8 ms·
I fail to understand how HN and the court system do not think the same against Apple
by hackernewds 3y ago
I fail to understand how HN and the court system do not think the same against Apple
- lolitan 3y agoHaha yes...All pretending Apple to be some different entity in a holy universe.
- el-dude-arino 3y ago[flagged]
- verall 3y agoDifferent people on HN, different judges, judge vs jury
- shados 3y ago[flagged]
- arp242 3y agoI don't know about the court system, but on HN many people do think the same about Apple, although obviously not everyone.
- tortoise_in 3y agoBecause apple is not even considered here. They are more closed I guess. Android shopport open source and Linux based also maybe the case.
- kelnos 3y agoYou may be missing some context; there was a similar court case between Apple and Epic, and Apple won. While opinions on HN were mixed, I seem to recall more people coming out praising Apple and demonizing Epic. Apple is very much considered here.
- hipadev23 3y agoHN does generally feel the same about Apple. 30% cut is egregious especially when they give favors to certain app owners. “Court System” is very contextual: the Texas Supreme Court just blocked a woman getting an abortion for a non-viable pregnancy.
- User23 3y agoMaybe pick an analogy that isn’t picture perfect for starting a flame war? I don’t think it edifies anyone to bring that debate into a discussion about intellectual property rights.
- hinkley 3y agoApple charges 30% on your second $million. For many of us, their fee is 15%. And for a lot of people it’s more like 25%.
- daveguy 3y agoI don't think this is the glowing review that you think it is.
- hinkley 3y agoI don’t think any of you remember that AT&T and friends wanted 70%. Seventy.
- saghm 3y agoThe old protection racket taking your entire arm if you didn't pay isn't an argument that the new one only taking a couple fingers is reasonable
- voisin 3y agoSo what’s the right number? 0%? Any number would elicit moaning from the peanut gallery. Look at retail store gross margins on the products they sell (I.e. their cut of the retail price), and the terms they set for their wholesalers.
- ekianjo 3y agoSelective standards and lobbying
- frognumber 3y ago"The same against Apple" is very broad so I'm not sure what you're referring to, but Apple is presently less evil than Google. * Google started out pure good and turned pure evil. * Amazon started out mostly decent and turned mostly sleazy. * Apple started out sort of in the middle and stated there. "Middle" for Apple includes extremes in both directions. They do some pretty bad things with DRM, locking down devices, anti-repair, government corruption. They do some very good things with privacy, security, long-term support, and similar. If it's a specific litigation (Epic v. Apple), courts are random. Very random. Legal processes have little grounding in any sort of objective anything, and kind of resemble a chaotic die roll.
- dmoy 3y ago> If it's a specific litigation (Epic v. Apple It's probably this that GP is confused over It's addressed, if not in this article, then others - the Apple trial wasn't a jury trial. Google lost the motion to not have a jury trial
- stonogo 3y agoPageRank was at least partially funded by the intelligence community via the MDDS program. "Started out pure good" is revisionist. They definitely started out as the darlings of the tech world, but "don't be evil" was always ironic.
- coolandsmartrr 3y agoWhat government corruption are you talking about?
- frognumber 3y agoMore-or-less the standard stuff. When fighting for right-to-repair in my state, the major opposition was an Apple lobbyist. You can also look at DRM, worker rights in the hellholes electronics equipment gets made, etc. Not all of this even makes sense; better workers' rights would probably benefit Apple on the net, since they would hurt cut-rate vendors more, but c'est la vie.
- 3y ago
- paulddraper 3y agoMore of HN uses iOS than Android.
- bee_rider 3y agoOh, does the site report this kind of info? That’s interesting, where? It would also be neat to know mobile vs desktop, and how’s the Linux population doing here.
- paulddraper 3y agoI'm making some reasonable inferences based on overall tech.
