to demand that Apple let them into their ecosystem. It belongs to Apple. The ultimate dev recourse is not to go complaining to the government but to build their own ecosystem that out-competes Apple's. Good luck.
- fjabre 7y ago
  Out compete Apple? You cant be serious. Unless you have a phone that uses quantum entanglement to communicate at FTL no one is out competing Apple anytime soon.
  - xvector 7y ago
    Google out-competed Apple long ago with Android in terms of marketshare.
  - pdonis 7y ago
    > Out compete Apple? You cant be serious. And if that's the answer, then devs who don't like how Apple manages their ecosystem should simply go find some other kind of coding to do.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - Reelin 7y ago
      Do you actually think it's an acceptable state of affairs for a company to be able to unilaterally put a non-competing and unrelated company out of business on a whim? Apple isn't a traditional distribution channel. If FedEx bans me, I can switch to UPS (or USPS, or ...); if Apple bans me, for all practical purposes I can't compete in the mobile space in the US anymore.
      - sjwright 7y ago
        Is it a "whim" for Apple to act in accordance with their stated policy?
        Reelin 7y ago
        It might or might not be, but that misses my point. The issue isn't (necessarily) that Apple banned a particular account for a particular reason. The issue is that Apple (or Google) banning an account could easily render a given company (in an unrelated market segment) non-competitive overnight. That company would effectively have no recourse, and there is no alternative provider for them to switch to. I do not think that's a generally desirable state of affairs. A reasonable analogy (in the US) would be an ISP banning a particular website. If the ISP were large enough (ex Comcast or Verizon), any web based US business banned in this manner would effectively become non-viable on the spot. Tech companies should not be allowed to unilaterally control our economy in this manner. (This is all in addition to the existing consumer protection concerns.)
        pdonis 7y ago
        > A reasonable analogy (in the US) would be an ISP banning a particular website. This analogy is flawed. Apple cannot "ban" people from the Internet. It can only choose to prohibit certain app developers from using its app store. But app developers can still reach customers in other ways. Choosing to base your business on Apple allowing you to use its app store is a business decision that has known risks up front. If you choose to do it, the risk is on you. An ISP ban of a website means that website is literally off the Internet as far as all of that ISP's users are concerned. The website is not trying to use something the ISP owns; the ISP does not own the Internet (whereas Apple does own its app store). The website has no business relationship with the ISP the way app devs do with Apple. Also, the ISP's monopoly of its customer's Internet access is not a product of market forces the way Apple's position in the mobile app space is; the ISPs have monopolies granted by governments. A better analogy to Apple would be a website's hosting company deciding not to host them any more based on the content of the website. The business running the site, by choosing to have a third party hosting company (instead of just buying their own servers and their own direct connection to the Internet), has taken a business risk; if the risk materializes, they have to make a business decision to either switch to an alternate method of hosting or shut down. But they knew that risk up front when they chose to do business with that hosting company.
  - pdonis 7y ago
    > uses quantum entanglement to communicate at FTL Quantum entanglement doesn't actually allow you to do that; you can't use it to transmit information FTL.
  - qtplatypus 7y ago
    So all the android phones I can see are what?
scarface74 7y ago
Another day another case of an HN user not understanding the definition of a “monopoly”.
- fjabre 7y ago
  Please enlighten me. I would love to hear what your explanation of a monopoly is.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    A monopoly is not a platform that has less than 50% market share.....
    - bsder 7y ago
      That is not strictly true even in the law. However, if we define the "market" as "places that you can legally purchase and install iOS device apps from", the App Store is close to 95%+ of the market share.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        So can you give any examples in the US or the EU where such a definition has ever been used? In that case are all of the console makers “monopolies” since they have to approve both digital and physical media distributed on their platform? Does Apple also have a “monopoly” in the smart speaker market since they control what runs on the HomePod even though they are a distance third to Amazon and Google? What about the “AppleTV”? Should Apple have been forced to open up the 2nd/3rd generation AppleTV to developers? Do they have a “monopoly” on AirPods since they don’t allow third party smart assistants?
        bsder 7y ago
