Personally I think they should have that freedom. If Apple really had no competition, I would absolutely change my mind. But so long as Android exists, my view is that consumers deserve the right to choose Apple’s garden if they want. And they can choose to leave it. Millions of people do every year. Let the market decide.
Don't be embarrassed to admit that you're the one wanting to make up new rules. It's okay to want new rules. Be honest about it.
If you are interested in having your perspective challenged, the commentator for whom I most agree with on this is Hoeg Law, who has published extensive commentary on the Epic vs Apple lawsuit. If you are interested in hearing a view that differs from your own, I can commend his publications to you:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1zDCgJzZUy-TrSXpg6ir...
Yes, after a couple of decades of large companies which have consolidated platforms to a handful of sites and services that the majority of the population uses, yes it's time for some additional rules. I completely support the Cicilline bill.
If you'd like to get out of your bubble, I'd read the open markets institute's briefs in the Epic case and the Cicilline bill.
https://www.openmarketsinstitute.org/publications/epic-games...
https://cicilline.house.gov/sites/cicilline.house.gov/files/...
This belief suggests that perhaps you might be the one stuck in a bubble. I've been greedily consuming alternative views on this case but seen very few legal analysts describe the case as being anything other than an uphill climb for Epic.
I have read numerous amicus briefs from the Open Markets Institute, but I'm not aware of them issuing an amicus brief in the Epic vs Apple case. If this exists, can you please offer a link to that?
The latter is a proposal to change the rules and is therefore not relevant to the question of whether Apple were "follow[ing] the same rules," as you put it. Needless to say, I don't agree with the Cicilline bill or any other attempts to frame competition on a platform level. Most egregiously, they almost always carve out special interest exceptions and protections for video games on televisions, but not video games on mobile devices.
Have you got anything else you think I should read?
Rules can be better defined and updated, so I don't think the Cicilline bill is "changing" the rules. It's just giving the FTC an explicit mandate instead of the hands-off position it has taken so far wrt Apple. The other platforms get some new/updated rules too.
I don't see the "special interest" distinction you're making at all, Apple is free to set the rules they want in their App Store. They just can't disallow alternate app stores like they have been doing.
Apple themselves argued "people buy devices" so why shouldn't we frame competition at the platform level? Why shouldn't people be able to do what they want on their phone instead of needing two phones?
The open markets page I linked to has a link to the Epic brief they filed: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e449c8c3ef68d752f3e7...
That article is utterly rudimentary reportage. There is no legal analysis, or really any depth of analysis at all. You really should seek out specialist analysts like Richard Hoeg who have in-depth, intersectional understanding of both competition law and technology platforms.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5WS5D6GydY
If you don't like the idea of watching long-form commentary, his speaking style is clear enough that I find his voice eminently clear at 2X speed. Use the YouTube shortcut keys shift–comma (<) and shift–period (>) to quickly change the playback speed.
> Rules can be better defined and updated
In the excruciatingly pedantic context of law, "better defined rules" and "updating the rules" are synonymous with changing the rules. You can spin it however you like, but as the law stands right now, what Apple is doing is legal.
Out of curiosity, do think that Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo should also be forced to dissolve control over their platforms as well?
> They just can't disallow alternate app stores like they have been doing.
Until such time as a law is established to disallow walled gardens of technology platforms, they absolutely can. You are welcome to argue that they shouldn't be allowed to disallow alternate app stores, but arguing for the status quo to be changed is an entirely different argument.
It's also worth noting that the law is absolutely on Apple's side when it comes to licensing Apple's intellectual property, which all iOS developers must do in order to use the software development tools they supply. So even if Apple is forced to allow side-loading of alternative stores, there is absolutely no question that Apple would be allowed to require a percentage cut of revenues from apps developed using their tools—just as Epic is entitled to ask of developers who use Unreal Engine.
> a link to the Epic brief they filed
That is not a brief filed in the Epic vs Apple trial. It doesn't have anything to do with Apple. As far as I can tell, no such amicus brief exists. Yet you seem convinced it does exist and that you've read it.
