7 ms·

But use of said IP is required because Apple forbids side-loading. Therefore Apple App store is a monopoly. So hopefully the court result will in the end help

But use of said IP is required because Apple forbids side-loading. Therefore Apple App store is a monopoly. So hopefully the court result will in the end help get the Apple App store shut down / opened up.

sircastor 3y ago
Some people think of the App Store as a bazaar that Apple runs on its property, and it’s a 15-30% charge to setup a tent and sell your wares. Others think of it as Apple’s general store where they carry your app as a product, and you pay 15-30% for a place on the shelf. The concept that Kroger (for instance) has a monopoly of customers in its own store is ridiculous. There are other stores, and other bazaars. What analogy would you use to describe this situation that clarifies your position?
- knubie 3y ago
  I think a better analogy would be something like installing aftermarket parts for for your vehicle.
  - buffington 3y ago
    Could you actually describe this? How would that be a better analogy?
    - knubie 3y ago
      The iPhone is like a vehicle (car, motorcycle, John Deere tractor, etc). iPhone apps are like after market vehicle parts. As a vehicle owner I'd like to be able to have a choice whether I want to install OEM parts or after market parts. The after market parts might be cheaper, or have features that the OEM parts lack. I would like to be able to purchase these parts without a 30% markup that goes to the car manufacturer. As an iPhone user, I'd like to be able to install apps on my iPhone without having to pay the iPhone manufacturer a 30% markup. I realize that this analogy doesn't directly address the issue of whether Apple has a monopoly on the market of iPhone apps, but it's how I think about it as a consumer.
- infotainment 3y ago
  Not OP, but sticking with your store analogies, I would use the following: Apple represents the town government, and the App Store is the only general store in the entire town; other stores have been banned. Don't like it? You're free to pack up and move to another city! The reason I'd characterize it this way is that changing phone platforms is nontrivial. It's not as simple as just going to another store that day.
  - riscy 3y ago
    > The reason I'd characterize it this way is that changing phone platforms is nontrivial. I'm sorry, but how is it "nontrivial" to change phone platforms? Google says it's easy and all you need is a cable to get the best experience: https://www.android.com/switch-to-android/ https://www.android.com/switch-to-android/
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      Do you believe them? You shouldn't. It's a marketing page.
      - riscy 3y ago
        No it's not. Did you even read it? There's a big button that says "Read the guide" that keeps you on the page and tells you what to do. The FAQ even links to this: https://support.google.com/android/answer/6193424?visit_id=637950609261149917-4118905200&p=switch_from_ios&rd=1#zippy=%2Cswitch-from-an-iphone https://support.google.com/android/answer/6193424?visit_id=6...
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        Do you believe them? This argument doesn't work if you don't believe the part about getting all the same apps, which is objectively not true. It's a fun way to mock google, but it has nothing to do with the merits of this issue with apple.
    - kelnos 3y ago
- paholg 3y ago
  How about if you go to purchase a house, but one of the HoA agreements is that you only shop at Kroger.
  - pathartl 3y ago
    And the only roads in and out of your neighborhood leads directly to a Kroger. And there's barbed wire fencing surrounding your neighborhood. Meanwhile, deliveries being made to Kroger from distributors may only use Kroger-branded trucks, which cost at least 20% more. Oh, and that truck may only be serviced by Kroger-approved mechanics. Those mechanics can only buy parts from Kroger. Any totaled truck can't be parted out by mechanics and MUST be recertified by Kroger.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - insane_dreamer 3y ago
      basically this is what Walmart did to countless towns in the US by putting all the mom and pop stores out of business not saying it's good (in fact, it's much worse than what Apple is doing), but no one contested its legality
- Sargos 3y ago
  Apple's App Store is more akin to a Company Store[1] where you live in a town owned by the company you are utilizing for your lifestyle and their store is the only place you have available to shop. It was a scandal in the past as it's unfair to consumers while also being unfair to producers. The argument of "well you can just move/buy a different phone" did not hold up very well with society. This unethical model is not any better in our modern world. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_store https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_store
- basch 3y ago
  Or that Apple APIs and SDKs are Apple writing at least half of everyone’s apps for them. They manufacture all the pieces, and people can arrange them differently. Playing Apple 30% is recognizing that a good chunk of the code running in any app is developed and maintained by Apple.
  - guax 3y ago
    By imposition of the platform. If people could choose to use apples SDK for 30% or react native 3000 revenge of the javascript for free, they would not bat an eye and go for the latter.
    - dwaite 3y ago
      React Native is a (sophisticated) Javascript wrapper around Apple's platform.
  - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
    So I guess you support browser makers taking a 30% cut, too?
  - int_19h 3y ago
    That's what the cost of the dev license is supposed to be paying for.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  > The concept that Kroger (for instance) has a monopoly of customers in its own store is ridiculous. There are other stores, and other bazaars. I'm not making the argument from a legal perspective, but from a reality perspective, I think that's a very poor analogy to the way operating systems (and "platforms" generally) work. The very nature of operating systems is that they have much more control than a simple store. For example, if you want to switch from Kroger to Safeway, just go to Safeway. There are almost zero switching costs. I actually was strongly considering switching from Android to iPhone solely to get iMessage access (that's a whole different ball of Apple anti-competitiveness, but I digress...) But in the end, even after buying the iPhone, I decided to give it away as a Christmas gift because I just couldn't stomach how painful switching would be after a decade-plus history on Android: I'd lose all my Android apps, I'd lose all the easiest access to things that live in Google's ecosystem, I'd lose my day-to-day familiarity with my phone, etc. To be clear, I'm not saying that's impossible, but it's just a much higher burden that deciding to go to a different grocery store. Note the government has often developed special laws for "platform businesses", for example railroads, telecoms, etc., understanding the unique positions these companies are in when it comes to controlling the larger economy. I wish they would regulate operating system platforms in a similar manner.
