5 ms·

To keep the continuity of discussion, I assume that this comment was posted here because my top level comment was in part a reply to your (temp667's) comment he

by gpm 6y ago

To keep the continuity of discussion, I assume that this comment was posted here because my top level comment was in part a reply to your (temp667's) comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24579860 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24579860 I appreciate the attempt to connect this to the anti-trust suit, but I don't see this as a good justification for why your original critique is relevant for a few reasons: - Many of the practices in your original critique are allowed on (or not prevented by) Apple's app store. The argument you are making here only makes sense as pertaining to anti-trust to the extent that you are critiquing practices that Apple is preventing. - It doesn't particularly matter whether the people trying to overturn Apple's practice are the bad actors, or third parties are, since the lawsuit affects all parties (third party or not) equally. So while you could make a consumer benefit argument based on bad actors (indeed, Apple has tried to in the lawsuit), it makes little to no sense to focus on the parties suing (and simultaneously falls into the trap of just arguing that people you don't like don't deserve justice). On a separate note - I also find the argument for Apple's bundling of services here unconvincing. I have seen no argument for why Apple's curation service needs to be bundled with the phone - which is the prerequisite of the anti trust suit. Consider that apple could perfectly well sell the hardware and OS, and separately sell (or even offer for free) a software package that locks out third party app stores and third party payment providers. Doing so would practically destroy any argument that they are using their monopoly on IPhone hardware and IOs to acquire a monopoly on app distribution and payment services. To the extent that people find the lock in useful, I expect they would install that software package.

