Hacker News Reader

Comment by greenyoda | Hacker News Reader

If Apple arbitrarily removed Uber's app from their App Store:

1. Uber would file a lawsuit for a huge amount of damages. (They have enough money to be able to afford lots of lawyers.)

2. A large percentage of Apple's customers who are also Uber customers would be hugely pissed off and switch to Android phones.

3. There would be huge amounts of negative publicity. There would be congressional inquiries into anti-competitive behavior, and demands for government regulation. Apple's board might even fire the CEO.

It's almost inconceivable that Apple would do something so harmful to its own self-interest.

View on HN

>> congressional inquiries into anti-competitive behavior

Anti-trust law requires having a monopoly(which Apple doesn't have) or acting together with other companies. So in this case it's probably legal.

EDIT: that's basically the opinion of Keith Rabois, who litigated several anti-trust laws.

https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Microsoft-punished-for-violati...

I think it requires having a dominant position, which in the in app purchase market is pretty much the case (by revenues).

Lots of android in the market but sold to people who couldn't tell the difference with iOS and wouldn't even know how to buy an app.

I think anti-trust also requires a non-privately administered market. In Apple's App Store, they own the servers serving the app market, giving them control.

I don't think the government could force them to keep an app on their server and continue to serve it to consumers running their software if they didn't want to.

Actually, in terms of total revenue both markets are pretty close together now due to the larger install base on Android and ever increasing monetization of users.

Anti-competitive behavior doesn't require a monopoly. There's collusion/price fixing, libel, and other ways to interfere in a business which are all illegal without having a monopoly.

If we use cars as an analogy, we require car manufacturers to allow service by other mechanics, but we don't require the same for phones (yet). Car manufacturers do not have monopolies.

At some point, asking, "Does Apple have a monopoly?" becomes the wrong question to ask.

>> we require car manufacturers to allow service by other mechanics

True, but that required a new law, and sure a new law could also be deployed with regards to Apple.

It's analogous to Google removing nytimes from their search results.

To be honest though it's also anti competitive for big brands like uber to be able to bully their way to negative publicity while mom and pops are helpless if they are removed from an App Store or Google.

1. I believe that Uber would raise against such decision. I also believe that all the problems it could bring would make Apple back in that decision. They are not competitors, so they win anything for complicating life to Uber.

2. No one would switch to Android just because of that.

3. Yes, lots of negative publicity. That's why 1. would never be reached.

Finally, one thing not mentioned: people would find a way to install the app without the app store. Every good hacker in the world would try to do it firstly, because every iphone user would be asking to be able to install Uber. And Apple doesn't want all bright minds trying to find flaws in their system for sure (I wouldn't at least)

2. No one would switch to Android just because of that.

Because of losing Uber? No.

Because they don't trust Apple not to remove other apps? Absolutely.

Consistency, stability and trust are quite important to maintaining a brand. Apple arbitrarily removing apps would definitely harm their brand image, especially as they're positioning themselves as a market leader in fighting for their customers privacy and trust at the moment.

didn't see that point. it's true, but I think consumers would take more than 1 app (even if it as big as Uber) to change. If the behaviour stars repeating of course people would.

But Apple would be required by users to give an explanation for those actions.

Still, all this post is kinda nonsense because it would never happen. It's more a karma bait lol

> 1. They are not competitors, but Apple's arbitrary removal of the app from its AppStore without giving a valid reason will certainly make a legal case against them (unless Apple specifically mentions they can do so in their store's T&C which I don't know much about).

>2. Yes, they would. In 2016, android is fully feature equivalent to Apple's iDevices, only reason you may not switch is that you are too lethargic and don't want to unlearn the iOS way of things.

>3. Whether they will do it or not will depend on the negative publicity vis-a-vis impact on profits/bottom lines. If your bottom-lines hit the floor as no one is using an app to place cab booking orders, the last thing you will worry about is negative publicity. Apple, on the other hand, will worry about this publicity since it has a lot to loose from it.

Is intentionally damaging someone without valid reason really sufficient to win a lawsuit? That seems pretty broad: I do that every time I browse the peanut butter section at the supermarket.

If the CEO of Apple told the CEO of Uber over a recorded phone call, "The Board, the Shareholders, and I all agree on cutting your app out of the store for no reason other than we hate your guts and it'll bring us joy to watch you suffer", it still seems like that shouldn't be enough to win a lawsuit. It's Apple's store: They get to choose the apps they want in their store. What next - are we going to have judges force bookstores to stock books because "your reasons for not stocking the book aren't good enough"?

Of course, Uber surely has explicit agreements with Apple, Google, and even their hosting provider. You don't build a multibillion dollar business on top of someone without even calling them to make sure it's okay.

