5 ms·

1) Research antitrust. It doesn't mean what you think it means. 2) Apple has done nothing different than has been done before. It is an existing in app purchas

1) Research antitrust. It doesn't mean what you think it means. 2) Apple has done nothing different than has been done before. It is an existing in app purchasing rule.

jack-r-abbit 15y ago
"Competition law, known in the United States as antitrust law, is law that promotes or maintains market competition by regulating anti-competitive conduct by companies."[1] One could argue that rejecting apps that make use of (or in this case encourage signup to) Dropbox is anti-competitive conduct since Dropbox is a competitor of iCloud (isn't it?) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law
- tptacek 15y ago
  It is hard to name any proprietary product platform, from cars to KitchenAid mixers, which would not run afoul of this common nerdly definition of "antitrust". In reality, the presence of very viable substitutes in the market for the iPhone (to wit: Android) probably moots the argument here. To go further with this argument, you will need to venture beyond Wikipedia summaries.
  - olalonde 15y ago
    Your argument would be more effective without the unnecessary ad hominem. i.e.: > In reality, the presence of very viable substitutes in the market for the iPhone (to wit: Android) probably moots the argument here.
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      I swear, it's like a few months ago somebody somewhere introduced tptacek to the concept of using "nerdy" as an insult (and to the debating tactic of attaching an insult to a position with the goal of forcing people to distance themselves from that position).
      - tptacek 15y ago
        What part of "I'm a nerd, the term is a shorthand, not an insult" are people having so much trouble with? I've been a systems programmer since 1994. I do not believe that you honestly believe that I think "nerd" is an insult. It beggars belief. Please find a better way to be irritated with me; this is such a stupid one. Why not just go the extra mile and call me a "self-hating nerd"? At least that would make sense.
    - tptacek 15y ago
      I do not think the word "ad hominem" means what you think it means. An "ad hominem" argument is one that targets a specific person advancing the opposing argument. Ad hominem arguments are fallacious when the characteristics of those people aren't germane to the argument. Obviously, no part of my argument focuses on whoever it was who said Apple's Dropbox rejection is an antitrust violation.
      - olalonde 15y ago
        You are implying that your opponent's knowledge of antitrust law is limited to a "nerdly" definition he has read on Wikipedia. Perhaps it was not your intention, but that's how it came off to me.
        tptacek 15y ago
        My argument isn't that such a definition of Sherman Act violations is "nerdly". It's that it's wrong. "Nerdly" is just color commentary. And, for what it's worth: it's from one nerd to another. Happy to clear that up for you.
        nknight 15y ago
        In light of your recent rantings about "nerds"[1] and the law, it's hard to see your post as anything other than a continuation of your angry attacks on anyone who dares speak on the subject of the laws governing our hypothetically-democratic society. Your authoritarianism has degenerated into simple mockery. Even when you are right (which I think you largely are on this matter), you no longer contribute anything of use because any meaningful content is wrapped in an opaque blanket of anger and hostility. [1] I do not consider myself a "nerd", by the way, nor do many other people that you probably seek to apply that label to. Some of us find it quite insulting. Call yourself whatever you want, but speak only for yourself.
        jacobolus 15y ago
        You’re missing the point of tptacek’s criticism. He’s not trying to mock nerds, but rather to point out that their mental model of how the law works is woefully mismatched to how the law actually works, with a great deal of resulting whining and handwringing that could be avoided if they bothered to learn and think a bit about it. That I’ve seen, there’s been very little anger or ranting coming from his direction, and the label “nerd” is only barely pejorative (if at all) in the context of this forum: hardly a deep insult. I think maybe this is an example where tone of voice is transferring poorly to internet text, and you’re interpreting his statements to have quite a bit more bite than he intends (or most others are reading)?
  - jack-r-abbit 15y ago
    sorry. no real desire to go further. I was simply pointing out that perhaps "antitrust" does mean what AJ007 thought it did. I believe there is a hint of that here. Probably not enough to make a legal case but enough to add another example to the "Some times Apple can be a real dick" list.
    - tptacek 15y ago
      Sure. If you wanted to take this further, a source linked from DOJ's website: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/466/2/ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/466/2/ Jefferson Parish Hosp. Dist. v. Hyde (b) No tying arrangement can exist here unless there is a sufficient demand for the purchase of anesthesiological services separate from hospital services to identify a distinct product market in which it is efficient to offer anesthesiological services separately from hospital services. The fact that the exclusive contract requires purchase of two services that would otherwise be purchased separately does not make the contract illegal. Only if patients are forced to purchase the contracting firm's services as a result of the hospital's market power would the arrangement have anticompetitive consequences. If no forcing is present, patients are free to enter a competing hospital and to use another anesthesiologist instead of the firm. Obviously, substitute "iPhone" for "Jefferson Parish Hospital", "iCoud" for bundled "anesthesiological services", and "Android" for "competing hospital" that customers are "free to enter".
