Most active commenters
  • makeitdouble(5)
  • slowmovintarget(4)

←back to thread

Apple fights to keep DOJ antitrust suit from reaching trial

(www.theverge.com)
112 points thunderbong | 11 comments | 21 Nov 24 00:03 UTC | HN request time: 1.377s | source | bottom
Show context
lokar ◴[21 Nov 24 03:44 UTC] No.42200889[source]▶
I see apple as like LVMH, but for phones. It has a minority of overall sales, but a majority of the “luxury” part of the market. This gives them influence over the whole market, but not a real monopoly.
replies(7): >>42200914 #>>42201067 #>>42201094 #>>42201131 #>>42201148 #>>42201290 #>>42210472 #
dismalaf ◴[21 Nov 24 04:19 UTC] No.42201067[source]▶
It's strange how they've convinced people that, considering there's nothing at all luxurious about their products, not even the price...
replies(1): >>42201442 #
bobbylarrybobby ◴[21 Nov 24 05:35 UTC] No.42201442[source]▶
What's luxurious about Apple products is that they tend to respect your time
replies(6): >>42201472 #>>42201662 #>>42202285 #>>42202412 #>>42202452 #>>42203585 #
makeitdouble ◴[21 Nov 24 06:24 UTC] No.42201662[source]▶
Does your time feel respected when you're leaving the Kindle app to open a web browser, search for the book that was next in the series, buy it, and get back to your Kindle app to continue reading ?
replies(1): >>42204357 #
stogot ◴[21 Nov 24 13:59 UTC] No.42204357[source]▶
Ouch, this just happened to me the other day and it was irritating that Apple forces other companies to force users to do a dance
replies(1): >>42204998 #
1. slowmovintarget ◴[21 Nov 24 15:08 UTC] No.42204998[source]▶
They don't force it. Amazon, for example, just doesn't want to pay the 30% platform cut. Understandable, but not force, just deterrence.
replies(3): >>42206105 #>>42208558 #>>42220928 #
2. makeitdouble ◴[21 Nov 24 16:44 UTC] No.42206105[source]▶
By that token no company is forced to anything.

For instance if the EU or the DOJ were to require Apple to change their policies, we could say Apple isn't forced to do so, as they still can refuse and "just" pay enormous fines until bankruptcy.

I'm not sure what we would call "force" if we take that definition.

replies(1): >>42208344 #
3. slowmovintarget ◴[21 Nov 24 20:33 UTC] No.42208344[source]▶
Force of law is different than fees in a walled garden. Fines are not the same as fees. Every player that does commerce on Apple's infrastructure pays fees to do so. Fines are punishment.
replies(1): >>42210100 #
4. FireBeyond ◴[21 Nov 24 20:54 UTC] No.42208558[source]▶
"just doesn't want to pay"

How unchivalrous of them.

I have no earthly idea what Apple has done to earn 30% of the sale of an eBook by Amazon for the Kindle.

replies(1): >>42209166 #
5. slowmovintarget ◴[21 Nov 24 22:05 UTC] No.42209166[source]▶
Yeah, how hard can it be to field a successful mobile platform with global software delivery and integrated payments. Maybe Amazon should have... Oh... right, they tried and failed with Fire phones.

I have no idea if the cut is 30%, but that's the same cut that Amazon takes from an author when they sell a Kindle eBook (and sometimes that goes as high as 70%). What on earth did Amazon do to earn that much of an author's sale...

I have little sympathy for Amazon, the largest retailer in the world, trying to play in someone else's playground. You can buy directly from your Kindle if you really have to have that browse-and-buy experience, but the iPhone app really is more convenient, isn't it?

replies(1): >>42210123 #
6. makeitdouble ◴[22 Nov 24 00:27 UTC] No.42210100{3}[source]▶
While fines should be different, but in practice that line is either blurry or non existent depending on the circumstances.

For instance if Apple had to pay a global total of 2 millions of fine every year for their AppStore policy, it would be rolled in as cost of doing business and they'd keep ignoring the rulings for decades. If Amazon only had minor punishment for breaking AppSore rules they'd do it yesterday.

A binding contract is only as strong as its penalties, and in that regard we can see laws a form of contract and vice versa.

replies(1): >>42227768 #
7. makeitdouble ◴[22 Nov 24 00:32 UTC] No.42210123{3}[source]▶
> how hard can it be to field a successful mobile platform with global software delivery and integrated payments.

About as hard as opening a new phone network rivaling ATT back in the days, apparently.

If neither Amazon nor Microsoft couldn't do it you know it's not a matter of money and willingness to do it.

replies(1): >>42217371 #
8. dismalaf ◴[22 Nov 24 21:05 UTC] No.42217371{4}[source]▶
Microsoft even had first mover advantage, acquired the largest cell phone maker in the world and still failed...
replies(1): >>42221325 #
9. stogot ◴[23 Nov 24 14:06 UTC] No.42220928[source]▶
They shouldn’t have to pay for something I buy in a store on their app. Apple doesn’t get to own the entire economy just because they make an operating system
10. makeitdouble ◴[23 Nov 24 15:14 UTC] No.42221325{5}[source]▶
The largest cell phone maker in the world has been either Samsung or ZTE for a dozen years.

If you're referring to the Nokia acquisition, it was way past prime and relevance, at a time when Chinese makers were already on the rise.

11. slowmovintarget ◴[24 Nov 24 13:15 UTC] No.42227768{4}[source]▶
A fee is paid as an exchange of value by prior agreement. That is, you agree up front to pay the platform fees in exchange for use of the platform or specific features of it.

Fines are not an exchange of value, even if some firms attempt to treat them that way. They are also not subject to agreement. They are risk and can be arbitrary.

So no. They are not the same.