10 ms·

If apple literally hadn't won their own case 2 years ago you'd be right. If the company that literally doesn't allow users to install ANY application, yet alon

If apple literally hadn't won their own case 2 years ago you'd be right. If the company that literally doesn't allow users to install ANY application, yet alone a whole store, is in the clear, it's mind boggling that Google's situation is the one they took issue with. Apple literally has a higher market share in the US.

a_wild_dandan 2y ago
Could Apple have Google-like restrictions in the future? Or are we kinda fucked because Apple already "won"?
- onlypassingthru 2y ago
  Contradictory rulings are fodder for Supreme Court dockets.
- tiledjinn 2y ago
  Apple wasn't ruled not a monopoly. It was ruled that Epic failed to bring convincing evidence and arguments. So yes, Apple could be subject to similar restrictions in the future. Either through another monopoly case, or [imo more likely] regulation.
- benoau 2y ago
  In the coming weeks or months the judge in the Epic case will decide if gacha games can link directly to their own payments without Apple, that threatens 70% of spending on the App Store in Apple's worst-case scenario (per the Epic case it was revealed 10% of users do 70% of spending, in such games). Minus the tens of billions in annual fees on gacha games, and with litigation and regulation around the world I think they will just abandon their most contentious restrictions. On top of that is the DOJ antitrust case starting next year. On top of that is the stalled, but not dead, legislation that would bring the US somewhat aligned with the EU in terms of competition. I don't think Apple weathers all of this without broadly opening-up iOS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Innovation_and_Choice_Online_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Innovation_and_Choice...
  - ericmay 2y ago
    Apple would probably just start charging gigantic fees for apps that meet certain criteria to replace some of the lost revenue or maybe even drive higher and more consistent revenue. If I recall correctly, that’s what they did in the European Union. I’m not very convinced that “opening up” the Apple App Store will amount to much but I know this is a contrarian view. Changing the accounting to decide what split multi-billion dollar company Epic gets versus multi-hundred-billion dollar Apple gets has nothing to do with innovation or competition, and this is particularly true in gaming. In fact, it seems like these rulings are likely to have the opposite intended effect on new and innovative apps as costs to do business increase and navigating publishing across various app stores will come with their own rules, costs, and headaches all the while establishes firms who already have the resources can create their own app stores and further extract rent. Epic charges I think 12% or 17% on their store? Maybe the costs are lower than Apple, idk, but now Epic who is your competitor dictates what you publish on their store and you get the privilege of paying them to do so. I think we’re cutting off the head of a snake and it’s growing 10 more in response.
    - talldayo 2y ago
      > Changing the accounting to decide what split multi-billion dollar company Epic gets versus multi-hundred-billion dollar Apple gets has nothing to do with innovation or competition, and this is particularly true in gaming. I vehemently disagree. When a user buys a game, where does their money go? On the desktop, their money is sent to the storefront where the game was bought. Their payment is processed, the service's fee is exacted, and the user is given their game while the developer is paid their revenue. This is true even for MacOS, where the Mac App Store offers it's own experience in fair competition with Steam and other third-parties like GOG. iOS is unique in attempting to appear as a multi-purpose computer while also restricting user options to a small subset of profitable selections. That is not fair, to anyone. > In fact, it seems like these rulings are likely to have the opposite intended effect on new and innovative apps Pending evidence, you're just wrong. As a user of Android I will tell you from firsthand experience that my absolute favorite apps would not exist without sideloading. MacOS and Windows simply wouldn't have games at all if their distribution terms weren't free enough to attract publishers. And if