46 ms·

That's always bothered me too. I think someone should be forced to admit to wrongdoing, or else keep battling in court to prove their side. That said, how doe

That's always bothered me too. I think someone should be forced to admit to wrongdoing, or else keep battling in court to prove their side. That said, how does Google monopolize Android app distribution? You're free to install APKs yourself. So why isn't Apple being prosecuted? There's no such ability on that platform. Why does it always feel like Google is constantly being hounded about stuff that Apple gets off scot-free for? Not that Google should go scot-free, but Apple should be dealt with first as it's the bigger offender and has far more marketshare.

dmitrygr 4y ago
> has far more marketshare Android maintained its position as the leading mobile operating system worldwide in the fourth quarter of 2022, controlling the mobile OS market with a close to 71.8 percent share, while iOS accounted for around 27.6 percent of the mobile operating system market.Jan 17, 2023 https://www.statista.com/statistics/272698/global-market-share-held-by-mobile-operating-systems-since-2009/#:~:text=Android%20maintained%20its%20position%20as,the%20mobile%20operating%20system%20market https://www.statista.com/statistics/272698/global-market-sha....
- cma 4y ago
  The iOS dollar share of the app market is still higher I believe.
  - sinoue 4y ago
    Funny that Apple may need to help Google and Samsung gain marketshare in order to keep the most profitable segment of the market while staying out of the monopoly category.
    - pjmlp 4y ago
      That is pretty much the main reason why Microsoft rescued Apple from insolvency.
      - midoridensha 4y ago
        I wonder what the world looks like in the parallel universe where Bill Gates left Apple to die. Maybe better, maybe not.
- water-your-self 4y ago
  In the united states apple has approx. 50% market share
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    Last I checked, it was more like 60%.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > apple has approx. 50% market share Correct [1]. [1] https://9to5mac.com/2022/09/02/iphone-us-market-share/ https://9to5mac.com/2022/09/02/iphone-us-market-share/
- midoridensha 4y ago
  We're talking about US regulators here, so only marketshare in the US is relevant. Apple has 60% last time I checked.
  - jojobas 4y ago
    Is that 60% of money or 60% of the devices sold/in use?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - ocdtrekkie 4y ago
    Indeed though you'll notice the case includes Google's international arms. Bear in mind this is US developers gaining access to the entire global market Google controls access to, which comes through Google's US business. So for the purposes of this case, the global figure is quite relevant.
nine_k 4y ago
Isn't paying a fine technically an admission that the accusations are correct, and the compensation is due?
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  A settlement isn't a fine.
- mschuster91 4y ago
  It's not a fine, it's more like hush money one pays to an extramarital affair, a disgruntled employee or in some cases a rape victim to keep their mouth shut or else.
- kyrra 4y ago
  It is risk aversion by both parties. You never know how a jury trial will go, so if both parties can negotiate a settlement they are willing to live with, it makes both parties happy without having to deal with the extreme consequence on either side. I would relate it somewhat to what insurance gives you. There, you are paying a fee to help stave off extreme expense.
- mattnewton 4y ago
  No, it’s simply an admission that the courts could conceivable rule against you, and that percentage chance * the cost of the judgment if they do is estimated to be greater than the settlement fee. Since judgment fines are massive and often open the door for other cases to pile on, the percentage chance you feel you would lose can be pretty small and still make a settlement rational.
- jrockway 4y ago
  I don't think so. I've seen a lot of FCC cases end with the entity being sued/investigated making "a voluntary contribution to the United States Treasury". You can make one yourself right here: https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.html https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.h...
- scq 4y ago
  Technically? No.
DannyBee 4y ago
"That's always bothered me too. I think someone should be forced to admit to wrongdoing, or else keep battling in court to prove their side. " God no. For starters, civil litigation does not have a goal of proving right or wrong, but settling disputes between two parties. This is actually a good thing. But what you are suggesting goes against the very basis of civil litigation systems :). You see the same thing in say, divorces. People fight in court because they want a judge to tell them they are right and their ex is wrong, and mostly the judges tell them to grow up and act like adults. One reason it's a good thing is that it enables you to use lower evidence standards to resolve disputes. Most civil lawsuits (at least in the US) are preponderance of the evidence as a result - whose evidence is slightly better. This isn't always true, mind, you, but the point is that the goal of the system overall is to resolve disputes, hopefully efficiently and reasonably. If you are looking for a system to decide who is right, that would be a very different system, and a very scary one at that, IMHO. It would also, among other things, take ~forever to resolve anything, and be even higher cost. You would be raising the stakes dramatically - everyone would be much less willing to settle, and much more willing to fight about every little thing. I'm not sure who or what such a system would serve. In reality, you want as few people in civil court as possible, for as short a time as possible. It is an amazingly high over head way to resolve a dispute, and the vast majority of disputes simply don't need it. IE if you broke a simply contract with someone, it should not take 10 years, a judge, and a jury, to come to an agreement on how much to pay for it. Serving some greater end would be a bad mismatch for how it was built, because in most cases, the main type of relief is monetary. I am hedging in various places because there are specific laws and statutes that grant courts specific powers/remedies for certain types of cases. Absent that, it is expect that monetary relief is the primary form of relief, and forcing people to do things only happens in the rare case money doesn't work. The system actually sucks (relatively) for those other types of cases too because it wasn't really built for it. We've built special courts here and there to try to make up for it.
- thrwawy74 4y ago
  I think the courts are meant to settle disputes quickly, not justly. The appearance of swift justice.
_23sd 4y ago
I would much prefer if more people settled their disputes without going to court. If they go to court and settle later, that's less great but still more productive than years of litigation. >So why isn't Apple being prosecuted? They had a nearly identical settlement in 2021 [1], main difference is that the Google settlement applies to developers with revenues up to $2 million in a year while the Apple one is up to $1 million. [1] https://smallappdeveloperassistance.com/ https://smallappdeveloperassistance.com/
- greysphere 4y ago
  Hmm, I was notified today about Google settlement. We sold our app on Apple for the same period (2017-) in the same <1M range, and this is the first I've heard about the Apple settlement. The website said everything is over and by doing nothing and being part of the class I've waived my rights to everything, but seems odd given I wasn't notified. Is there anything I can do?
izacus 4y ago
Because Apple builds more expensive hardware which is tiny bit less popular than Google's opensource OS. And governments of 2020s hate, HATE solving these problems systematically and ensuring equal markets - the only approach right now is just to randomly slap the biggest company to get some money and let everyone else continue with problematic behaviours. Also, richer people (which includes polititians) are using iPhones, why would they hurt the corporation they love?

