
U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute - danbtl
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-apple/how-much-for-that-app-u-s-top-court-hears-apple-antitrust-dispute-idUSKCN1NU0JV
======
lbacaj
Unfortunately for Apple, I do think the App Store being an exclusive and
default way to purchase and load apps on iOS is in fact causing prices of
Apps, in many cases, to be higher than they should be.

The perfect example of this is the subscription services, right now you can
get a cheaper subscription to a service such as Spotify if you buy it off the
App Store. That is a prime example of how much the 30% payment to Apple is
hurting developers and ultimately consumers... Apple is so upset about this
they won’t let developers like Spotify link to buying the subscription on
their own website anywhere on the app that is sold through their App Store, if
that’s not Monopoly abuse I don’t know what is.

As much as I love Apples products I do feel that they have gotten away with a
lot here, especially since there is zero other ways to load apps into iOS
devices, in the very least consumers are paying 30% more for apps if there was
a competing App Store on iOS that charged less to load apps.

Edit: whether the Supreme Court will see it this way or not is a whole other
issue.

~~~
threeseed
Apple provides a service for that 30% though. They handle the payment
processing, they build, moderate and curate the App Store apps and they
provide a lucrative channel to market for app developers. So allowing Spotify
et al to get all the benefits of the channel without paying for it is actually
unfair to Apple.

~~~
nothrabannosir
_> Apple provides a service for that 30% though._

Money is universally reviled, and rightfully so: it is a dark, vile, evil
thing. It brings out the very worst in the very best of us. It brings entire
countries to their knees. Money corrupts. Money is awful.

But there is one thing that money does better than anything else, bar nothing.
No contest. No competitor on the horizon. Many have tried, all have failed.
Money quanitifies value.

It is not up to you to defend how much money Apple should get. It is not up to
us to contradict it. It is up to the market. This is the one and only thing it
does well, so let's at least give it that.

Because allowing Apple to get all the benefits of determining the value of
their app store, without letting the market give it a go, is actually unfair
to Money.

~~~
hamandcheese
> Money quantifies value

Money quantifies value... in our money based economy. Which is basically a
tautology. Money in many cases fails to quantify utility and the same quantity
of money has wildly varying utility from market to market.

------
chipotle_coyote
Folks here on HN are (understandably) leaping on the notion that this will
force Apple to allow other app stores, or sideloading, or something else that
keeps the App Store from being the exclusive distributor of iOS apps. But, a
few notes that are important to keep in mind:

(1) Apple is the petitioner here. They're the ones asking the Supreme Court to
make a ruling, specifically on whether the complainant has the legal standing
to bring this case at all.

(2) If Apple loses at the Supreme Court, this just gets sent back to a lower
court. It's not going to force Apple to do anything at this point.

(3) Most importantly, there's no guarantee that if Apple _does_ ultimately
lose that the remedy will be opening the iOS ecosystem up to other app stores.

The complaint in _Apple v. Pepper_ is literally that Apple's lock on app
distribution drives up app prices. If app prices are not being driven up by
that lock, the argument has a very good chance of falling apart.

This is not a case about what restrictions Apple puts on the app store , about
software or device freedom, and it's not even a case about whether Apple's
mandatory 30% cut is "fairly priced" by whatever definition of fair you care
to use -- the case as filed literally hinges on the claim that iOS app prices
are artificially inflated by that cut. And I think that in a world where
people have been trained to think that $4.99 is a crazy high expensive price
for software, that could be a real tough case to prove.

~~~
jsjohnst
This isn’t an Apples to Apples comparison (no pun intended), but all the folks
who think 30% is high, I question if they’ve ever sold physical goods via a
store/marketplace.

Say I want to sell my sprocket I designed, built, packaged, and marketed 100%
on my own on Amazon. Anybody want to guess how much Amazon takes? I’ll give
you a hint, many companies selling on Amazon would kill for 30%.

Think it’s better in brick and mortar land? Try again! Say you go buy a new TV
from a major electronics store like Best Buy. Their effective margins are
usually 50% or more. It gets even worse in other categories. Take shoes for
example, in some cases 80% of the purchase price goes to the middleman.

Let’s also not forget that getting into the App Store, while us developers
(myself included) whine about it like it’s the worst abuse, is far far easier
than retailers like Amazon, Walmart, etc. Of course staying in the store is
important too, talk to any businesses who were pulled due to low sales volume
for their not even niche product. When has Apple really done that?