Thats an interesting prediction. So you are claiming that the judge in the Apple vs Epic case will not rule against Apple, in any way, on any of its behavior.
That is a strong claim for you to be making. And since you have made this prediction, I will be sure to come back to your comments in a couple months.
Because I am pretty sure that the judge will rule against Apple on at least some issues. Probably not the whole thing. But there will be some things that Apple is doing, which will be ruled illegal.
The real question is, if this happens, will you back off on your extordinarily strong claim, that absolutely nothing that Apple was doing, will be deemed illegal by the judge? Will you admit that maybe you didn't think this all through?
It is not inconsistent for something to be legal today and then become illegal after a Judge issues a ruling. Right now, what Apple is doing is legal. It may become illegal in future.
My prediction of the outcome is, I think, a coin flip between the Judge ruling entirely in Apple's favour, or a ruling that is mostly in Apple's favour but requires a minor relaxation of certain rules around messaging inside apps about alternative methods of payment. (However even in the event of the latter, this would not represent any impediment to Apple requiring a percentage license fee when payment occurs through an alternative method. In which case it would be moot.)
For anyone following the trial directly—not just consuming other people's interpretations—it was clear that the Judge was repeatedly seeking some sort of bone to throw Epic's way, slicing the thinnest possible piece for Epic. It all hinges upon what the Judge determines to be the relevant market, and what is considered an acceptable substitute under the Sherman act. Somewhat ironically, Epic is a terrible plaintiff in this respect since their games are available on many platforms.
No actually. It would mean that it was already illegal. Thats why the judge would rule it that way.
Judges interpret the law. So yes, if the judge rules this way, then this means that you were wrong to claim that Apple's actions were not illegal.
And I look forward to coming back to this post when this happens, so that I can show you the explanation of why the actions were illegal on some fronts.
> Right now, what Apple is doing is legal.
Well if the judge says otherwise, on some fronts, we will be able to look back on this post, and re-evaluate then, won't we?
> become illegal in future.
No, becoming illegal would be if a legislator changed the law. Instead, this case is about interpreting existing law. So if the judge rules this way, then it means that Apple's actions were illegal. They did not become illegal. They were always illegal.
But, of course, I can already see people making up excuses, to ignore the judge, if the judge disagrees with then. If the judge disagrees with them, and she says that the actions were illegal, they have already made up an excuse as for why the judge is wrong.
Personally, I trust the opinion of the legal system. And that means that if the judge rules that some of the actions were always illegal, then that means that the judge is probably right, and you were wrong.
> it was clear that the Judge was repeatedly seeking some sort of bone to throw Epic's way
Ah, so then you agree that some of Apple's actions are illegal, and you take back your previous statement. Got it.
Glad you agree that the judge will likely rule that some of Apple's actions were always illegal.
The matter in question is distinctly novel and any ruling from the Judge will establish a new interpretation of existing law—laws which date back to 1890 and cannot possibly predict the creation of computer software ecosystems. A ruling could make Apple's past actions retrospectively illegal. But that doesn't make them illegal today, before the ruling has been issued.
> And I look forward to coming back to this post
As do I. I've bookmarked this thread and we shall reconvene when the judge returns her verdict.
> But, of course, I can already see people making up excuses, to ignore the judge, if the judge disagrees with then.
On both sides.
> Ah, so then you agree that some of Apple's actions are illegal
No, I don't. In my opinion, the correct verdict should be entirely in Apple's favour. I disagree with the argument made by Epic that Apple has done anything illegal. But even if the Judge makes some relatively trivial concessions in Epic's favour, it would be a bit rich for pro-Epic commentators to crow if none of Epic's substantial demands are rejected.
To the extent I think Apple should change any of their policies around the App Store, it is for the sake of PR and not law—to protect Apple's business model from the coming onslaught of badly conceived "anti-monopoly" legislation.
You literally just said that you think that the judge is going to rule that at least some of Apple's actions are illegal. That is what your previous comment means.