you sort the iOS app store by top-grossing games, you'll quickly realize that the iPhone doesn't have real games either. Publishers like Nintendo left after their initial experiments - others like Epic and Microsoft were literally forced to leave. You say that Epic's fee is just as bad as Apple's, but you don't substantiate how that's worse for users. Having two similar fees encourages competition - it creates an incentive to innovate in delivery and provide a superior service to users. Apple can charge twice as much if they want, but they (same as Epic) have to justify their pricing for it to compete fairly. Currently Apple answers to no one, which creates an obvious price fixing incentive on their behalf. This is demonstrably anticompetitive. > I know this is a contrarian view. Have you ever considered that it's not contrarian, and just wrong? People are eager to look at this from an "us vs them" perspective rather than an "profitability vs righteousness" one. Apple's stance is literally indefensible. When asked to justify their market position, the absolute best defense HN can present is that Apple abused the market first and never reneged their abuses. It's time for us to stop giving Apple a benefit of the doubt they don't deserve - the iPhone is not an appliance, and can be perfectly profitable without service revenue despite Apple's complaints.
carlosjobim 2y ago
No matter how much hackers and activists try to redefine the word "monopoly" to mean what it isn't, the word still will have the same meaning. And being a market leader doesn't mean you are a monopoly. Toyota does not have a monopoly on motorized transportation. Having two competing companies being tried for the same monopoly is tragicomic, and only to show how rotten the courts have become.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- redserk 2y ago
  While the term “monopoly” is being misused, it shouldn’t be that difficult to determine, with basic reading comprehension, that the intent is “seemingly anti-competitive behavior”.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- o11c 2y ago
  The word "monopoly" is irrelevant for many of the laws involved.
  - carlosjobim 2y ago
    You're probably right about that. It seems to be a misunderstanding of words mostly in online discussion.
- nijave 2y ago
  That's not quite a fair comparison. The issue isn't Google v Apple--it's Google/Apple creating vertically integrated software platforms where they have a monopoly on App Stores. Imo this is more similar to John Deere creating tractor DRM to lock out other entities from repairs. If Toyota came up with a proprietary motor design such that no other repair shop or parts manufacturer could make repairs, it'd be a similar situation. As it stands, there's 3rd party companies making replacement parts and a secondary market with used parts in addition to varying degrees of interoperability with other parts. There is no secondary market for apps since they're all sold as licenses and never own anything. They also intentionally put restrictions in place to prevent 3rd parties from creating "replacement" apps
immibis 2y ago
Apple maintains a fully closed platform, while Google appears open yet is closed in practice. Like how Windows bundled IE, meaning that alternative browsers were never used in practice - the EU made them add a browser selection page.
- Phrodo_00 2y ago
  > Google appears open yet is closed in practice How is Android closed in practice?
  - xethos 2y ago
    For years, OEMs were made to install a number of Google apps onto the homescreen at predefined places. One of which is the Play Store. Amazon (for example) absolutely did not have this advantage, despite this kind of thing happening on non-Google hardware. Or we can look at why Google's Play Store is allowed to auto-update apps without user interaction, and... that's it. That's the only store that's allowed to do that. And while the tech community might like being able to control which apps auto-update, everyone wants some apps to be allowed to update without user interaction.
    - Izkata 2y ago
      Speaking of OEMs (and non-Google Android in general), Google has moved some functionality from base Android into Google Play Services so some apps won't work unless you get that installed.
      - lern_too_spel 2y ago
