[zepto]

The judge found almost all of apple’s practices to be ok and not to be anti-competitive.

They were ordered to stop only the narrowest of behaviors.

If you think that means you can just claim any practice of theirs is anti-competitive then you don’t understand.

[stale2002]

Did you read the part where I said "So yes, in at least one trial, some of Apple's actions were declared anti-competitive."?

I didn't say "any" practices. I said some.

So yes, some of Apple's practices were anti-competitive.

Apple has to win on every single count, otherwise it is a loss compared to the status quo, because that is 1 less thing they are allowed to do.

So yes, Apple is at the stage where already "some" of it's practices have been declared anti-competitive. And more lawsuits and laws are happening or being drafted.

In fact, the Open Apps Market app just went through the senate committee yesterday, in a rare bipartisan 20 to 2 decision, which would force sideloading of alternate App stores, I believe.

If that law passes, it is game over for Apple on this subject.

If that passes, there is basically nothing Apple can do to prevent everyone from completely bypassing the 30% fee.

[zepto]

> So yes, Apple is at the stage where already "some" of it's practices have been declared anti-competitive

Yes, but that’s irrelevant. It doesn’t mean their practices have been declared as such in some general way. If you want to discuss the specifics of that case, by all means do so, otherwise it’s just dishonest to pretend they are relevant.

As for what passed the committee - it’s possible that may indeed allow people to bypass the 15% fee (please don’t lie about it being 30% - that is only for a small number of developers).

It will also have all kinds of damaging impacts that make life harder for smaller developers, so it’s not a win for anyone except some larger scammy operators.

In any case, a committee vote is a long way from legislation. It’s unlikely to pass judicial review even if it passes both houses of Congress, which is also unlikely.

[stale2002]

> the 15% fee

Huh. It's almost like pressuring apple with legal action forced them to lower their fees. That's pretty nice. Sounds like we need to more of that.

> pretend they are relevant.

It is relevant because it supports my general point that every loss for apple, is one less thing that they can do, and that there are a bunch of ways that they are being attacked, on many fronts.

Apple has to win on everything, or it is a loss, compared to nothing happening.

> It’s unlikely to pass judicial review

People are not making any significant arguments that the law is illegal or unconstitutional. Laws aren't unconstitutional just because you don't like them.

These types of laws are attempting to be passed in lots of countries. So no, all of these laws everywhere, that lots of countries are trying to pass, are not all illegal.

> that make life harder for smaller developers

Nobody is making the Apple App store illegal. Those developers can continue to use that, if they prefer it. It is just other companies can choose something else if they want.

[zepto]

> People are not making any significant arguments that the law is illegal or unconstitutional. Laws aren't unconstitutional just because you don't like them.

Don’t be silly. The bill only passed committee last week. Arguments over constitutionality will come in due course.

> These types of laws are attempting to be passed in lots of countries. So no, all of these laws everywhere,

No they aren’t.

> that lots of countries are trying to pass, are not all illegal.

That remains to be seen.

> that make life harder for smaller developers Nobody is making the Apple App store illegal. Those developers can continue to use that, if they prefer it. It is just other companies can choose something else if they want.

This simply isn’t true.

If a developer has to negotiate with a multitude of different stores, each with different rules, their life will be harder.

Given that the alternative is to lose access to customers, it’s the small developers who will be harmed most by this.

These bills are supported by giant corporations who want to run their own stores. It’s just about them taking a cut, and has nothing to do with consumers or small developers.

[stale2002]

> Arguments over constitutionality will come in due course

Which means that you have absolutely no justification for the law being illegal. You just don't like it, and are reaching for whatever things that you can, without any justification.

> That remains to be seen.

This is code for "I have absolutely no good arguments, or any legal justification, for why it is illegal, I just want to assert that it is illegal because I don't like it!".

Because if you had good arguments you would have said them.

So I have no idea why you are making these strong claims that it is very unlikely that it will pass constitutional review, when your only justification is "that remains to be seen".

> No they aren’t.

Yes they are. Go look up the EU tech laws that they are attempting to pass. They include a similar provision, that would force other app stores on the platform.

You are pretty misinformed if you didn't know that there was a big EU tech law, that they are attempting to write and pass right now.

[zepto]

The points you were responding to are just rebuttals of your own claims of legal knowledge.

> This is code for "I have absolutely no good arguments, or any legal justification, for why it is illegal, I just want to assert that it is illegal because I don't like it!".

Saying my argument is something I didn’t write is just a dishonest and lazy move. What I wrote isn’t code for anything. You seem to be unable to handle my points as they were written.

You also didn’t respond to my rebuttal of your actual position. Let’s try again:

> that make life harder for smaller developers Nobody is making the Apple App store illegal. Those developers can continue to use that, if they prefer it. It is just other companies can choose something else if they want.

This simply isn’t true.

If a developer has to negotiate with a multitude of different stores, each with different rules, their life will be harder.

Given that the alternative is to lose access to customers, it’s the small developers who will be harmed most by this.

These bills are supported by giant corporations who want to run their own stores. It’s just about them taking a cut, and has nothing to do with consumers or small developers.