If you think that the judge is going to rule against Apple, in any way at all, no matter what, it means that you agree that some of Apple's actions are illegal, currently right now.
So, if the judge in the Apple case, make any action at all, no matter what, on any issue, against Apple, then that means that it is a true fact that Apple was engaging in illegal conduct.
No matter how much you dismiss the judge's ruling, if there is any order at all, against Apple on anything, then that means that Apple's actions were indeed illegal, on the things that the judge says.
> it is for the sake of PR and not law
Well, since you said "not law", then that means that if the judge does anything at all, on any issue, against Apple, then that means that you were wrong about the "law" part of it.
> and in my view the correct verdict should be entirely in Apple's favour
Oh, the excuses are coming out already! Before even the verdict has been made, you are coming up with reasons to dismiss it. As expected, no matter what the judge says, you will come up with an excuse, to ignore the evidence.
What is even the point of pretending like you care about the legal system, if you are going to make up excuses, already, about why the judge's opinion is wrong?
I find it difficult to believe that you can't see a distinction between what I predict the Judge might do, and what I believe the Judge should do. This is so beyond disingenuous that I'm no longer interested in this conversation. I have deleted the bookmark to this thread and will not be returning in future.
Don't worry, I'll remind you. But, I fully expect that you will come up with an excuse, when the judgement happens, as for why the judge is wrong to declare that at least something that Apple has done, is illegal.
You are being disingenuous in your interactions. It appears you have form in this regard. As this other person said, you seem pretty intent on deliberately misinterpreting as strongly as possible.
I'll leave you to it.
Like I said, this is already disallowed under the Sherman act, and regulation will make it explicit. If an OS maker had sued Apple for tying a device to the OS, it would be illegal under the Sherman act too.
No argument on Apple's tools, there are other tools available.
I'm kind of taken aback by your misrepresentation of the open markets institute links I posted. You are being disengenuous when you say there's no such brief.
Wow, did you seriously paste a link without reading it? Open Markets Institute did not file an amicus brief in Epic vs Apple. What you linked to is an amicus brief in the matter of Shah vs VHS San Antonio, a substantially different case which pre-dates the Epic lawsuit. Seriously, click on your own link.
OMI did release two paragraphs about Epic vs Apple in the form of a press release. Did you think that was an amicus brief? I'm starting to think that maybe you don't know what an amicus brief is.
> this is already disallowed under the Sherman act
No, it isn't. You do know that the Sherman act doesn't make it illegal to operate a monopoly, right?
> If an OS maker had sued Apple for tying a device to the OS, it would be illegal under the Sherman act too.
You've just demonstrated that you don't understand what "tying" is in the context of antitrust.
If you've followed the case, it's clear what anti-competitive harms Epic is alleging from the iOS app distribution market.
You seriously don't have anything more substantive than that?
I have listened to hours upon hours of the actual court proceedings in Epic vs Apple. Have you listened to even a single minute of it? I found Epic's case to be muddled and oftentimes contradictory. Most of their ambitious claims fell quite flat when tested in court. It certainly isn't helped with Tim Sweeney making some fairly ridiculous claims on Twitter, e.g. that Apple's commission should be more like credit card rates. Fairly ridiculous when Epic run the own store, which they admitted isn't yet profitable at a 12.5% commission. And I'm really confused why they couldn't make money on 12.5% since the Epic Games Store is barely more than a shopping cart and game downloader.
Hoeg Law's final video includes a contextual refresher on the Sherman act. It's really worth listening to. Just six minutes, or three minutes at 2X speed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5WS5D6GydY&list=PL1zDCgJzZU...
I'll leave it here.
> bespoke curation...purposefully tended and safe
These ideas are antithetical to what many on HN seem to want. I personally love Apple products, but walled gardens are great when you don't bump into the walls all the time, which a lot of other people seem to do.
In these cases (wall bumping) I think it's reasonable to want alternatives. But there are fanatics and anti-fanatics that I think skew any discussion about Apple.