In conclusion, do I think what Apple is doing is fair, maybe, maybe not. I do
however wish everyone would get out of their bubble though and realize as much
as we like to complain, it’s really been a disruption to what was the status
quo before.

~~~
cm2187
When is the last time you bought a software in a brick and mortar store? Every
software is now downloadable, including video games. There are no cost other
than hosting.

I don't think the "it could have been distributed at much greater cost with a
horse carriage a century ago" argument is very compelling.

~~~
jasode
_> There are no cost other than hosting._

If one is trying to sell _non-free_ software, it requires a payment processor
like PayPal, Stripe, DigitalRiver, or paying a bank a monthly maintenance fee
for a full-blown merchant account to accept credit-cards. A cursory google of
Steam says they charge 5% fees for video games. They all have fees based on a
percentage of the sales price. Even something outside of traditional payments
infrastructure such as Bitcoin has fees.

If the cost is truly $0 like a sibling comment mentioned, how are people
selling software for money without paying any fees to any intermediaries?

~~~
cm2187
Agreed. Add hosting and the fair cost is probably in the region of 7%. That's
still very far from 30%.

------
cabaalis
> Developers “cannot risk the possibility of Apple removing them from the App
> Store if they bring suit,” the American Antitrust Institute advocacy group
> said in a brief.

To my untrained IANAL eyes, this seems to be the meat of the argument. Apple
is trying to say they are just an agent facilitating a sale, all the while
jingling the kingdom keys in their back pocket by controlling who gets to
sell.

They are seeking to chill consumers and developers alike.

~~~
rkagerer
"Apple said it is acting only as the agent for app developers who sell the
apps to consumers through the App Store."

Sure, an agent who just so happens to control the platform, the API's and
building blocks, all the rules, the horizontal, the vertical, and unilaterally
decides which apps are allowed to exist. But, "we're just an agent".

I'm not familiar enough with the case to form an opinion on the whole thing,
but I do hope the court sees through that particular sham of an argument.

~~~
rickycook
i wouldn’t pin that all on anti competitive behaviour though... the end to end
control of the platform is kind of Apples MO, and is a fairly distinguishing
feature between the Android ecosystem and the Apple ecosystem. it’d be nice to
have another distribution option, but not at the expense of a simple UX,
security, or any other very valid reason to only allow a tightly controlled
experience

~~~
lwansbrough
Oh okay, so as long as it's their MO to have a monopoly then it's fine. I'm
sure plenty of iPhone users, for example, would like to have a PornHub app on
their iPhone, but that's currently impossible because of Apple's guidelines.
You could build a very high quality app and be denied for a reason strictly
outside of the "UX, security 'or any other very valid reason'" that Apple
arbitrarily decides.

~~~
scarface74
And what would this pornhub app do that you couldn’t do from the website?

Should Nintendo also be forced to sell a PornHub game?

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> And what would this pornhub app do that you couldn’t do from the website?

Store files for offline use or untracked use, have better privacy because user
settings can be stored locally rather than on the server, provide source code
that can be audited rather than relying on javascript that can change at any
time, etc. In general, anything an app can do that a website can't --
otherwise why do native apps even exist?

> Should Nintendo also be forced to sell a PornHub game?

They shouldn't be allowed to prevent someone else from distributing one.

~~~
scarface74
So let’s see, you downloaded the files from their server, now they have a
unique id for each user and they can track you more.

Most commercial apps aren’t going to give you access to the source control.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> So let’s see, you downloaded the files from their server, now they have a
> unique id for each user and they can track you more.

Which you can verify they aren't doing if they provide the source code. Or the
non-Apple app distributor could verify that they aren't or otherwise sandbox
the apps they distribute to prevent that from happening -- another advantage
to competition.

> Most commercial apps aren’t going to give you access to the source control.

For something like that, why wouldn't they? Especially when there is a
specific reason to, because it's something people are unusually privacy-
sensitive about.

And it's not as if a community-developed Pornhub app that did would be
accepted into the App Store either.

~~~
scarface74
_Which you can verify they aren 't doing if they provide the source code. Or
the non-Apple app distributor could verify that they aren't or otherwise
sandbox the apps they distribute to prevent that from happening -- another
advantage to competition_

So what sandbox is available for apps that don’t allow a native app to
ascertain individually identifiable device information?

You also now have to trust the non Apple App Store to check the source code.
The entire open source community let the HeartBleed bug stay in open source
software for a year and a half...

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> So what sandbox is available for apps that don’t allow a native app to
> ascertain individually identifiable device information?

That's the point. Currently nobody can build that because Apple doesn't allow
it.

> You also now have to trust the non Apple App Store to check the source code.
> The entire open source community let the HeartBleed bug stay in open source
> software for a year and a half...

"Many eyes" results in fewer bugs over time, not zero bugs instantaneously. It
doesn't have to be perfect to be better.