- kelnos 3y agoNot sure that's reasonable. A quick search suggests current US market share is 58% iOS to 41% Android. If we assume HN readers are a representative sample of US mobile phone owners, then sure, you'd easily be right. But of course there are plenty of HN users from outside the US. Another quick search suggests Android is around 66% in Europe, and iOS is only at 33%. Asia is ever more tilted toward Android, at 79% to 20%. Even then, that assumes HN users' mobile OS preference mirrors that of the country/continent they are from, which feels a little unlikely to me; my gut feeling is that HN users to prefer Android at a greater rate (even if by not that much) than the rest of the people where they live. But let's go back to assuming that HN's readership mirrors the mobile OS market share from country/continent they're from. It's not hard to drop that US 58% iOS number below 50% by subtracting US users from the total and adding users from literally anywhere else, where iOS usage is much lower. Regardless, though, I think even if somehow the iOS numbers are still higher than the Android numbers, I think it's probably not that case that obviously everyone who uses an iPhone would side with Apple in this matter. Many/most would, but still likely not enough for it to be accurate to say that more than 50% of HN are a bunch of Apple apologists who will side with them in a legal matter and against Google in the exact same legal matter.
- bee_rider 3y agoOh. Well, now I am sad.
- davidw 3y agoI've never cared for Apple as they've always had a more closed ecosystem approach than others.
- 7e 3y agoIf Google has the monopoly, Apple, by definition, cannot.
- nequo 3y agoGoogle only has the monopoly in Android app distribution. Apple has it in iOS app distribution.
- 7e 3y agoThat’s like saying Porsche has a monopoly on all red mid-engine German sports coupes. Apps run on pocket computing devices with phone and data connectivity. Two operating systems compete in that space.
- bcrosby95 3y ago> that Google has monopoly power in the Android app distribution markets and in-app billing services markets... Your derision is misdirected. It's literally what the court case was about.
- kelnos 3y agoNo, that's not like that at all. Can we stop making really poor car analogies that don't actually represent the issue at hand? Regardless, at this point you're arguing against the court here. Google lost; they have a monopoly on Android app distribution. Maybe that'll get overturned on appeal, but I hope not.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> I fail to understand how HN and the court system do not think the same against Apple "The court system" is not a collective entity with a shared set of thoughts. Different judges, different arguments, in one case (but not the other) a jury, these things make a difference. The appellate process and the system of binding precedent goes with it serves to somewhat make things more consistent overall than individual trial court processes would when considered over a longer time and a larger number of cases, but cases very close in time ending up with different trial court decisions despite broadly similar fact patterns are not really surprising.
- pankajdoharey 3y agoSo they dont look at precedents in court system in USA ?
- zappb 3y agoDistrict courts don’t set precedent; appellate and supreme courts do.
- dragonwriter 3y ago“Trial” inatead of “district”, and “supreme” is unnecessary, since in the cases where it is right in US court systems it is redundant with “appellate” and its wrong in New York, where “the Supreme Court” is one of many kinds of trial court (but where there are also appellate divisions and appellate terms of the Supreme Court which serve as intermediate appellate courts, with the ultimate appellate court—equivalent tothe Supreme Court in most other US jurisdictions—being the Court of Appeals.)
- nvy 3y agoThey do, but not proactively. You have to bring a case before the court for the precedent to get considered. Lots of things that are legal/illegal are only so because they haven't been tested in court. Precedents are also specific and sometimes the details of a case make it different enough that the precedent does not apply.
- naet 3y agoApples case was not a jury trial iirc, it was decided by a singular judge which can make for a very different outcome.
- obviouslynotme 3y agoApple is just as sleezy as Google but doesn't have as much power and reach. If I don't want to, I don't have to interact with Apple at all. Google is much harder to avoid, impossible in some domains like email.
- AlchemistCamp 3y agoYou have plenty of non-Google email options, including iCloud mail from Apple.
- gerash 3y agohere's my conspiracy theory: At some point in the last decade, large newspapers saw their local ad monopolies being disrupted by Google search ads so as the lost ad revenue they started running negative headlines on Google left and right for years. Apple also took advantage of this and portrayed themselves as the saviors of privacy. That created a negative perception of Google and a positive one for Apple affecting the society as a whole including HNers and these random sample (jury).