8 ms·

Well I guess there's more freedom in the US for Apple to do whatever they like!

nickburns 2y ago
at least some of Apple's chickens would finally appear to be coming home to roost, and us in-the-know Americans appreciate those in-the-know Europeans for leading the charge (on both this antitrust protection and separately, GDPR/privacy regulation as well).
- AniseAbyss 2y ago
  [dead]
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  The Europeans have done some good work on things like privacy, but as for Apple and their app store, it's really trivial to simply not buy an iPhone. There are lots and lots of other phones out there that aren't nearly as monopolistic in their treatment of users.
  - nickburns 2y ago
    we're talking about trust busting, not personal device options or preference.
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
      Again, Apple does not have a monopoly, or anything approaching it. 50% marketshare is a lot for a single vendor, but it's not even close to 100%, and there are plenty of viable alternatives which apparently a lot of people don't want to consider because it isn't "cool" enough for them.
      - nickburns 2y ago
        again, this has nothing to do with 'market share' (of smartphone devices i think you mean?)
        erinnh 2y ago
        It kind of does, since the gatekeeper status is bound to how many users a platform has. I’d also like to mention that EU anti-trust law talks about „dominant position“ and not about monopolies. And any Company with more than 40% market share are in a dominant position.
        nickburns 2y ago
        'market share distribution among competitor platforms' would have made my point clearer. this is not about that. antitrust regulation strictly considers the 'market share' (i guess you could say?), i.e. the size/influence of the alleged monopoly, not its share of the market relative to the whole.
        ben_w 2y ago
        Why not? Nobody cares that Nintendo has a monopoly on games published for their hardware. I think we would care if all the other console makers left the market. I think this analogy applies to Android vs. iOS — and that's despite me being annoyed by Apple acting as morality police with regard to content, instead of limiting their rules to the security domain.
        nickburns 2y ago
        comparing video game consoles to the modern smartphone is an intellectually dishonest analogy based on numbers alone, never mind what each is respectively used for. but i don't quite understand what you mean regardless. (why would we care about Nintendo if all other game console makers did what? they all just up and randomly closed shops in this hypothetical for what reason/s?)
        ben_w 2y ago
  - vidarh 2y ago
    It's really trivial for Apple to simply not sell us iPhones too. Apple has no inherent right to a market if the people making up that market - directly or via our representatives - decide we don't want them to market to us. If they want access, they are free find a compromise that makes us willing to let them deal with us. I have plenty of issues with the EU, but consumer regulations is one of the areas where its work has produced by far the most benefit for regular people. Sometimes it takes a while to shake out properly (e.g. the nuisance of cookie banners), but overall they seem to be persistently chipping away at issues that have actual negative effects on people's lives, however small they might feel if a given one does not directly affect you.
  - rvense 2y ago
    To start: There absolutely should be limits to what kinds of devices can be sold. E.g., they should not be dangerous to operate. If you can't make a lawnmower that doesn't harm people, it's OK for governments or the EU to tell you that you can't sell lawnmowers. It's also OK to enforce standardization in e.g. electrical sockets and other basic infrastructure. This should not come down to "consumer preference" - _especially_ not when the harms aren't obvious at the time of purchase. Apple's total control of all aspects of the iPhone platform is harmful to consumers in a way that is not at all obvious, especially not to the less technologically literate. An obviously absurd analogy is if a hammer company was somehow able to force you to use their brand of nails and wood and charge you per annum for the use of whatever you built. We did not have previous legislation to handle this situation, because simple physics means that can't happen. But with modern-day complicated tools, it can, and so some regulation of this sector is absolutely needed. (I don't know the DMA well enough to say if it, specifically, is the right way to handle it, mind, but it's obvious to me that the present situation is untenable.)
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
      >An obviously absurd analogy is if a hammer company was somehow able to force you to use their brand of nails and wood and charge you per annum for the use of whatever you built. We did not have previous legislation to handle this situation, because simple physics means that can't happen. But with modern-day complicated tools, it can, and so some regulation of this sector is absolutely needed. Is it though? To extend your analogy, let's say you can go to the store and buy a hammer. One brand ("Granny Smith"), and only that brand, has these limitations and it's pretty well-known these limitations exist if you buy that hammer. Or, you can buy one of the other dozen or so brands of hammer, and you don't have that limitation. But because the Granny Smith hammer is pretty and has slick marketing, half the hammer buyers get that brand of hammer, even though the other hammer buyers call them idiots for doing so. Is this really a place where we need government intervention, when consumers are willingly making this choice? If it got to the point where you couldn't realistically do any hammering without a Granny Smith hammer, then sure, it's pretty obvious action is needed. But right now, it's only a problem because half the buyers are happily choosing Granny Smith despite all the alternatives (which generally have more features and cost less). Even worse, they say they like these limitations, and don't want them removed!!!
  - Doxin 2y ago
    The whole point of this entire kerfuffle is that Apple has a monopoly on distributing iphone apps. The courts have decided that iPhone is a big enough market to where having a monopoly on the distribution of apps is undesirable.
  - 2muchcoffeeman 2y ago
    I’m pro voting with your wallet, but what the EU is doing is different. You pretty much need a smart phone these days. So it’s reasonable for phones to have greater scrutiny and require all phones to support the same bare minimum.
  - fsflover 2y ago
    > it's really trivial to simply not buy an iPhone Only if you don't care about your privacy at all: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26639261 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26639261 See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39935888 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39935888
isoprophlex 2y ago
[flagged]

at least some of Apple's chickens would finally appear to be coming home to roost, and us in-the-know Americans appreciate those in-the-know Europeans for leading the charge (on both this antitrust protection and separately, GDPR/privacy regulation as well).