~~~
scarface74
_That 's the point. Currently nobody can build that because Apple doesn't
allow it._

And where does this Sandbox wrapper for third party app stores exist for the
Android ecosystem where it is both allowed and their are five time more
devices?

 _Many eyes " results in fewer bugs over time, not zero bugs instantaneously.
It doesn't have to be perfect to be better._

Have any statistics to back that up? Is Android more secure or less buggy than
iOS?

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> And where does this Sandbox wrapper for third party app stores exist for the
> Android ecosystem where it is both allowed and their are five time more
> devices?

[https://seap.samsung.com/sdk/knox-standard-
android](https://seap.samsung.com/sdk/knox-standard-android)

[https://yajin.org/papers/asiaccs15_appcage.pdf](https://yajin.org/papers/asiaccs15_appcage.pdf)

> Have any statistics to back that up? Is Android more secure or less buggy
> than iOS?

Obvious confounder:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_\(operating_system\))

But what metric would you use anyway? Number of discovered bugs doesn't work
because the whole premise is that a higher percentage of the bugs will be
found.

It's inherently difficult to measure. But refute the logic: Bugs found by
vendor + everyone else > Bugs found by vendor alone. The only assumption is
that bugs found by everyone else is non-zero, which is clearly true for any
number of open source projects including both Android and Darwin.

~~~
scarface74
So your solution to a sandbox app is to buy a Samsung device and use a
corporate MDM product to manage that one device?

 _But what metric would you use anyway? Number of discovered bugs doesn 't
work because the whole premise is that a higher percentage of the bugs will be
found. It's inherently difficult to measure. But refute the logic: Bugs found
by vendor + everyone else > Bugs found by vendor alone._

Google and third parties have been finding bugs in other people’s closed
source products for decades. Again just because people _can_ look at code
doesn’t mean that people _are_ looking at code.

You made the claim that there are less bugs in open source software, without
any citations, studies, etc.

Android and Darwin are open source but a large part of both iOS and Android
are closed source.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> So your solution to a sandbox app is to buy a Samsung device and use a
> corporate MDM product to manage that one device?

You implied that no one was making any such thing. They do. An app distributor
that wanted to do the same for apps it distributes could do so likewise, but
not if Apple stands in their way.

> Google and third parties have been finding bugs in other people’s closed
> source products for decades. Again just because people can look at code
> doesn’t mean that people _are_ looking at code.

And if the product was open source, they could also _fix_ the bug, rather than
having to rely on the vendor to do it -- which they sometimes don't.

It would also be _easier_ for them to discover the bugs, which would result in
more of them being discovered.

> You made the claim that there are less bugs in open source software, without
> any citations, studies, etc.

Because it's an argument from logic rather than an argument from observation.
The claim isn't that some specific number of people have been observed using
published source code to discover bugs, only that the number is non-zero --
which doesn't require statistics, only a single counterexample that I can
provide myself from personal experience in having done it.

> Android and Darwin are open source but a large part of both iOS and Android
> are closed source.

Then why propose to compare them as though it would provide some useful
information about the effect of open source on finding bugs?

~~~
scarface74
Of course I knew about MDM software, it’s been around forever - before the
iPhone ever cane out. We used it for Windows Mobile software, deployment of
vertical software for both iOS and Android, etc. _And if the product was open
source, they could also fix the bug, rather than having to rely on the vendor
to do it -- which they sometimes don 't. It would also be easier for them to
discover the bugs, which would result in more of them being discovered._

In reality, Android is suppose to be “open” but between Android, iOS, and
Windows, the Android ecosystem has the worse track record of both correcting
bugs and getting the patches out to users.

In the real world, no one is voluntarily going through each line of either
Android or iOS looking for exploits out of the goodness of thier hearts.

 _Because it 's an argument from logic rather than an argument from
observation. The claim isn't that some specific number of people have been
observed using published source code to discover bugs, only that the number is
non-zero -- which doesn't require statistics, only a single counterexample
that I can provide myself from personal experience in having done it._

And that “logic” falls apart with one widespread example - the HeartBleed bug
that was in the OpenSSL implementation for a year and a half.