        This is easily seen to be false, but I see it repeated often. The functionality in Google Play Services requires a server. If you don't use Google services, you don't need Play Services. https://developers.google.com/android/reference/packages https://developers.google.com/android/reference/packages
        2y ago
wolpoli 2y ago
Android has the appearance of an open platform that could accommodate alternate app stores, and so the court comes by with an order to allow alternate app stores. IOS never had the appearance of an open platform, so the court does not have the opportunity to do the same thing. What's the lesson for future leaders in tech companies?
- ethbr1 2y ago
  Absent first mover advantage with the iPhone, it's extremely difficult to see Apple ending up where it is, with a closed ecosystem.
  - orourke 2y ago
    I’ve been working with React Native and Flutter and every time I have to interact directly with iOS/Android, I find that Android is much easier to work with and feels much better designed from a software/api/config perspective. Where Apple wins, however, imho is in hardware. The iPhone is a masterpiece and users can tell, even ~16 years in. I feel that when Apple finally chokes on hardware, or some player in the Android spaces releases something incredible, the game will change quickly.
    - fennecbutt 2y ago
      60hz lmao
    - can16358p 2y ago
      Interesting, I have the exact opposite: I'm also a React Native developer and it's _always_ Android that creates all sorts of problems when developing where iOS is just fine. And it's not me: many devs in my team (and all the teams that I've also worked in the past) think the same way. Though I'd agree with provisioning+codesigning can be a mess with iOS.
      - telgareith 2y ago
        I think that this boils down to people wanting a handheld computer that sometimes can make phone calls (android), or a phone that can do other stuff (apple). Just compare how android and iOS handle backgrounding.
Brimaldo 2y ago
[dead]
tiledjinn 2y ago
Apple wasn't ruled not a monopoly. It was ruled that the evidence Epic brought in the case was insufficient to show Apple was a monopoly, and the court would entertain other arguments in the future. Apple didn't need to do anything, but they didn't "win" that convincingly.
- brookst 2y ago
  That’s splitting hairs. By that logic nobody ever wins when they defend a lawsuit, the plaintiffs just fail to prove their point and different plaintiffs and/or different evidence might prevail in the future.
  - jychang 2y ago
    Well, being dismissed "with prejudice" exists. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/with_prejudice https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/with_prejudice
    - entropicdrifter 2y ago
      Yeah, but winning vs winning on all possible fronts is a meaningful distinction. Apple won, they just didn't win as much as possible.
mark336 2y ago
Google is appealing this case to the Supreme Court, seeing as how they ruled for Apple it wouldn't come as a surprise if they also win.
space_oddity 2y ago
It sets a strange precedent
dathinab 2y ago
> If apple literally hadn't won their own case 2 years ago you'd be right. how does some previous judge decision matter for weather you _should_ crack down on a company? it doesn't, right the government can change laws, and judges can overrule decisions and as the US supreme court has shown even if there isn't "any new evidence in favor of the new decision but even evidence in favor of the old decision" decisions can be overruled and be done 100% in opposition to precedence of the same court.
- cryptonym 2y ago
  > how does some previous judge decision matter for weather you _should_ crack down on a company? Looking at previous decisions and leveraging them basically is the job of a lawyer. IMHO this decision won't stand long. You cannot apply different decisions to similar cases.
  - dathinab 2y ago
    yes but that doesn't mean that the us should not crack down on marked power abuse being atm. in a position where suing you doesn't work well doesn't mean you are not causing harm nor doesn't mean you are not acting outside of the law. It only means that there is currently no effective way to use the law against you. But that can always change. And the US cracking down on them isn't limited to judge orders from cases of 3rd party companies against them. More specifically it's not even part of the state cracking down as that only refers to legislative and executive organs of the state judicial organs are supposed to be neutral.

