5 ms·

Agreed. If Google locked down their app store more aggressively they'd be legally in the clear. They played nice, just not nice enough, so they got anti-trusted

Agreed. If Google locked down their app store more aggressively they'd be legally in the clear. They played nice, just not nice enough, so they got anti-trusted.

jonhohle 3y ago
They didn’t play nice. They made back channel deals with privileged partners. Love or hate the Apple arrangement, but they seem consistent on giving everyone the same terms. That’s what makes one anti-competitive and the other not.
- amadeuspagel 3y ago
  > Love or hate the Apple arrangement, but they seem consistent on giving everyone the same terms. They can do that, because there's no other choice. If a company wants to offer their apps to iOS users, they have to go through the App Store, so they're in no position to bargain for better terms.
  - shwouchk 3y ago
    Indeed. And if a company wants to deal with US consumers, they need to comply with US law. That’s reasonable. And if/when some companies get referential treatment, you get (justified) uproar.
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      Apple has received preferential treatment from US lawmakers, for almost a decade now. One could argue that's why the DMA and Japanese legislation exists in the first place.
      - shwouchk 3y ago
        Can you substantiate this claim? And explicitly, the OP is not a valid example, since it is the subject of debate and that would lead to circular reasoning - I don’t see the current ruling as preferential in the least.
        smoldesu 3y ago
        It's not circular reasoning if multiple municipal states are coming around to it. It's controversial, but the demand for regulation is self-evident. Take the example how you'd like, but they're still independent markets and the legislative demands hold water. As for examples of preferential treatment, there's pretty obviously the 2013 Obama ITC intervention that overrode Samsung's complaint despite a fully substantiated prosecution (and now the Masimo case). In the Trump administration, Apple was one of the few companies operating in China offered specific tariff exemptions for their manufacturers. And then speaking generally, you have the lack of interest in regulating the progress of mobile experiences. Software is moving forward, and the technology to facilitate things like multiple app stores, payment processors and browser options have existed since the 90s. Apple and Google's objections to these features are obviously both petty, and their inability to negotiate is why we're seeing nuclear-option legislation in non-US markets.
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        > the demand for regulation is self-evident That doesn't mean it's evidence of a general need. We have groups of people who believe all sorts of things. The things are what we should be discussing, not the fact that there are groups that believe said things.
        smoldesu 3y ago
        Then discuss it. Right now you're just objecting to my claims, if you feel like I've ignored the general need then produce the evidence and show me. What aspects of this situation have Apple, Europe and Japan missed?
        shwouchk 3y ago
        It is usually the onus of the person making claims to substantiate them, not others to find contrary evidence. So far you have completely ignored/missed my argument and are using your premise that there is preferential treatment to prove that, there is preferential treatment. Opinions of states are not relevant here, nor were cited in any way. Apple is a closed ecosystem, be it the biggest or smallest in the world, and you don’t have to participate. My example of compliance with a certain country’s law was an analogy to this situation, and so far you have not disputed that apple is treating everyone in the same manner. It is not your god given right to participate in their ecosystem, and neither are you prevented from doing this by various backdeals that give someone else a leg up (unless you claim otherwise and are willing to substantiate that claim).
- mcny 3y ago
  > Love or hate the Apple arrangement, but they seem consistent on giving everyone the same terms. Previously on hacker news: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36882467 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36882467 From the article: > Today, there are more than 2.4 million mini-programs that can be run within WeChat. If this trend continues, there will come a time when developers will concentrate on developing new useful mini-programs to run on WeChat instead of stand-alone apps which have to abide by certain rules before it becomes available on the App Store. > If Apple cracks down on WeChat’s practices, Chinese customers will have little reason to ever buy an iPhone. > So, if Apple wants the Chinese to continue to buy iPhones, they have to let WeChat – one of the most privacy-invasive and censorship driven apps on the planet, continue to ignore its App Store rules. back home [uber] skirts the boundaries of the law if not outright crosses it several times and it is still available on the app store. Not that any of this excuses anything Google does but just wanted to point out that Apple most definitely does NOT give everyone the same terms. [uber] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14178397 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14178397 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/23/technology/travis-kalanick-pushes-uber-and-himself-to-the-precipice.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/23/technology/travis-kalanic... https://archive.ph/uJ0vm https://archive.ph/uJ0vm
- echelon 3y ago
  One was a jury trial, the other was not. Apple's overall behavior is worse and far more anti-competitive. There's no reason Apple should tax dating, yet they do for over 50% of Americans who date online. They tax all communication and commerce by dictatorially controlling the most essential device of our century and being one of only two primary vendors. I'd say I'm glad Apple and Google don't control the Internet, but they kind of de-facto do control it for most people.
- pkphilip 3y ago
  Apple is known to have shared even secret APIs with companies like Uber. I am guessing they didn't share this with other companies in the same industry vertical as Uber. That would definitely constitute an unfair advantage to Uber. https://www.entrepreneur.com/business-news/apple-gave-ubers-app-unprecedented-access-to-a-secret/302310 https://www.entrepreneur.com/business-news/apple-gave-ubers-...