dmitrygr 4y ago

> has far more marketshare Android maintained its position as the leading mobile operating system worldwide in the fourth quarter of 2022, controlling the mobile OS market with a close to 71.8 percent share, while iOS accounted for around 27.6 percent of the mobile operating system market.Jan 17, 2023 https://www.statista.com/statistics/272698/global-market-share-held-by-mobile-operating-systems-since-2009/#:~:text=Android%20maintained%20its%20position%20as,the%20mobile%20operating%20system%20market https://www.statista.com/statistics/272698/global-market-sha....

cma 4y ago
The iOS dollar share of the app market is still higher I believe.
- sinoue 4y ago
  Funny that Apple may need to help Google and Samsung gain marketshare in order to keep the most profitable segment of the market while staying out of the monopoly category.
  - pjmlp 4y ago
    That is pretty much the main reason why Microsoft rescued Apple from insolvency.
    - midoridensha 4y ago
      I wonder what the world looks like in the parallel universe where Bill Gates left Apple to die. Maybe better, maybe not.
water-your-self 4y ago
In the united states apple has approx. 50% market share
- midoridensha 4y ago
  Last I checked, it was more like 60%.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > apple has approx. 50% market share Correct [1]. [1] https://9to5mac.com/2022/09/02/iphone-us-market-share/ https://9to5mac.com/2022/09/02/iphone-us-market-share/
midoridensha 4y ago
We're talking about US regulators here, so only marketshare in the US is relevant. Apple has 60% last time I checked.
- jojobas 4y ago
  Is that 60% of money or 60% of the devices sold/in use?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- ocdtrekkie 4y ago
  Indeed though you'll notice the case includes Google's international arms. Bear in mind this is US developers gaining access to the entire global market Google controls access to, which comes through Google's US business. So for the purposes of this case, the global figure is quite relevant.

