6 ms·

once again will ask why iPhones are treated any differently from other computing devices — we need legislative solutions that allow consumers to load software (

by medhir 1y ago

once again will ask why iPhones are treated any differently from other computing devices — we need legislative solutions that allow consumers to load software (or even other operating systems) on any computing device they own. restricting software distribution on any platform under the guise of needing to be kept “secure” always seemed anticompetitive to me - that should apply regardless of Apple’s particular behavior with the courts in this example.

2OEH8eoCRo0 1y ago
Get ready to answer why an iPhone is different than an xbox
- medhir 1y ago
  I’m principled in my stance, I think if you own said Xbox you should be able to load software on that as well.
- scq 1y ago
  Xbox, PlayStation, and Switch should be forced to open up as well. Closed ecosystems only benefit the corporations that control them.
  - udev4096 1y ago
    At the very least, sony doesn't get offended with new jailbreaks while nintendo will chase you down for even browsing an emulator's website
- t_sawyer 1y ago
  Which… while we’re at it. Gaming would be much better if consoles didn’t exist anymore. Games would be more optimized for PC and manufacturers would just be building prebuilt gaming PCs. We also would have more Switch competition in the ARM gaming space instead of x64 handhelds and Android windows emulation if these walled gardens didn’t exist.
  - FMecha 1y ago
    >manufacturers would just be building prebuilt gaming PCs Which, given the sentiment against the very existence of these things in PC gaming circles (as a desktop, at least) in favor of self-building, would be just laptops and handhelds (Steam Decks/ROG Allys) at best.
- Laremere 1y ago
  It isn't. Consoles at this stage are general purpose computers with hardware and software explicitly designed to prevent consumers using it as such. If consumer rights had any real teeth, any hardware device would be required to allow their owners to install any piece of software of their choosing, including replacing the operating system.
- MattRix 1y ago
  One is a general computing device and one is for a specific task (gaming).
  - nozzlegear 1y ago
    That seems rather arbitrary. I'm not doing any general computing on my iPhone, I'm just browsing Hacker News and watching YouTube. If your contention is that the phone is capable of doing more than those two things, well, isn't the Xbox capable of doing more than just gaming?
    - socalgal2 1y ago
      You're not. The majority of phone users replaced their computers with a phone. They are using their phone for everything they used to use their computers for. Almost no one is using an XBox to replace their computer.
      - Aloisius 1y ago
        > The majority of phone users replaced their computers with a phone Source? I can't find anything that backs that up.
        socalgal2 1y ago
        https://intelpoint.co/insights/only-2-2-of-internet-users-worldwide-do-not-own-a-smartphone-device https://intelpoint.co/insights/only-2-2-of-internet-users-wo... Are you pushing back on the word "majority" or on the concept that many people use their phones for nearly everything they used to use their computers for but that next to no one does the same with an Xbox?
        Aloisius 1y ago
        That the majority has replaced their computers with smartphones. That link though doesn't say that. It simply shows global ownership of smartphones is higher than computers which is rather different altogether.
- cyberax 1y ago
  Consoles are sold at-cost to consumers, or sometimes even at a loss: https://www.pcmag.com/news/microsoft-loses-up-to-200-on-every-xbox-console-sold https://www.pcmag.com/news/microsoft-loses-up-to-200-on-ever... iPhones are sold at a _premium_. If iPhones were sold at-cost to consumers, then Apple would have been right to ask developers to pay 30% fees.
  - sureIy 1y ago
    I think this is the real answer, however it would be difficult to use it as an excuse for the model since there are laws also against selling at a loss to undercut competitors.
    - cyberax 1y ago
      It's a more difficult argument. Consoles are not competing with regular general-purpose computers, and the console manufacturers go out of their way to make it impossible to install unapproved third-party software on them. And since all the console manufacturers are selling the hardware at loss or with low margins, they can argue that it's just how the market works (free razors but expensive razor blades).
      - sureIy 1y ago
        > Consoles are not competing with regular general-purpose computers Yes but why? They very powerful computers. New recycling laws might force companies to give up the keys to the hardware before or after their obsoletion. The precedent here is SIM-locked devices. At some point you must let the user do what they want with it.
        cyberax 1y ago
        Consoles have a surprisingly long commercial life, more than 5-7 years. So the usability of old consoles at the end of their lifecycle as a PC replacement is not that great. Might still make sense, though. Just for general historical preservation.
  - 1y ago
- socalgal2 1y ago
