Comment by dkonofalski | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dkonofalski | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

No, it's not. Amazon's App Store application doesn't exist without the Apple ecosystem and Apple's customers. Amazon is allowed to advertise anything they want outside of the Apple App Store, including on Android and any other platforms not run by Apple. The rule is only about advertising for other services within the platform that Apple runs. They absolutely can communicate with their customers but that can't advertise to Apple's customers to promote circumventing the App Store's systems.

My example isn't at all like what you're describing unless Amazon's app is outside of the Apple ecosystem. There is literally no business that allows companies using their property to advertise their competitors. Your example about a direct ordering phone number is not analogous at all. A better example would be a restaurant allowing DoorDash to post advertisements but specifying that they can only advertise for their own services, not promote other companies who pay DoorDash more for priority.

Your whole argument is based on an incorrect understanding of the agreements made to use the App Store and an inaccurate understanding of the limits imposed by apps. I am not using the example of a competitor advertising in the competitions app. I'm using the example of someone advertising on a business's property or platform to advertise a different platform.

> No, it's not. Amazon's App Store application doesn't exist without the Apple ecosystem and Apple's customers.

When did I talk about Amazon's App Store? This is about Amazon's Apps on Apple's App store and on iOS.

> Amazon is allowed to advertise anything they want outside of the Apple App Store

True, I mentioned that and rebutted it in my last post.

> The rule is only about advertising for other services within the platform that Apple runs

False, at least in the respect that the Kindle Store is not a platform Apple runs, Apple runs the installations system on iOS, they use that to extend their reach into what other companies run.

> They absolutely can communicate with their customers ...

Amazon can, to use the Kindle app you must have an Amazon account created outside the app, they have the right to communicate outside the app because that point of contact originated outside the app.

Any one not already the size of Amazon that starts as an app on iOS is not allowed to try to extend that relationship outside of iOS. That is why a federal judge felt it necessary to rule that Apple's behavior was against California law.

> There is literally no business that allows companies using their property to advertise their competitors.

Except news papers, TV stations, movie studios, ISPs, phone companies, etc. All of these allow competitors to buy add space on their platforms, or use their platforms to communicate competing offers.

Did you know movie studios once refused to let theaters run their movies if the previews/trailers were for any movies not from the same studio? Courts put a stop to that, now at most a studio can require that some but not all of the previews/trailers be for their films. Back when long distance phone companies were a thing people cared about in the US, AT&T tried to block their competitors from cold calling companies to get them to switch, they also lost that case.

Yes, none of these companies want to allow their competitors to use their platform, but none of them are allowed by law to stop it.

> Your example about a direct ordering phone number is not analogous at all.

It's not analogous to Apple preventing Amazon from providing links in the app to Amazon's own web site? How?

This is the point of the similarity, you use the Doordash app or website (you use the Apple App Store), you order food (you download an app), when you get your food there is a menu inside that suggests you order direct, maybe even including coupons that give a discount on pickup orders (you open the app and when you pick something to buy you are provided a link to their site instead of an App Store button).

Can you explain where I'm going wrong on that analogy? I know it's not 100% the same, it's an analogy, they are never exactly the same.

> Your whole argument is based on an incorrect understanding of the agreements made to use the App Store and an inaccurate understanding of the limits imposed by apps.

Right back at you. It's curious to me that you seem so adamant to defend a behavior was just ruled illegal. Was the judge wrong? How?

Thought experiment, if Microsoft tomorrow said they own the Windows platform, and they have the right to a cut of all transactions done inside apps on the Windows platform, would you be ok with applications like say Steam or Epic Games Store being required to use the Windows Store to process payments and give some percent to Microsoft? If this is not ok how is it different from Apple's policy for iOS?

>When did I talk about Amazon's App Store?

I'm not talking about Amazon's App Store. I'm talking about Amazon's applications on the Apple App Store. I will try to be more explicit in the future.

>False, at least in the respect that the Kindle Store

It is not false. Amazon can advertise whatever they want within the Kindle Store. They cannot, however, advertise for buying something on iOS from outside the IAP system. You're conflating two different things and I feel like you're doing so intentionally.

>Did you know movie studios once refused to let theaters run their movies if the previews/trailers were for any movies not from the same studio?

That is not the same thing. The movie studios don't own the theatre. They can't prevent someone from running movies from other studios and that would be anti-competitive because they don't own the theatre. If they owned their own theatres, they could play whatever movies they want and there's nothing that would force them to play movies from other studios.

>It's not analogous to Apple preventing Amazon from providing links in the app to Amazon's own web site?

No, it's not because Apple isn't preventing links to Amazon's site. They're preventing links to purchases within the app from an external source. These are not the same thing and you're intentionally confusing them and misusing these statements.

>Can you explain where I'm going wrong on that analogy?

Yes. I already have. DoorDash does not own the restaurant. They only own the app. Therefore, they can have a rule that says that restaurants who use DoorDash for delivery cannot advertise that they deliver through other services or have discounts on pickup orders that are not made through DoorDash within the DoorDash app or the listings inside of that app. They cannot stipulate that this extends outside of a system that they do not own.

>Right back at you. It's curious to me that you seem so adamant to defend a behavior was just ruled illegal. Was the judge wrong? How?

No, the judge wasn't wrong but you're misframing the decision to make it fit a situation it doesn't. The judge did not rule that Apple's position on App Store payments was illegal. They ruled that Apple was being anti-competitive for "digital mobile gaming transactions" because the transactions happen within the game and not simply within the App Store. That means that the decision would not apply to other in-app purchases that occur within iOS specific apps.

