Comment by st3fan | Hacker News Reader

Comment by st3fan | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

"Apple needs to be willing to discuss issues. Too often, their position can be summarised as 'my way, or the highway'."

Well, it is their platform and their store. If you think the rules are unfair then you can also develop for other platforms.

First, Apple had ZERO problems with approving VLC and getting it on the store. The app is gone now, but that is not because Apple changed their position, they simply responded to an alledged copyright/license issue reported by the original owner of the code.

The reason that the app has been removed is because the VLC developers, specifially Rémi Denis-Courmont, has requested Apple to remove the app from the store because of what license conflicts.

They would respond in exactly the same way if the GPL were not involved.

Seriously, Apple is currently working in the best interest of the claimed rights holder of VLC: it removed the app so that VLC and Applidium can figure this out.

This is not a case of Apple Against GPL: As soon as Applidium and VLC think they can actually work with the terms of the GPL and App Store then they can send that message to Apple and resubsmit the app.

I sure hope they do, but from what I've seen so far, the VLC folks seem to be extremely anti-Apple. We all lose. Thanks VLC.

Well, it is their platform and their store. [..]

I often hear this rhetoric provided as the de facto reason for why Apple (and other corporations governing IP-marketplaces) should be able to do whatever they like.

If this was true - why can't a telecommunications company operate in whichever way they choose? Why do we have regulatory frameworks which address the problem of monopolies or the formation of cartels?

Because sometimes corporations aren't working in the interest of the public at large; and they need to operate within a larger framework which has been put in place for the benefit of society.

To enable them to do so effectively - traditionally, regulatory bodies are put in place to oversee good practice.

I hope the same happens to regulate these new IP-focused marketplaces.

--

[..] If you think the rules are unfair then you can also develop for other platforms.

I don't think this is necessarily true.

People (customers, developers and businesses) have to invest a great deal of time, effort and money when they choose to develop for (or make use of) a specific platform.

Switching is expensive - and eventually common sense dictates that its more likely that those who have invested, are likely to put up with rules and regulations which they might otherwise see as unfair.

Also, once a developer has produced their iOS-based product - they are forced to sell through one marketplace; the Apple AppStore - which is also cause for concern in my opinion.

Telecommunications companies have a regulatory body because their market is a 'granted monopoly'. They have a pseudo monopoly in the sense that for any other company to compete would require a giant initial investment, and possibly a concession from the government, as is the case in wireless communications, so immediately they have all the customers. The government says, ok, will lets you use this spectrum, but you play by our rules.

It's not the same as in IP-marketplaces, or any other kind of marketplace for that matter. As long as they are not violating any law, the government should not try to regulate them, it doesn't matter how invested society is in it.

The world is changing; I believe that as we become more dependent on digital technologies, new legal frameworks need to be discussed and evolved.

It's not the same as in IP-marketplaces, or any other kind of marketplace for that matter. As long as they are not violating any law, the government should not try to regulate them, it doesn't matter how invested society is in it.

But why? - this is an opinion, not a fact.

Apple is acting as a self-governing private regulator of a marketplace - digital technologies have allowed this situation to become viable .. in the past markets have been inherently more 'free' due to their non-digital nature.

It is not an opinion, it is in the law. The government has no law to enforce in a case like this one. That is why they don't tell Walmart what to sell. As much as they want them to only sell american made goods, they don't have any law preventing Walmart to sell china's merchandise. And that is why they can regulate the telecommunications industry, because they have laws that let them.

"The world is changing; I believe that as we become more dependent on digital technologies, new legal frameworks need to be discussed and evolved."

This might be the case, and I partially agree with you. But as it stands now, Apple are not doing anything wrong.

I suppose much of this rests on whether you believe Apple is operating a 'store' or a marketplace.

It's complicated - I realise where the law currently stands; however, I feel that the law might need to be amended.

I believe the AppStore is a privately regulated marketplace operating within the free-market. This type of scenario is likely to become more commonplace in the future.

I can understand how the subject of the free-market (and possible government intervention) is at odds with a lot of people's politics, but I think the potential for abuse from the private sector is too great to ignore.

Then developers can go play in another marketplace if they want. It's a totally "opt in" scenario.

In my opinion; if this model of commerce becomes much more popular, this excuse isn't going to be able to last.

Although it's a very extreme example - a sweatshop is often opt-in. There are circumstances where opt-in means nothing.

"Apple is acting as a self-governing private regulator of a marketplace"

No no, not "a marketplace". It is "their marketplace" and it is an "opt in" marketplace at that.

There is zero reason to invite any kind of regulation into that.

It's a privately regulated marketplace operating within the free-market.

It seems quite obvious to me why this can prove to be problematic in many scenarios, but I understand why many would disagree.

"Also, once a developer has produced their iOS-based product - they are forced to sell through one marketplace"

They know that going in. Nobody's putting a gun to their head and forcing them to write iOS apps. If they finish their app and only then figure this out, they're too stupid to be writing software.

Apple can change (and has changed) the terms and conditions of entry to the AppStore without notice.

Sure, but still, they know up front that they are essentially dependent on Apple's good graces. They know it's the App Store or nothing.

It's a risk. But then, there's also a risk that someone else will put out a better equivalent app first and win all the mindshare. Or that many different equivalent apps will ship first, and their app will have a hard time getting noticed.

Well, I suppose this is essentially what I'm arguing for:

I think that this situation is less than desirable. Apple (and corporations in general) shouldn't be able to artificially influence how a (sub)market functions.

If this is accepted, I think the only logical way to stop these situations from occurring is via legislation or regulation.

It's not an ideal solution, but then - the alternative (of doing nothing) is even less ideal in my opinion.

> This is not a case of Apple Against GPL: As soon as Applidium and VLC think they can actually work with the terms of the GPL and App Store then they can send that message to Apple and resubsmit the app.

Yes, and I hope that is what is going to happen...

> I sure hope they do, but from what I've seen so far, the VLC folks seem to be extremely anti-Apple. We all lose. Thanks VLC.

VLC has been on the mac platform since the very early days of OSX and was for a long time the only solution to play DVDs on Mac. VLC folks are not anti-Apple...

The problem is that each copyright holder has the right to do what he wants, because developers keep their authorship rights...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com