  One has billions of users, the other has millions. One has 100s of thousands of companies trying to to do business with that platform's users, the other has 100s of companies trying to do business with that platform's users. scale and usage matters. Apple has > 50% market share in the USA (the place relevant to USA law). So, being a monopoly they get treated differently than a non-monopoly. Even if they had less than 50%, people bank, invest, shop, talk, communicate, book hotels, flights, and effectively live their lives on smartphones. On XBox they play games and same small percent play music or watch movies there (I suspect most switch over to their Smart TV/Apple TV/.. for that).
  - ribosometronome 1y ago
    No, it doesn't. They're not enforcing this under anti-trust law.
    - socalgal2 1y ago
      they aren't? The title is "Apple Violated Antitrust Ruling, Judge Finds" the first sentence in the article is: > A federal judge hammered Apple for violating an antitrust ruling related to App Store restrictions and took the extraordinary step of referring the matter to federal prosecutors for a criminal contempt investigation. Seems like it's about antitrust law
      - ribosometronome 1y ago
        Fair enough, I replied poorly, but the judgment doesn't appear to be based on Apple being monopoly or size of the business, as far as I can tell. The issue appears to be of anti-steering, more than the number of customers/its market share. Epic notably failed to prove Sherman act violations, didn't it? The actual judgment: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25924283-epic-v-apple-contempt-order/?mode=document https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25924283-epic-v-appl... >After a bench trial, this Court entered judgment on September 10, 2021, finding thatcertain of Apple’s anti-steering rules violate the California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”)under its unfair prong. ... As to the merits of Apple’s UCL violations, Apple did not directly challenge this Court’s application of the UCL’s tethering and balancing tests, instead arguing that(i) the UCL’s “safe harbor” doctrine insulates its liability because Epic failed to establish Sherman Act liability ... As to Apple’s “unfair” practices under the UCL, the Court explainedthat Epic could demonstrate unfairness under either a “tethering” test or a “balancing” test. Id. at1053. The “tethering” test required Epic to “show that Apple’s conduct (1) ‘threatens an incipientviolation of an antitrust law,’ (2) ‘violates the policy or spirit of one of those laws because itseffects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law,’ or (3) ‘otherwise significantlythreatens or harms competition.’” Id. at 1052 (quoting Cel-Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v. Los AngelesCellular Tel. Co., 973 P.2d 527, 544 (Cal. 1999)). While the Court held that Epic’s claims basedon app distribution and in-app payment processing restrictions failed to state a claim of unfairpractices, the Court held that Apple’s anti-steering provisions were severable and constitutedunfair practices under the UCL I'm not sure that the scale or usage really matters.
- ribosometronome 1y ago
  Basically every reply gets it wrong. The answer is that the Xbox isn't developed in California. This judgment was applied under California's UCL, not any federal anti-trust law, despite being in federal court. Epic wasn't able to prove Apple a monopoly, because it's not. Applying California's UCL to Microsoft, Sony, etc is going to be a harder sell in courts.
  - bigyabai 1y ago
    > Epic wasn't able to prove Apple a monopoly, because it's not. Unless your name is T. Cook, you lack the authority to make that statement conclusively. The judge claims that Apple is guilty of perjury, and never corrected the executive that made misleading statements. If that testimony was fabricated, then there is every reason to believe Apple is obstructing information that could benefit the prosecution. There is no other feasible alibi in this scenario besides their lawyers all calling in sick. It's one thing to make a mistake, it's another thing to insist it's truth. Let's not forget that Apple was headed down this same road with the DOJ, too. They are being investigated for a pattern of behavior that is not new, meaning they very well could be guilty of monopoly abuse right this very second. Saying "because it's not" is like telling Lance Ito to drop the OJ charges. Apple is not guilty until proven innocent; but claiming their innocence in certainty is a base lie. You do not actually know, either.
- xxs 1y ago
  Both allow to have software developed for by any 3rd parties - that should include any and the original device seller should not be able to control the distribution. If you really ask: xbox is pretty much the same as an x86-64 PC, running Windows (and having AMD GPU). It just bit more sealed.
- enragedcacti 1y ago
  One way that they are different is that the xbox does let you sideload: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/windows/uwp/xbox-apps/devkit-activation https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/windows/...
abtinf 1y ago
> once again will ask why iPhones are treated any differently from other computing devices And then you immediately state a way they should be treated differently (worse).
- medhir 1y ago
  can you expand on what you find worse about the concept of having full access to any computer you own?
- zamadatix 1y ago
  Their stated way applies to all computing devices, not just iPhones.
troupo 1y ago
Welcome to EU's fight with Apple (and Google)
- medhir 1y ago
  I’d really like to bring the fight to the US in a more meaningful way!

