| ▲ | infotainment 4 days ago |
| It really feels like the DOJ has it out for Google here. Apple's behavior is far more monopolistic, and Microsoft is no saint either. |
|
| ▲ | TheDong 4 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| I remain utterly confused how apple's rule that you can't link to a purchase page, and can't mention the 30% tax in-app, hasn't had its day in court yet. Like, you can have a free app in the store, with a website where you can purchase premium, and then in the app have an "upgrade" button that just displays the error "You cannot upgrade to premium in the app" and hope users find your website. You aren't allowed to have "You can upgrade to premium using our site, at https://site.com" message because if you can pay money on site.com, having that error message is seen as evading the app store tax. In both of those cases though, apple did the same amount of work, so the justification you sometimes hear, that "30% is fair because you're paying for app store resources and apple to advertise your app", seems like it doesn't really apply. Like, spotify is a perfect example of this. They don't let you upgrade on iOS because paying 30% to apple would mean they'd lose money on every sell (music has very thin margins), and spotify isn't even allowed to display a good error message because linking to their webpage, or mentioning the app store tax, would be against app store ToS. And then apple music also exists, and ignores the 30% tax. It seems so blindingly obviously harmful to consumers. This all applies to the google play app store too, but at least on the google play app store, there's no "thought crime" of informing your users they can go punch in a credit card on the web. |
| |
| ▲ | lolinder 4 days ago | parent [-] | | All of these things did have their day in court in Epic vs Apple. Apple won on most counts but lost on the anti-steering provisions: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple | | |
| ▲ | TheDong 4 days ago | parent [-] | | > lost on the anti-steering provisions Also from that article: > Apple allowed developers to include [information about other payment methods] but required that developers give Apple 27% of all sales made within seven days of being directed to these sites That doesn't really sound like losing, a 27% penalty if you "steer users" is effectively the same as steering not being allowed. | | |
| ▲ | lolinder 4 days ago | parent [-] | | That's not a penalty for steering users, that's Apple's commission for running the store. Their position has always been that the 30% is not a payment processing fee, it's an App Store fee, and the court agreed with them that that is acceptable. So steer away, but pay your dues manually if you do so. I'm honestly shocked how many people thought that the outcome would have been anything else. Apple has been very consistent in emphasizing that the 30% is not the payment processing fee, so the idea that getting paid with your own payment processor would bypass the fee was always absurd. The best developers can hope for is for US regulators to follow the EU and force Apple to allow alternative stores with lower fees. There was never a chance that the government would ban Apple from charging its fee. | | |
| ▲ | talldayo 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm honestly shocked at how many people seem to ignore Apple's developer fee. The Core Technology fee is a hackneyed attempt at trying to preserve the same broken system, and it too will be removed in time. It was only allowed to exist unchallenged when Apple created a minuscule loophole for nonprofits, and even then it was the cause of a second EU probe: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/24/apple-app-store-rules-are-in... You keep showing up in these threads to repeat the same "this is how it is" shtick, but you're seemingly terrified of the "what could be" aspect. Apple's abuse of their coalesced power is still illegal in Europe and Apple is still in the process of designing their remediation. If the US wasn't fundamentally corrupt Apple would have been put on trial years ago - citing America's preliminary rulings is less of a feather in Apple's cap and more an example of how far consumer protections have fallen in the West. | | |
| ▲ | lolinder 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > You keep showing up in these threads to repeat the same "this is how it is" shtick, but you're seemingly terrified of the "what could be" aspect. You have to understand the way that things are in order to effectively advocate for the way that things should be. If you approach the world with a broken mental model and try to use that broken mental model to advocate that the world needs changing, you'll accomplish nothing. We have spent years with people thinking that if they could just charge for their apps outside of the App Store that they'd magically be able to avoid the fee. That was never the case, it was never going to be the case, and I'm just here to clear that up. If you want to abolish the 30% fee, you need to ask for something besides abolishing the anti-steering provisions because the fee was never about the payment method. People can advocate for whatever changes they want, I'm sincerely just here to try to make sure we're all talking about the way things really are, because otherwise it's just hot air. |
| |
| ▲ | TheDong 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Apple is happy to take 0% of offsite payments if you don’t link to them though, so clearly apple is fine with an app store fee of 0, ie for spotify. The only difference is if the app error says “You can’t pay in-app” or if it says “You can’t pay in app, you can pay on our site” Restricting apps from informing users still seems like obvious harm to users, like if a retail store made a rule that “the manual that comes with your product can’t contain your homepage because you have an online shop that might have better prices than us” If it were the cost of running the store, truly, it would charge based on app downloads or such. Not based on if users click a link to amazon.com in the kindle app and then buy 2 books or 3. | |