nine_k 4y ago

Isn't paying a fine technically an admission that the accusations are correct, and the compensation is due?

ceejayoz 4y ago
A settlement isn't a fine.
mschuster91 4y ago
It's not a fine, it's more like hush money one pays to an extramarital affair, a disgruntled employee or in some cases a rape victim to keep their mouth shut or else.
kyrra 4y ago
It is risk aversion by both parties. You never know how a jury trial will go, so if both parties can negotiate a settlement they are willing to live with, it makes both parties happy without having to deal with the extreme consequence on either side. I would relate it somewhat to what insurance gives you. There, you are paying a fee to help stave off extreme expense.
mattnewton 4y ago
No, it’s simply an admission that the courts could conceivable rule against you, and that percentage chance * the cost of the judgment if they do is estimated to be greater than the settlement fee. Since judgment fines are massive and often open the door for other cases to pile on, the percentage chance you feel you would lose can be pretty small and still make a settlement rational.
jrockway 4y ago
I don't think so. I've seen a lot of FCC cases end with the entity being sued/investigated making "a voluntary contribution to the United States Treasury". You can make one yourself right here: https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.html https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.h...
scq 4y ago
Technically? No.

DannyBee 4y ago

"That's always bothered me too. I think someone should be forced to admit to wrongdoing, or else keep battling in court to prove their side. " God no. For starters, civil litigation does not have a goal of proving right or wrong, but settling disputes between two parties. This is actually a good thing. But what you are suggesting goes against the very basis of civil litigation systems :). You see the same thing in say, divorces. People fight in court because they want a judge to tell them they are right and their ex is wrong, and mostly the judges tell them to grow up and act like adults. One reason it's a good thing is that it enables you to use lower evidence standards to resolve disputes. Most civil lawsuits (at least in the US) are preponderance of the evidence as a result - whose evidence is slightly better. This isn't always true, mind, you, but the point is that the goal of the system overall is to resolve disputes, hopefully efficiently and reasonably. If you are looking for a system to decide who is right, that would be a very different system, and a very scary one at that, IMHO. It would also, among other things, take ~forever to resolve anything, and be even higher cost. You would be raising the stakes dramatically - everyone would be much less willing to settle, and much more willing to fight about every little thing. I'm not sure who or what such a system would serve. In reality, you want as few people in civil court as possible, for as short a time as possible. It is an amazingly high over head way to resolve a dispute, and the vast majority of disputes simply don't need it. IE if you broke a simply contract with someone, it should not take 10 years, a judge, and a jury, to come to an agreement on how much to pay for it. Serving some greater end would be a bad mismatch for how it was built, because in most cases, the main type of relief is monetary. I am hedging in various places because there are specific laws and statutes that grant courts specific powers/remedies for certain types of cases. Absent that, it is expect that monetary relief is the primary form of relief, and forcing people to do things only happens in the rare case money doesn't work. The system actually sucks (relatively) for those other types of cases too because it wasn't really built for it. We've built special courts here and there to try to make up for it.

thrwawy74 4y ago
I think the courts are meant to settle disputes quickly, not justly. The appearance of swift justice.

_23sd 4y ago

I would much prefer if more people settled their disputes without going to court. If they go to court and settle later, that's less great but still more productive than years of litigation. >So why isn't Apple being prosecuted? They had a nearly identical settlement in 2021 [1], main difference is that the Google settlement applies to developers with revenues up to $2 million in a year while the Apple one is up to $1 million. [1] https://smallappdeveloperassistance.com/ https://smallappdeveloperassistance.com/

greysphere 4y ago
Hmm, I was notified today about Google settlement. We sold our app on Apple for the same period (2017-) in the same <1M range, and this is the first I've heard about the Apple settlement. The website said everything is over and by doing nothing and being part of the class I've waived my rights to everything, but seems odd given I wasn't notified. Is there anything I can do?

izacus 4y ago

Because Apple builds more expensive hardware which is tiny bit less popular than Google's opensource OS. And governments of 2020s hate, HATE solving these problems systematically and ensuring equal markets - the only approach right now is just to randomly slap the biggest company to get some money and let everyone else continue with problematic behaviours. Also, richer people (which includes polititians) are using iPhones, why would they hurt the corporation they love?