Agreed. If Google locked down their app store more aggressively they'd be legally in the clear. They played nice, just not nice enough, so they got anti-trusted.

jonhohle 3y ago

They didn’t play nice. They made back channel deals with privileged partners. Love or hate the Apple arrangement, but they seem consistent on giving everyone the same terms. That’s what makes one anti-competitive and the other not.

amadeuspagel 3y ago
> Love or hate the Apple arrangement, but they seem consistent on giving everyone the same terms. They can do that, because there's no other choice. If a company wants to offer their apps to iOS users, they have to go through the App Store, so they're in no position to bargain for better terms.
- shwouchk 3y ago
  Indeed. And if a company wants to deal with US consumers, they need to comply with US law. That’s reasonable. And if/when some companies get referential treatment, you get (justified) uproar.
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    Apple has received preferential treatment from US lawmakers, for almost a decade now. One could argue that's why the DMA and Japanese legislation exists in the first place.
    - shwouchk 3y ago
      Can you substantiate this claim? And explicitly, the OP is not a valid example, since it is the subject of debate and that would lead to circular reasoning - I don’t see the current ruling as preferential in the least.
      - smoldesu 3y ago
        It's not circular reasoning if multiple municipal states are coming around to it. It's controversial, but the demand for regulation is self-evident. Take the example how you'd like, but they're still independent markets and the legislative demands hold water. As for examples of preferential treatment, there's pretty obviously the 2013 Obama ITC intervention that overrode Samsung's complaint despite a fully substantiated prosecution (and now the Masimo case). In the Trump administration, Apple was one of the few companies operating in China offered specific tariff exemptions for their manufacturers. And then speaking generally, you have the lack of interest in regulating the progress of mobile experiences. Software is moving forward, and the technology to facilitate things like multiple app stores, payment processors and browser options have existed since the 90s. Apple and Google's objections to these features are obviously both petty, and their inability to negotiate is why we're seeing nuclear-option legislation in non-US markets.
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        > the demand for regulation is self-evident That doesn't mean it's evidence of a general need. We have groups of people who believe all sorts of things. The things are what we should be discussing, not the fact that there are groups that believe said things.
        smoldesu 3y ago
        Then discuss it. Right now you're just objecting to my claims, if you feel like I've ignored the general need then produce the evidence and show me. What aspects of this situation have Apple, Europe and Japan missed?
        shwouchk 3y ago
        It is usually the onus of the person making claims to substantiate them, not others to find contrary evidence. So far you have completely ignored/missed my argument and are using your premise that there is preferential treatment to prove that, there is preferential treatment. Opinions of states are not relevant here, nor were cited in any way. Apple is a closed ecosystem, be it the biggest or smallest in the world, and you don’t have to participate. My example of compliance with a certain country’s law was an analogy to this situation, and so far you have not disputed that apple is treating everyone in the same manner. It is not your god given right to participate in their ecosystem, and neither are you prevented from doing this by various backdeals that give someone else a leg up (unless you claim otherwise and are willing to substantiate that claim).
mcny 3y ago
> Love or hate the Apple arrangement, but they seem consistent on giving everyone the same terms. Previously on hacker news: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36882467 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36882467 From the article: > Today, there are more than 2.4 million mini-programs that can be run within WeChat. If this trend continues, there will come a time when developers will concentrate on developing new useful mini-programs to run on WeChat instead of stand-alone apps which have to abide by certain rules before it becomes available on the App Store. > If Apple cracks down on WeChat’s practices, Chinese customers will have little reason to ever buy an iPhone. > So, if Apple wants the Chinese to continue to buy iPhones, they have to let WeChat – one of the most privacy-invasive and censorship driven apps on the planet, continue to ignore its App Store rules. back home [uber] skirts the boundaries of the law if not outright crosses it several times and it is still available on the app store. Not that any of this excuses anything Google does but just wanted to point out that Apple most definitely does NOT give everyone the same terms. [uber] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14178397 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14178397 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/23/technology/travis-kalanick-pushes-uber-and-himself-to-the-precipice.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/23/technology/travis-kalanic... https://archive.ph/uJ0vm https://archive.ph/uJ0vm
echelon 3y ago
One was a jury trial, the other was not. Apple's overall behavior is worse and far more anti-competitive. There's no reason Apple should tax dating, yet they do for over 50% of Americans who date online. They tax all communication and commerce by dictatorially controlling the most essential device of our century and being one of only two primary vendors. I'd say I'm glad Apple and Google don't control the Internet, but they kind of de-facto do control it for most people.
pkphilip 3y ago
Apple is known to have shared even secret APIs with companies like Uber. I am guessing they didn't share this with other companies in the same industry vertical as Uber. That would definitely constitute an unfair advantage to Uber. https://www.entrepreneur.com/business-news/apple-gave-ubers-app-unprecedented-access-to-a-secret/302310 https://www.entrepreneur.com/business-news/apple-gave-ubers-...