by medhir 1y ago

2OEH8eoCRo0 1y ago

Get ready to answer why an iPhone is different than an xbox

medhir 1y ago
I’m principled in my stance, I think if you own said Xbox you should be able to load software on that as well.
scq 1y ago
Xbox, PlayStation, and Switch should be forced to open up as well. Closed ecosystems only benefit the corporations that control them.
- udev4096 1y ago
  At the very least, sony doesn't get offended with new jailbreaks while nintendo will chase you down for even browsing an emulator's website
t_sawyer 1y ago
Which… while we’re at it. Gaming would be much better if consoles didn’t exist anymore. Games would be more optimized for PC and manufacturers would just be building prebuilt gaming PCs. We also would have more Switch competition in the ARM gaming space instead of x64 handhelds and Android windows emulation if these walled gardens didn’t exist.
- FMecha 1y ago
  >manufacturers would just be building prebuilt gaming PCs Which, given the sentiment against the very existence of these things in PC gaming circles (as a desktop, at least) in favor of self-building, would be just laptops and handhelds (Steam Decks/ROG Allys) at best.
Laremere 1y ago
It isn't. Consoles at this stage are general purpose computers with hardware and software explicitly designed to prevent consumers using it as such. If consumer rights had any real teeth, any hardware device would be required to allow their owners to install any piece of software of their choosing, including replacing the operating system.
MattRix 1y ago
One is a general computing device and one is for a specific task (gaming).
- nozzlegear 1y ago
  That seems rather arbitrary. I'm not doing any general computing on my iPhone, I'm just browsing Hacker News and watching YouTube. If your contention is that the phone is capable of doing more than those two things, well, isn't the Xbox capable of doing more than just gaming?
  - socalgal2 1y ago
    You're not. The majority of phone users replaced their computers with a phone. They are using their phone for everything they used to use their computers for. Almost no one is using an XBox to replace their computer.
    - Aloisius 1y ago
      > The majority of phone users replaced their computers with a phone Source? I can't find anything that backs that up.
      - socalgal2 1y ago
        https://intelpoint.co/insights/only-2-2-of-internet-users-worldwide-do-not-own-a-smartphone-device https://intelpoint.co/insights/only-2-2-of-internet-users-wo... Are you pushing back on the word "majority" or on the concept that many people use their phones for nearly everything they used to use their computers for but that next to no one does the same with an Xbox?
        Aloisius 1y ago
        That the majority has replaced their computers with smartphones. That link though doesn't say that. It simply shows global ownership of smartphones is higher than computers which is rather different altogether.
cyberax 1y ago
Consoles are sold at-cost to consumers, or sometimes even at a loss: https://www.pcmag.com/news/microsoft-loses-up-to-200-on-every-xbox-console-sold https://www.pcmag.com/news/microsoft-loses-up-to-200-on-ever... iPhones are sold at a _premium_. If iPhones were sold at-cost to consumers, then Apple would have been right to ask developers to pay 30% fees.
- sureIy 1y ago
  I think this is the real answer, however it would be difficult to use it as an excuse for the model since there are laws also against selling at a loss to undercut competitors.
  - cyberax 1y ago
    It's a more difficult argument. Consoles are not competing with regular general-purpose computers, and the console manufacturers go out of their way to make it impossible to install unapproved third-party software on them. And since all the console manufacturers are selling the hardware at loss or with low margins, they can argue that it's just how the market works (free razors but expensive razor blades).
    - sureIy 1y ago
      > Consoles are not competing with regular general-purpose computers Yes but why? They very powerful computers. New recycling laws might force companies to give up the keys to the hardware before or after their obsoletion. The precedent here is SIM-locked devices. At some point you must let the user do what they want with it.
      - cyberax 1y ago
        Consoles have a surprisingly long commercial life, more than 5-7 years. So the usability of old consoles at the end of their lifecycle as a PC replacement is not that great. Might still make sense, though. Just for general historical preservation.
- 1y ago
socalgal2 1y ago
One has billions of users, the other has millions. One has 100s of thousands of companies trying to to do business with that platform's users, the other has 100s of companies trying to do business with that platform's users. scale and usage matters. Apple has > 50% market share in the USA (the place relevant to USA law). So, being a monopoly they get treated differently than a non-monopoly. Even if they had less than 50%, people bank, invest, shop, talk, communicate, book hotels, flights, and effectively live their lives on smartphones. On XBox they play games and same small percent play music or watch movies there (I suspect most switch over to their Smart TV/Apple TV/.. for that).
