benologist
Born on June 12, 2008•12061 Karma
https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2019/01/25/facebook-tu...
The FTC alleges Apple allowed the same thing on their platform for three years after they became aware.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/16/technology/government-and...
But what's really amazing is Google, Amazon and Microsoft have all been sued for the same thing too and it still not illegal to have games where kids can spend unlimited amounts and conduct unlimited transactions using obfuscated virtual currencies.
> “When I asked a senior Apple executive why iMessage wasn’t being expanded to other platforms, he gave two answers,” reports Mossberg. “First, he said, Apple considers its own user base of 1 billion active devices to provide a large enough data set for any possible AI learning the company is working on. And, second, having a superior messaging platform that only worked on Apple devices would help sales of those devices — the company’s classic (and successful) rationale for years.”
https://www.cultofmac.com/433784/apple-reveals-why-imessage-...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-26/house-ant...
They could make virtual currencies show the real price if they were bought with real money. They could require 'free' transactions with virtual currencies to go through the same payment authentication.
They could make subscription apps require an ongoing service or value being added, aside from fixing their own bugs or trying to improve their software to attract new customers.
So far we know Facebook recognized it as fraud and referred to it as fraud internally so it's a bit hard to believe it is innocently occurring again and again wherever platforms permit games to bill unlimited amounts and players to perform unlimited transactions and developers to obfuscate transactions with layers of cash substitutes like gems and virtual currencies.
Apple: https://money.cnn.com/2014/01/15/technology/apple-ftc-settle...
Amazon: https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/ftc-sues-amazon-app-pur...
Facebook: https://phys.org/news/2016-07-facebook-refunds-in-app-minors...
Google: https://lifehacker.com/get-a-refund-for-your-kids-unauthoriz...
Microsoft: https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/xbox/forum/all/child-spe...
> the investigation has confirmed that Apple, Google, Amazon, and Facebook are all abusing their market power to the detriment of consumers
https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/26/antitrust-investigation...
Windows, as a desktop OS, generally allows you to do whatever you want with it, and does not "abuse" its position to prevent competitors from being install on the computer, for example.
If windows only allowed you to buy from certain app stores, that would be illegal.
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
"Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. "
Are you straight up denying the government link that I posted to you?.
> Maybe HN posters aren’t lawyers?
I have posted direct links to government information here.
If you are going to claim that the FTC website is lying to everyone, then I am not sure what to tell you. You are too far lost to ever be convinced of anything.
This is the FTC website. They are the government. They are the experts. They decide what is right or wrong. They are the primary source here!
The only opinion that matters here is the government's, as they are the ones who enforce the law!
I think that I am going to listen to the opinion of the government lawyers, over the opinion of someone who is straight up denying the government approved information that I posted.
It is your opinion that the FTC summary of the law applies to Apple or a case like Apple’s unless you can find another actual real world case where a similar situation resulted in government action.
No, an antitrust case where two players collided isn’t the same thing.
It is my opinion that you seem to be dismissing well accepted information about the law, that is available on government websites, and that is uncontroversial among the experts.
The information that is well accepted, and available, from the government, is that you do not need to be a literal singular firm, in order to be subject to section 2 of the sherman anti-trust act.
Instead, only having significant market power is enough to be subject to it.
This is an uncontroversial statement.
Please do not rephase my argument to be anything other than what I just said here.
> No, an antitrust case where two players collided isn’t the same thing.
The government link that I posted, is in reference to section 2 of the sherman anti-trust act, which is regarding market power that a company has.
I am not really sure what to tell you, if you are going to deny the well accepted, and completely uncontroversial opinion among experts, and the government, that is that you do not need to be a singular, literal monopoly, in order for section 2 of the sherman anti-trust act to apply.
If it were that easy, why wasn’t Apple or any of the console makers convicted decades ago?
Would you say someone was an expert developer based on citation from w3schools?
If it is not “controversial” where is the case law?
Can you find one relevant case where an actual judge or jury interpreted the law as you said?
Where did you get your law degree from? Where did you argue your case in court?
If you can find where a lawyer actually won a case in court based on your interpretation, I have nothing left to say.
Let me quote you again.
"Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. "
So, to be 100% perfectly clear, are you denying the truth of this statement that was released by the government?
I can't help you, if you are going to say that this statement, that is released by the government is false.
> based on your interpretation
The only thing that I am doing at this point is quoting the information released by the freaking US government, which it kind of seems like you are denying? Which is absolutely insane.
Would you trust a summary of internet protocols when implementing the standard to make sure you are compliant or would you go to the actual RFC?
Do you think actual “lawyers” try to argue a case based on a summary and not cite the actual law, relevant precedent, etc?
If that were the case, we wouldn’t need silly things like “trials”,”lawyers”,”judgements”, etc
As long as you do not deny the truth of the following statement: "Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors."
Which was the original point of all of this that I was making, then thats awesome! I am glad that you don't deny the truth of it.
As long as you are not denying the truth of that statement, then that is good enough for me!
Microsoft got nailed for bundling Internet Explorer in with Windows and not allowing licensees (OEMs) to preinstall Netscape, even though nothing prevented users from installing the software after the fact.
> If windows only allowed you to buy from certain app stores, that would be illegal.
Isn't this the case for Windows RT, or is that dead already?
This was actually overturned during the appeal. Whether the act of bundling IE with Windows would have been itself an antitrust violation was ultimately never decided by the courts. (The OEM stuff and other actions by Microsoft were ruled to be antitrust violations, however.)
Umm, yeah, but Apple has this policy on their phones permanently, and I haven’t seen any regulation against that yet.
IDK about RT but IIRC this is the main distinguishing factor of 10S
They conceded this utterly pointless problem they invented for the developer. Developers have been arguing against these for years, stupid rejections were once so common that Apple threatened against revealing them to the press in the official guidelines [1].
It's yet to be seen if they will cave on any issues like emulators, or apps mocking President Xi, or Xbox streaming, or external billing, full web browsers, transparency about their transaction fees, porn etc.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20141226094343/https://developer...