Hacker News Reader

Comment by fblp | Hacker News Reader

This is an interim report. It's okay for it to be proposing multiple directions that benefit consumers and competition.

It is okay to propose multiple directions if they benefit consumers and competition. This isn't what they did. They proposed one direction that benefits consumers at the expense of competition[1], and another direction which benefits competition at the expense of the consumer[2].

[1] Calling on Google and Apple to further clamp down on subscription traps and scams;

[2] Calling on Google and Apple to give up control over the mechanisms which have allowed them to clamp down on malicious financial activity including some (but not all) subscription traps and scams.

In what part of the report do they call on Google and Apple to "give up control over the mechanisms which have allowed them to clamp down on malicious financial activity including some (but not all) subscription traps and scams." ?

The "mechanisms which have allowed them to clamp down on malicious financial activity" are their payment gateways, the rules surrounding their use use, the ability to perform oversight over app payment activity, and the threat (whether actual or perceived) of total banishment if they are caught—particularly in Apple's case where there's no alternative path to customers.

In the same breath, Google and Apple are also being told that these very same mechanisms are a concern to the ACCC.

Hey sorry i don't see how stating these mechanisms are a concern = calling on them to give up control (or "threatening banishment") per your comments. Your comments seem presumptive given the actual content of the preliminary report.

I'm skeptical the final report will be qualitatively different.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com