[HN Gopher] Australian court finds Apple, Google guilty of being...
___________________________________________________________________
Australian court finds Apple, Google guilty of being
anticompetitive
Author : warrenm
Score : 298 points
Date : 2025-08-12 13:30 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.ghacks.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.ghacks.net)
| kevingadd wrote:
| > In a judgment that spanned 2000 pages, Australian Federal Court
| Justice Jonathan Beach, ruled that Apple had a substantial degree
| of market power. The Judge said both Apple and Google had
| breached Section 46 of Australia's Competition Act. The companies
| had abused their market power to stifle the competition. But, it
| wasn't all in favor of Epic Games. Beach rejected the claim that
| Apple and Google had breached consumer law, he also said that the
| companies had not engaged in unconscionable conduct.
|
| 2000 pages! I can see why the case took something like 5 years.
|
| It sounds like a mixed ruling so Epic didn't get everything they
| wanted here, but if they're able to launch the Epic Games Store
| on iOS in Australia that's a pretty big win by itself.
| abtinf wrote:
| The more irrational the law, the more words must be said about
| it.
|
| Same for religious philosophies.
| bigyabai wrote:
| Not really? The court likes having as much salient evidence
| as it can get.
| IIAOPSW wrote:
| If length of ones writing is a measure of irrationality,
| everyone who's ever written a thesis must be absolutely
| unhinged.
| add-sub-mul-div wrote:
| They might be the first to agree with you.
| lucianbr wrote:
| While courts take years and write multiple volumes to justify
| any kind of measure at all, the corporations move fast and keep
| changing the way they extract value from society.
|
| I'm not sure the system will ever catch up this way.
|
| Plus, if a regular citizen without deep pockets breaks the law,
| somehow it never takes years and thousands of pages to convict
| them. I can easily believe it's not about the complexities of
| the case, but the depth of the pockets.
|
| If it really was "just a complex situation", you would expect
| equal percentages of simple and complicated cases for regular
| joes and huge corporations, no?
| joshuacc wrote:
| > If it really was "just a complex situation", you would
| expect equal percentages of simple and complicated cases for
| regular joes and huge corporations, no?
|
| Obviously not. Regular joes almost always have relatively
| simple situations relative to multinational corporations,
| otherwise they wouldn't be regular joes.
| seydor wrote:
| I can't help thinking that a lot of anticompetitive cases will be
| won outside the US now that the US is in all-out trade war with
| the rest of the universe.
| ChocolateGod wrote:
| You're also about to see a lot of the 'Brussels effect' due to
| the EUs DMA.
| ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Markets_Act
|
| https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/index_en
| Winsaucerer wrote:
| I heard they are targeting Andromeda with the next round of
| tariffs.
| ratelimitsteve wrote:
| as long as they leave Squornshellous Zeta alone until I get
| my mattress
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| I think they would have been won regardless because the US has
| lacked the balls to enforce their own antitrust laws.
| benoau wrote:
| The DOJ is literally suing Apple for many of the same reasons
| right now -
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_(2024)
| mikeyouse wrote:
| That was the 'old' DOJ, Tim Apple was in the Oval Office a
| few days ago to pay tribute in gold... it got them
| exemptions from tariffs and I wouldn't be surprised if the
| DOJ dropped this case soon.
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
| apps/imrs.php?src=https%3A...
| saubeidl wrote:
| The corruption is so out in the open, it's ridiculous.
|
| It's so unsavory to see Tim Cook grovel like that. No
| backbone at all, what a pitiful human.
| scottyah wrote:
| Grovel? I thought it was making fun of the POTUS. What
| made it even funnier was that it'd go right over DT's
| head. Excellent messaging- pleases the wanna be monarch,
| shows investors that he's willing to work with any
| country's heads to ensure the success of Apple, and makes
| a mockery of the office with such a gaudy display.
