• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Drama Epic Games vs Apple in court face off INCLUDING Tim Sweeney , LIVE !!!

CuNi

Member
Sep 4, 2014
1,292
1,226
765
Germany
If I may, it seems both sides are arguing different points. You seem focused on the low-level specifics of that particular case, versus the illustration of new laws being introduced retroactively as a high-level point on principles.

For mine, the crux of the argument is whether the three dominant platform holders in Windows, iOS and Android are too influential in global market economics to be tantamount as public utilities or not. They have unrivaled positions of power as gatekeepers. Without going down this particular rabbit hole, did we want Apple, Google, and Amazon to flex their collective muscle and say Parler as a business is not entitled to exist?

To not be allowed in the App store instantly deprives your product or service of access to over a billion users. I fail to see this as an arbitrary figure that is laughable.

But that is not true.
If you don't want or cannot sell on Apple, you can sell on Android. Even if Google doesn't want you on their play-store, there are other freely available app-stores and you can even implement your own copyright protection and sell the APK by itself. Apple has no power to "kill" off a service, even more so when you consider that said service could easily just also offer a web-page, like Tinder/TikTok/etc. where even if you don't want to sell on Apple's AppStore, you still can reach iOS users just as easily. That is why they are not unrivaled gatekeepers. That's why Parler cannot be "banned" from iOS devices. Yes Apple can prevent the App from being sold through it's AppStore, but they cannot (legally) prevent you from simply visiting the Website and using it's service on your iOS device anyway.

People fail to understand that developers are not entitled to be "able to sell on specific app-stores".
 
  • Like
Reactions: demigod

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
3,984
5,322
540
If I may, it seems both sides are arguing different points. You seem focused on the low-level specifics of that particular case, versus the illustration of new laws being introduced retroactively as a high-level point on principles.

How is a law introduced retroactively? They wait to pass the law until no one is committing the offense any longer?

In terms of applying a law retroactively, I think you'd have a really tough time providing an example in the US. At least in terms of crime or criminal penalty, maybe retroactively applied benefits of some kind with a welfare bill or something like that.

The Parler thing is ridiculous. They broke AWS's TOS on the hosting backend and just needed to move to another provider. Doubtful they'd find a US based home when they were actively facilitating domestic terror plots. I'm sure they found some servers in Russia somewhere.
 
Last edited:

Menzies

Member
Mar 31, 2021
85
151
230
How is a law introduced retroactively? They wait to pass the law until no one is committing the offense any longer?

In terms of applying a law retroactively, I think you'd have a really tough time providing an example in the US. At least in terms of crime or criminal penalty, maybe retroactively applied benefits of some kind with a welfare bill or something like that.

The Parler thing is ridiculous. They broke AWS's TOS on the hosting backend and just needed to move to another provider. Doubtful they'd find a US based home when they were actively facilitating domestic terror plots. I'm sure they found some servers in Russia somewhere.
But you understand the premise. New legislation was introduced to directly deal with the pre-existing issue.

I don't want to entertain the rabbit hole of Parler, other than you can see the dilemma of the gatekeepers appointing themselves as arbiters of hate speech. They were not elected or appointed position by the public. There's no shortage of inflammatory language and comments elsewhere.

But that is not true.
If you don't want or cannot sell on Apple, you can sell on Android. Even if Google doesn't want you on their play-store, there are other freely available app-stores and you can even implement your own copyright protection and sell the APK by itself. Apple has no power to "kill" off a service, even more so when you consider that said service could easily just also offer a web-page, like Tinder/TikTok/etc. where even if you don't want to sell on Apple's AppStore, you still can reach iOS users just as easily. That is why they are not unrivaled gatekeepers. That's why Parler cannot be "banned" from iOS devices. Yes Apple can prevent the App from being sold through it's AppStore, but they cannot (legally) prevent you from simply visiting the Website and using it's service on your iOS device anyway.

People fail to understand that developers are not entitled to be "able to sell on specific app-stores".
Says you.

I've already made comments on the myriad of reasons to which people can be locked into the Apple ecosystem. The just sell/switch/move to Android commentary is often applicable for consumers. Less so for enterprises with established MDM solutions, line of business applications, and productivity app licenses.

Epic illustrated in the case earlier that the "just as easily" purchase of content is not true. Especially without access to a team of researchers.