      - zaroth 15y ago
        Here, let me help you with that ;-) No tying arrangement can exist here unless there is a sufficient demand for the purchase of cloud storage separate from a smartphone OS to identify a distinct product market in which it is efficient to offer cloud storage separately from the smartphone OS. The fact that the exclusive contract requires purchase of two services that would otherwise be purchased separately does not make the contract illegal. Only if user are forced to purchase Apple's services as a result of Apple's market power would the arrangement have anticompetitive consequences. If no forcing is present, users are free to purchase a competing smartphone and to use another cloud storage provider instead of Apple.
- jahmed 15y ago
  You could argue that but you would lose. Generally there needs to be overwhelming market power by the company engaging in anti-competitive behavior. Even when restricted to the mobile phone market Apple doesn't exert nearly enough power to make a case.
- taligent 15y ago
  True. Except for two little things: 1) There are specific scenarios for when antitrust takes effect. This isn't of them. 2) Apple is NOT rejecting apps specifically for using Dropbox. It is because of the well known and well established in app purchasing rules.
  - jack-r-abbit 15y ago
    It sounds like the in app purchasing rules are not that well established if they can arbitrarily be applied to some n-depth linking to a spot on the web where the user can make a purchase. They would kind of have to reject any app that has the ability to open a link to Safari. Once in Safari (which technically means you are no longer "in app") you can browse anywhere and make a purchase. So maybe it is not an antitrust issue and just an anti-user issue.
- baddox 15y ago
  One could also argue that producing a better quality product at a lower price is anticompetitive. That's why I've never understood laws banning "anticompetitive behavior."
  - creamyhorror 15y ago
    Not really - producing a better quality product at a lower price is pretty much the definition of (successful) competition. Anticompetitive would be actions preventing such a company from winning more of the market. In this case, Apple's IAP rules are preventing apps from selling products/services at their 'natural' prices in rival marketplaces, which could be considered anticompetitive depending on the various factors involved.
rogerchucker 15y ago
I thought Apple was all about giving consumers the best UX and that revenue would automatically follow... how does a move like this help UX? How come Apple's reviewers are so freaking vigilant about in-app purchases while letting a fart app or a tethering app (or even, until one point, those uploading address books without any alert) slip through so often?
- tejaswiy 15y ago
  They make up very generic rules and selectively enforce them whenever they view some app / service as directly competing with Apple's own offering. See: The initial Apple - Google spat with google voice, Kindle - Apple, Dropbox - Apple. The UX mantra is just BS like Google's "Don't be evil".
- tomrod 15y ago
  Because the training of the reviewers doesn't cover those cases. Apple is no startup!
  - rogerchucker 15y ago
    For a company whose figurehead once railed against porn, I find awfully amusing that its reviewers allow the fart apps. (You don't have to lecture me how fart != porn, although I have seen some overlap between the two)
    - tomrod 15y ago
      Rule 34 there?
skeletonjelly 15y ago
How many number of links is the limit? If the mobile site had a link to Google, and Google had an ad for Google Apps, because it's within the webview, does that still mean it's in app purchasing?
- Tloewald 15y ago
  Read the linked thread. Apple's issue is quite specific and the fix appears obvious and has been implemented. Don't land on a page selling something bypassing IAP.
  - amirmc 15y ago
    Check out the linked post in this comment (esp the screenshot) http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3916971 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3916971 Looks like he had to remove anything that seemed to be a domain name.
- roguecoder 15y ago
  It sounds like it is entirely possible. Of course, like everything else in the App Store it probably depends on whether Apple A) thinks your service is a competitor to theirs and B) has anchovies for dinner last night.
AJ007 15y ago
To take it to the antitrust level may require confounding variables. Whatever Apple's status is when it comes to a monopoly, they already have enough meaning in DoJ's eye that they currently have an antitrust case against them. I suspect it would take only a few small additional variables to trigger an anti-trust issue when it comes to forcing payment forcing. What those could be, I don't know. Agreements involving a payment processor? The point is its a small step away. What they are doing now is extremely anti competitive and it would not require much to push things over the edge. The original post indicates that a link in an app had another link in it for something that users could initiate a purchase through. What would happen if Google forced all indexed sites to go through Google Checkout and on non-compliance wiped all references and sites that linked to other payment processors from their search results? That wouldn't fly. Is the only difference that this is Apple's App Store and Apple is not a monopoly?