AniseAbyss 2y ago
[dead]
shiroiushi 2y ago
The Europeans have done some good work on things like privacy, but as for Apple and their app store, it's really trivial to simply not buy an iPhone. There are lots and lots of other phones out there that aren't nearly as monopolistic in their treatment of users.
- nickburns 2y ago
  we're talking about trust busting, not personal device options or preference.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    Again, Apple does not have a monopoly, or anything approaching it. 50% marketshare is a lot for a single vendor, but it's not even close to 100%, and there are plenty of viable alternatives which apparently a lot of people don't want to consider because it isn't "cool" enough for them.
    - nickburns 2y ago
      again, this has nothing to do with 'market share' (of smartphone devices i think you mean?)
      - erinnh 2y ago
        It kind of does, since the gatekeeper status is bound to how many users a platform has. I’d also like to mention that EU anti-trust law talks about „dominant position“ and not about monopolies. And any Company with more than 40% market share are in a dominant position.
        nickburns 2y ago
        'market share distribution among competitor platforms' would have made my point clearer. this is not about that. antitrust regulation strictly considers the 'market share' (i guess you could say?), i.e. the size/influence of the alleged monopoly, not its share of the market relative to the whole.
      - ben_w 2y ago
        Why not? Nobody cares that Nintendo has a monopoly on games published for their hardware. I think we would care if all the other console makers left the market. I think this analogy applies to Android vs. iOS — and that's despite me being annoyed by Apple acting as morality police with regard to content, instead of limiting their rules to the security domain.
        nickburns 2y ago
        comparing video game consoles to the modern smartphone is an intellectually dishonest analogy based on numbers alone, never mind what each is respectively used for. but i don't quite understand what you mean regardless. (why would we care about Nintendo if all other game console makers did what? they all just up and randomly closed shops in this hypothetical for what reason/s?)
        ben_w 2y ago
- vidarh 2y ago
  It's really trivial for Apple to simply not sell us iPhones too. Apple has no inherent right to a market if the people making up that market - directly or via our representatives - decide we don't want them to market to us. If they want access, they are free find a compromise that makes us willing to let them deal with us. I have plenty of issues with the EU, but consumer regulations is one of the areas where its work has produced by far the most benefit for regular people. Sometimes it takes a while to shake out properly (e.g. the nuisance of cookie banners), but overall they seem to be persistently chipping away at issues that have actual negative effects on people's lives, however small they might feel if a given one does not directly affect you.
- rvense 2y ago
  To start: There absolutely should be limits to what kinds of devices can be sold. E.g., they should not be dangerous to operate. If you can't make a lawnmower that doesn't harm people, it's OK for governments or the EU to tell you that you can't sell lawnmowers. It's also OK to enforce standardization in e.g. electrical sockets and other basic infrastructure. This should not come down to "consumer preference" - _especially_ not when the harms aren't obvious at the time of purchase. Apple's total control of all aspects of the iPhone platform is harmful to consumers in a way that is not at all obvious, especially not to the less technologically literate. An obviously absurd analogy is if a hammer company was somehow able to force you to use their brand of nails and wood and charge you per annum for the use of whatever you built. We did not have previous legislation to handle this situation, because simple physics means that can't happen. But with modern-day complicated tools, it can, and so some regulation of this sector is absolutely needed. (I don't know the DMA well enough to say if it, specifically, is the right way to handle it, mind, but it's obvious to me that the present situation is untenable.)
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    >An obviously absurd analogy is if a hammer company was somehow able to force you to use their brand of nails and wood and charge you per annum for the use of whatever you built. We did not have previous legislation to handle this situation, because simple physics means that can't happen. But with modern-day complicated tools, it can, and so some regulation of this sector is absolutely needed. Is it though? To extend your analogy, let's say you can go to the store and buy a hammer. One brand ("Granny Smith"), and only that brand, has these limitations and it's pretty well-known these limitations exist if you buy that hammer. Or, you can buy one of the other dozen or so brands of hammer, and you don't have that limitation. But because the Granny Smith hammer is pretty and has slick marketing, half the hammer buyers get that brand of hammer, even though the other hammer buyers call them idiots for doing so. Is this really a place where we need government intervention, when consumers are willingly making this choice? If it got to the point where you couldn't realistically do any hammering without a Granny Smith hammer, then sure, it's pretty obvious action is needed. But right now, it's only a problem because half the buyers are happily choosing Granny Smith despite all the alternatives (which generally have more features and cost less). Even worse, they say they like these limitations, and don't want them removed!!!
- Doxin 2y ago
  The whole point of this entire kerfuffle is that Apple has a monopoly on distributing iphone apps. The courts have decided that iPhone is a big enough market to where having a monopoly on the distribution of apps is undesirable.
- 2muchcoffeeman 2y ago
  I’m pro voting with your wallet, but what the EU is doing is different. You pretty much need a smart phone these days. So it’s reasonable for phones to have greater scrutiny and require all phones to support the same bare minimum.
- fsflover 2y ago
  > it's really trivial to simply not buy an iPhone Only if you don't care about your privacy at all: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26639261 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26639261 See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39935888 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39935888

isoprophlex 2y ago

[flagged]