4 ms·

If the App Store is the only vehicle for selling mobile apps on Apple devices, then by virtue of their monopoly, they have a duty to be entirely transparent and

If the App Store is the only vehicle for selling mobile apps on Apple devices, then by virtue of their monopoly, they have a duty to be entirely transparent and fair. It’s entirely an Apple problem.

AlchemistCamp 3y ago
[flagged]
- neoberg 3y ago
  Not OC but exactly. They have a "monopoly" on the comments by their HN handle so they're responsible for what's written from that handle. The same way Apple holds a monopoly on an ecosystem they created so they are responsible for what's happening there.
- stefs 3y ago
  the app store is the monopoly. afaik there's no other way to get apps on your apple device.
  - AlchemistCamp 3y ago
    You are free to buy a non-Apple phone... because Apple does not have a monopoly.
    - wernercd 3y ago
      So how do you get an app onto the iphone if they don't have a monopoly on apps on their phones? What other store can I use to get apps on a iPhone?
      - AlchemistCamp 3y ago
        You don't seem to understand what a monopoly is. You can't arbitrarily put an app onto their hardware because they built it so you couldn't. However, not all hardware is created by them. You're free to purchase a different phone, and you can even make the number of app stores supported a primary buying decision.
        tristan957 3y ago
        It isn't Apple's hardware. It's your hardware. You bought it.
        AlchemistCamp 3y ago
        This kind of reasoning is perfect if you want to halt all future innovation. Why would someone advance the state of the art in any device if the immediate result is attacks for the new device being a "monopoly" within the scope of the new device or improvements?
        janc_ 3y ago
        The legal term is abuse of a dominant market position, which does not only apply to pure monopolies ...
        mattashii 3y ago
        What? Aren't AMD, ARM, and Intel advancing the state of the art of CPUs because they have open platforms, and have no monopoly or gatekeeper position on what software can run on their platform? I can't see why you would be unable to advance the state of the art if you don't block (thus allow) everyone from building on your platform.
        jimmydorry 3y ago
        What about fridges, toasters, smart TVs, playstations, watches, etc. All devices made with purpose in-mind and only allow the manufacturer's firmware to be installed and are not "open platforms". In the case of smart TVs and many game consoles, you have a direct comparison to phones as they have a single app store with no competitors allowed on their platform. Should all of these single purpose decives have to bare the burden and cost of opening up their platform for competitors too?
        tristan957 3y ago
        In one sentence you say "direct comparison," and in the next you contradict yourself by using the words "single purpose devices." A phone is a general computing device. A smart refrigerator is not. Is there even an app store on a smart fridge which contains third party apps?
    - lwhi 3y ago
      No. This is a disingenuous line of reasoning. Once you buy a phone you are locked into using a specific marketplace, where Apple has complete control. This doesn't need to occur. An open marketplace or multiple marketplaces could be possible. For all intents and purposes, Apple does have a monopoly.
    - Ferret7446 3y ago
      Whether or not it is a monopoly is a red herring, since being a monopoly is not illegal. Abusing a dominant position in a marketplace is. Apple has dominance in the Apple app marketplace, which they could theoretically abuse by discriminating against competitors. Thus, it is in their interest to be transparent about how they're managing their app store.
GuB-42 3y ago
They are transparent and fair. Fake reviews are not allowed. Apple has no way to know if you hired a fake review company or if some competitor did. Their moderation team can only check for fake reviews, not who paid for them. Of course, if they ask developers if they did something wrong and they did, they will get lied to. And it shouldn't be Apple's problem. Apple is not a court of law. They have no business knowing about their developers internal affairs, imagine the conflicts of interest. This is a matter for an actual court of law, that can issue warrants and subpoenas, where perjury is a thing, where there is fair trail and where you can ask damage and the guilty party get charged for fraud. You obviously don't want to give these powers to a private company.
- rizky05 3y ago
  [dead]
SOLAR_FIELDS 3y ago
Plus, they point to their 30% take as helping to prevent these kind of issues. So if that 30% isn’t helping to police the Apple Store, what is it doing?

