Comment by crazygringo | Hacker News Reader

Comment by crazygringo | Hacker News Reader

I don't like that it's required for developers to include if they include any other third-party sign-in.

US competition laws are outdated with undue reliance on the concept of a monopoly.

I don't care if you're a monopoly or a third of the market or even a small company. If you run a marketplace or app store or similar platform, you should NOT be able to:

- Force usage of a separate product of yours over/with competitors (in this case, Apple sign-in, but also Apple Pay instead of Google Pay, etc.)

- Prevent competing products from appearing (whether Apple not allowing other browser rendering engines, Amazon not allowing Google Home or Chromecast to be sold, etc.)

- Rank your own items higher in search results etc. if competitors can't bid to do the same e.g. sponsored results for everyone including yourself (so Amazon Basics or Google Shopping needs to be listed as a sponsored result, not as a separate feature)

This is the kind of thing 21st-century legislation for fair competition should address.

Completely agree. There needs to be some concept of a marketplace that doesn't have monopoly power, and a list of "fair play" rules around those. The only difference between Apple's actions and 90's Microsoft is marketshare. It's a similarly anti-competitive in intent.

European Union has some regulation for financial markets that have had similar issues in the past. The regulators must approve a rule book for market place, in this case of trading venue, which including onboarding and listing rules. Those rules must not discriminate against anyone - one cannot do arbitrary decisions to block or hinder someone. Everybody must access the markets fairly.

We already seen the regulatory outreach coming to app stores when EU ruled that Google was hindering the distribution of Aptoide store for Android.

> There needs to be some concept of a marketplace that doesn't have monopoly power

The Web?

I've seen reports that Apple is finally starting to fix issued related to adding PWAs to the home screen as well.

can you share the source please ?

I’m not sure if this is right approach. In fact in the 70’s, the US basically went through this back and forth, largely influenced by one book:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Antitrust_Paradox

Essentially, the book advocates that the only goal antitrust laws should have is to protect consumer welfare, not competitors.

IMO, Apple’s requirement doesn’t feel like it would harm consumer welfare.

A well run company could build an arbitrarily large technological and financial moat on the back of consumer welfare, until it amasses enough power to completely subjugate regulatory bodies. (This is all theoretical, I don't think Apple is at that point). OTOH, anticompetitiveness is an easier thing to detect and act upon before it gets out of control.

It seems like an absolute win for consumer welfare, to be honest.

> I don't like that it's required for developers to include if they include any other third-party sign-in.

Curious, why not?

Because if i understand correctly it's designed so that Apple cannot see any of the data... So for what reason would you want to provide another third-party provider, but not Apple Signin?

To me it seems a huge win for consumers privacy wise, and Developers have nothing to loose.

developers definitely have something to lose. If nothing else, it takes time to implement a new process that you already have working.

not a win for privacy, but i'm sure there are some that would be unhappy about not getting the data the other providers are giving them.

This isnt a monopoly.

As someone who has never bought an Apple product, I can safely say their monopolistic practices don't affect me.

Stop buying Apple products. Its that simple.

I don't buy Apple products (well not exactly true I have a MacBook but only because I'm forced to use that to build for iOS). But for my app which uses 1st party login or Facebook as an alternative I am now forced to provide Apple login. If Google follows suite I'll be forced to provide Google login on Android, etc. Probably I'll just end up removing all third party login too much of a hassle, although I'll definitely lose users.

This is my biggest fear btw, I am making an App, and I realize I am getting close to needing to buy an Apple product to hit compile (Javascript) and fix bugs.

The only thing you can do is educate consumers on the evils of Apple and hope they make better decisions in the future.

What better decision can they make?

Buy a competing product; that will help to erode the Apple monopoly.

That's similar to what happened to Windows Phone. They opened up development towards the end since they could no longer justify forcing developers to behave the way they wanted; they simply didn't have the market share to enforce it.

Shocker. I heard you are also forced to buy a Windows PC to write software for Windows!

You aren't, you can now do that on Linux with .Net core (sans testing it).

Or could cross-compile it with mingw-w64.

Well if you’re happy with that then you can write your app with Xamarin Mono for iOS in Visual Studio. You can do it all in C# without even learning Swift or Objective C.

I’m not trying to be a dick, I’m genuinely interested. Why would you make a product for a platform you don’t support? Feels like a vegan owning a hamburger shop.

Is it the market size that keeps you in the iOS space? Are you on other platforms? What are the revenue/cost/effort ratios for each? Does it make sense to focus on non-iOS options?

probably because it's the most profitable platform. iOS easily makes more money than Android even though it has less users. In my experience, it's not close.

The OP's point is that a monopoly is not necessary in order for abusive anticompetitive behavior to occur.

They have a monopoly on the hundreds of millions of people who have an iPhone, which are typically the wealthiest mobile consumers (Sorry Android guys). If I have a software service I need to deliver to my customers smartphone, and they happen to own an iPhone, then Apple has full control over how I can do business with them. All they have to do is allow sideloading of apps with big warnings as an option and they can run the app store however they want. Until then, it's bullshit.

Do you ever wonder if Apple attracts the wealthiest mobile consumers because of the controlled user experience they provide?

The idea that a company has a monopoly on its own customers seems tautological to me. Doesn’t that mean every retail store has a monopoly on their customers because you can’t walk in and sell your own goods without their permission?

That’s not what a monopoly is. It isn’t a misuse of market power to have a lot of customers.

It’s ok to not like Apple or any company that doesn’t match your values, but it’s important to argue using the right terms and definitions, otherwise you sell yourself and your argue short.

There are alternatives to offering an app for iOS. Web apps are an example. Releasing only for Android is also a valid choice.

I don’t like paying for using a toll road, but if I want the benefit of a nice road, and a shorter travel time, I have to pay. If these benefits aren’t worth the price, I can use an alternative.

An important distinction is that Apple is not forcing consumers to use Apple Sign In. They are only requiring developers to offer it as an option.

Welp, there we go. I was surprised to see Apple introduce a feature that improved things for their customers without some ridiculous restriction and here we are: mandatory inclusion for app developers.

Good job Apple, you raised your image only to crush it again with anticompetitive bullshit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com