4 ms·

No, I don't either. Apple is not a monopoly, so as far as I am concerned they have a right to charge whatever they want in their AppStore and make it the exclus

No, I don't either. Apple is not a monopoly, so as far as I am concerned they have a right to charge whatever they want in their AppStore and make it the exclusive way to get software on their product. If you don't like it, don't support it with your money. I honestly cannot make sense of the reasoning for any other conclusion.

zamadatix 6y ago
You don't need to be a monopoly to violate antitrust laws, which is what Epic is actually claiming in the case.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  Regardless, my opinion is not based on case law but rather my personal intuition of how such things should work. I make no claim otherwise.
  - okamiueru 6y ago
    I'm I correct in reading it as your opinion is not based on how things are, but how you feel they should be?
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
      The original post talks about "want", which has nothing to do with intricacies of law, which I, and I assume most HN commenters, are not qualified to judge anyway.
      - okamiueru 6y ago
        I'm not sure you should disparage the particular knowledge HN posters might have. Also, the level at what this is discussed requires only rudimentary knowledge of antitrust laws, and the applications. So it's not like "qualified to judge" has a degree in law barrier. > Apple is not a monopoly, so as far as I am concerned they have a right to charge whatever they want The whole problem with antitrust cases however, is that they leverage their position and exclusiveness to do exactly that. So, your point that "it's not a monopoly because you can chose not to pay for it", is what people are pointing out might be missing the point. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/06/house-antitrust-subcommittee-apple-has-monopoly-power.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/06/house-antitrust-subcommittee...
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
        > I'm not sure you should disparage the particular knowledge HN posters might have. I don't think it is unrealistic of me to assume that only a small portion of HN users have experience as legal professionals. > Also, the level at what this is discussed requires only rudimentary knowledge of antitrust laws, and the applications. So it's not like "qualified to judge" has a degree in law barrier. I think it kinda does. I am not an expert on the application of anti-trust law so if I told Epic that they are completely wrong they will rightfully tell me where to shove it because we have people who's entire career path is dealing with the intricacies of law. Some random HNer saying that they are qualified to judge this case strikes me as particularly arrogant. > The whole problem with antitrust cases however, is that they leverage their position and exclusiveness to do exactly that. So, your point that "it's not a monopoly because you can chose not to pay for it", is what people are pointing out might be missing the point. Apple doesn't have exclusivity of anything except on the product that they built and wholly own. Said product is not a monopoly either, since even in the market where it enjoys the largest share it is only about 50% [0]. In other words, I cannot fathom how anti-trust law applies since Apple doesn't have much leverage to abuse in the first place. Game consoles have a long history of exclusivity but no one seems to think that is a big deal. I have yet to hear a compelling argument why the iPhone is special. [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-share-held-by-smartphone-platforms-in-the-united-states/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-share-held...
        okamiueru 6y ago
        Surely, it then makes sense to perhaps take into account what people are saying, no? The issue here is a very clear cut case of antitrust. You seem to opine facts and laws shouldn't matter in this discussion on the assumption that only legal professionals can know stuff that is relevant, and those are as you put it, by assumption, not present. Then, you are repeating the, to be frank, tiresome talking point that doubles as missing the point, whilst being a strawman: "it isn't a monopoly, because you can buy an android". So to reiterate, "monopoly" as total market share isn't the issue here. It doesn't need to be for there to be a case of antitrust. And, it clearly is such a case, no matter how much you attempt to change the discussion to "is/isn't a monopoly". They are orthogonal issues. You can have monopolies and duopolies without there being grounds for anti-trust. Just to summarize, and also hit the nail on the head, and perhaps be less polite (not intentional, but sometimes it helps with clarity): "In other words, I cannot fathom how anti-trust law applies since Apple doesn't have much leverage to abuse in the first place", you are 100% mistaken on both accounts (though spot on, on the inability). The former misconception I've already explained, the latter is to be found in troves, the article I linked earlier has a good explanation on a lot of points, and unwillingness to educate yourself is also your own business. So, I'm chalking this up as a willful ignorance, which is fine. I'm not really interesting in arguing with you, or all that bothered with trying to convince you. So, I suppose we can leave it as is.
ctvo 6y ago
Maybe the regulatory move here is to ensure on each iPhone box and prominently at each Apple Store there's clear warning to consumers that paying 1,500 USD for a phone also means you'll only be allowed to use apps available from the AppStore.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  I don't know about that, as we don't require similar labels for game consoles and the like. I think it is pretty well established in the public consciousness that only the Apple AppStore can provide apps for Apple devices. I would go so far as to say that the public consciousness probably thinks the same about the Google Play Store and Android devices despite it not actually being true in that case.
  - ctvo 6y ago
    > I think it is pretty well established in the public consciousness that only the Apple AppStore can provide apps for Apple devices. I disagree. I think the public knows software is locked to specific hardware (Windows vs. Mac, Android vs. iOS, PlayStation vs. XBox). I don't think they know that if a developer creates working software for their iPhone, the only way it can be distributed to them is through Apple's AppStore, which charges developers a 30% fee. "The only way to get Cyberpunk 2077 is at the Microsoft Store. There's no other way to get the game"
- spideymans 6y ago
  Apple hasn’t exactly hidden the restricted nature of the App Store from customers. On the contrary, they’ve been quite boastful, and view it as a selling point. Apple would likely be thrilled if this was the extent of the regulatory action against them
johnnyanmac 6y ago
>If you don't like it, don't support it with your money. I honestly cannot make sense of the reasoning for any other conclusion. Android has several different stores you can host on, and Epic is making their own store for Android. Google Play store still has far, far, far , far more marketshare than any other storefront. It's not even close. But I appreciate the OPTION for developers to forgoe that for whatever reason. Be it to support open source development (FDroid's MO), host content Google won't allow (adult apps tends to be the most common one, but I used some modded Youtube apps back in the day), etc. It's not an option 95% of people make, but contingency plans are always appreciated using your logic, I don't understand why you would find the mere existence of these splinter stores offensive. don't support them with your money.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  I don't have a problem with alternative app stores and generally favor openness in computing, however I see no reason that Apple should be restricted from running its platform how it wants to run it. Game consoles have had exclusivity pretty much since their inception and no one seems too bothered about it. If Apple had a dominant market share to the point of being a defacto monopoly, then I might believe differently, but they don't.
  - johnnyanmac 6y ago
    >I don't have a problem with alternative app stores and generally favor openness in computing, however I see no reason that Apple should be restricted from running its platform how it wants to run it. That's the crux of the entire case, Yes. Jury is literally out so I won't make any judgement on how right/wrong it is. I'll just note that "monopoly" isn't a clear cut case here. IANAL, but I imagine it very much depends on "accessibility" as well as market share. e.g. it's easy to walk across the street from walmart and shop at Target if they one day change policy. If you don't like android's play store, you can use F-Droid, Amazon's app store, and a few others that aren't beholden to Google's rules. There's zero other stores to try without voiding warranty on IOS if Apple one day decides to ban a certain kind of app; for all intents and purposes, that form of app is banned from IOS if it's banned from the App Store. And buying an android is more expensive than walking across the street. >Game consoles have had exclusivity pretty much since their inception and no one seems too bothered about it. I don't mind the consoles opening up stores either. However, consoles are much more ephemeral than a PC/mobile OS, so the incentive for 3rd parties to make a store every 5-7 years may make the openness moot. So I see very little changing even if they get caught up. Sony did lose a lawsuit over removing the very niche option for a PS3 to install another OS, so it's not like there is zero precedence there.