freedomben 6y ago
> To the extent that people find the lock in useful, I expect they would install that software package. Deep down I would guess that most people will still object on consequentialist grounds, because they know that not enough people will opt in unless forced, and so vendors will be able to ignore the walled garden. Apple sure as hell wouldn't be able to take 30% if there were other ways onto the iPhone, as big vendors would avoid it, thus requiring most users to give up the safe walled garden. I still come out strongly against Apple on this one however as I am not a consequentialist.
temp667 6y ago
You don't have to agree with apple, but they clearly think the halo effect of having just one reasonably fair app store on their platform increases their platform brand power and profits both. I think they are right. Can I ask a question. When your elderly parents or kids ask for a phone (assuming they are not developers), does it give you no comfort that if its an apple from end to end including app store things will be a bit more reasonable? And you do realize if things are unbundled, then EVERY phone company will dump their crap onto every users phone except for the folks who know enough to go uninstall / use the lockout thing you are talking about. And you don't think that will damage the overall apple brand?
- gpm 6y ago
  > You don't have to agree with apple, but they clearly think the halo effect of having just one reasonably fair app store on their platform increases their platform brand power and profits both. I think they are right. I agree, but "it makes us more money and gives us more power" has never been a defense against anti-trust law. Indeed if this was not true I imagine that anti-trust law would never have been necessary in the first place. > Can I ask a question. When your elderly parents or kids ask for a phone (assuming they are not developers), does it give you no comfort that if its an apple from end to end including app store things will be a bit more reasonable? First I have to point out that the unbundling solution solves this problem entirely. I just install the "lock this to the apple ecosystem" software before I give them the phone and I get all the current benefits as it pertains to children and elderly tech-dependents with none of the anti-trust issues. I have to admit that I can only answer this question in theory. I have no kids (and don't plan on future kids) and my parents are more technically competent than average. The extent that I manage their technology is "this is good value for the price" and installing ublock origin everywhere. The honest theoretical answer though is I don't think it would. There are a number of reasons for this. - I really don't trust the app store to stop abusive behaviors in the first place. - I could lock probably lock down an Android to the extent that I'm as happy as I would be with an apple (not very). - I would (and do) worry a hell of a lot more about the internet than I would (do) about apps. - I worry about the internet a hell of a lot more on IPhones than I do on androids, because I can't install a proper adblocker, because of Apples anti-competitive policies regarding browsers (the ad blocking api's in safari are gimped compared to firefox). - At the point where I don't trust someone with a phone, I also wouldn't trust them with a credit card in general... at which point none of the payment stuff is problematic (But I acknowledge that the social reality w.r.t. the elderly and credit cards makes this a hard problem). > And you do realize if things are unbundled, then EVERY phone company will dump their crap onto every users phone except for the folks who know enough to go uninstall / use the lockout thing you are talking about. And you don't think that will damage the overall apple brand? This can be solved with apple only providing phones to sellers who agree not to do that easily enough. While I know epic has some issues with this strategy (as it pertains to Google and pre-installing fortnite) I do not.
valuearb 6y ago
Selling separately destroys the iPhone brand and business model. Far fewer would pay for a separate OS, iPhones would have to be more expensive if they didn’t bundle a services component, customers wouldn’t trust iPhone as much. There is a simple solution, and it’s not misguided delusional antitrust talk. It’s buying the other type of smartphone that is 85% of unit sales world wide.
- reificator 6y ago
  Two choices for something as complex as a smartphone does not make a free market.
  - valuearb 6y ago
    It’s far more than two choices since their are hundreds of Android manufacturers, many whom add their own software to the stack. It’s more like dozens of differentiated competitors, of which Apple is rate largest but still only a small minority of the market. There aren’t many freer markets. The automobile business was still a free market when Henry Ford refused to paint cars in your choice of color.
    - reificator 6y ago
      And how many of those phones don't run Google Play Services? Right now your choices are "Google doesn't spy on me" or "I can sideload apps or use alternative stores".
zaroth 6y ago
Apple does not have a “monopoly on iPhone hardware and iOS”. This is a fundamental misunderstand of the term. You cannot have a monopoly on your own product, because a monopoly is a state of a market and your own product is not a market. Understanding this is fundamental to the actual legal issue at hand. First, the argument against Apple is not that they are bundling an App Store with their iPhone. The argument against Apple is that they are restricting behavior that Apps may perform on their Store and also disallowing other stores. If their App Store was downloaded separately but then enforced the same restriction, you have exactly the same legal issue. Implementing the App Store to be a separate manual download, but keeping the same restrictions in place if it is installed, would be just as illegal as exactly what they are doing today. They would have to at least allow installing multiple App Stores side by side, if not eliminate certain contractural provisions of being able to publish on the Apple App Store itself. As for why Apple’s curation is bundled with the phone, it’s not a question of whether it “needs to be” that way, it’s a question of why Apple chose to do it that way. They chose that route for a myriad of very significant reasons relating to user experience, usability, privacy, security, safety, brand & reputation, performance, and accountability. From a financial standpoint they chose it because it ensure apps are profitable for both Apple and Developers, as well as consistent and predictable for end users. They also eliminate almost all software piracy on their platform with their model, which increases App Store revenue. Their model enables HCI, Privacy, and Billing policies which they can enforce platform-wide, and which they can demand otherwise abusive apps to follow, simply because there is no other option if you want access to Apple’s customer base.
- gpm 6y ago
  > Apple does not have a “monopoly on iPhone hardware and iOS”. This is a fundamental misunderstand of the term. You cannot have a monopoly on your own product, because a monopoly is a state of a market and your own product is not a market. Precedent deeply disagrees with you on this. At the supreme court level see Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Inc. To quote the first paragraph of wikipedia out of laziness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_Kodak_Co._v._Image_Technical_Services,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_Kodak_Co._v._Image_Tec.... > Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451 (1992), is a 1992 Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that even though an equipment manufacturer lacked significant market power in the primary market for its equipment—copier-duplicators and other imaging equipment—nonetheless, it could have sufficient market power in the secondary aftermarket for repair parts to be liable under the antitrust laws for its exclusionary conduct in the aftermarket.[1] The reason was that it was possible that, once customers were committed to the particular brand by having purchased a unit, they were "locked in" and no longer had any realistic alternative to turn to for repair parts. This has been held at the appeals court level to apply to products as well as repair services (because why wouldn't it). See newcal industries v. ikon office solution. Unfortunately since a large portion of the opinion focuses on this, it's hard to find a single quote that summarizes. Read the background and then search aftermarket in the opinion: https://www.leagle.com/decision/20081551513f3d103811540 https://www.leagle.com/decision/20081551513f3d103811540: Here is my best attempt at picking out a relevant paragraph that explains the law: > Taking these cases together, three relevant principles emerge. First, the law permits an antitrust claimant to restrict the relevant market to a single brand of the product at issue (as in Eastman Kodak). Second, the law prohibits an antitrust claimant from resting on market power that arises solely from contractual rights that consumers knowingly and voluntarily gave to the defendant (as in Queen City Pizza and Forsyth). Third, in determining whether the defendant's market power falls in the Queen City Pizza category of contractually-created market power or in the Eastman Kodak category of economic market power, the law permits an inquiry into whether a consumer's selection of a particular brand in the competitive market is the functional equivalent of a contractual commitment, giving that brand an agreed-upon right to monopolize its consumers in an aftermarket. The law. permits an inquiry into whether consumers entered into such "contracts" knowing that they were agreeing to such a commitment. So I don't think it's a slamdunk whether or not Apple's secondary markets here are aftermarkets that anti trust can be applied to because of the third point in the above paragraph, but it's not a slamdunk the other way either, and your claim that you can't have a monopoly on IPhone apps because IPhone is apple's product is fundamentally flawed (rather, if it's true, it's because purchasing an IPhone is akin to signing a contract that you will only use IPhone apps distributed from Apple, and that you will only use Apple's payment system on those IPhone apps).

