4 ms·

Edit: Users below have helped provide context, thanks. Maybe I'm missing the news here -- I'd be happy if someone could correct me or point out what I'm missin

Edit: Users below have helped provide context, thanks. Maybe I'm missing the news here -- I'd be happy if someone could correct me or point out what I'm missing for why this is a big headline. If you replace the company names with "Ma & Pa's Pizza" making a deal with "Dad & Sons Grocery", but keep the article the same (Ma & Pa pay 50% less of a fee for shelf space, Dad & Sons Grocery benefits from the great pizza Ma & Pa make), I don't see it being a Bloomberg story. My analogy might not quite line up (I have 0 clue how grocery shelf space is allocated), but the sentiment remains. Two companies negotiated, they had things to offer in lieu of the standard monetary compensation, and they came to an agreement. If I am able to leverage assets other than money (intangibles like reach, brand, etc.) to lower the cost of something I am purchasing/becoming involved with, and the other company agrees to lower their cost because they will reap the benefits of the intangibles I offer, why is that wrong? Is it because of the scale involved here? Two companies negotiated fees. What am I missing here?

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
That yesterday Tim Cook stated a bunch of times under oath that they treat every company the same with regards to App Store policy and fees. Except Jeff Bezos got a special deal directly from Tim Cook. So this is potentially evidence of perjury.
- ziddoap 6y ago
  That's fair, he probably shouldn't lie under oath I agree. The article has a very small paragraph about that, and the remaining 95% was just discussing that a deal was made. I guess since Bloomberg gave much more weight to the fact a deal was struck (rather than weighting the fact that Cook potentially lied under oath), I was focusing on the wrong thing.
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    It's pretty risky for a news organization to directly accuse one of the most powerful men in America of a crime. It's much easier for them to present facts and let people read that out of it. (And I nearly guarantee you the Congresspeople who spoke with him yesterday will see this article.)
    - ziddoap 6y ago
      Agree. Thanks for providing the context, I have not been watching the hearings live.
- newbie578 6y ago
  I hope this amounts to something. Apple and others need to be held accountable, especially when there is blatant evidence. But I honestly think nothing will come of it, since Apple is America's golden boy, investors love Apple because of it's growth and consumers love their products, bordering near fanaticsm of the brand. Just look at HN and read the comments regarding Apple. Any thread which speaks something positive about Apple (even when it is fake news, like today's false claim about the App store refunds) gets upvoted to the sky, but dare say something negative about Apple and people will hunt you out of the woods. Devs sure love their Macs. P.S. Windows all the way
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    I have my doubts Apple (or Tim Cook) is going to end up being taken down for committing perjury. But these Congresspeople will be making recommendations and/or introducing bills on regulating these companies, and my guess is that their distaste for being lied to may tinge their attitudes as they legislate.
    - AnonC 6y ago
      > I have my doubts Apple (or Tim Cook) is going to end up being taken down for committing perjury. But these Congresspeople will be making recommendations and/or introducing bills on regulating these companies, and my guess is that their distaste for being lied to may tinge their attitudes as they legislate. Based on what’s happened with Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg so far, which is nothing substantial for the company or him, I wouldn’t worry about Apple or Tim Cook. I do believe that Apple has arbitrary policies with too many twists and turns on the App Store and that it’s high time it cleans up that part sooner though.
- ghshephard 6y ago
  Unless, of course, the same deal was offered to all video streaming companies.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
pcl 6y ago
There's a big grey area between two family businesses doing deals to help each other out and two dominant market players tipping the scales in their own mutual favor to keep out other players. Problems ensue when the behavior is anticompetitive, and when one or more of the parties engaged in the behavior have a dominant position in their market. This played out with Microsoft's abuse of its dominant position in the operating systems space to advance their browser ambitions. Apple presents a really interesting case here, since they pointedly do not have a monopoly on mobile app stores -- Apple's mobile business is a minority player measured by device count, and a majority player by revenue. IANAL, and not even really an armchair one, so I really have no idea if their majority-revenue position matters, or is sufficiently dominant, etc.
- ziddoap 6y ago
  Definitely agree that my analogy is on the opposite side of the spectrum, but it was the best I could come up with to try and establish where I was coming from with my question. As another user helped me understand with the context of this is there is a bit of an issue with Cook's denials to Congress vs. what's actually happening. And your point regarding scale is certainly understood. I suppose I'm just having trouble with where the line gets drawn, so to speak.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago

That yesterday Tim Cook stated a bunch of times under oath that they treat every company the same with regards to App Store policy and fees. Except Jeff Bezos got a special deal directly from Tim Cook. So this is potentially evidence of perjury.

ziddoap 6y ago
That's fair, he probably shouldn't lie under oath I agree. The article has a very small paragraph about that, and the remaining 95% was just discussing that a deal was made. I guess since Bloomberg gave much more weight to the fact a deal was struck (rather than weighting the fact that Cook potentially lied under oath), I was focusing on the wrong thing.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  It's pretty risky for a news organization to directly accuse one of the most powerful men in America of a crime. It's much easier for them to present facts and let people read that out of it. (And I nearly guarantee you the Congresspeople who spoke with him yesterday will see this article.)
  - ziddoap 6y ago
    Agree. Thanks for providing the context, I have not been watching the hearings live.
newbie578 6y ago
I hope this amounts to something. Apple and others need to be held accountable, especially when there is blatant evidence. But I honestly think nothing will come of it, since Apple is America's golden boy, investors love Apple because of it's growth and consumers love their products, bordering near fanaticsm of the brand. Just look at HN and read the comments regarding Apple. Any thread which speaks something positive about Apple (even when it is fake news, like today's false claim about the App store refunds) gets upvoted to the sky, but dare say something negative about Apple and people will hunt you out of the woods. Devs sure love their Macs. P.S. Windows all the way
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  I have my doubts Apple (or Tim Cook) is going to end up being taken down for committing perjury. But these Congresspeople will be making recommendations and/or introducing bills on regulating these companies, and my guess is that their distaste for being lied to may tinge their attitudes as they legislate.
  - AnonC 6y ago
    > I have my doubts Apple (or Tim Cook) is going to end up being taken down for committing perjury. But these Congresspeople will be making recommendations and/or introducing bills on regulating these companies, and my guess is that their distaste for being lied to may tinge their attitudes as they legislate. Based on what’s happened with Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg so far, which is nothing substantial for the company or him, I wouldn’t worry about Apple or Tim Cook. I do believe that Apple has arbitrary policies with too many twists and turns on the App Store and that it’s high time it cleans up that part sooner though.
ghshephard 6y ago
Unless, of course, the same deal was offered to all video streaming companies.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

pcl 6y ago

There's a big grey area between two family businesses doing deals to help each other out and two dominant market players tipping the scales in their own mutual favor to keep out other players. Problems ensue when the behavior is anticompetitive, and when one or more of the parties engaged in the behavior have a dominant position in their market. This played out with Microsoft's abuse of its dominant position in the operating systems space to advance their browser ambitions. Apple presents a really interesting case here, since they pointedly do not have a monopoly on mobile app stores -- Apple's mobile business is a minority player measured by device count, and a majority player by revenue. IANAL, and not even really an armchair one, so I really have no idea if their majority-revenue position matters, or is sufficiently dominant, etc.

ziddoap 6y ago
Definitely agree that my analogy is on the opposite side of the spectrum, but it was the best I could come up with to try and establish where I was coming from with my question. As another user helped me understand with the context of this is there is a bit of an issue with Cook's denials to Congress vs. what's actually happening. And your point regarding scale is certainly understood. I suppose I'm just having trouble with where the line gets drawn, so to speak.