Comment by ksec | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ksec | Hacker News Reader

>Apple agrees to make sure the search results in the App Store are based on objective criteria.

I cant help but laughed when I was reading it. What were they doing before that?

I thought the most important part was the next bit,

>The settlement, which must be approved by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, comes as Apple is awaiting a ruling in a separate lawsuit, brought by Fortnite developer Epic Games, which seeks to force Apple to allow rival in-app payment and store options.

>The same federal judge is hearing the Apple-Epic case and a ruling could come at any time.

My guess is that the way things are going in these cases are not in Apple's flavour. And for all the court case I followed over years Apple tends to be the favourite in court. Rightfully or not. ( Some of the Judge are very clearly biased ) But Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers was clearly trying to get to the bottom of things. And asking some very hard questions.

Is this enough? I am not sure if Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers is easy to please either. And let's not forget this is US only. EU are grinding their teeth. Then there are South Korea and Japan. And China is surpassingly quiet in all of these.

Phil Schiller was right, if Apple were to ever change its fee structure, that it should do so “from a position of strength rather than weakness”. It was unfortunate Steve passed away soon after that email.

Here's another possible entry for a class action suit, I had a arachnoid type game on Appstore under 'Arcade' category for couple of years and one night I received an email telling Apple is moving my game from 'Arcade' category to some X category because it's naming it's new game subscription as 'Apple Arcade'.

I'm sure every other game in the Arcade category was bolted out unless it could be part of their subscription service. I'm in that part of the world where I can do nothing about it, But was hoping those in U.S. or EU sued the Apple for this.

You can still report this to the various agencies and offices in the US that hear cases like yours and have the power to investigate and prosecute Apple for antitrust violations.

I have a post here[1] with a list of federal antitrust departments and how to send them info.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28176193

That's very useful information, Thanks for your comment. I will explore the content further and see what information I provide regarding this incident.

No problem. The US also has antitrust legislation that applies to US companies operating in foreign countries, as well as a myriad of antitrust treaties and agreements with other nations. It might be worth it to also report it to the government of the country you reside in, as well.

> And let's not forget this is US only. EU are grinding their teeth.

Either I am misreading this part of your comment, or you may have overlooked this paragraph:

> With the exception of the fund for small developers, the rest of the changes are being made globally.

But the main complaint is "Apple has a monopoly on app distribution for iPhone users", not "Apple won't let me set the price to $1.05"

>> Apple agrees to make sure the search results in the App Store are based on objective criteria.

> I cant help but laughed when I was reading it. What were they doing before that?

I assume that's referring to the fact that previously, they occasionally hard-coded certain search terms to show Apple app results before third-party apps, even if the search term was an exact match. [1]

And that "objective" search results means no more hard-coding of exceptions like this to give "partiality" to a particular company or app.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27476206

"My guess is that the way things are going in these cases are not in Apple's flavour. "

1. I feel this went in Apple's favor.

2. I'm not sure if I got my facts right, but Appe is required to pay developers out of a 100 million fund? 100 million is what they spend on office parties?

3. Offer companies whom are under 1 million in sales, a 15% fee. Biggercompanies are still at 30%.

4. Companies can pay directly. (Yea--I care enough about Epic Games enough to pay them directly? Epic--treat your low level employees better, and I might care? )

Apple seems to have won?

I can't but hope that this means that Search Ads will be going away. But that seems quite unlikely if they say they were doing it before…

What is Apple's rationale for saying that apps can not charge within themselves? The intention is to make more money, but what is the stated reason? Couldn't Apple make plenty by charging up-front to install things, for the "utility" of it's marketplace and userbase? I struggle understanding why Apple should get every right to money exchanged within apps they didn't program or administer.

> It was unfortunate Steve passed away soon after that email.

I'm sure Steve sent a lot of emails. Which one are you referring to?

> Which one are you referring to?

This one:

https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/4/22418828/apple-app-store-c...

The value that objectively pays Apple the most per click.

Separately... I remain astounded at the risks of quasi-arbitrary government action (lawsuit here, Senators here, regulators in EU) that Apple is running to protect their app store vig. Just amazing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com