>if Microsoft tomorrow said they own the Windows platform, and they have the right to a cut of all transactions done inside apps on the Windows platform, would you be ok with applications like say Steam or Epic Games Store being required to use the Windows Store to process payments and give some percent to Microsoft?

There's no "if" here. They do own the Windows platform and do have a right to all transactions processed through the Windows Store. If everyone who developed for Windows agreed to those terms, then Microsoft would 100% be within their right to do so as long as they aren't monopolizing that industry or breaking anti-trust laws. They don't do that because they don't currently do that and changing their policy would harm future sales irreparably but they have every right to do that and require it and shoot themselves in the foot if they choose.

The rules aren't in place to protect shitty business decisions. They're there to prevent monopolization and Apple doesn't have a monopoly.

> That is not the same thing. The movie studios don't own the theatre.

They did at one time, courts end it, but isn't even relevant to my point. You said "There is literally no business that allows companies using their property to advertise their competitors." My point is that that is exactly not true.

I am rebutting your incorrect assertion.

It seems like your playing at moving goal posts, make one argument, then when it's shown to be wrong demand that the it has to meet some unrelated criteria to be valid. You never said "There is literally no monopoly that allows companies using their property to advertise their competitors." You said no *business*. You didn't say they had to own all the property, just that it is there property, and to a movie studio, the movie, even as it's being shown in a theater, is there's. They own it and can dictate how it's shown. Except that courts have limited how far those contracts can go. The theater may be the platform to show movies, but the movies are the platform for previews/trailers, no one goes to a theater for the previews. (I mean some of them are cool, but I'm not paying $20 to watch 10 minutes of trailers)

I provided multiple examples, but for some reason you tried to find some wiggle room in one example to try and ignore the rest.

> No, the judge wasn't wrong but you're misframing the decision to make it fit a situation it doesn't. The judge did not rule that Apple's position on App Store payments was illegal. They ruled that Apple was being anti-competitive for "digital mobile gaming transactions"

Have you read the injunction? The one I linked before? It's really really short, it won't take long to read honest.

Ok read it now? How often does it mention games? Once? Exactly one use of the word games? What is the word before games? "Epic"? The word after? "Inc"? So the only mention of games is in the name of one of the parties to the litigation "Epic Games, Inc." There aren't even any phrases that could be considered synonyms. No "entertainment software" no "interactive media", nothing of the sort.

I'm sorry to be so condescending, but as you accuse me of "misframing" this, you yourself are not understanding what the judge ruled. His injunction has no limitations for what kind of applications this applies to. The injection says "Apple Inc. ... are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from prohibiting developers from ...". Not "digital mobile gaming" developers, not "mobile gaming" developers not even just "gaming" developers, all developers, all of them, for all types of apps.

But what if I just conceded that point, the judge did only rule on games. Ok, then what is the difference between Epic Games' Fortnight and Amazon's Kindle?

You said:

> because the transactions happen within the game and not simply within the App Store.

How is Kindle different?

- Fortnight existed as a standalone game before it was an iOS app. Kindle existed as a standalone app before it was an iOS app.

- Fortnight had a way to purchase content in game before it was an iOS app. Kindle had a way to purchase content in app before it was an iOS app.

- Fortnight users when logged in see purchased items across devices. Kindle user when logged in see purchased items across devices.

What is it that makes games different? How is Kindle only inside iOS, despite being a service for about 8 months before the Apple App Store can into existence, but Fortnight is not only inside iOS? Are the Fortnight games servers run by Epic Games the magic difference? But Kindle books are delivered by Amazon not Apple, why are Amazon's servers not as magic as Epic's?

> The rules aren't in place to protect shitty business decisions. They're there to prevent monopolization and Apple doesn't have a monopoly.

This is a common misconception, but antitrust is not anti-monopoly, monopoly is not a requirement to violate anti-trust laws. One portion of antitrust is about regulating existing monopolies, another is about preventing new monopolies, but other parts cover other practices like price fixing, collusion, one of these is called vertical restraints. Apply requiring that all apps on their OS use their payment system could be viewed as a vertical restraints.

>You didn't say they had to own all the property

You're not arguing in good faith. A movie theatre would not allow anyone to advertise for another movie theatre within their building. That's the point. Everything else you said is irrelevant. I'm not moving any goalposts. You're twisting what I'm saying to argue something that I'm not. It doesn't have to be a monopoly. I never said it had to be a monopoly for the movie theatre example. And I'm not even sure where you're going with the trailers. A movie theatre's competitor would be another theatre or theatre chain, not a movie studio.

>Have you read the injunction?

Yes. I literally quoted the judge's decision. That's why I put that phrase in quotes. That's what quotes are for - to denote that you're repeating something someone else said. It's even bolded in the injunction.

>Ok, then what is the difference between Epic Games' Fortnight and Amazon's Kindle?

The difference is the market for which the competition is being evaluated. The judge's injunction specifically states that the only reason this injunction qualifies is because "most App Store revenue is generated by mobile gaming apps, not all apps". The judge did not rule that Apple was breaking anti-trust laws around vertical restraints but on anti-steering - that they were forcing Epic to hide information that would enable a choice. The judge ruled that, because Epic can make money off the game in other ways besides In-App purchases, that the only fault in Apple's processes was in forcing Epic to hide information about those other ways of monetization and that they were free to not allow In-App Purchases that can be made outside the platform. Again, to quote, "for the reasons set forth herein, the Court finds in favor of Apple on all counts except with respect to violation of California's Unfair Competition law (Count Ten) and only partially with respect to its claim for Declaratory Relief".

Additionally, "Apple's termination of the DPLA and the related agreements between Epic Games and Apple was valid, lawful, and enforceable".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com