  - Mutjake 3y ago
    I like to think this via car analogy: you have similar ecosystem with car infotainment system platforms, but there the cost of switching is often minimum tenfold. Game consoles are an analogous platform to phones with similar pricepoint in switching costs. Of course phones are much more present in our daily lives for the most part of the population. But I suppose the similar burden would easily hit those platforms if legislation would be imposed, and it would come with both upsides and downsides depending on one's viewpoint.
  - insane_dreamer 3y ago
    > it's just a much higher burden that deciding to go to a different grocery store That very much depends on how much you're invested in a particular platform. Using the store analogy, if you decide not to shop at Walmart anymore because you detest their policies, and the closest store that carries the products you're used to getting is 20 minutes away, or maybe you now have to go to multiple different stores to get everything you need, making an extra 50 minutes of driving, that's a considerable burden of switching as each time you make your purchases (plus pay higher prices).
- kelnos 3y ago
  That analogy doesn't work, unless Kroger is the only grocery store that's permitted to exist. There are no other stores, or other bazaars. If you want to sell an iOS app, your only option is the Apple App Store. Apparently the courts don't believe this is a monopoly, presumably because you can also choose to toss your iPhone and buy an Android phone instead. I disagree with that reasoning; to me that's like if Whole Foods also exists in addition to Kroger, but if you want to switch to Whole Foods, you have to get an expensive operation to swap out your stomach, because the groceries at Whole Foods don't work with the stomach that works with the groceries at Kroger.
  - dwaite 3y ago
    > Apparently the courts don't believe this is a monopoly, presumably because you can also choose to toss your iPhone and buy an Android phone instead. You also have the entire internet, no tossing required.
- politician 3y ago
  Using Kroger as an example is interesting because, there is, in fact, a currently ongoing review of M&A activity in the grocery store business to prevent situations that harm customers. [1] https://www.npr.org/2024/01/15/1224401179/kroger-albertsons-merger-grocery-lawsuit-washington https://www.npr.org/2024/01/15/1224401179/kroger-albertsons-...
AdamJacobMuller 3y ago
Even if you're side-loading, you're still using Apple IP. Every single framework and the OS itself up to the Mach OSS Kernel is Apple IP. It would be entirely unfeasible to run anything on an iPhone without some Apple IP. You'd be looking at an Asahi Linux for iPhone.
- basch 3y ago
  Their IP is baked into the hardware and circuits.
  - account-5 3y ago
    Therefore a monopoly, by design at every level.
- freetanga 3y ago
  An OS without any apps is a barren asteroid. Cool for a few minutes but not a place to stay. Apple is also benefiting from developers IP, as they enrich their value proposition. Should Intel or AMD get a cut from any app (including Open Source) on Windows and Linux? Should MS get a cut of every app you run on Windows? You buying the device compensates Apple IP. Commonly their marketing showcases heavily third party apps.
- EMIRELADERO 3y ago
  Somehow it's not unreasonable for third parties to "use" another company's IP when designing aftermarket accessories for physical products, even when those base products themselves are patented. What makes the iOS situation different? Aren't apps essentially "digital accessories"?
- 015a 3y ago
  How have they leveraged this argument against the idea that the user who purchased the device has some level of right to use the IP on the phone they purchase? Phrase this question another way: if I were to write and sell some application for the iPhone through my personal website, which requires users phones to be jailbroken, would my application and business be in violation of, specifically, US intellectual property law? Assuming I perfectly side-step other more obvious illegalities like trademark law. Here's another caveat: assume the bundle I distribute is dynamically linked into the underlying operating system, such that I'm definitely distributing nothing except my own code that I wrote. Or, similarly: I ship nothing but my own code, plus a script I wrote the purchaser has to run to statically link the package with iOS libraries present on their Mac.
nodamage 3y ago
> Therefore Apple App store is a monopoly. Not under US law according to the very court case being discussed. Why are people still making this claim when the judge literally concluded otherwise and then a panel of appeals court judges confirmed her ruling?
- kelnos 3y ago
  Because it's not unreasonable to disagree with the law. The judges may be applying it correctly, and correctly following the process for determining that the market is all mobile apps, and not just iOS mobile apps, but it's reasonable for people to disagree with that on first principles.
  - nodamage 3y ago
    The legal definition of a monopoly has been refined over multiple decades of case law, I would argue that you can’t have a meaningful discussion about whether a company is or isn’t a monopoly without framing it in that context. And yes while it’s reasonable to disagree with the details of the law, it’s another thing entirely to make up some arbitrary criteria in your head and then declare some company is a monopoly based on your imaginary criteria.
- staplers 3y ago
  Judges can be wrong. The justice system has many checks and balances but ultimate rule over certain court cases isn't one of them.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  Because the case shows that the law needs to be updated, not that the app store isnt a monopoly.
- tristan957 3y ago
  Why do people still think that OJ is a murderer? Courts get rulings wrong all the time. How many times has someone on death row been exonerated for a crime? The App Store is a monopoly by definition. It is the only form of app distribution to 100% of iPhone users. Going further, it is the only form of app distribution to greater than 50% of the US market. Vertical integration is a very valid argument to make here, same as it was with Standard Oil, and other companies of the early 20th century.