by gpm 6y ago

freedomben 6y ago

> To the extent that people find the lock in useful, I expect they would install that software package. Deep down I would guess that most people will still object on consequentialist grounds, because they know that not enough people will opt in unless forced, and so vendors will be able to ignore the walled garden. Apple sure as hell wouldn't be able to take 30% if there were other ways onto the iPhone, as big vendors would avoid it, thus requiring most users to give up the safe walled garden. I still come out strongly against Apple on this one however as I am not a consequentialist.

temp667 6y ago

You don't have to agree with apple, but they clearly think the halo effect of having just one reasonably fair app store on their platform increases their platform brand power and profits both. I think they are right. Can I ask a question. When your elderly parents or kids ask for a phone (assuming they are not developers), does it give you no comfort that if its an apple from end to end including app store things will be a bit more reasonable? And you do realize if things are unbundled, then EVERY phone company will dump their crap onto every users phone except for the folks who know enough to go uninstall / use the lockout thing you are talking about. And you don't think that will damage the overall apple brand?

gpm 6y ago
> You don't have to agree with apple, but they clearly think the halo effect of having just one reasonably fair app store on their platform increases their platform brand power and profits both. I think they are right. I agree, but "it makes us more money and gives us more power" has never been a defense against anti-trust law. Indeed if this was not true I imagine that anti-trust law would never have been necessary in the first place. > Can I ask a question. When your elderly parents or kids ask for a phone (assuming they are not developers), does it give you no comfort that if its an apple from end to end including app store things will be a bit more reasonable? First I have to point out that the unbundling solution solves this problem entirely. I just install the "lock this to the apple ecosystem" software before I give them the phone and I get all the current benefits as it pertains to children and elderly tech-dependents with none of the anti-trust issues. I have to admit that I can only answer this question in theory. I have no kids (and don't plan on future kids) and my parents are more technically competent than average. The extent that I manage their technology is "this is good value for the price" and installing ublock origin everywhere. The honest theoretical answer though is I don't think it would. There are a number of reasons for this. - I really don't trust the app store to stop abusive behaviors in the first place. - I could lock probably lock down an Android to the extent that I'm as happy as I would be with an apple (not very). - I would (and do) worry a hell of a lot more about the internet than I would (do) about apps. - I worry about the internet a hell of a lot more on IPhones than I do on androids, because I can't install a proper adblocker, because of Apples anti-competitive policies regarding browsers (the ad blocking api's in safari are gimped compared to firefox). - At the point where I don't trust someone with a phone, I also wouldn't trust them with a credit card in general... at which point none of the payment stuff is problematic (But I acknowledge that the social reality w.r.t. the elderly and credit cards makes this a hard problem). > And you do realize if things are unbundled, then EVERY phone company will dump their crap onto every users phone except for the folks who know enough to go uninstall / use the lockout thing you are talking about. And you don't think that will damage the overall apple brand? This can be solved with apple only providing phones to sellers who agree not to do that easily enough. While I know epic has some issues with this strategy (as it pertains to Google and pre-installing fortnite) I do not.

valuearb 6y ago

Selling separately destroys the iPhone brand and business model. Far fewer would pay for a separate OS, iPhones would have to be more expensive if they didn’t bundle a services component, customers wouldn’t trust iPhone as much. There is a simple solution, and it’s not misguided delusional antitrust talk. It’s buying the other type of smartphone that is 85% of unit sales world wide.