a_wild_dandan 2y ago

Could Apple have Google-like restrictions in the future? Or are we kinda fucked because Apple already "won"?

onlypassingthru 2y ago
Contradictory rulings are fodder for Supreme Court dockets.
tiledjinn 2y ago
Apple wasn't ruled not a monopoly. It was ruled that Epic failed to bring convincing evidence and arguments. So yes, Apple could be subject to similar restrictions in the future. Either through another monopoly case, or [imo more likely] regulation.
benoau 2y ago
In the coming weeks or months the judge in the Epic case will decide if gacha games can link directly to their own payments without Apple, that threatens 70% of spending on the App Store in Apple's worst-case scenario (per the Epic case it was revealed 10% of users do 70% of spending, in such games). Minus the tens of billions in annual fees on gacha games, and with litigation and regulation around the world I think they will just abandon their most contentious restrictions. On top of that is the DOJ antitrust case starting next year. On top of that is the stalled, but not dead, legislation that would bring the US somewhat aligned with the EU in terms of competition. I don't think Apple weathers all of this without broadly opening-up iOS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Innovation_and_Choice_Online_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Innovation_and_Choice...
- ericmay 2y ago
  Apple would probably just start charging gigantic fees for apps that meet certain criteria to replace some of the lost revenue or maybe even drive higher and more consistent revenue. If I recall correctly, that’s what they did in the European Union. I’m not very convinced that “opening up” the Apple App Store will amount to much but I know this is a contrarian view. Changing the accounting to decide what split multi-billion dollar company Epic gets versus multi-hundred-billion dollar Apple gets has nothing to do with innovation or competition, and this is particularly true in gaming. In fact, it seems like these rulings are likely to have the opposite intended effect on new and innovative apps as costs to do business increase and navigating publishing across various app stores will come with their own rules, costs, and headaches all the while establishes firms who already have the resources can create their own app stores and further extract rent. Epic charges I think 12% or 17% on their store? Maybe the costs are lower than Apple, idk, but now Epic who is your competitor dictates what you publish on their store and you get the privilege of paying them to do so. I think we’re cutting off the head of a snake and it’s growing 10 more in response.
  - talldayo 2y ago
    > Changing the accounting to decide what split multi-billion dollar company Epic gets versus multi-hundred-billion dollar Apple gets has nothing to do with innovation or competition, and this is particularly true in gaming. I vehemently disagree. When a user buys a game, where does their money go? On the desktop, their money is sent to the storefront where the game was bought. Their payment is processed, the service's fee is exacted, and the user is given their game while the developer is paid their revenue. This is true even for MacOS, where the Mac App Store offers it's own experience in fair competition with Steam and other third-parties like GOG. iOS is unique in attempting to appear as a multi-purpose computer while also restricting user options to a small subset of profitable selections. That is not fair, to anyone. > In fact, it seems like these rulings are likely to have the opposite intended effect on new and innovative apps Pending evidence, you're just wrong. As a user of Android I will tell you from firsthand experience that my absolute favorite apps would not exist without sideloading. MacOS and Windows simply wouldn't have games at all if their distribution terms weren't free enough to attract publishers. And if you sort the iOS app store by top-grossing games, you'll quickly realize that the iPhone doesn't have real games either. Publishers like Nintendo left after their initial experiments - others like Epic and Microsoft were literally forced to leave. You say that Epic's fee is just as bad as Apple's, but you don't substantiate how that's worse for users. Having two similar fees encourages competition - it creates an incentive to innovate in delivery and provide a superior service to users. Apple can charge twice as much if they want, but they (same as Epic) have to justify their pricing for it to compete fairly. Currently Apple answers to no one, which creates an obvious price fixing incentive on their behalf. This is demonstrably anticompetitive. > I know this is a contrarian view. Have you ever considered that it's not contrarian, and just wrong? People are eager to look at this from an "us vs them" perspective rather than an "profitability vs righteousness" one. Apple's stance is literally indefensible. When asked to justify their market position, the absolute best defense HN can present is that Apple abused the market first and never reneged their abuses. It's time for us to stop giving Apple a benefit of the doubt they don't deserve - the iPhone is not an appliance, and can be perfectly profitable without service revenue despite Apple's complaints.

carlosjobim 2y ago

No matter how much hackers and activists try to redefine the word "monopoly" to mean what it isn't, the word still will have the same meaning. And being a market leader doesn't mean you are a monopoly. Toyota does not have a monopoly on motorized transportation. Having two competing companies being tried for the same monopoly is tragicomic, and only to show how rotten the courts have become.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
redserk 2y ago
While the term “monopoly” is being misused, it shouldn’t be that difficult to determine, with basic reading comprehension, that the intent is “seemingly anti-competitive behavior”.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
o11c 2y ago
The word "monopoly" is irrelevant for many of the laws involved.
- carlosjobim 2y ago
  You're probably right about that. It seems to be a misunderstanding of words mostly in online discussion.
nijave 2y ago
That's not quite a fair comparison. The issue isn't Google v Apple--it's Google/Apple creating vertically integrated software platforms where they have a monopoly on App Stores. Imo this is more similar to John Deere creating tractor DRM to lock out other entities from repairs. If Toyota came up with a proprietary motor design such that no other repair shop or parts manufacturer could make repairs, it'd be a similar situation. As it stands, there's 3rd party companies making replacement parts and a secondary market with used parts in addition to varying degrees of interoperability with other parts. There is no secondary market for apps since they're all sold as licenses and never own anything. They also intentionally put restrictions in place to prevent 3rd parties from creating "replacement" apps

immibis 2y ago

Apple maintains a fully closed platform, while Google appears open yet is closed in practice. Like how Windows bundled IE, meaning that alternative browsers were never used in practice - the EU made them add a browser selection page.