        > In that case are all of the console makers “monopolies” since they have to approve both digital and physical media distributed on their platform? Personally, I would say that they are monopolies. And people are starting to think about them that way because so many games now have an "always online" component. The problem is that even if I own a game disk, that game that I paid money for is suddenly worthless when Sony or Microsoft pull the plug on the online servers. The issue is stronger with Google and Apple in that smart phones are almost reaching "necessity" level and you can't opt out. You either have Android, iOS or nothing. We have been here before. Monopoly laws are not some immutable commandments from on high. Monopoly laws were passed in response to specific abuses in rail, steel, coal, etc. We will create new laws to deal with the current crop of abusers.
PhasmaFelis 7y ago
Not only are they not a monopoly, Apple doesn't even have the highest market share in the mobile space. (It's Samsung.)
- fjabre 7y ago
  I see. So Apple watches, iPads, and iPhones & other devices owning at least half the US market isn't a monopoly whatsoever? When does one qualify to become a monopoly? Must they own 90% of the market to be considered one? I wonder what would happen if they kicked Uber of the platform.
  - pdonis 7y ago
    > I wonder what would happen if they kicked Uber of the platform. I would expect that either Uber would find a way for its iPhone users to side-load their app, or Uber would calmly point out to Apple how many users they were likely to lose.
  - PhasmaFelis 7y ago
    > I see. So Apple watches, iPads, and iPhones & other devices owning at least half the US market They don't. Not in the US, not in phones[1] or watches[2]. They may have the majority market share in US tablets. > isn't a monopoly whatsoever? No, not even if that was true. Monopoly doesn't mean "any company I don't like." You're acting like "Apple isn't a monopoly" means "there's no problems with Apple at all." Monopoly has a specific meaning. Look it up. [1] https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-share/ https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh... [2] https://www.androidpolice.com/2019/08/15/us-smartwatch-shipments-up-38-this-year-and-samsungs-market-share-is-growing/ https://www.androidpolice.com/2019/08/15/us-smartwatch-shipm...
    - fjabre 7y ago
      Legal definitions change all the time and laws are updated. Monopoly means whatever the decision of the high court says it means and that is squared with the legislative. There are no hard and fast rules in litigation or civil law.
marcus_holmes 7y ago
OK, I'll bite. So in this case, a dev has (we think) broken the ToS of his agreement with Apple by publishing information before launch. What do you think the government should do about this?
- bsder 7y ago
  I think ToS that say "We can screw you and you can't do anything about it." need to get ripped up once you reach monopoly status. At the very least, Apple and Google should have to appoint a "public ombudsman" overseen by the government that handles these kinds of complaints/problems that people can actually contact. And if they don't seem to be handling them very well, they need to get fined increasingly severely until they do.
  - marcus_holmes 7y ago
    So the government should create a taxpayer-paid ombudsman, who will accept complaints from developers about tech companies with, say, >20% market share. And that ombudsman will arbitrate between the tech companies and the developers, with the power to impose fines on the tech companies if they think the developer was treated unfairly. OK. That works in other industries, so could work here. But in this case, where the developer (we think) has clearly broken the ToS of the agreement, which was basically "we will provide you with privileged access to information so that you can develop for upcoming products, but please don't share that with the public". What do you think the ombudsman should do?
    - bsder 7y ago
      > But in this case, where the developer (we think) has clearly broken the ToS of the agreement, which was basically "we will provide you with privileged access to information so that you can develop for upcoming products, but please don't share that with the public". What do you think the ombudsman should do? What you normally do with such a person? People who break NDAs get punished according to the NDA. You take them to court and you hit them with the correct penalty. Or you do what most normal companies do and simply omit them from anything requiring an NDA in the future. You don't get to summarily punish them with no notice and no explanation. You don't get to yank their iTunes, iCloud or development account unless that is a specific term of the NDA. You don't get to exert punishments simply because you can. When you act like that, you are creating a "blacklist" and the law generally takes a dim view of that. These companies have been operating above the law for far too long because 1) what they provide is "free" so damages are difficult to prove and 2) they are so big that most individuals really can't oppose them. The only way anyone punishes these companies is if they happen to have a big enough social following to provoke enough negative PR to actually cost the company money.