| mikeyouse wrote:
| > Cook presented Trump with an engraved piece of glass
| designed by a former Marine Corps corporal who works at
| Apple. The base of the glass plaque was made of 24 karat
| gold, Cook said, as he set it up on the Resolute Desk in
| front of Trump. "You've been a great advocate for
| American innovation and manufacturing," Cook told Trump.
| Apple, Cook said, is "going to keep making investments
| right here in America and we're going to keep hiring in
| America."
| jen20 wrote:
| And yet, the actual publicized investment plans are
| barely any different from what they were under Biden and
| likely would have been under Harris.
| Nevermark wrote:
| > the actual publicized investment plans are barely any
| different
|
| On the contrary.
|
| > The base of the glass plaque was made of 24 karat gold
|
| My recollection, which may be way off, is Biden preferred
| fine grade silver dinner ware and free Uber passes...
|
| It is amazing how quickly centralized power can not just
| become deeply and openly corrupt, but operate free of
| credible challenge. The centralization in this case being
| years of tightened coordination within one party, acting
| on all three branches. The internal leverage created by
| such processes provides a natural habitat for final
| consolidation by an opportunistic individual.
|
| And suddenly the standards of governance are
| unrecognizable. The unsurprising result of successfully
| centralized power.
|
| It has long occurred to me that by not having limits on
| party power (seat limits? term limits? Cross state
| limits? Cross branch limits?), the US Constitution left a
| huge power coordination loop hole, free of checks and
| balances.
|
| That loophole holds up an eternal carrot of legal one
| party rule. Temporary one party rule in theory, but the
| constant drive for that grinds down bipartisanship and
| respect for any shared power.
|
| No one party should ever have a dominant majority of
| congress, much less dominate all three branches.
|
| At that point, in-party incentives overwhelmingly push
| party solidarity above any other issue.
|
| (Another great side effect of party seat/term limits
| would be the breakup up of the party duopoly which even
| when "working" lowered the bar for each party to the
| floor, i.e. neither party needed to do much but not be
| the latest disappointing incumbent. And a duopoly is
| incapable of providing choices reflecting a complex
| reality. They are reduced to competing via team
| identification/shibboleths.
| benoau wrote:
| Maybe, but if Trump wanted this to go away he's had a
| good 7 months to make that happen and he got a million
| dollars cash gift for his inauguration, certainly worth
| more than a gold bar trophy stand. This antitrust stems
| from a 2019/2020 congressional investigation into "Big
| Tech" that occurred during his first term too.
|
| https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/06/tech/congress-big-
| tech-an...
| mikeyouse wrote:
| That investigation in 2019/2020 came from the Democrat-
| majority House Judiciary - not from the DOJ. The DOJ was
| likely investigating in the background but nothing of
| public substance actually happened until 2024 when they
| filed suit. And looking at the docket now, every one of
| the DOJ attorneys who had filed that initial suit in 2024
| have left the DOJ.
|
| Several states joined the suit so things very well may
| continue but the stench of corruption is pretty thick on
| everything the current DOJ touches.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Compared to Europe, the US has significantly more neutral
| enforcement of laws for domestic prize jewels. The EU, by
| contrast, barely enforces its own provisions (such as anti-
| bribery law) against shining European stars.
| drdec wrote:
| As a US citizen I am curious to hear examples of the EU
| holding back enforcement. That's not the sort of thing that
| would get reported here.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Look at basically any example of a major EU company
| engaged in bribery, such as Airbus and Glencore
| realusername wrote:
| I don't know how you got to that conclusion, every single
| court case against a US giant is waived in the US.
|
| See Boeing which got pardoned recently as another example.
|
| While not perfect, the justice system seems usually more
| neutral in most EU countries.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| If you really want to talk aviation, Boeing pled guilty
| and settled and got fined billions of dollars and had to
| change safety practices. Compared to Airbus which was
| well known to be a major briber abroad and was protected
| in the EU until the US eventually brought FCPA action
| after it got ridiculously out of hand and EU regulators
| did nothing.