Phrodo_00 2y ago
> Google appears open yet is closed in practice How is Android closed in practice?
- xethos 2y ago
  For years, OEMs were made to install a number of Google apps onto the homescreen at predefined places. One of which is the Play Store. Amazon (for example) absolutely did not have this advantage, despite this kind of thing happening on non-Google hardware. Or we can look at why Google's Play Store is allowed to auto-update apps without user interaction, and... that's it. That's the only store that's allowed to do that. And while the tech community might like being able to control which apps auto-update, everyone wants some apps to be allowed to update without user interaction.
  - Izkata 2y ago
    Speaking of OEMs (and non-Google Android in general), Google has moved some functionality from base Android into Google Play Services so some apps won't work unless you get that installed.
    - lern_too_spel 2y ago
      This is easily seen to be false, but I see it repeated often. The functionality in Google Play Services requires a server. If you don't use Google services, you don't need Play Services. https://developers.google.com/android/reference/packages https://developers.google.com/android/reference/packages
      - 2y ago

wolpoli 2y ago

Android has the appearance of an open platform that could accommodate alternate app stores, and so the court comes by with an order to allow alternate app stores. IOS never had the appearance of an open platform, so the court does not have the opportunity to do the same thing. What's the lesson for future leaders in tech companies?

ethbr1 2y ago
Absent first mover advantage with the iPhone, it's extremely difficult to see Apple ending up where it is, with a closed ecosystem.
- orourke 2y ago
  I’ve been working with React Native and Flutter and every time I have to interact directly with iOS/Android, I find that Android is much easier to work with and feels much better designed from a software/api/config perspective. Where Apple wins, however, imho is in hardware. The iPhone is a masterpiece and users can tell, even ~16 years in. I feel that when Apple finally chokes on hardware, or some player in the Android spaces releases something incredible, the game will change quickly.
  - fennecbutt 2y ago
    60hz lmao
  - can16358p 2y ago
    Interesting, I have the exact opposite: I'm also a React Native developer and it's _always_ Android that creates all sorts of problems when developing where iOS is just fine. And it's not me: many devs in my team (and all the teams that I've also worked in the past) think the same way. Though I'd agree with provisioning+codesigning can be a mess with iOS.
    - telgareith 2y ago
      I think that this boils down to people wanting a handheld computer that sometimes can make phone calls (android), or a phone that can do other stuff (apple). Just compare how android and iOS handle backgrounding.

Brimaldo 2y ago

[dead]

tiledjinn 2y ago

Apple wasn't ruled not a monopoly. It was ruled that the evidence Epic brought in the case was insufficient to show Apple was a monopoly, and the court would entertain other arguments in the future. Apple didn't need to do anything, but they didn't "win" that convincingly.

brookst 2y ago
That’s splitting hairs. By that logic nobody ever wins when they defend a lawsuit, the plaintiffs just fail to prove their point and different plaintiffs and/or different evidence might prevail in the future.
- jychang 2y ago
  Well, being dismissed "with prejudice" exists. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/with_prejudice https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/with_prejudice
  - entropicdrifter 2y ago
    Yeah, but winning vs winning on all possible fronts is a meaningful distinction. Apple won, they just didn't win as much as possible.

mark336 2y ago

Google is appealing this case to the Supreme Court, seeing as how they ruled for Apple it wouldn't come as a surprise if they also win.

space_oddity 2y ago

It sets a strange precedent

dathinab 2y ago

> If apple literally hadn't won their own case 2 years ago you'd be right. how does some previous judge decision matter for weather you _should_ crack down on a company? it doesn't, right the government can change laws, and judges can overrule decisions and as the US supreme court has shown even if there isn't "any new evidence in favor of the new decision but even evidence in favor of the old decision" decisions can be overruled and be done 100% in opposition to precedence of the same court.

cryptonym 2y ago
> how does some previous judge decision matter for weather you _should_ crack down on a company? Looking at previous decisions and leveraging them basically is the job of a lawyer. IMHO this decision won't stand long. You cannot apply different decisions to similar cases.
- dathinab 2y ago
  yes but that doesn't mean that the us should not crack down on marked power abuse being atm. in a position where suing you doesn't work well doesn't mean you are not causing harm nor doesn't mean you are not acting outside of the law. It only means that there is currently no effective way to use the law against you. But that can always change. And the US cracking down on them isn't limited to judge orders from cases of 3rd party companies against them. More specifically it's not even part of the state cracking down as that only refers to legislative and executive organs of the state judicial organs are supposed to be neutral.