by fjabre 7y ago

This 100%. Government needs to get involved. Apple is clearly using its monopolistic power as shield against any kind of accountability. Devs have absolutely no recourse against this monopoly.

pdonis 7y ago

> Government needs to get involved. I don't see how this would improve the situation, and it would most likely make it worse. > Devs have absolutely no recourse against this monopoly. Devs have no right to demand that Apple let them into their ecosystem. It belongs to Apple. The ultimate dev recourse is not to go complaining to the government but to build their own ecosystem that out-competes Apple's. Good luck.

fjabre 7y ago
Out compete Apple? You cant be serious. Unless you have a phone that uses quantum entanglement to communicate at FTL no one is out competing Apple anytime soon.
- xvector 7y ago
  Google out-competed Apple long ago with Android in terms of marketshare.
- pdonis 7y ago
  > Out compete Apple? You cant be serious. And if that's the answer, then devs who don't like how Apple manages their ecosystem should simply go find some other kind of coding to do.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - Reelin 7y ago
    Do you actually think it's an acceptable state of affairs for a company to be able to unilaterally put a non-competing and unrelated company out of business on a whim? Apple isn't a traditional distribution channel. If FedEx bans me, I can switch to UPS (or USPS, or ...); if Apple bans me, for all practical purposes I can't compete in the mobile space in the US anymore.
    - sjwright 7y ago
      Is it a "whim" for Apple to act in accordance with their stated policy?
      - Reelin 7y ago
        It might or might not be, but that misses my point. The issue isn't (necessarily) that Apple banned a particular account for a particular reason. The issue is that Apple (or Google) banning an account could easily render a given company (in an unrelated market segment) non-competitive overnight. That company would effectively have no recourse, and there is no alternative provider for them to switch to. I do not think that's a generally desirable state of affairs. A reasonable analogy (in the US) would be an ISP banning a particular website. If the ISP were large enough (ex Comcast or Verizon), any web based US business banned in this manner would effectively become non-viable on the spot. Tech companies should not be allowed to unilaterally control our economy in this manner. (This is all in addition to the existing consumer protection concerns.)
        pdonis 7y ago
        > A reasonable analogy (in the US) would be an ISP banning a particular website. This analogy is flawed. Apple cannot "ban" people from the Internet. It can only choose to prohibit certain app developers from using its app store. But app developers can still reach customers in other ways. Choosing to base your business on Apple allowing you to use its app store is a business decision that has known risks up front. If you choose to do it, the risk is on you. An ISP ban of a website means that website is literally off the Internet as far as all of that ISP's users are concerned. The website is not trying to use something the ISP owns; the ISP does not own the Internet (whereas Apple does own its app store). The website has no business relationship with the ISP the way app devs do with Apple. Also, the ISP's monopoly of its customer's Internet access is not a product of market forces the way Apple's position in the mobile app space is; the ISPs have monopolies granted by governments. A better analogy to Apple would be a website's hosting company deciding not to host them any more based on the content of the website. The business running the site, by choosing to have a third party hosting company (instead of just buying their own servers and their own direct connection to the Internet), has taken a business risk; if the risk materializes, they have to make a business decision to either switch to an alternate method of hosting or shut down. But they knew that risk up front when they chose to do business with that hosting company.
- pdonis 7y ago
  > uses quantum entanglement to communicate at FTL Quantum entanglement doesn't actually allow you to do that; you can't use it to transmit information FTL.
- qtplatypus 7y ago
  So all the android phones I can see are what?

scarface74 7y ago

Another day another case of an HN user not understanding the definition of a “monopoly”.

fjabre 7y ago
Please enlighten me. I would love to hear what your explanation of a monopoly is.
- scarface74 7y ago
  A monopoly is not a platform that has less than 50% market share.....
  - bsder 7y ago
    That is not strictly true even in the law. However, if we define the "market" as "places that you can legally purchase and install iOS device apps from", the App Store is close to 95%+ of the market share.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      So can you give any examples in the US or the EU where such a definition has ever been used? In that case are all of the console makers “monopolies” since they have to approve both digital and physical media distributed on their platform? Does Apple also have a “monopoly” in the smart speaker market since they control what runs on the HomePod even though they are a distance third to Amazon and Google? What about the “AppleTV”? Should Apple have been forced to open up the 2nd/3rd generation AppleTV to developers? Do they have a “monopoly” on AirPods since they don’t allow third party smart assistants?
      - bsder 7y ago
        > In that case are all of the console makers “monopolies” since they have to approve both digital and physical media distributed on their platform? Personally, I would say that they are monopolies. And people are starting to think about them that way because so many games now have an "always online" component. The problem is that even if I own a game disk, that game that I paid money for is suddenly worthless when Sony or Microsoft pull the plug on the online servers. The issue is stronger with Google and Apple in that smart phones are almost reaching "necessity" level and you can't opt out. You either have Android, iOS or nothing. We have been here before. Monopoly laws are not some immutable commandments from on high. Monopoly laws were passed in response to specific abuses in rail, steel, coal, etc. We will create new laws to deal with the current crop of abusers.