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| _looks at all the cases that never happened even well before
| Trump got elected_
|
| You should probably be thinking that the _only_ places they can
| be won is outside the US.
| tossandthrow wrote:
| The US has shown absolutely no willingness to carry out
| antitrust cases the past many years - at a significant harm to
| a lot of people.
|
| The implied corruption is likely not from these other countries
| that start making these cases now, but is a persistent feature
| of US governance.
| ProofHouse wrote:
| Precisely. Trump not smart enough to think about these
| retaliations. Would in some cases make tarrifs neutral
| ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote:
| Big Tech isn't exactly Trump's base. Trump collects wins[1]
| for his base at the expense of his non-supporters. Not sure
| how this makes Trump "not smart".
|
| 1 - Regardless of what you think of tariffs, his base
| largely considers them wins.
| ljlolel wrote:
| Because he lives in a country. Going to war with half the
| people around you makes the whole country much poorer.
| ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote:
| Works both ways.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| They are gonna win so much they'll be completely indigent
| before it's over.
| ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote:
| That's their right.
| 1659447091 wrote:
| > Trump collects wins[1] for his base
|
| Trump collects wins for himself and his base flip-flops
| along with him and his every whim.
|
| It's not about smart or not, he doesn't care beyond what
| he can get from it. He doesn't care about any
| retaliations and he knows he has his base eating outta
| the palm of his hand. Smart doesn't play into any of it,
| it's not needed. The Project state takes care of the
| smarts part of the administration
| seydor wrote:
| i thought it was strategic - to ensure global dominance in
| tech
| FirmwareBurner wrote:
| It is. Some members of congress somehow magically end up
| buying tech stocks right before they go to the moon or
| selling them right before tariffs hit.
|
| It's as if they have some insider knowledge or something,
| and also a lot of skin in the game to protect these
| monopolies.
| pnw wrote:
| You can buy the Pelosi ETF (NANC) and enjoy the same
| upside!
| 1over137 wrote:
| Too bad the MER is so high at 0.74%.
| dmoy wrote:
| I just read the prospectus investment strategy, and it
| looks like it trails the trades by up to 30-45 days?
| Seems like the majority of that upside might be gone by
| then, no? They explicitly list that in Reporting Delay
| Risk.
|
| Also I didn't see any info on whether the fund manager
| can beat hft et al to the punch once disclosure happens.
| lazyeye wrote:
| It would interesting to know how it performs relative to
| other index funds even with the delay risk. A few people
| have been saying Nancy is getting better returns than
| Warren Buffet
|
| https://x.com/HawleyMO/status/1919738880204345581
| mikestew wrote:
| I compared it to .SPX, and the 12 month charts look
| almost identical.
| mikestew wrote:
| _...and enjoy the same upside!_
|
| No, you won't. That ETF is a trailing indicator, and it's
| trailing so far back it won't even show up in the
| rearview mirror.
|
| That, and if you load a comparison chart with .SPX, they
| look almost identical. No upside, and greater risk.
| booleandilemma wrote:
| Thank you for an honest comment in a world of so much
| grift.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > i thought it was strategic - to ensure global dominance
| in tech
|
| I don't like the way this is phrased because it nearly
| implies that doing this is an advantage to the US
| population.
|
| "Preventing foreign dominance in tech" is plausibly a
| legitimate goal. Preventing a _foreign_ tech monopoly is a
| good thing. But the assumption that this can only be
| achieved by a domestic one is the fallacy. A domestic
| monopoly is still a disadvantage compared to a competitive
| market with a multitude of domestic companies.
|
| Unless you're an authoritarian that wants to leverage the
| monopoly for the purposes of e.g. censorship. But then
| you're an enemy whose goal is to harm even the domestic
| population.