The number is also “non zero” of bugs found by third parties in closed source
software....

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> In reality, Android is suppose to be “open” but between Android, iOS, and
> Windows, the Android ecosystem has the worse track record of both correcting
> bugs and getting the patches out to users.

The process of identifying bugs and the process of distributing patches are
two separate things. And there is a very specific reason the "Android
ecosystem" is slow to distribute patches -- an important piece, namely the
hardware drivers, is not open. The reason you can't install the latest stock
Android with all the latest patches on your device is that the device is stuck
with proprietary blob drivers that aren't compatible with newer kernels.

And the operating system with the best security record is unambiguously
OpenBSD.

> In the real world, no one is voluntarily going through each line of either
> Android or iOS looking for exploits out of the goodness of thier hearts.

They don't have to do it out of altruism, there are plenty of self-interested
reasons to do it. Security researchers build their reputations by discovering
vulnerabilities. iOS jailbreaks are valuable. Some companies that use Android
in their own products pay to audit the code that runs on them (and
incidentally on everyone else's devices). Programmers that discover their
device unexpectedly doing something "weird" are more likely to investigate,
and more likely to succeed in discovering the cause, when the code is
available.

> And that “logic” falls apart with one widespread example - the HeartBleed
> bug that was in the OpenSSL implementation for a year and a half.

[https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-
list/vendor_id-26/p...](https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-
list/vendor_id-26/product_id-32238/Microsoft-Windows-10.html)

Take a look at how many of those also affect Server 2008, implying they've
been there for at least a decade before being discovered.

> The number is also “non zero” of bugs found by third parties in closed
> source software....

And how many of those were discovered specifically because the source code
_wasn 't_ available?

~~~
scarface74
_The process of identifying bugs and the process of distributing patches are
two separate things. And there is a very specific reason the "Android
ecosystem" is slow to distribute patches -- an important piece, namely the
hardware drivers, is not open. The reason you can't install the latest stock
Android with all the latest patches on your device is that the device is stuck
with proprietary blob drivers that aren't compatible with newer kernels._

So that whole tweet from Andy Rubin about “the definition of ‘open’” has
always been BS.

And it doesn’t matter _why_ people can’t get security updates. The fact is
that iOS users get security updates faster and more reliably than Android
users for phones that are up to 5 years old.

 _They don 't have to do it out of altruism, there are plenty of self-
interested reasons to do it. Security researchers build their reputations by
discovering vulnerabilities. iOS jailbreaks are valuable._

So since security researchers including people from Google have found security
exploits in closed sourced software that kind of makes the whole open vs
closed thing a moot point...

People really overestimate the difficultly for someone who knows what they are
doing to find security exploits in closed source software. Heck, I was
disassembling and patching 16 bit x86 code and 8 bit 65C02 code in middle
school.

 _And how many of those were discovered specifically because the source code
wasn 't available?_

Again, there is nothing magic about “source code”. It’s a little harder, but a
skilled developer can follow the logic of assembly language.

------
kitsunesoba
Perhaps it’s an unpopular opinion, but I’m hopeful that this doesn’t go
anywhere for the simple fact that I don’t want to have to keep 5 different app
stores installed to have access to everything. It would be cool to have an iOS
equivalent of F-Droid, but I’d rather that not come at the cost of scattering
commercial iOS apps across stores.

I’m not keen on the idea of non-WebKit web engines on iOS either because it
will inevitably enable a huge contingent of lazy web developers to just
display a “screw you and your device’s battery, go download Chrome” message
rather than bother with crafting their sites and web apps in a web engine
agnostic way. It’ll be just like when IE was the dominant browser, except this
time around the dominant engine is favored by web devs and will continue to be
thanks to Google’s web-centrism.

~~~
vedantroy
I think its good to force Apple to allow non-WebKit web engines on iOS. Right
now Apple can forcefully cripple technologies like progressive web apps by not
supporting the latest web technologies. This allows Apple to force companies
to develop native applications.