AlchemistCamp 3y ago

[flagged]

neoberg 3y ago
Not OC but exactly. They have a "monopoly" on the comments by their HN handle so they're responsible for what's written from that handle. The same way Apple holds a monopoly on an ecosystem they created so they are responsible for what's happening there.
stefs 3y ago
the app store is the monopoly. afaik there's no other way to get apps on your apple device.
- AlchemistCamp 3y ago
  You are free to buy a non-Apple phone... because Apple does not have a monopoly.
  - wernercd 3y ago
    So how do you get an app onto the iphone if they don't have a monopoly on apps on their phones? What other store can I use to get apps on a iPhone?
    - AlchemistCamp 3y ago
      You don't seem to understand what a monopoly is. You can't arbitrarily put an app onto their hardware because they built it so you couldn't. However, not all hardware is created by them. You're free to purchase a different phone, and you can even make the number of app stores supported a primary buying decision.
      - tristan957 3y ago
        It isn't Apple's hardware. It's your hardware. You bought it.
        AlchemistCamp 3y ago
        This kind of reasoning is perfect if you want to halt all future innovation. Why would someone advance the state of the art in any device if the immediate result is attacks for the new device being a "monopoly" within the scope of the new device or improvements?
        janc_ 3y ago
        The legal term is abuse of a dominant market position, which does not only apply to pure monopolies ...
        mattashii 3y ago
        What? Aren't AMD, ARM, and Intel advancing the state of the art of CPUs because they have open platforms, and have no monopoly or gatekeeper position on what software can run on their platform? I can't see why you would be unable to advance the state of the art if you don't block (thus allow) everyone from building on your platform.
        jimmydorry 3y ago
        What about fridges, toasters, smart TVs, playstations, watches, etc. All devices made with purpose in-mind and only allow the manufacturer's firmware to be installed and are not "open platforms". In the case of smart TVs and many game consoles, you have a direct comparison to phones as they have a single app store with no competitors allowed on their platform. Should all of these single purpose decives have to bare the burden and cost of opening up their platform for competitors too?
        tristan957 3y ago
        In one sentence you say "direct comparison," and in the next you contradict yourself by using the words "single purpose devices." A phone is a general computing device. A smart refrigerator is not. Is there even an app store on a smart fridge which contains third party apps?
  - lwhi 3y ago
    No. This is a disingenuous line of reasoning. Once you buy a phone you are locked into using a specific marketplace, where Apple has complete control. This doesn't need to occur. An open marketplace or multiple marketplaces could be possible. For all intents and purposes, Apple does have a monopoly.
  - Ferret7446 3y ago
    Whether or not it is a monopoly is a red herring, since being a monopoly is not illegal. Abusing a dominant position in a marketplace is. Apple has dominance in the Apple app marketplace, which they could theoretically abuse by discriminating against competitors. Thus, it is in their interest to be transparent about how they're managing their app store.

GuB-42 3y ago

They are transparent and fair. Fake reviews are not allowed. Apple has no way to know if you hired a fake review company or if some competitor did. Their moderation team can only check for fake reviews, not who paid for them. Of course, if they ask developers if they did something wrong and they did, they will get lied to. And it shouldn't be Apple's problem. Apple is not a court of law. They have no business knowing about their developers internal affairs, imagine the conflicts of interest. This is a matter for an actual court of law, that can issue warrants and subpoenas, where perjury is a thing, where there is fair trail and where you can ask damage and the guilty party get charged for fraud. You obviously don't want to give these powers to a private company.

rizky05 3y ago
[dead]

SOLAR_FIELDS 3y ago

Plus, they point to their 30% take as helping to prevent these kind of issues. So if that 30% isn’t helping to police the Apple Store, what is it doing?