zamadatix 6y ago

You don't need to be a monopoly to violate antitrust laws, which is what Epic is actually claiming in the case.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
Regardless, my opinion is not based on case law but rather my personal intuition of how such things should work. I make no claim otherwise.
- okamiueru 6y ago
  I'm I correct in reading it as your opinion is not based on how things are, but how you feel they should be?
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
    The original post talks about "want", which has nothing to do with intricacies of law, which I, and I assume most HN commenters, are not qualified to judge anyway.
    - okamiueru 6y ago
      I'm not sure you should disparage the particular knowledge HN posters might have. Also, the level at what this is discussed requires only rudimentary knowledge of antitrust laws, and the applications. So it's not like "qualified to judge" has a degree in law barrier. > Apple is not a monopoly, so as far as I am concerned they have a right to charge whatever they want The whole problem with antitrust cases however, is that they leverage their position and exclusiveness to do exactly that. So, your point that "it's not a monopoly because you can chose not to pay for it", is what people are pointing out might be missing the point. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/06/house-antitrust-subcommittee-apple-has-monopoly-power.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/06/house-antitrust-subcommittee...
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
        > I'm not sure you should disparage the particular knowledge HN posters might have. I don't think it is unrealistic of me to assume that only a small portion of HN users have experience as legal professionals. > Also, the level at what this is discussed requires only rudimentary knowledge of antitrust laws, and the applications. So it's not like "qualified to judge" has a degree in law barrier. I think it kinda does. I am not an expert on the application of anti-trust law so if I told Epic that they are completely wrong they will rightfully tell me where to shove it because we have people who's entire career path is dealing with the intricacies of law. Some random HNer saying that they are qualified to judge this case strikes me as particularly arrogant. > The whole problem with antitrust cases however, is that they leverage their position and exclusiveness to do exactly that. So, your point that "it's not a monopoly because you can chose not to pay for it", is what people are pointing out might be missing the point. Apple doesn't have exclusivity of anything except on the product that they built and wholly own. Said product is not a monopoly either, since even in the market where it enjoys the largest share it is only about 50% [0]. In other words, I cannot fathom how anti-trust law applies since Apple doesn't have much leverage to abuse in the first place. Game consoles have a long history of exclusivity but no one seems to think that is a big deal. I have yet to hear a compelling argument why the iPhone is special. [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-share-held-by-smartphone-platforms-in-the-united-states/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-share-held...
        okamiueru 6y ago
        Surely, it then makes sense to perhaps take into account what people are saying, no? The issue here is a very clear cut case of antitrust. You seem to opine facts and laws shouldn't matter in this discussion on the assumption that only legal professionals can know stuff that is relevant, and those are as you put it, by assumption, not present. Then, you are repeating the, to be frank, tiresome talking point that doubles as missing the point, whilst being a strawman: "it isn't a monopoly, because you can buy an android". So to reiterate, "monopoly" as total market share isn't the issue here. It doesn't need to be for there to be a case of antitrust. And, it clearly is such a case, no matter how much you attempt to change the discussion to "is/isn't a monopoly". They are orthogonal issues. You can have monopolies and duopolies without there being grounds for anti-trust. Just to summarize, and also hit the nail on the head, and perhaps be less polite (not intentional, but sometimes it helps with clarity): "In other words, I cannot fathom how anti-trust law applies since Apple doesn't have much leverage to abuse in the first place", you are 100% mistaken on both accounts (though spot on, on the inability). The former misconception I've already explained, the latter is to be found in troves, the article I linked earlier has a good explanation on a lot of points, and unwillingness to educate yourself is also your own business. So, I'm chalking this up as a willful ignorance, which is fine. I'm not really interesting in arguing with you, or all that bothered with trying to convince you. So, I suppose we can leave it as is.