I previously didn't think users were entitled to a pre-selection of web browsers before installing Windows. Let's see what the commissions and competition watchdogs say.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kuncol02 and llien

Cyberpunkd

Member
Dec 16, 2020
910
1,441
445
But that is not true.
If you don't want or cannot sell on Apple, you can sell on Android. Even if Google doesn't want you on their play-store, there are other freely available app-stores and you can even implement your own copyright protection and sell the APK by itself. Apple has no power to "kill" off a service, even more so when you consider that said service could easily just also offer a web-page, like Tinder/TikTok/etc. where even if you don't want to sell on Apple's AppStore, you still can reach iOS users just as easily. That is why they are not unrivaled gatekeepers. That's why Parler cannot be "banned" from iOS devices. Yes Apple can prevent the App from being sold through it's AppStore, but they cannot (legally) prevent you from simply visiting the Website and using it's service on your iOS device anyway.

People fail to understand that developers are not entitled to be "able to sell on specific app-stores".
This argument will not fly, just because something is possible in theory doesn’t mean it’s viable in practice. Also, the current monopoly politics are shifting from ‘lower prices are good’ to taking a more holistic view on the effects dominant market players have. I recommend reading the Amazon Paradox, it’s a research paper of 80 pages, fairly good at explaining things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kuncol02

llien

Member
Feb 1, 2017
10,393
8,342
945
the company was split up because of illegal market manipulation by anti-trust
The law that that is illegal was enacted POST FACTUM.
I would have expected that to be something easy to comprehend.
But that is perhaps too much to expect from Der Apfel's fans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kuncol02

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
3,984
5,322
540
I don't want to entertain the rabbit hole of Parler, other than you can see the dilemma of the gatekeepers appointing themselves as arbiters of hate speech. They were not elected or appointed position by the public. There's no shortage of inflammatory language and comments elsewhere.

True, true. This thread is derailed enough as it is.


The law that that is illegal was enacted POST FACTUM.
I would have expected that to be something easy to comprehend.
But that is perhaps too much to expect from Der Apfel's fans.

Not something that can be established in the case you referenced since the market manipulation/restraint to trade continued for 19 years after the law passed. Again, no one is denying that the new law provided the means or even that SO was on the minds of law makers when the Sherman Act was drafted (it obviously was, looking at the information available). However, the original argument that you made was that SO was taken to task with no laws on the books regarding their behavior, which implied that the related laws only came about from that action. Which is certainly not the case. Nor were they split 15 minutes after the passage of Sherman based on actions they had taken prior to its passage.

If that's not the argument you are trying to make, I'm not sure what it is. What law is ever created before any such offense has ever occurred? Would be some new Minority Report style legal system.
 
Last edited:

MonarchJT

Member
Sep 25, 2020
2,224
3,243
375
MS have a OS and apps on a open platform not closed lol
They made deals with retailers to make their apps and OSS the only option.

It not even possible to Apple to the same as MS because iPhone is already closed for the good.
what you mean by saying "an Os on a open platform" ? pls explain better
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
3,984
5,322
540
what you mean by saying "an Os on a open platform" ? pls explain better

He's referring to the fact that Windows never enforced any policy regarding applications that could run on it. Anyone can write a bat or exe file in notepad and be up and running, there is no vetting or review process. Even with MS's own store, that did vet apps until recently, the OS continued to support executables outside that store. This isn't very groundbreaking since digital distribution really wasn't a thing when Windows was introduced.
 

MonarchJT

Member
Sep 25, 2020
2,224
3,243
375
He's referring to the fact that Windows never enforced any policy regarding applications that could run on it. Anyone can write a bat or exe file in notepad and be up and running, there is no vetting or review process. Even with MS's own store, that did vet apps until recently, the OS continued to support executables outside that store. This isn't very groundbreaking since digital distribution really wasn't a thing when Windows was introduced.
and where is wrote that ms cannot (probably to their detriment) change the way apps are vetted / reviewed? We saw that they was just doing it with uwp. it would be enough to leave the compatibility with the old apps in emulation mode or something like that but nobody forbids Microsoft to "close" THEIR OWNED operating system. if their are not doing it , it is because ms is afraid of losing market dominance not because they can't. The open platform thing is just a legend on how Ms promoted their OS...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Panajev2001a