| mystraline wrote:
| Why do you think Windows, MS Office, MSSQL, Azure, and
| other MS applications are used extensively in the federal
| government?
|
| Its to prop up American businesses, and as a form of
| corporate welfare.
|
| We see this a lot in various vertical industries. The USG
| could pay and make it free, but they would rather prop up
| proprietary software as long as its US based.
|
| Not even being a monopolist matters.
| whyenot wrote:
| > The US has shown absolutely no willingness to carry out
| antitrust cases the past many years
|
| Lina Khan's FTC brought cases again Microsoft, Meta, Amazon,
| Mastercard, and more. They also prevented mergers
| (consolidations) in a lot of different industries. Could they
| have accomplished more? Certainly, but they did certainly did
| display a willingness to bring antitrust cases.
| m463 wrote:
| > Could they have accomplished more?
|
| unfortunately a lot of these things are on an election
| cycle.
| rtpg wrote:
| It does feel like Lina Khan's FTC was much more willing to
| play the part in the adversarial system. Don't necessarily
| agree with every decision but was surprising to see how
| willing the FTC was to jump into things and make unpopular
| (to stakeholders at least) decisions
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| One of the main problems in the US is that the US has an
| extremely broad antitrust statute:
|
| > Every contract, combination in the form of trust or
| otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce
| among the several States, or with foreign nations, is
| hereby declared to be illegal.
|
| > Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to
| monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or
| persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce
| among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be
| deemed guilty of a felony, ...
|
| It was passed in the era of robber barons and meant to be a
| strong hammer against anti-competitive practices. But
| because it was _so_ broad, the courts kept chipping away at
| it over time through reinterpretation because by its terms
| it would prohibit a lot of things the courts didn 't really
| want to get involved in policing, or they just made bad
| calls in years when the Court's majority wasn't that smart.
|
| Meanwhile monopolists generally have a lot of money to pay
| expensive lawyers, so they structure their activities to
| fit within the loopholes the courts have carved out over
| the years and that makes it hard for an administration to
| hold them to account even when they have the will to do it.
|
| Hyper-partisanship also makes this worse, because if
| everyone is convinced the other side is pure evil then
| they're going to try to undo anything the other party was
| trying to do without even considering what it is, which
| isn't compatible with long-term prosecutions that would
| have to span administrations.
| Yeul wrote:
| All those Silicon Valley types went to Washington to kiss the
| ring of the pope.
| tiahura wrote:
| The administration has indicated that the EU shakedown efforts
| are going to be addressed. It's reasonable to assume that EU
| crown jewels like LVMH are going to be subject to a reciprocal
| shakedown.
| gausswho wrote:
| Shakedown is their propaganda. What it actually is is proper
| market stewardship. The US now threatens other sovereignties
| to drop to its dysfunctional levels just so its own corporate
| zombies can continue trawling the world.
| seydor wrote:
| The administration has a particular affinity for luxuries and
| shiny objects. I dont think that's going to happen
| gpm wrote:
| I strongly doubt that US-Australia trade relationships played
| any role in the judges decision on this case (and, of course,
| everything else in this case occurred before Trump was even re-
| elected). Judges aren't in a role where they are negotiating,
| or particularly care about, international trade at all. Judges
| are intentionally separated from the political wing of the
| state in just about every western democracy.
| xbmcuser wrote:
| Lol at you believing courts or judges don't follow their
| countries dictates. Most of the time such cases would be
| routed to a judge that will do what is asked without making
| any noise.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| maybe wherever you are from that's true, but not really in
| the developed anglosphere
| shagmin wrote:
| This stuff is true in the US to some extent.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| no it's not, but i get that it's "in" to hate on the US
| political structure. essentially all federal cases are
| randomly assigned
| shagmin wrote:
| I don't think it's widespread by any means but the US
| Supreme Court has been directly pulled into this exact
| topic.
|
| https://www.npr.org/2024/10/21/g-s1-28919/supreme-court-
| judg...