sircastor 3y ago

Some people think of the App Store as a bazaar that Apple runs on its property, and it’s a 15-30% charge to setup a tent and sell your wares. Others think of it as Apple’s general store where they carry your app as a product, and you pay 15-30% for a place on the shelf. The concept that Kroger (for instance) has a monopoly of customers in its own store is ridiculous. There are other stores, and other bazaars. What analogy would you use to describe this situation that clarifies your position?

knubie 3y ago
I think a better analogy would be something like installing aftermarket parts for for your vehicle.
- buffington 3y ago
  Could you actually describe this? How would that be a better analogy?
  - knubie 3y ago
    The iPhone is like a vehicle (car, motorcycle, John Deere tractor, etc). iPhone apps are like after market vehicle parts. As a vehicle owner I'd like to be able to have a choice whether I want to install OEM parts or after market parts. The after market parts might be cheaper, or have features that the OEM parts lack. I would like to be able to purchase these parts without a 30% markup that goes to the car manufacturer. As an iPhone user, I'd like to be able to install apps on my iPhone without having to pay the iPhone manufacturer a 30% markup. I realize that this analogy doesn't directly address the issue of whether Apple has a monopoly on the market of iPhone apps, but it's how I think about it as a consumer.
infotainment 3y ago
Not OP, but sticking with your store analogies, I would use the following: Apple represents the town government, and the App Store is the only general store in the entire town; other stores have been banned. Don't like it? You're free to pack up and move to another city! The reason I'd characterize it this way is that changing phone platforms is nontrivial. It's not as simple as just going to another store that day.
- riscy 3y ago
  > The reason I'd characterize it this way is that changing phone platforms is nontrivial. I'm sorry, but how is it "nontrivial" to change phone platforms? Google says it's easy and all you need is a cable to get the best experience: https://www.android.com/switch-to-android/ https://www.android.com/switch-to-android/
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    Do you believe them? You shouldn't. It's a marketing page.
    - riscy 3y ago
      No it's not. Did you even read it? There's a big button that says "Read the guide" that keeps you on the page and tells you what to do. The FAQ even links to this: https://support.google.com/android/answer/6193424?visit_id=637950609261149917-4118905200&p=switch_from_ios&rd=1#zippy=%2Cswitch-from-an-iphone https://support.google.com/android/answer/6193424?visit_id=6...
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        Do you believe them? This argument doesn't work if you don't believe the part about getting all the same apps, which is objectively not true. It's a fun way to mock google, but it has nothing to do with the merits of this issue with apple.
  - kelnos 3y ago
paholg 3y ago
How about if you go to purchase a house, but one of the HoA agreements is that you only shop at Kroger.
- pathartl 3y ago
  And the only roads in and out of your neighborhood leads directly to a Kroger. And there's barbed wire fencing surrounding your neighborhood. Meanwhile, deliveries being made to Kroger from distributors may only use Kroger-branded trucks, which cost at least 20% more. Oh, and that truck may only be serviced by Kroger-approved mechanics. Those mechanics can only buy parts from Kroger. Any totaled truck can't be parted out by mechanics and MUST be recertified by Kroger.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - insane_dreamer 3y ago
    basically this is what Walmart did to countless towns in the US by putting all the mom and pop stores out of business not saying it's good (in fact, it's much worse than what Apple is doing), but no one contested its legality
Sargos 3y ago
Apple's App Store is more akin to a Company Store[1] where you live in a town owned by the company you are utilizing for your lifestyle and their store is the only place you have available to shop. It was a scandal in the past as it's unfair to consumers while also being unfair to producers. The argument of "well you can just move/buy a different phone" did not hold up very well with society. This unethical model is not any better in our modern world. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_store https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_store
basch 3y ago