- ribosometronome 1y ago
  No, it doesn't. They're not enforcing this under anti-trust law.
  - socalgal2 1y ago
    they aren't? The title is "Apple Violated Antitrust Ruling, Judge Finds" the first sentence in the article is: > A federal judge hammered Apple for violating an antitrust ruling related to App Store restrictions and took the extraordinary step of referring the matter to federal prosecutors for a criminal contempt investigation. Seems like it's about antitrust law
    - ribosometronome 1y ago
      Fair enough, I replied poorly, but the judgment doesn't appear to be based on Apple being monopoly or size of the business, as far as I can tell. The issue appears to be of anti-steering, more than the number of customers/its market share. Epic notably failed to prove Sherman act violations, didn't it? The actual judgment: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25924283-epic-v-apple-contempt-order/?mode=document https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25924283-epic-v-appl... >After a bench trial, this Court entered judgment on September 10, 2021, finding thatcertain of Apple’s anti-steering rules violate the California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”)under its unfair prong. ... As to the merits of Apple’s UCL violations, Apple did not directly challenge this Court’s application of the UCL’s tethering and balancing tests, instead arguing that(i) the UCL’s “safe harbor” doctrine insulates its liability because Epic failed to establish Sherman Act liability ... As to Apple’s “unfair” practices under the UCL, the Court explainedthat Epic could demonstrate unfairness under either a “tethering” test or a “balancing” test. Id. at1053. The “tethering” test required Epic to “show that Apple’s conduct (1) ‘threatens an incipientviolation of an antitrust law,’ (2) ‘violates the policy or spirit of one of those laws because itseffects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law,’ or (3) ‘otherwise significantlythreatens or harms competition.’” Id. at 1052 (quoting Cel-Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v. Los AngelesCellular Tel. Co., 973 P.2d 527, 544 (Cal. 1999)). While the Court held that Epic’s claims basedon app distribution and in-app payment processing restrictions failed to state a claim of unfairpractices, the Court held that Apple’s anti-steering provisions were severable and constitutedunfair practices under the UCL I'm not sure that the scale or usage really matters.
ribosometronome 1y ago
Basically every reply gets it wrong. The answer is that the Xbox isn't developed in California. This judgment was applied under California's UCL, not any federal anti-trust law, despite being in federal court. Epic wasn't able to prove Apple a monopoly, because it's not. Applying California's UCL to Microsoft, Sony, etc is going to be a harder sell in courts.
- bigyabai 1y ago
  > Epic wasn't able to prove Apple a monopoly, because it's not. Unless your name is T. Cook, you lack the authority to make that statement conclusively. The judge claims that Apple is guilty of perjury, and never corrected the executive that made misleading statements. If that testimony was fabricated, then there is every reason to believe Apple is obstructing information that could benefit the prosecution. There is no other feasible alibi in this scenario besides their lawyers all calling in sick. It's one thing to make a mistake, it's another thing to insist it's truth. Let's not forget that Apple was headed down this same road with the DOJ, too. They are being investigated for a pattern of behavior that is not new, meaning they very well could be guilty of monopoly abuse right this very second. Saying "because it's not" is like telling Lance Ito to drop the OJ charges. Apple is not guilty until proven innocent; but claiming their innocence in certainty is a base lie. You do not actually know, either.
xxs 1y ago
Both allow to have software developed for by any 3rd parties - that should include any and the original device seller should not be able to control the distribution. If you really ask: xbox is pretty much the same as an x86-64 PC, running Windows (and having AMD GPU). It just bit more sealed.
enragedcacti 1y ago
One way that they are different is that the xbox does let you sideload: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/windows/uwp/xbox-apps/devkit-activation https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/windows/...

abtinf 1y ago

> once again will ask why iPhones are treated any differently from other computing devices And then you immediately state a way they should be treated differently (worse).

medhir 1y ago
can you expand on what you find worse about the concept of having full access to any computer you own?
zamadatix 1y ago
Their stated way applies to all computing devices, not just iPhones.

troupo 1y ago

Welcome to EU's fight with Apple (and Google)

medhir 1y ago
I’d really like to bring the fight to the US in a more meaningful way!