|
| https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-
| reports/judg...
|
| https://news.northeastern.edu/2025/03/27/judge-shopping-
| expl...
| whimsicalism wrote:
| this is more describing circuit shopping, which is a far
| cry from what OP is suggesting
| Yeul wrote:
| In my country judges don't get elected. They pretty much
| sit in their ivory tower and fuck up anyone they want.
|
| Which is part of the reason why the Netherlands is not a
| superpower.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Judges don't get elected in the US (except for some state
| and local judges) and yet the US is a superpower. I don't
| think judicial selection plays a major factor in
| determining superpower status.
|
| Can you name any country that has ever been a superpower
| where judges (of the national judiciary if it has
| separate judiciaries for constituent parts from the
| national one) were predominantly democratically elected?
| camdroidw wrote:
| Judiciary and law enforcement are some of the most corrupt
| people
| xbmcuser wrote:
| Where I come from, there is no need to route cases. I used
| to believe in Western justice systems, but as I've grown
| older, I've come to realize that much of the corruption
| money from Asia, Africa, and South America is parked in
| these same Western countries. Many of the corrupt officials
| who have fled their home countries are now living in these
| same Western countries, and in many cases, their families
| have been granted citizenship. The behavior of the ruling
| elite in Western countries tells me all I need to know
| about their justice systems. It seems that a large portion
| of the population has willingly, maybe unknowingly, put on
| blinders to their own countries' systems and behaviors.
| hopelite wrote:
| In some ways you are probably right, however do not discount
| the fact that America's relative weakness has opened up
| avenues for this type of action that otherwise would have
| likely not happened out of internal pressure due to concerns
| about that relationship, external pressure on the government
| to scuttle these kinds of efforts, and/or general lack of
| alternatives to the American market.
|
| Especially with the rise and seeming power of BRICS there is
| surely a sense that the pressure is a bit off from the USA,
| America will be unwilling to add on to pressure against
| Australia that is close to core BRICS, etc.
|
| Do not discount the rising awareness of the real weakness the
| "American" empire finds itself in suddenly.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Speaks a lot to the legal process outside the US if that is
| true..
| barbazoo wrote:
| I imagine much of not going after big tech was probably
| politics and the unwillingness to offend a major geopolitical
| and trading partner.
| 9dev wrote:
| It warms my heart to think about how much Thiel must hate to read
| this.
| bootsmann wrote:
| Well there are still quite some og tech monopolies left, but it
| does seem like the tide is starting to turn.
| betaby wrote:
| What that ruling means in practice? 30% fee will be reduced?
| elAhmo wrote:
| Most likely nothing
| devinprater wrote:
| Good. Maybe if everywhere else makes them do things right,
| they'll just give up and not region-lock the good stuff. Apple.
| burnte wrote:
| Probably not. Large corps are willing to bear the costs of
| maintaining a lot of control over customers just to keep them
| from being exposed to a competitor. If they ever open it up,
| it'll be due to laws, not change of heart on Apple's part.
| jlarocco wrote:
| The benefits out weight the costs, or at least the people in
| charge perceive it that way.
| quitit wrote:
| This is a consequence of publicly listed companies.
|
| They can't just go and eliminate a giant revenue stream
| because it would be morally right to do so. They need a court
| or a law to force them to do it, otherwise the board will be
| removed from their position for people who will maintain that
| revenue stream.
| cubefox wrote:
| > Epic may have lost its antitrust battle against Apple in the
| U.S., but it won its lawsuit against Google, which was found to
| have built an illegal monopoly in the Android market.
|
| Amazing. You can install third-party app stores on Android, just
| not via Google's own Play Store. Meanwhile, in iOS you can't even
| install third party browsers. Let alone third-party app stores.
| Or any apps outside Apple's App Store.
|
| The iOS case is far more egregious. It seems the US courts are
| heavily biased in favor of Apple.