1) Research antitrust. It doesn't mean what you think it means. 2) Apple has done nothing different than has been done before. It is an existing in app purchasing rule.

jack-r-abbit 15y ago

"Competition law, known in the United States as antitrust law, is law that promotes or maintains market competition by regulating anti-competitive conduct by companies."[1] One could argue that rejecting apps that make use of (or in this case encourage signup to) Dropbox is anti-competitive conduct since Dropbox is a competitor of iCloud (isn't it?) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law

tptacek 15y ago
It is hard to name any proprietary product platform, from cars to KitchenAid mixers, which would not run afoul of this common nerdly definition of "antitrust". In reality, the presence of very viable substitutes in the market for the iPhone (to wit: Android) probably moots the argument here. To go further with this argument, you will need to venture beyond Wikipedia summaries.
- olalonde 15y ago
  Your argument would be more effective without the unnecessary ad hominem. i.e.: > In reality, the presence of very viable substitutes in the market for the iPhone (to wit: Android) probably moots the argument here.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    I swear, it's like a few months ago somebody somewhere introduced tptacek to the concept of using "nerdy" as an insult (and to the debating tactic of attaching an insult to a position with the goal of forcing people to distance themselves from that position).
    - tptacek 15y ago
      What part of "I'm a nerd, the term is a shorthand, not an insult" are people having so much trouble with? I've been a systems programmer since 1994. I do not believe that you honestly believe that I think "nerd" is an insult. It beggars belief. Please find a better way to be irritated with me; this is such a stupid one. Why not just go the extra mile and call me a "self-hating nerd"? At least that would make sense.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    I do not think the word "ad hominem" means what you think it means. An "ad hominem" argument is one that targets a specific person advancing the opposing argument. Ad hominem arguments are fallacious when the characteristics of those people aren't germane to the argument. Obviously, no part of my argument focuses on whoever it was who said Apple's Dropbox rejection is an antitrust violation.
    - olalonde 15y ago
      You are implying that your opponent's knowledge of antitrust law is limited to a "nerdly" definition he has read on Wikipedia. Perhaps it was not your intention, but that's how it came off to me.
      - tptacek 15y ago
        My argument isn't that such a definition of Sherman Act violations is "nerdly". It's that it's wrong. "Nerdly" is just color commentary. And, for what it's worth: it's from one nerd to another. Happy to clear that up for you.
        nknight 15y ago
        In light of your recent rantings about "nerds"[1] and the law, it's hard to see your post as anything other than a continuation of your angry attacks on anyone who dares speak on the subject of the laws governing our hypothetically-democratic society. Your authoritarianism has degenerated into simple mockery. Even when you are right (which I think you largely are on this matter), you no longer contribute anything of use because any meaningful content is wrapped in an opaque blanket of anger and hostility. [1] I do not consider myself a "nerd", by the way, nor do many other people that you probably seek to apply that label to. Some of us find it quite insulting. Call yourself whatever you want, but speak only for yourself.
        jacobolus 15y ago
        You’re missing the point of tptacek’s criticism. He’s not trying to mock nerds, but rather to point out that their mental model of how the law works is woefully mismatched to how the law actually works, with a great deal of resulting whining and handwringing that could be avoided if they bothered to learn and think a bit about it. That I’ve seen, there’s been very little anger or ranting coming from his direction, and the label “nerd” is only barely pejorative (if at all) in the context of this forum: hardly a deep insult. I think maybe this is an example where tone of voice is transferring poorly to internet text, and you’re interpreting his statements to have quite a bit more bite than he intends (or most others are reading)?
- jack-r-abbit 15y ago
  sorry. no real desire to go further. I was simply pointing out that perhaps "antitrust" does mean what AJ007 thought it did. I believe there is a hint of that here. Probably not enough to make a legal case but enough to add another example to the "Some times Apple can be a real dick" list.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    Sure. If you wanted to take this further, a source linked from DOJ's website: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/466/2/ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/466/2/ Jefferson Parish Hosp. Dist. v. Hyde (b) No tying arrangement can exist here unless there is a sufficient demand for the purchase of anesthesiological services separate from hospital services to identify a distinct product market in which it is efficient to offer anesthesiological services separately from hospital services. The fact that the exclusive contract requires purchase of two services that would otherwise be purchased separately does not make the contract illegal. Only if patients are forced to purchase the contracting firm's services as a result of the hospital's market power would the arrangement have anticompetitive consequences. If no forcing is present, patients are free to enter a competing hospital and to use another anesthesiologist instead of the firm. Obviously, substitute "iPhone" for "Jefferson Parish Hospital", "iCoud" for bundled "anesthesiological services", and "Android" for "competing hospital" that customers are "free to enter".
    - zaroth 15y ago
      Here, let me help you with that ;-) No tying arrangement can exist here unless there is a sufficient demand for the purchase of cloud storage separate from a smartphone OS to identify a distinct product market in which it is efficient to offer cloud storage separately from the smartphone OS. The fact that the exclusive contract requires purchase of two services that would otherwise be purchased separately does not make the contract illegal. Only if user are forced to purchase Apple's services as a result of Apple's market power would the arrangement have anticompetitive consequences. If no forcing is present, users are free to purchase a competing smartphone and to use another cloud storage provider instead of Apple.
jahmed 15y ago
You could argue that but you would lose. Generally there needs to be overwhelming market power by the company engaging in anti-competitive behavior. Even when restricted to the mobile phone market Apple doesn't exert nearly enough power to make a case.
taligent 15y ago
True. Except for two little things: 1) There are specific scenarios for when antitrust takes effect. This isn't of them. 2) Apple is NOT rejecting apps specifically for using Dropbox. It is because of the well known and well established in app purchasing rules.
- jack-r-abbit 15y ago
  It sounds like the in app purchasing rules are not that well established if they can arbitrarily be applied to some n-depth linking to a spot on the web where the user can make a purchase. They would kind of have to reject any app that has the ability to open a link to Safari. Once in Safari (which technically means you are no longer "in app") you can browse anywhere and make a purchase. So maybe it is not an antitrust issue and just an anti-user issue.
baddox 15y ago
One could also argue that producing a better quality product at a lower price is anticompetitive. That's why I've never understood laws banning "anticompetitive behavior."
- creamyhorror 15y ago
  Not really - producing a better quality product at a lower price is pretty much the definition of (successful) competition. Anticompetitive would be actions preventing such a company from winning more of the market. In this case, Apple's IAP rules are preventing apps from selling products/services at their 'natural' prices in rival marketplaces, which could be considered anticompetitive depending on the various factors involved.