Certainly, they will have to prove somehow that their app was ultimately removed owning to a competitor's pressure. If they can do that, then the monopolies act and everything will come into the picture. I'm not insinuating that any competitor is doing this to Uber, but that's pretty natural and apparent in this case. Naturally, the store is Apple's business and app publishing is a means of income. No sane business will refuse a business prospect on the grounds of "I don't like you". The only reasoning here is that a competitor is involved. But yeah, proving that in a court of law is a different thing altogether which Uber has to manage.

I don't understand (1). Why is Apple legally required to approve any app?

- Abuse of dominant economic position

- Having had a history of having the app on their store already

So they better have a very good reason for taking their app out of the store

They're not legally required to approve any app. Banning Uber's app would not be cause for criminal action, but for a civil suit for damages or breach of contract. The argument might go something like this:

1. Uber's app had previously been approved.

2. Apple, by their previous policies, therefore led Uber to believe that they could build a business around an iOS app. Relying on that information, Uber invested billions of dollars into their business.

3. Apple, by now banning Uber's app, has committed an act that damages Uber.

Also, it would be difficult for Apple to come up with criteria for an acceptable app that would disqualify Uber but not also millions of other apps, without having some new condition specifically aimed at Uber. This could be used as evidence that Apple intended to cause damage to Uber.

They could simply update their policy and then continue to remove it, which would make all the above points moot.

> Also, it would be difficult for Apple to come up with criteria for an acceptable app that would disqualify Uber but not also millions of other apps, without having some new condition specifically aimed at Uber.

Not really. Apple already has draconian terms to submit apps. They've done things like ban pretty wallpaper weather apps before and released their own version of it. They even attacked Flux and then duplicated the feature.

It's perfectly legal since their terms basically say anything that competes with them is not allowed. So they could easily ban Uber and say you should be using their phone capability to call a cab.

But I think the point was that Uber also has a lot of money for lawyers so they could at least fight it and cause some stirr, media attention, etc, and then that in turn could damage Apple.

"So they could easily ban Uber and say you should be using their phone capability to call a cab."

- That argument would also apply to any other app that allowed you to order goods or services.

- Apple doesn't offer phone service - they only sell phones. And they're certainly not in the taxi business. So I don't see how they could construct a convincing argument that Uber competes with them.

Do you know of a previous case that's similar to what you're describing here? Because I'm having a hard time understand this. Unless Apple entered into an agreement with Uber, I don't see how Uber would have an expectation that their relationship with the App Store would continue in its same form into perpetuity. And I'm almost positive there is some condition in the apple developer agreement that says "We reserve the right to terminate without notice or reason" or something similar.

What you're saying is reasonable, and I could see how a judge might agree with the arguments you've made. But it also seems like Apple could say, "We don't like the CEO of Uber's haircut", which is as valid as any other reason to terminate a non-contractual relationship. If Uber wanted protection for the billions they invested, they should have negotiated a proper agreement. Maybe I just don't understand how the law works.

Regarding a criteria to disqualify Uber...

I was under the impression that all purchases conducted within an iOS app had to go through Apple's in-app purchase framework. Uber let's me get a ride then bills me completely separately. Likewise, if I want to purchase movie tickets the Cineplex app shows me a web page (still inside the app) and lets me buy the tickets.

Yet the Kindle app is not allowed to let me buy Kindle books, nor can it even provide a link to Amazon to buy Kindle books.

Why are Cineplex and Uber able to circumvent Apple's in-app purchase policy but Amazon isn't?

Or has this policy changed?

IAP is only required for purchasing digital content. This is why e-books, music, movies, game content and anything else you consume or watch on the phone requires IAP. Purchases for services or physical goods can be handled separately. Amazon has an app where I can buy physical stuff, but I can't buy Kindle or Audible content within the app.

Ahh, interesting! Thanks for the clarification, I didn't realize they treated digital vs physical goods separately.

It's really cool that you outlined the argument here in a simple series of steps. That's the approach that I'd like to see more online discussions take, and I've created Sequiturs to promote that approach: https://sequiturs.com/arguments/apple-by-now-banning-uber-s-.... I left you a comment there about step 2.

If you're a fan of this argument format, I'd love to get your feedback about what you think of Sequiturs.

Anti-competitive behaviors like this are really only an issue when done with a monopoly, which Apple does not have. That's how Apple can restrict the iPhone and iPad to a single browser and only allow browser skins/UIs within their app store. If Microsoft tried to make Internet Explorer the only browser permitted in Windows, it would be a very different story.

A different story for sure, but I don't see how the difference between Windows and iOS plays to Apple's advantage here. Windows is something that I voluntarily run on my computer. If i don't like it, I wipe it off the disk and use a different operating system. If I wipe iOS off my phone I've voided my warranty as far as I understand.

No way. Plenty of people with lobbying power hate Uber, especially as they start attacking public transit. (Heavily unionized)

Uber's valuation is dependent on growth and market dominance. Losing convenient access to a big piece of the market would a deep wound.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com