Or that Apple APIs and SDKs are Apple writing at least half of everyone’s apps for them. They manufacture all the pieces, and people can arrange them differently. Playing Apple 30% is recognizing that a good chunk of the code running in any app is developed and maintained by Apple.
- guax 3y ago
  By imposition of the platform. If people could choose to use apples SDK for 30% or react native 3000 revenge of the javascript for free, they would not bat an eye and go for the latter.
  - dwaite 3y ago
    React Native is a (sophisticated) Javascript wrapper around Apple's platform.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  So I guess you support browser makers taking a 30% cut, too?
- int_19h 3y ago
  That's what the cost of the dev license is supposed to be paying for.
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
> The concept that Kroger (for instance) has a monopoly of customers in its own store is ridiculous. There are other stores, and other bazaars. I'm not making the argument from a legal perspective, but from a reality perspective, I think that's a very poor analogy to the way operating systems (and "platforms" generally) work. The very nature of operating systems is that they have much more control than a simple store. For example, if you want to switch from Kroger to Safeway, just go to Safeway. There are almost zero switching costs. I actually was strongly considering switching from Android to iPhone solely to get iMessage access (that's a whole different ball of Apple anti-competitiveness, but I digress...) But in the end, even after buying the iPhone, I decided to give it away as a Christmas gift because I just couldn't stomach how painful switching would be after a decade-plus history on Android: I'd lose all my Android apps, I'd lose all the easiest access to things that live in Google's ecosystem, I'd lose my day-to-day familiarity with my phone, etc. To be clear, I'm not saying that's impossible, but it's just a much higher burden that deciding to go to a different grocery store. Note the government has often developed special laws for "platform businesses", for example railroads, telecoms, etc., understanding the unique positions these companies are in when it comes to controlling the larger economy. I wish they would regulate operating system platforms in a similar manner.
- Mutjake 3y ago
  I like to think this via car analogy: you have similar ecosystem with car infotainment system platforms, but there the cost of switching is often minimum tenfold. Game consoles are an analogous platform to phones with similar pricepoint in switching costs. Of course phones are much more present in our daily lives for the most part of the population. But I suppose the similar burden would easily hit those platforms if legislation would be imposed, and it would come with both upsides and downsides depending on one's viewpoint.
- insane_dreamer 3y ago
  > it's just a much higher burden that deciding to go to a different grocery store That very much depends on how much you're invested in a particular platform. Using the store analogy, if you decide not to shop at Walmart anymore because you detest their policies, and the closest store that carries the products you're used to getting is 20 minutes away, or maybe you now have to go to multiple different stores to get everything you need, making an extra 50 minutes of driving, that's a considerable burden of switching as each time you make your purchases (plus pay higher prices).
kelnos 3y ago
That analogy doesn't work, unless Kroger is the only grocery store that's permitted to exist. There are no other stores, or other bazaars. If you want to sell an iOS app, your only option is the Apple App Store. Apparently the courts don't believe this is a monopoly, presumably because you can also choose to toss your iPhone and buy an Android phone instead. I disagree with that reasoning; to me that's like if Whole Foods also exists in addition to Kroger, but if you want to switch to Whole Foods, you have to get an expensive operation to swap out your stomach, because the groceries at Whole Foods don't work with the stomach that works with the groceries at Kroger.
- dwaite 3y ago
  > Apparently the courts don't believe this is a monopoly, presumably because you can also choose to toss your iPhone and buy an Android phone instead. You also have the entire internet, no tossing required.
politician 3y ago
Using Kroger as an example is interesting because, there is, in fact, a currently ongoing review of M&A activity in the grocery store business to prevent situations that harm customers. [1] https://www.npr.org/2024/01/15/1224401179/kroger-albertsons-merger-grocery-lawsuit-washington https://www.npr.org/2024/01/15/1224401179/kroger-albertsons-...

