Hacker News Reader

Comment by iav | Hacker News Reader

Defining Apple as a monopolist on iOS is like calling Ford a monopolist in selling radios in Ford vehicles. No one thinks it’s a violation for Ford to include their own radio (built by a 3rd party like Bose - same as an app) in a Ford truck, and offer you an expensive upgrade to that radio (say also by Olufsen - also like a better App) if you want it. No one demands that Ford allow a different vendor to sell you a compatible radio through a Ford dealer and for Ford to not take a cut of the purchase price. And if Ford says that installing a third party radio without their authorization voids your warranty or otherwise makes it impossible to do so, it’s generally accepted to be OK. This analogy is at the core of Apple’s defense and it was brought up in previous anti trust cases like AA v. Sabre.

View on HN

> if Ford says that installing a third party radio without their authorization voids your warranty or otherwise makes it impossible to do so, it’s generally accepted to be OK

This has been generally illegal in the US since 1975: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/2302 (section c)

Interesting and I was wrong. While that might make for a good case why Apple should be compelled to allow the side loading of apps (especially since an App can be sandboxed and couldn’t possibly damage the device, a key criteria in the link). It still makes it hard to win an antitrust case against Apple. If you defined the market for Ford radios as to only include Ford-manufactured vehicles, then every single car company is a monopolist. Defense would push back that Ford competes against GM and Tesla, not against Bose and Sonos (in my prior analogy), so as long as consumers have choice of cars, then Ford shouldn’t be subject to antitrust actions and remedies in regards to radios.

There is nothing that would indicate side loading alone would be sufficient for applications wishing to forgo the App Store. Fortnite on Android is an example of an application which started out being side loaded but eventually conceded that there were too many platform restrictions for that to be viable.

Apple does allow side-loading apps today, but with restrictions that make it unsuitable for consumer applications - requirement for an enterprise provisioning profile, applications expire after a set period of time, applications are expected to be deployed via Xcode, etc.

> And if Ford says that installing a third party radio without their authorization voids your warranty or otherwise makes it impossible to do so, it’s generally accepted to be OK.

No, not really. In the EU for example, a unauthorized change to one part can legally never void the warranty to an unrelated part.

That's not exactly the same scenario. If Ford allowed installing radios only via Ford and allowed other companies to sell radios via Ford, but then artificially restricted said radios so that its radios would have an advantage then it would apply, and I suspect that people would be upset.

Here's IMHO a better analogy: Apple is running a mall, while also operating a chain store operating in said mall. Apple Mall allows competitors to Apple Chain Store to rent stores in the mall.

However, it turns out that for some reason, there are "Beware of Leopard" signs near the competitor stores. Also, the public area near them is never cleaned or maintained, except for signs promising cheaper products at the Apple Chain Store (and the leopard signs of course).

Would that be legal? Apple Mall is hardly a monopoly. Despite losing the location, the other stores could move. None of the agreements specifically bans this.

For some reason though, I don't think that would fly - the other stores have a reasonable expectation that after paying rent Apple won't sabotage them. Just like companies paying for the Developer License and Apple Store tax have a reasonable expectation Apple won't unduly hinder them for its own products.

> That's not exactly the same scenario. If Ford allowed installing radios only via Ford and allowed other companies to sell radios via Ford, but then artificially restricted said radios so that its radios would have an advantage then it would apply, and I suspect that people would be upset.

This happens all the time. Integration of the radio and climate control system/navigation system. Custom wiring for the speaker system and accessory systems. Dashboard cavities which are a non-standard size.

Not remotely comparable. Ford may not facilitate creating such a radio, but prevent it either. A company could figure out everything and sell a radio to a client without paying Ford or being sold to the customer by Ford or going via Ford at all or even losing warranty.

Ultimately, being a marketmaker comes with responsibilities. If Apple wants to close iPhones and support only Apple software they could do that. But as long as Apple operates an App Store and does not allow other methods of install, this comes with the legal obligation to play fair.

Sure, and if someone makes a radio that fulfills all of these functions, then they can sell it.

And if Ford says that installing a third party radio without their authorization voids your warranty or otherwise makes it impossible to do so, it’s generally accepted to be OK.

Don't know where you live, but that is not true in the U. S. "It is generally accepted as" against Federal law.

Technically, I think it, unfortunately, is true that companies can say that in the USA and many other countries.

Companies can say things they know aren’t true, misleading customers. They even often can make it hard for customers who know their rights to exercise those rights.

I think it would be an improvement if such actions were punished harsher and more often.

The federal trade commission disagrees with you, and if this is the crux of Apple's defense they are in a bad spot.

The FTC can agree or disagree. Until a judge decides it doesn’t matter.

Except there are hundreds of Cars manufacture to chose from, easily portable, and all share the same public road transport.

You have two system to choose from, Apple and Google.

Your analogy was good until the part about warranty, which isn't relevant to Apple.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com