| benoau wrote:
| US courts haven't really begun dismantling this status quo, but
| there's quite a few things going on that challenge it:
|
| - DOJ antitrust case going to trial soon:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_(2024)
|
| - 2021 Epic injunction that Apple defied followed by 2025 Epic
| injunction that recently forced Apple to allow links to
| competing payment options:
| https://www.theregister.com/2025/05/01/apple_epic_lies_possi...
|
| - Open Markets Act from 2020 has some new life:
| https://appleinsider.com/articles/25/06/25/bipartisan-open-a...
|
| - App Store Freedom Act from 2025:
| https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/3209...
|
| - 2011 class action on excessive fees going to trial next year:
| https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4178894/in-re-apple-iph...
|
| - 2025 class action on excessive fees:
| https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70356851/korean-publish...
|
| - 2025 class action for monopolizing app distribution:
| https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/gkvlagedmpb/...
|
| - 2025 class action for doing a shit job of monopolizing app
| distribution:
| https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70526762/shin-v-apple-i...
| cubefox wrote:
| Is any of these realistically expected to result in the
| possibility of installing third-party apps and app stores,
| similar to Android?
| benoau wrote:
| _All of them_ challenge Apple having exclusive app
| distribution, except the Epic injunction and the class
| action accusing Apple of doing a shit job.
| ZekeSulastin wrote:
| Wasn't the legal difference that Apple never said you could
| whereas Google did then added roadblocks?
| GeekyBear wrote:
| Walled gardens are not illegal under existing law. You have to
| change the law before walled gardens become illegal, as the EU
| did with the DSA.
|
| Nintendo's various platforms, Microsoft's XBox, and Sony's
| PlayStation have been perfectly legal walled gardens for
| decades.
|
| However, claiming to introduce an open platform and then using
| anticompetitive means to retain control of that "open" platform
| is plainly illegal under existing law, as Google found with
| Android and Microsoft found with Windows.
| cubefox wrote:
| First of all, I don't think Google ever made such a "claim".
| Moreover, what you are suggesting is that it is okay to do
| something bad if you say it's bad, but not to do something
| slightly bad if you say it's good. That's absurd. What Apple
| is doing with iOS is objectively much worse than what Google
| is doing with Android, irrespective of any alleged "claims".
| GeekyBear wrote:
| > First of all, I don't think Google ever made such a
| "claim".
|
| They explicitly made the claim that Android was open on
| many occasions.
|
| Remember when a major Android selling point was that
| Android was "open source" before they started moving all
| the updated versions of the developer APIs into the Play
| Store?
|
| https://medium.com/@coopossum/how-open-source-is-
| android-8d1...
| theshackleford wrote:
| > What Apple is doing with iOS is objectively much worse
| than what Google is doing with Android, irrespective of any
| alleged "claims".
|
| It's _objectively_ not despite what you claim.
|
| Apple never promised you an alternative, you got exactly
| what you paid for. Google promised you an alternative and
| while you weren't looking tried to strangle it in its crib.
|
| You need to look past your fan bias.
| cubefox wrote:
| Google didn't "promise" anything.
|
| > You need to look past your fan bias.
|
| That's funny, considering that you are arguing that
| Android is worse than iOS, despite iOS being far more
| anti-competitive.
| bootsmann wrote:
| People complain about it here often, but the EU setting clear
| rules in the DMA is probably a significantly better way to
| ensure a level playing field instead of relying on judges and
| agencies to figure it out. Apple winning the case while Google
| lost theirs seems increasingly arbitrary.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| The craziest part of this is:
|
| _Apple wasn 't a monopoly because they didn't share their
| platform with anyone_
|
| The judge in the Google case said that Android couldn't be
| compared to iOS because iOS is only available to Apple
| products.
|
| So while I can kind of squint and see this, the obvious signal
| the court is sending is
|
| "If you don't want to be monopolistic, don't open your platform
| to anyone".
| amelius wrote:
| Huh, third party developers are what made iOS big ...