reificator 6y ago
Two choices for something as complex as a smartphone does not make a free market.
- valuearb 6y ago
  It’s far more than two choices since their are hundreds of Android manufacturers, many whom add their own software to the stack. It’s more like dozens of differentiated competitors, of which Apple is rate largest but still only a small minority of the market. There aren’t many freer markets. The automobile business was still a free market when Henry Ford refused to paint cars in your choice of color.
  - reificator 6y ago
    And how many of those phones don't run Google Play Services? Right now your choices are "Google doesn't spy on me" or "I can sideload apps or use alternative stores".

zaroth 6y ago

Apple does not have a “monopoly on iPhone hardware and iOS”. This is a fundamental misunderstand of the term. You cannot have a monopoly on your own product, because a monopoly is a state of a market and your own product is not a market. Understanding this is fundamental to the actual legal issue at hand. First, the argument against Apple is not that they are bundling an App Store with their iPhone. The argument against Apple is that they are restricting behavior that Apps may perform on their Store and also disallowing other stores. If their App Store was downloaded separately but then enforced the same restriction, you have exactly the same legal issue. Implementing the App Store to be a separate manual download, but keeping the same restrictions in place if it is installed, would be just as illegal as exactly what they are doing today. They would have to at least allow installing multiple App Stores side by side, if not eliminate certain contractural provisions of being able to publish on the Apple App Store itself. As for why Apple’s curation is bundled with the phone, it’s not a question of whether it “needs to be” that way, it’s a question of why Apple chose to do it that way. They chose that route for a myriad of very significant reasons relating to user experience, usability, privacy, security, safety, brand & reputation, performance, and accountability. From a financial standpoint they chose it because it ensure apps are profitable for both Apple and Developers, as well as consistent and predictable for end users. They also eliminate almost all software piracy on their platform with their model, which increases App Store revenue. Their model enables HCI, Privacy, and Billing policies which they can enforce platform-wide, and which they can demand otherwise abusive apps to follow, simply because there is no other option if you want access to Apple’s customer base.

gpm 6y ago
> Apple does not have a “monopoly on iPhone hardware and iOS”. This is a fundamental misunderstand of the term. You cannot have a monopoly on your own product, because a monopoly is a state of a market and your own product is not a market. Precedent deeply disagrees with you on this. At the supreme court level see Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services Inc. To quote the first paragraph of wikipedia out of laziness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_Kodak_Co._v._Image_Technical_Services,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_Kodak_Co._v._Image_Tec.... > Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451 (1992), is a 1992 Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that even though an equipment manufacturer lacked significant market power in the primary market for its equipment—copier-duplicators and other imaging equipment—nonetheless, it could have sufficient market power in the secondary aftermarket for repair parts to be liable under the antitrust laws for its exclusionary conduct in the aftermarket.[1] The reason was that it was possible that, once customers were committed to the particular brand by having purchased a unit, they were "locked in" and no longer had any realistic alternative to turn to for repair parts. This has been held at the appeals court level to apply to products as well as repair services (because why wouldn't it). See newcal industries v. ikon office solution. Unfortunately since a large portion of the opinion focuses on this, it's hard to find a single quote that summarizes. Read the background and then search aftermarket in the opinion: https://www.leagle.com/decision/20081551513f3d103811540 https://www.leagle.com/decision/20081551513f3d103811540: Here is my best attempt at picking out a relevant paragraph that explains the law: > Taking these cases together, three relevant principles emerge. First, the law permits an antitrust claimant to restrict the relevant market to a single brand of the product at issue (as in Eastman Kodak). Second, the law prohibits an antitrust claimant from resting on market power that arises solely from contractual rights that consumers knowingly and voluntarily gave to the defendant (as in Queen City Pizza and Forsyth). Third, in determining whether the defendant's market power falls in the Queen City Pizza category of contractually-created market power or in the Eastman Kodak category of economic market power, the law permits an inquiry into whether a consumer's selection of a particular brand in the competitive market is the functional equivalent of a contractual commitment, giving that brand an agreed-upon right to monopolize its consumers in an aftermarket. The law. permits an inquiry into whether consumers entered into such "contracts" knowing that they were agreeing to such a commitment. So I don't think it's a slamdunk whether or not Apple's secondary markets here are aftermarkets that anti trust can be applied to because of the third point in the above paragraph, but it's not a slamdunk the other way either, and your claim that you can't have a monopoly on IPhone apps because IPhone is apple's product is fundamentally flawed (rather, if it's true, it's because purchasing an IPhone is akin to signing a contract that you will only use IPhone apps distributed from Apple, and that you will only use Apple's payment system on those IPhone apps).