Similarly, Apple has been slacking off on improving Webkit and making it as
good as V8. By getting rid of Apple's monopoly on web engines, developers will
be able to push websites to new levels that are currently hard to attain.

~~~
throwaway34241
As long as Safari remains the default or very popular, sites will probably
have to support it anyway regardless of if other browser engines are
available.

There's also some conflict of interest if say Chrome were to come to be the
dominant browser on iOS since they also control Android. Would battery life,
performance etc be prioritized as highly on iOS as their own platform?

I think it would be nice to be able to load apps from outside the app store
especially on devices like the iPad Pro, but I think that's a separate issue
from web standards. I think the only practical way to advance web standards is
for the major browser vendors to agree and implement them, even if that
sometimes takes a while.

~~~
43920
> As long as Safari remains the default or very popular, sites will probably
> have to support it anyway regardless of if other browser engines are
> available.

But if another engine supports additional features that Safari doesn't, you
could still offer those features to users of other browsers, i.e. you could do
something like "install Chrome/Firefox to use our PWA".

> Would battery life, performance etc be prioritized as highly on iOS as their
> own platform?

Maybe not, but in that case people could switch back to Safari or another
competitor like Firefox.

------
tptacek
Isn't the premise of this case, that Apple's "monopoly" on the app store and
30% toll on developers is effectively jacking up app prices for consumers,
pretty hard to support with evidence? My impression is that the modern app
store coincides with (if it didn't actually _cause_ , which is possible as
well) an industry-historic decline in software prices for consumers. Things we
pay $0.99 today for used to cost $50.

~~~
kodablah
The rising tide lifts all technological boats, so it makes little since to
compare today with historical water levels. Things can be overall cheaper
compared to the past, but still anti-competitively hamstrung. If you can
compare to costs of things in the past, you probably won't find any technology
more expensive.

~~~
tptacek
That's a colorable argument on a message board, but in court, if intervention
is to be premised on harm to consumers through overcharging, Apple's opponents
will need to present empirical evidence, not counterfactuals. Be that as it
may: all the evidence available to me suggests that mobile app stores have
drastically reduced the cost of retail software to consumers.

If anything, what I've seen is the opposite concern, which is that app stores
make prices _too favorable_ for consumers, at an untenable cost to the
developers.

------
rixrax
Answer is not to give choice in where to download apps. If you don't like
Apple app store, then maybe switch to Android or BlackBerry. Or something
else.

I like being able to go to just one store and get my Apps there. Imagine the
horror of having to get the apps from AT&T or Vz store for iPhone, or having
to choose if I need to get an app from official store or from another one run
by some east European dude from his basement. I love that apple curates the
apps and at least tries to get rid of worst offenders whether it's privacy
violations or outright malware.

~~~
dingaling
And yet if an ISP blocked Netflix and made you buy from ISPFlix there'd be
wailing and rending of garments.

I mean, you could just change ISP to ISP2 if you didn't like it.

~~~
danaris
It's easier to change from iOS to Android than it is to change ISPs in huge
portions of the US.

At least changing from iOS to Android (or vice versa) doesn't require you to
buy a new house and move—probably move far enough that you need to find a new
job, too.

------
BurritoAlPastor
Here’s what I don’t get: in what sense is this a monopoly? Consumers have
knowledge that the App Store is the only game in town on an iPhone, and they
have the option to buy a different phone if they don’t want to use the App
Store.

That’s like saying that the manufacturer of my vacuum has a monopoly on vacuum
bags.

~~~
dirkgently
Read it again - it's about the monopoly on App Store.

It's like buying a car and only able to use gas sold by that company.

~~~
coin
Similar to ink cartridges for inkjet printers

~~~
blfr
Which is crazy as well, right?

~~~
dwaite
Sort of. Some printers have built the print head (with low MTBF) into the ink
cartridge itself. You can refill once, but by the second time the output will
be really bad.

Some printers ship with only partially-filled cartridges. This winds up being
destructive on several fronts - users feel buying a whole new printer is
cheaper than buying all the refill cartridges, not understanding that the new
cartridges are different than what they had. This means the printer company is
constantly selling new printers at a loss, with functional printer hardware
thrown away to make space.

The print cartridges also usually sell with an XL-size option that appears
cheaper overall. However, people who feel they should buy a new printer rather
than cartridges are typically people who are at an ultra-low usage level (<10
pages per month). Even at the normal size, they are not going to make it
through the ink before the cartridge starts to degrade with age.

HP rolled out a printer monitoring/ink subscription service which may solve
these problems - assuming people feel it is financially sound to subscribe.