| ▲ | YetAnotherNick 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > it's an App Store fee I think Apple said something like SDK fee, which should even apply outside app store. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | tivert 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > It really feels like the DOJ has it out for Google here. Apple's behavior is far more monopolistic, and Microsoft is no saint either. As others have mentioned, the government can do more than one thing at a time. Here is a list: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/business/antitrust-.... Perhaps Google's case had just progressed faster, and perhaps it was more clear-cut or easier to prove. Google's records retention policies were also over the top and perhaps hurt it: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/20/technology/google-antitru...: > But Google has faced the broadest criticism for its actions, with the judges in all three antitrust cases chastising the company for its communications practices. And they engaged in some pretty sketchy practices: > If using the right words and deleting messages did not keep Google out of the courthouse, the company concluded, invoking the lawyers would.... > A message surfaced in the Epic trial in which a Google lawyer identified the practice of copying lawyers on documents as “fake privilege” and seemed rather amused by it. Mr. Walker said he was “disappointed” and “surprised” to hear that term.... > Last month, three advocacy groups, led by the American Economic Liberties Project, asked for Mr. Walker to be investigated by the California State Bar for coaching Google to “engage in widespread and illegal destruction” of documents relevant to federal trials. |
| |
| ▲ | frognumber 4 days ago | parent [-] | | <--- This. And specifically: > Google's records retention policies were also over the top and perhaps hurt it: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/20/technology/google-antitru...: If you're intentionally hiding things from government investigators, the legal presumption is there's a good reason. Judges are allowed to impute things from destroyed evidence. Otherwise, everyone would destroy evidence. |
|
|
| ▲ | lolinder 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The DOJ can go after more than one company at a time. And they are, in fact, doing so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_(2024) |
| |
| ▲ | dazilcher 4 days ago | parent [-] | | The DoJ does not have unlimited resources, nor does it have unlimited time - see imminent regime and policy change. Priority matters, and picking Google as the first high profile target is bizarre. | | |
| ▲ | lolinder 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Why is it bizarre? Google has near-monopoly market share in search and in ads and Apple is the only thing standing between them and a monopoly on the browser. Furthermore, they've demonstrated anti-competitive behavior in all three markets. The only market where Apple has a monopoly is the marketplace that they created for themselves, and a high profile case already tried and failed to use that definition of the market to argue antitrust. The DOJ is trying again anyway, but it made perfect sense for them to wait until Epic vs Apple was decided before starting work—why waste time on something that could be moot by the time they finish? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | strongpigeon 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| But there is an antitrust lawsuit against Apple and Microsoft is getting probed by the FTC regarding their cloud business. |
|
| ▲ | ezfe 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That's why they're also suing apple |
|
| ▲ | klysm 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Maybe? Any regulation is very welcomed in this area |
| |
| ▲ | myworkinisgood 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Actually not. Punishing the smaller company while allowing big company to run amok is essentially making things even worse. | | |
| ▲ | ethbr1 4 days ago | parent [-] | | > smaller company That's a weirdly specific way to label the 5th largest public company on the planet, by market cap. ... yes, it is smaller than the 2nd largest public company. | | |
| ▲ | adrr 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | 2nd one has screwed over consumers in the past and continues to screw over consumers. Can you even buy MS office any more or do you have to rent it now? What’s with putting ads in the software you purchased? | |
| ▲ | creato 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's not just apple, basically every company that is bigger than google is going to benefit from this. Apple, Microsoft, even Nvidia is getting their only real competitor and the biggest company that isn't dependent on them (google TPUs) kneecapped. | | |
| ▲ | ethbr1 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I look forward to running my searches through Saudi Aramco. | | |
| ▲ | creato 4 days ago | parent [-] | | You joke, yet a Saudi PIF company will probably try to buy Chrome if Google is forced to sell it. | | |
| ▲ | ethbr1 4 days ago | parent [-] | | It does make one wonder if "sell Chrome" is the opening offer and "place Chrome in a multi-party foundation" might be the eventual compromise. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | infotainment 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Weirdly selective regulation that punishes one company arbitrarily while ignoring others feels like a step in the wrong direction. We need actual laws about this, not various capricious enforcement of haphazard existing regulations. | | |
| ▲ | mu53 4 days ago | parent [-] | | They need wins, and once the ball starts rolling, they can shift their focus. Government departments are restricted by budget. Going after 4 behemoths at the same time is not practical. If google gets restrictions, then it makes apple look even more monopolistic. Like a trimming the hedges |
|
|
|
| ▲ | wbl 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| In order to say Apple is a monopoly you need to define a very narrow market. The search market is obviously relevant and very dominated by Google. |
| |
| ▲ | tremarley 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Google claims their in the ad market. Not the search market. | | |
| ▲ | Jensson 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Facebook is on a similar scale in the ad market, Facebook makes even larger share of their money on ads and aren't making that much less money. |
|
|