PhasmaFelis 7y ago

Not only are they not a monopoly, Apple doesn't even have the highest market share in the mobile space. (It's Samsung.)

fjabre 7y ago
I see. So Apple watches, iPads, and iPhones & other devices owning at least half the US market isn't a monopoly whatsoever? When does one qualify to become a monopoly? Must they own 90% of the market to be considered one? I wonder what would happen if they kicked Uber of the platform.
- pdonis 7y ago
  > I wonder what would happen if they kicked Uber of the platform. I would expect that either Uber would find a way for its iPhone users to side-load their app, or Uber would calmly point out to Apple how many users they were likely to lose.
- PhasmaFelis 7y ago
  > I see. So Apple watches, iPads, and iPhones & other devices owning at least half the US market They don't. Not in the US, not in phones[1] or watches[2]. They may have the majority market share in US tablets. > isn't a monopoly whatsoever? No, not even if that was true. Monopoly doesn't mean "any company I don't like." You're acting like "Apple isn't a monopoly" means "there's no problems with Apple at all." Monopoly has a specific meaning. Look it up. [1] https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-share/ https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh... [2] https://www.androidpolice.com/2019/08/15/us-smartwatch-shipments-up-38-this-year-and-samsungs-market-share-is-growing/ https://www.androidpolice.com/2019/08/15/us-smartwatch-shipm...
  - fjabre 7y ago
    Legal definitions change all the time and laws are updated. Monopoly means whatever the decision of the high court says it means and that is squared with the legislative. There are no hard and fast rules in litigation or civil law.

marcus_holmes 7y ago

OK, I'll bite. So in this case, a dev has (we think) broken the ToS of his agreement with Apple by publishing information before launch. What do you think the government should do about this?

bsder 7y ago
I think ToS that say "We can screw you and you can't do anything about it." need to get ripped up once you reach monopoly status. At the very least, Apple and Google should have to appoint a "public ombudsman" overseen by the government that handles these kinds of complaints/problems that people can actually contact. And if they don't seem to be handling them very well, they need to get fined increasingly severely until they do.
- marcus_holmes 7y ago
  So the government should create a taxpayer-paid ombudsman, who will accept complaints from developers about tech companies with, say, >20% market share. And that ombudsman will arbitrate between the tech companies and the developers, with the power to impose fines on the tech companies if they think the developer was treated unfairly. OK. That works in other industries, so could work here. But in this case, where the developer (we think) has clearly broken the ToS of the agreement, which was basically "we will provide you with privileged access to information so that you can develop for upcoming products, but please don't share that with the public". What do you think the ombudsman should do?
  - bsder 7y ago
    > But in this case, where the developer (we think) has clearly broken the ToS of the agreement, which was basically "we will provide you with privileged access to information so that you can develop for upcoming products, but please don't share that with the public". What do you think the ombudsman should do? What you normally do with such a person? People who break NDAs get punished according to the NDA. You take them to court and you hit them with the correct penalty. Or you do what most normal companies do and simply omit them from anything requiring an NDA in the future. You don't get to summarily punish them with no notice and no explanation. You don't get to yank their iTunes, iCloud or development account unless that is a specific term of the NDA. You don't get to exert punishments simply because you can. When you act like that, you are creating a "blacklist" and the law generally takes a dim view of that. These companies have been operating above the law for far too long because 1) what they provide is "free" so damages are difficult to prove and 2) they are so big that most individuals really can't oppose them. The only way anyone punishes these companies is if they happen to have a big enough social following to provoke enough negative PR to actually cost the company money.