←back to thread

249 points sebastian_z | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
nottorp ◴[] No.43537683[source]
Actually Apple were fined because they don't apply the same standard to their own pop-ups that allow users to reject tracking. On Apple popups you seem to need one click, while on 3rd party popups you need to confirm twice.

So the fine seems to be for treating 3rd parties differently from their own stuff.

They could make their own popups require double confirmation instead...

replies(5): >>43537947 #>>43538151 #>>43538242 #>>43538615 #>>43538944 #
tedunangst ◴[] No.43538944[source]
I'm actually okay with the Apple Camera app asking me once and the Domino's Pizza app having to ask me twice. Who are the consumers being harmed here?
replies(12): >>43539083 #>>43539089 #>>43539214 #>>43539342 #>>43539689 #>>43539799 #>>43540084 #>>43540518 #>>43540657 #>>43541588 #>>43541784 #>>43562780 #
arrosenberg ◴[] No.43539089[source]
It's anti-competitive. Apple owns the platform and is giving preference to it's own apps on that platform. Every non-Apple app that competes with an Apple app is harmed.
replies(3): >>43539262 #>>43539818 #>>43540088 #
st3fan ◴[] No.43540088[source]
This is not what this case is about.
replies(1): >>43540282 #
arrosenberg ◴[] No.43540282[source]
Seems like it’s roughly what it is about. Apple has a mandatory consent, but won’t adapt it so that third party apps can integrate their own tracking consent into it. As a result third party apps are treated differently than first party because they have one fewer consent screen. That advantages entrenched incumbents with big, locked-in user bases and disadvantages new entrants. Since Apple owns the platform, it’s anticompetitive to pass regulations (which is what Apple is doing here) that discriminate against other participants in a way that acts as a competitive advantage.
replies(1): >>43540448 #
dkga ◴[] No.43540448[source]
Yes, but are consumers that knowingly bought into the Apple ecosystem harmed?
replies(7): >>43540526 #>>43540544 #>>43540558 #>>43540562 #>>43541094 #>>43542360 #>>43543551 #
ajross ◴[] No.43541094[source]
Were Windows 98 users "harmed" because IE5 was bundled with the OS? They "knowingly bought into the Microsoft ecosystem", after all.

Clearly the consensus is that YES, they were harmed, and the proof is the Web 2.0 revolution driven by the eventually broken browser monopoly by Firefox and Chrome. But at the time the tech industry trenches were filled with platform fans cheering Gates et. al. and claiming sincerely to want the benefits of the unified Microsoft Experience.

Every time you take an Uber or reserve an AirBnB you're demonstrating the fallacy of that kind of thinking.

Basically: yes, competition is good always, no matter how tempted you are to believe the opposite.

replies(2): >>43541520 #>>43541772 #
zdragnar ◴[] No.43541772{4}[source]
Microsoft basically invented AJAX and spurred the entire web 2.0 revolution. Other browsers weren't prevented from being installed.

Compare what Apple does on iDevices. Safari comes pre-installed, and every competing browser can only skin the OS engine; competing browsers can't actually port their own offerings. On top of that, if you actually want to sell a browser, Apple will get a cut of your sales.

And yet, Apple's app store and ecosystem doesn't seem to be treated as a monopoly in this regard. If not here, why wouldn't they also get away with all of their other anti-competitive practices?

FWIW, I think they should be treated consistently as a monopoly. As a backup option, I'll settle for consistently treated as not-a-monopoly.

Mixing and matching rulings will only serve to hurt in the long run.

replies(1): >>43543150 #
1. nottorp ◴[] No.43543150{5}[source]
> And yet, Apple's app store and ecosystem doesn't seem to be treated as a monopoly in this regard.

... except in the EU where it's now legal to deliver a non safari browser engine through alternative app stores.

It's just that no one will do it for just the EU...