AdamJacobMuller 3y ago

Even if you're side-loading, you're still using Apple IP. Every single framework and the OS itself up to the Mach OSS Kernel is Apple IP. It would be entirely unfeasible to run anything on an iPhone without some Apple IP. You'd be looking at an Asahi Linux for iPhone.

basch 3y ago
Their IP is baked into the hardware and circuits.
- account-5 3y ago
  Therefore a monopoly, by design at every level.
freetanga 3y ago
An OS without any apps is a barren asteroid. Cool for a few minutes but not a place to stay. Apple is also benefiting from developers IP, as they enrich their value proposition. Should Intel or AMD get a cut from any app (including Open Source) on Windows and Linux? Should MS get a cut of every app you run on Windows? You buying the device compensates Apple IP. Commonly their marketing showcases heavily third party apps.
EMIRELADERO 3y ago
Somehow it's not unreasonable for third parties to "use" another company's IP when designing aftermarket accessories for physical products, even when those base products themselves are patented. What makes the iOS situation different? Aren't apps essentially "digital accessories"?
015a 3y ago
How have they leveraged this argument against the idea that the user who purchased the device has some level of right to use the IP on the phone they purchase? Phrase this question another way: if I were to write and sell some application for the iPhone through my personal website, which requires users phones to be jailbroken, would my application and business be in violation of, specifically, US intellectual property law? Assuming I perfectly side-step other more obvious illegalities like trademark law. Here's another caveat: assume the bundle I distribute is dynamically linked into the underlying operating system, such that I'm definitely distributing nothing except my own code that I wrote. Or, similarly: I ship nothing but my own code, plus a script I wrote the purchaser has to run to statically link the package with iOS libraries present on their Mac.

nodamage 3y ago

> Therefore Apple App store is a monopoly. Not under US law according to the very court case being discussed. Why are people still making this claim when the judge literally concluded otherwise and then a panel of appeals court judges confirmed her ruling?

kelnos 3y ago
Because it's not unreasonable to disagree with the law. The judges may be applying it correctly, and correctly following the process for determining that the market is all mobile apps, and not just iOS mobile apps, but it's reasonable for people to disagree with that on first principles.
- nodamage 3y ago
  The legal definition of a monopoly has been refined over multiple decades of case law, I would argue that you can’t have a meaningful discussion about whether a company is or isn’t a monopoly without framing it in that context. And yes while it’s reasonable to disagree with the details of the law, it’s another thing entirely to make up some arbitrary criteria in your head and then declare some company is a monopoly based on your imaginary criteria.
staplers 3y ago
Judges can be wrong. The justice system has many checks and balances but ultimate rule over certain court cases isn't one of them.
HDThoreaun 3y ago
Because the case shows that the law needs to be updated, not that the app store isnt a monopoly.
tristan957 3y ago
Why do people still think that OJ is a murderer? Courts get rulings wrong all the time. How many times has someone on death row been exonerated for a crime? The App Store is a monopoly by definition. It is the only form of app distribution to 100% of iPhone users. Going further, it is the only form of app distribution to greater than 50% of the US market. Vertical integration is a very valid argument to make here, same as it was with Standard Oil, and other companies of the early 20th century.