------
askaboutit
Apples total lack of PWA support is a real pain. Making a mobile app is 10x
the investment of a PWA and most ‘apps’ would be better off as a website. This
issue is annoying me more and more lately as Apple simply wants to hold back
so many things. All so they can take 30%.

------
aftbit
I don't understand why Apple isn't getting slapped for only allowing Safari-
based browsers in the App Store. I don't understand anti-trust laws that well,
but didn't Microsoft settle out of a very similar case related to bundling
Media Player and IE with Windows?

~~~
rand0mthought
I just downloaded Firefox and Chrome from App Store. Do I miss something?

~~~
pmontra
They are skins around Safari. From
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_for_iOS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_for_iOS)

> Unlike Firefox on Android, Firefox for iOS does not support browser add-ons.
> Additionally, it uses Apple's Webkit rendering engine, rather than Mozilla's
> Gecko. Both of these limitations are in accordance with Apple's rules for
> submitting apps to the App Store.

Search for safari, webkit or WKWebView in [https://github.com/mozilla-
mobile/firefox-ios](https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/firefox-ios) and you'll
see how the integration goes.

~~~
samat
Calling them skins is not correct at all. Being able to auto translate whole
pages or sync all bookmarks and browsing history or passwords in iOS chrome is
not merely a skin.

------
bubblethink
I feel that all these measures are stop gaps at best. The fundamental thing
you want is for customers to install whatever software they want on the
hardware they buy. For mass market devices, it really ought to be a law that
requires the manufacturer to allow consumers to do whatever they want. The
manufacturer doesn't need to support these modes, and that's fine. Once you
have that, the rest falls into place. This was the idea behind GPLv3 and anti-
tivoization, but it never caught any traction for anything that matters.

------
sjg007
I guess the issue is that side loading apps or an alternative App Store is not
supported. That and disallowing purchases or rentals on amazon video or kindle
apps for iOS.

------
balibebas
I'm looking forward to the day I don't have to charge a non-profit doing good
in this world $99 a year just to keep their app on the app store. Apple
devices should have the equivalent of F-Droid for FLOSS goodies, and that's
exactly the conclusion the courts should decide on IMO. This of course will
make Apple devices less secure. But then again the current state of affairs is
arguably worse given the lack of competition.

------
tokyodude
IIUC if Apple loses then there may finally be better way to get GPLed software
on iOS/tvOS. I currently run Kodi on my Apple TV but I had to compile and sign
it myself because they can't put it on the Apple store without an alternate
license AFAICT.

Unfortunately while I personally think Apple should allow other app stores I
don't think this particular suit will succeed.

[https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/20/17479480/supreme-court-
ap...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/20/17479480/supreme-court-apple-vs-
pepper-antitrust-lawsuit-standing-explainer)

~~~
dwaite
IMHO, the reason some GPLed software is not allowed on iOS/tvOS is because RMS
and others don't want their GPL code on iOS/tvOS.

In particular, the argument I've seen used in the past to contest GPL code in
App Store apps is that Apple (as distributor) _must_ distribute the source
directly on the App Store, rather than the application or the App Store
description having a link to the source via the developer's website or another
third party site.

This isn't something Apple really cares about - but if someone says your app
has a license violation, Apple will of course push dealing with said people
onto you.

This has always stuck out to me as pedantic and hardly a violation of the
spirit of the license. Such politics are what have and will continue to
relegate the FSF to being a small social group rather than the originally
intended purpose (whether you consider that a revolution, or a reversion back
to software freedom)

------
zaidf
I have recently found myself reconsidering my views on Tim Cook. He has
generally positioned himself as the voice of reason, especially on matters of
privacy. He’s gone as far as attack companies like Google and Facebook. And
yet, all of this masks a simple truth abt Apple: any extra privacy or consumer
protection comes at a _very_ hefty cost, making most of its products
unaffordable for most of the world. In contrast, Google’s Android _is_
affordable for many large markets Apple doesn’t find worthy of competing in.

~~~
nradov
In principle there's nothing stopping Android device manufacturers from
respecting privacy by using AOSP without Google services. However in practice
such devices have either been market failures, or are even worse from a
privacy standpoint (i.e. infested with Chinese government spyware).

~~~
samat
Until very lately there were secrect mandatory agreements with google which
made device manufacturers unable to sell devices with and without googles
software at the same time. You had to choose one.

------
sharemywin
If Microsoft wasn't allowed to bundle a browser with the operating system, not
sure an app store should be bundled either.