ctvo 6y ago

Maybe the regulatory move here is to ensure on each iPhone box and prominently at each Apple Store there's clear warning to consumers that paying 1,500 USD for a phone also means you'll only be allowed to use apps available from the AppStore.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
I don't know about that, as we don't require similar labels for game consoles and the like. I think it is pretty well established in the public consciousness that only the Apple AppStore can provide apps for Apple devices. I would go so far as to say that the public consciousness probably thinks the same about the Google Play Store and Android devices despite it not actually being true in that case.
- ctvo 6y ago
  > I think it is pretty well established in the public consciousness that only the Apple AppStore can provide apps for Apple devices. I disagree. I think the public knows software is locked to specific hardware (Windows vs. Mac, Android vs. iOS, PlayStation vs. XBox). I don't think they know that if a developer creates working software for their iPhone, the only way it can be distributed to them is through Apple's AppStore, which charges developers a 30% fee. "The only way to get Cyberpunk 2077 is at the Microsoft Store. There's no other way to get the game"
spideymans 6y ago
Apple hasn’t exactly hidden the restricted nature of the App Store from customers. On the contrary, they’ve been quite boastful, and view it as a selling point. Apple would likely be thrilled if this was the extent of the regulatory action against them

johnnyanmac 6y ago

>If you don't like it, don't support it with your money. I honestly cannot make sense of the reasoning for any other conclusion. Android has several different stores you can host on, and Epic is making their own store for Android. Google Play store still has far, far, far , far more marketshare than any other storefront. It's not even close. But I appreciate the OPTION for developers to forgoe that for whatever reason. Be it to support open source development (FDroid's MO), host content Google won't allow (adult apps tends to be the most common one, but I used some modded Youtube apps back in the day), etc. It's not an option 95% of people make, but contingency plans are always appreciated using your logic, I don't understand why you would find the mere existence of these splinter stores offensive. don't support them with your money.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
I don't have a problem with alternative app stores and generally favor openness in computing, however I see no reason that Apple should be restricted from running its platform how it wants to run it. Game consoles have had exclusivity pretty much since their inception and no one seems too bothered about it. If Apple had a dominant market share to the point of being a defacto monopoly, then I might believe differently, but they don't.
- johnnyanmac 6y ago
  >I don't have a problem with alternative app stores and generally favor openness in computing, however I see no reason that Apple should be restricted from running its platform how it wants to run it. That's the crux of the entire case, Yes. Jury is literally out so I won't make any judgement on how right/wrong it is. I'll just note that "monopoly" isn't a clear cut case here. IANAL, but I imagine it very much depends on "accessibility" as well as market share. e.g. it's easy to walk across the street from walmart and shop at Target if they one day change policy. If you don't like android's play store, you can use F-Droid, Amazon's app store, and a few others that aren't beholden to Google's rules. There's zero other stores to try without voiding warranty on IOS if Apple one day decides to ban a certain kind of app; for all intents and purposes, that form of app is banned from IOS if it's banned from the App Store. And buying an android is more expensive than walking across the street. >Game consoles have had exclusivity pretty much since their inception and no one seems too bothered about it. I don't mind the consoles opening up stores either. However, consoles are much more ephemeral than a PC/mobile OS, so the incentive for 3rd parties to make a store every 5-7 years may make the openness moot. So I see very little changing even if they get caught up. Sony did lose a lawsuit over removing the very niche option for a PS3 to install another OS, so it's not like there is zero precedence there.