rogerchucker 15y ago

I thought Apple was all about giving consumers the best UX and that revenue would automatically follow... how does a move like this help UX? How come Apple's reviewers are so freaking vigilant about in-app purchases while letting a fart app or a tethering app (or even, until one point, those uploading address books without any alert) slip through so often?

tejaswiy 15y ago
They make up very generic rules and selectively enforce them whenever they view some app / service as directly competing with Apple's own offering. See: The initial Apple - Google spat with google voice, Kindle - Apple, Dropbox - Apple. The UX mantra is just BS like Google's "Don't be evil".
tomrod 15y ago
Because the training of the reviewers doesn't cover those cases. Apple is no startup!
- rogerchucker 15y ago
  For a company whose figurehead once railed against porn, I find awfully amusing that its reviewers allow the fart apps. (You don't have to lecture me how fart != porn, although I have seen some overlap between the two)
  - tomrod 15y ago
    Rule 34 there?

skeletonjelly 15y ago

How many number of links is the limit? If the mobile site had a link to Google, and Google had an ad for Google Apps, because it's within the webview, does that still mean it's in app purchasing?

Tloewald 15y ago
Read the linked thread. Apple's issue is quite specific and the fix appears obvious and has been implemented. Don't land on a page selling something bypassing IAP.
- amirmc 15y ago
  Check out the linked post in this comment (esp the screenshot) http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3916971 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3916971 Looks like he had to remove anything that seemed to be a domain name.
roguecoder 15y ago
It sounds like it is entirely possible. Of course, like everything else in the App Store it probably depends on whether Apple A) thinks your service is a competitor to theirs and B) has anchovies for dinner last night.

AJ007 15y ago

To take it to the antitrust level may require confounding variables. Whatever Apple's status is when it comes to a monopoly, they already have enough meaning in DoJ's eye that they currently have an antitrust case against them. I suspect it would take only a few small additional variables to trigger an anti-trust issue when it comes to forcing payment forcing. What those could be, I don't know. Agreements involving a payment processor? The point is its a small step away. What they are doing now is extremely anti competitive and it would not require much to push things over the edge. The original post indicates that a link in an app had another link in it for something that users could initiate a purchase through. What would happen if Google forced all indexed sites to go through Google Checkout and on non-compliance wiped all references and sites that linked to other payment processors from their search results? That wouldn't fly. Is the only difference that this is Apple's App Store and Apple is not a monopoly?