Hacker News Reader

Comment by jandrese | Hacker News Reader

Going after Apple for antitrust violations has a big hill to climb in the form of the Google Play Store.

More than that, a ruling against Apple here would have huge implications for any company running an app store on their device. Smart TV manufacturers, companies like Roku, Automobile manufacturers, etc... If you can be considered a monopolist because you control your platform then there will be a LOT of monopolies out there.

I'm not expecting Epic to get any real traction on this suit. The best they can hope for is Apple working out some system where they'll reduce their cut in certain circumstances, but given how unlikely this case is to go anywhere I don't think Apple is feeling any pressure.

View on HN

>form of the Google Play Store.

You can get Android apps from many locations other than the Google Play Store.

Android does not prevent you from side-loading applications from other stores either.

> Smart TV manufacturers, companies like Roku, Automobile manufacturers, etc...

It’s more than just the Google Play Store.

Good. Force them too open up as well.

What I'd like to happen and what the law supports aren't always in sync.

This is going to be such a nightmare.

I don't see how the Google Play Store is a good comparison, as you can trivially install a 3rd-party app store on an unrooted, stock Android device, and you can install things without even going through an app store.

But I agree that this suit probably isn't going anywhere, at least not to the extent that some commenters here are hoping. This will likely end with a slap on the wrist and/or some very small concessions to Epic.

So is the “platform” the whole device or the store?

Epic side-loaded Fortnite for a while, then gave up on it in frustration. Android's side-loading was never meant for anyone but technical users like developers.

Google Play Services are also not necessarily available without going through the play store, so you lose access to a lot of functionality that people often consider part of the system (like Chromecast).

I have both the Humble Bundle store and F-Droid installed on my Android devices. While their UI is inferior to the Play store and granting them permission to install isn't enabled by default like it is for the Play Store, they exist and work just fine.

Not for developers or customers.

>Not for developers or customers.

I am both of the above and F-Droid works just fine for me. Feel free to let me know how it doesn't in your opinion work for me if you really want to talk for others.

What is F-Droids developer revenues?

Is it close to the tens of billions Apple Pay’s iOS developers each year?

I think there's a difficult, fine line to walk here. For the average, unsophisticated user, requiring them to jump through hoops and enable scary-sounding options in order to install any random software they find off the internet is probably a good thing. But it does mean that for software that's safe, it's hard(impossible?) for developers to give a potential customer a good install experience outside the Play Store.

I think probably the solution to that would be for Google to allow developers to list alternative app stores on the Play Store. Maybe that should require a strong review process that involves actual humans getting to know each other, and extra fees to cover it, I don't know. But a company large enough to have a need for their own app store should have the resources for that. That might leave out groups like F-Droid, though, so hopefully there'd be a way to get them in there too.

>If you can be considered a monopolist because you control your platform then there will be a LOT of monopolies out there.

I think there's a fairly trivial distinction to be drawn between a general purpose computing device and a utility like a fridge or a car. (something like, is the system aided by software to operate, vs is the system a platform for executing user-software)

For something like a game console it might actually be an interesting edge case but it doesn't seem difficult to draw an approximate line.

Not really. If it’s my damn fridge, and it comes with an OS, I’d like to install whatever software I want on it, not just buy overpriced crap through the manufacturers insolence-store.

>I think there's a fairly trivial distinction

... What's the difference between my Roku TV & my iPhone? My Roku can clearly do some general purpose computing. So is it trivially a general purpose computing device or trivially not a general purpose computing device? Let's follow your workflow.

>is the system aided by software to operate, vs is the system a platform for executing user-software

Hm, I think my Roku is a TV, and so someone would expect to be able to use it without additional software. Indeed, it has about 8 ports on the side I can plug game consoles & cable boxes into. Therefore the system is aided by software to operate. Therefore it is trivially not a general purpose computing device.

Now, what about my iPhone? My iPhone has phone in the name. One would expect to be able to make a phone call without additional software. That is indeed the case. Looks like my phone is trivially not a general purpose computing device.

I agree that the Roku is arguably not a general purpose device but I don't really see the point about the phone unless you're trying to be intentionally facetious. Of course if you were only using the smartphone like a 50 year old analog phone yes you can make the case that it's actually not a general purpose device, however today virtually the entirely value (and usertime spent) on a phone is in countless of end-user applications it runs. (and that is what proposed regulation would address when it comes to platform obligations).

If I had to guess a sizeable number of people doesn't even do calls any more.

I'm trying to be intentionally facetious in some sense, because it was claimed to be "trivial" to distinguish "general purpose compute" from not.

Additionally, your argument doesn't really hold water - my Roku TV's value is also almost entirely in end-user applications it runs, like Netflix & other streaming services. My point is that I really don't think distinguishing these two in a legal sense is going to be so easy as posters in this thread are claiming.

1. Only because Google might also engages in anti-competitive practices doesn't mean that Apple is allowed to. All such behaviour needs to be curbed.

2. Anyone can install any 3rd party app on an Android device, there's even a open app store "F-Droid" for open apps that anyone can use.

3. You can still run an app store. You just have to allow other ways to install apps. That way your store would be used only if it's better than the other ways to install apps.

I look forward to being able to sue Epic for not allowing me to sell my own custom skins in fortnite.

Fortnite isn't a computer on which a majority of Americans accesses their news and other content.

Neither is the iPhone.

With 60%+ market share in US and majority of market profit... it sure is.

Remember how Apple was happy to say they "earned 120% (sic) profit of all mobile" just a year ago?

Not sure where you are pulling this 60% number from, but last quarter iOS had 46% market share in the US. Additionally, you ignore non-smartphone systems as sources of news and content, where Apple has an even smaller market share.

47% is a mighty big number (although not a majority)

Samsung, second place, is 23%

[0] https://bgr.com/2020/08/12/iphone-11-sales-coronavirus-pande...

This isn't about not being able to sell something, it's about forcing them to use Apple's payment system. It's more like if you had a store in a mall and the mall said people could only pay using "Mall Pay" and would kick you out if you took direct payment. Some farmers markets actually do this though with tokens...

I mean the payment system is super superficial here.

wish granted Apple let’s you use your own payment processing! But you still have to sign a contract with them to turn over 30% revenue of all sales made on their devices.

Apple is gatekeeping a market of their own design. I am going to try to construct (probably a poor) analogy.

It is as if Apple started a town and a bunch of people moved in establishing a new market. The only way to deliver goods to this market is via the railway Apple established. The catch, you pay Apple 30% of the revenue generated for access to this market via the railway. If you try to establish a highway system, build an airport, perform airdrops, or some other means of delivering goods and services to this market, you are no longer allowed to use the train. IMO, Apple should be able to refuse transport of anything they wish for any reason they wish.

If this was a real scenario, what was allowed in this market would be controlled by the people who make up that market. There would be some governance and laws established for fair trade practices. I would think it is up to the people to establish these alternate delivery methods, in this case, jailbreaking their iphones and installing whatever they wanted.

Don't forget jailbreakers have been prosecuted in the past.

That is a fair point, but I believe current law (in the US) still protects iPhone owners who jailbreak their phones.

That's weird, I went to the Google Play store but it didn't allow me to install an app on my iPhone at all. Why on earth would you think these two are somehow in competition.

You had the choice to buy into apples walled garden. You could have chosen an Android phone if the app store was problematic for you. Their products are very competitive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com