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| Hardware platform.
|
| Which is even stranger because Samsung, by far the largest
| Android phone distributor, ships their phones with the
| galaxy app store on them.
| anakaine wrote:
| Do remember, however, that the judge is viewing this purely
| through a legal lens. That interpretation is probably quite
| an easy one to get to where if you have built a product and
| never allowed a competitors product in, and nor have you
| taken over someone else's by using unfair business practices
| then you're not a monopoly given the legal definition, not
| the dictionary definition.
|
| From the point of defence of the dictionary definition,
| Android is huge in Australia, and outside the US generally.
| mathiaspoint wrote:
| Sure. If you claim something is open source and then make it
| impractical to use without closed source components you
| should get in trouble for that.
| LoganDark wrote:
| > Meanwhile, in iOS you can't even install third party
| browsers. Let alone third-party app stores. Or any apps outside
| Apple's App Store.
|
| Apple did malicious compliance and only technically complied
| with the requirements in a specifically geo-restricted area
| (the EU) without allowing anyone else to benefit. (Although I
| think it was later ruled that they didn't actually manage to
| comply thanks to all the malice.)
| ggreer wrote:
| Apple is what, less than 20% of phone sales? So it's hard to
| see how that constitutes a monopoly. And if banning 3rd party
| apps is enough for a lawsuit, then why doesn't that apply to
| Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo for their game consoles? Why
| doesn't it apply to Amazon's Fire tablets, or Kindles, or
| Huawei phones, or Oculus headsets? All of those devices have
| similar restrictions.
|
| Unless customers are coerced or misled, or returns/refunds are
| difficult, I don't see the need for government intervention.
| Apple's software restrictions hurt the iPhone's market share.
| The same goes for charging high fees for app purchases.
| Customers and developers can (and often do) choose other
| devices for being less restrictive about what software can be
| run on them. If an informed adult chooses a locked down
| platform because they prioritize other features, why should the
| government stop them?
|
| I can see an argument for requiring labeling (similar to
| warnings on cigarettes), but a total ban seems like overreach.
| realusername wrote:
| > Customers and developers can (and often do) choose other
| devices for being less restrictive about what software can be
| run on them
|
| Well no, there's only two operating system with very similar
| policies and pricing. If there's any competition there, it's
| not obvious where.
|
| The only pricing change ever made was made as a reaction of
| an antitrust lawsuit... Just that fact alone should be enough
| to raise some eyebrows.
| ggreer wrote:
| Similar policies and pricing? You can get Android phones
| for much cheaper than iPhones. And many smartphone
| manufacturers let you run whatever you want on their
| devices. The largest smartphone manufacturer in the world
| (Samsung) ships most of their phones with two app stores,
| and lets customers enable side loading with a few taps.
|
| If you're talking about policies and pricing for
| developers, then why not apply that argument to app stores
| owned by Sony, Microsoft, & Nintendo? Those are much more
| restrictive than anything in the smartphone world. Heck,
| even Steam takes a 30% cut.
| realusername wrote:
| I'm talking from the point of view of app developers.
|
| Sure I'm open to the idea that there's fierce competition
| on the hardware, on the software though, there's
| absolutely zero signs of it.
|
| > then why not apply that argument to app stores owned by
| Sony, Microsoft, & Nintendo?
|
| We do have signs that there's competition in the console
| world, if you want to make that parallel, when was the
| last time Google or Apple paid for an app exclusive
| similarly to game exclusives?
| SomeHacker44 wrote:
| I did some... Googling.... Anyway, it seems many sites
| estimate iOS as about 57% of the US market, not 20%.
|
| Example: https://backlinko.com/iphone-vs-android-statistics
| ggreer wrote:
| Since the article is about an Australian court case and
| comments discussed the US & EU, I was using figures for the
| whole world, which seems to be 16-18% depending on the
| source.[1][2] Even if we restrict numbers to the US, 57% is
| rarely considered monopoly. You'd need significant barriers
| to entry, and the smartphone market has enough
| manufacturers that it would be hard to argue that such a
| barrier exists.
|
| 1. https://www.counterpointresearch.com/insight/post-
| insight-re...
|
| 2. https://www.idc.com/promo/smartphone-market-share/
| immibis wrote:
| AFAIK it was on the basis that Google pretends to be an open
| ecosystem, while Apple is pretty upfront about the fact they
| control everything you do with your device.