------
friendstock
30% is a lot to take away from the developers. It's good to have some pressure
on Apple to lower their percentage.

~~~
HatchedLake721
Yeah? Have you ever tried pushing your software during Windows Mobile era?

~~~
Apocryphon
And 30% was a rate that was concocted during that same era, or shortly after.
Why should it still hold true now, when Apple's revenue is far greater?

------
scarface74
So if Apple loses what does that mean for the stores for the PlayStation,
XBox, and Nintendo.....

~~~
sdinsn
I don't think that's a fair comparison, since I can buy hard copy games from a
variety of stores in addition to buying digital games. I can't buy hard copy
iPhone apps.

~~~
scarface74
Yes you can but hard copy games, but guess what? Those games _still_ have to
be approved by the console maker and won’t run unless they have a digital
signature from the console manufacturer. It’s been that way since the 80s.

~~~
sdinsn
I've developed homebrew games on multiple platforms. I know that NES, GBA,
PSP, and DS have little to no restrictions. The Wii has a few restrictions,
but not many.

~~~
scarface74
So exactly how did you get those games on actual hardware or did you run them
on an emulator?

You definitely didn’t get games distributed on unmodifurd PlayStations,
Nintendos, or XBoxes.

Nintendo has had a lockout system since the SNES days.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Games_Corp._v._Nintendo_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Games_Corp._v._Nintendo_of_America_Inc).

~~~
sdinsn
Flash to a empty cartridge for DS/GBA/NES. There is no lockout. The GBA
homebrew scene especially is actually quite active.

~~~
scarface74
So you’re claiming there is no lock out chip even though there was a Supreme
Court case - Atari vs Nintendo where Atari circumvented it and this article.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIC_(Nintendo)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIC_\(Nintendo\))

~~~
sdinsn
I don't know what to tell you. I've flashed on a blank cart and used it on a
real NES. Not sure what blank carts have done to circumvent it, but it's no
work on my end.

~~~
scarface74
Yes it’s possibke to distribute home brew games by using circumvention. Good
luck trying to make that a commercially viable option. That stands up about as
well as saying you can distribute iOS apps outside of the App Store for
jailbroken phones....

------
sodosopa
Seems having an open iOS AppStore is just an incentive for crap apps. Not to
say iOS doesn’t have them currently, but not matching the levels of Android

------
blfr
Not being American, this is the one thing I wish Trump/GOP/conservatives did
in the US: bust the tech trusts. They're taking the courts, they can surely
find state or federal attorneys to bring the cases, and the executive would
provide them with cover and enforcement.

I'm surprised they haven't done it already. It would make sense for purely
partisan reasons because tech companies are very liberal and extremely hostile
to Trump's administration. But they could even reach across the aisle with
megacorps like Amazon pretty clearly abusing their lower level employees which
has been a cause on the left for decades.

~~~
anime_forever
You're being downvoted but I agree with you even if it's slightly hypocritical
coming from the Trump administration

~~~
blfr
It wouldn't be hypocritical for Trump since IIRC he bashed Amazon during the
campaign. Probably a little more difficult for the Chamber of Commerce
republicans.

~~~
zachwood
He bashes Amazon because Bezos owns a newspaper he doesn't like.

~~~
blfr
Perhaps it's a proxy attack but he criticized Amazon's tax practices for
putting smaller shops out of business and the supposed preferential treatment
by the USPS.

Anyway, my point was that it doesn't matter. His administration could do good
here for purely partisan reasons.

~~~
dwaite
The USPS allegation was 100% untrue as reported by the postmaster general (who
you think would be someone Trump would have consulted).

The tax stuff is really none of his damn business (because it is really a
state tax code issue at this point, not a federal issue)

If Trump does anything to attack Apple, it will be because he things doing so
will benefit the US economy (likely because someone else told him it would).
Things like convincing Apple to make certain parts in the US, even if doing so
would increase prices in the US (and dramatically do so elsewhere in the
world).

------
amoitnga
In today's world successful business often requires online presence

online presence requires app

to have an app my business "has to be approved by Apple"

That's a freaking monopoly.

~~~
eridius
Why does an online presence require an app? Most "online presences" still
don't have them and do just fine.

~~~
amoitnga
it is sort of "expected". People want a native experience.

To me, the entire concept seems wrong. It's like having to submit your website
to chrome, and safari, and mozila, and be approved by them, for them to
display your site... Don't you think it's wrong? Who are they to decide what I
can or can not install on my device?