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| Why would the courts be biased in favor of one multi trillion
| dollar firm vs some other multi trillion dollar firm?
| bsimpson wrote:
| From what I recall reading, it was a matter of market
| definition. They defined the Android app market to be all
| devices that run Android, and then said Google monopolized it;
| whereas the iOS market is just devices made by Apple.
|
| I don't agree with the outcome, but that's the twist of logic
| that allows the more open ecosystem to be the one being
| attacked as a monopoly.
| stego-tech wrote:
| > "Well son, I think I speak for your mother and I when I say, UH
| DUHHHHHHH."
|
| Man, it just doesn't work outside GIF form, but the point is the
| same. Anyone with two brain cells could understand how vertical
| monopolies are _still monopolies_ , and the walled gardens
| created by Big Tech are just company towns customers pay into and
| can't leave without enormous disruption. All of that came through
| rubber-stamped M&As that depleted the market of competition and,
| now that ZIRP is over and AI is riding high, depleted the market
| of well-paying jobs in the process.
|
| Competition _is efficient_ , in that it creates more jobs and
| more opportunities for money to flow between customers and
| businesses. When your goal is to have all the money, though,
| competition is bad and must be destroyed.
|
| At least with tech we can force change through code instead of
| armed law enforcement like monopolies of old.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| They're not monopolies, they're acting anti-competitive. Which
| is worse. But words have real meanings, and should be used
| correctly.
| jmyeet wrote:
| Amazon already handles purchases on iOS and Android via their own
| payments infrastructure for physical good. Apple and Google carve
| out a weird exception for "digital" goods so you can't, for
| example, buy Kindle books directly on an app. You get directed to
| a website.
|
| There is absolutely no reason sufficiently large companies can't
| handle their own payment infrastructure. You should be able to
| subscribe to Netflix, Hulu or Disney+ without paying the Apple
| Tax.
|
| A 30% cut is somewhat defensible for small companies that have no
| payments infrastructure or simply don't want to manage that.
| There are all sorts of compliance issues. There's something to be
| said for a seamless user experience.
|
| But 30% for a large company becomes a huge incentive for large
| companies to attack you in the courts (as Epic did or prodding
| Attorneys-General to file suit) or by lobbying governments.
|
| I've consistently said that courts and/or governments will end up
| dismantling the app store monopolies because of the payment
| monopoly and it'll be far, far better for Apple and Google in the
| long term if that happens on their terms, not the terms set by
| courts and governments.
|
| Qualify certain providers to handle their own payments and take
| 0-5% to pay for things like malware scanning, distribution, etc
| and you've addressed the strongest monopoly argument (ie
| payments) and reduced the financial incentive for competitors to
| attack you.
|
| Attacking you could even risk your qualified payments partner
| status and you could lose that privileged position. It's such an
| easy win.
| Imustaskforhelp wrote:
| ah yes australia court finds that every 60 seconds, a minute
| passes! How amazing! /satire of course
| gpm wrote:
| It looks like the judgement should be published here within 48
| hours:
| https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fc...
|
| Per:
| https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/NSD1236/2020/act...
| nwbort wrote:
| This is unlikely for this particular case - lots of
| confidentiality claims etc. It's possible that the judgment
| will never be published.
| tlogan wrote:
| And then they wonder why they get tarrifs...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-08-12 23:01 UTC)