A federal judge ruled that Apple violated a 2021 antitrust order by not allowing developers to steer users to outside payment options, rejecting Apple's proposed changes to its App Store rules. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers determined Apple's new rules, which permitted developers to communicate with users about alternative payment methods outside the app, still didn't comply with her original order to allow in-app links and buttons directly to external payment systems. While Apple argued its approach protected user privacy and security, the judge deemed it insufficient, effectively upholding the previous ruling requiring Apple to allow developers more control over the payment process.
The popular mobile game Luck Be a Landlord faces potential removal from the Google Play Store due to its use of simulated gambling mechanics. Developer Trampoline Tales received a notice from Google citing a violation of their gambling policies, specifically the simulation of "casino-style games with real-world monetary value, even if there is no real-world monetary value awarded." While the game does not offer real-world prizes, its core gameplay revolves around slot machine-like mechanics and simulated betting. Trampoline Tales is appealing the decision, arguing the game is skill-based and comparable to other allowed strategy titles. The developer expressed concern over the subjective nature of the review process and the potential precedent this ban could set for other games with similar mechanics. They are currently working to comply with Google's request to remove the flagged content, though the specific changes required remain unclear.
Hacker News users discuss the potential ban of the mobile game "Luck Be a Landlord" from Google Play due to its gambling-like mechanics. Several commenters expressed sympathy for the developer, highlighting the difficulty of navigating Google's seemingly arbitrary and opaque enforcement policies. Others debated whether the game constitutes actual gambling, with some arguing that its reliance on random number generation (RNG) mirrors many other accepted games. The core issue appears to be the ability to purchase in-game currency, which, combined with the RNG elements, blurs the line between skill-based gaming and gambling in the eyes of some commenters and potentially Google. A few users suggested potential workarounds for the developer, like removing in-app purchases or implementing alternative monetization strategies. The overall sentiment leans toward frustration with Google's inconsistent application of its rules and the precarious position this puts independent developers in.
Summary of Comments ( 451 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43852145
HN commenters largely agree with the judge's ruling that Apple violated antitrust law by not allowing developers to link to external payment options. Some argue this is a small concession that won't significantly impact Apple's revenue, while others believe it's a crucial step toward fairer competition and lower prices for consumers. A few point out the hypocrisy of Apple demanding open access on other platforms while maintaining a closed ecosystem on iOS. Several express skepticism that Apple will truly comply, predicting they'll find loopholes or implement burdensome alternative requirements. The lack of concrete consequences for past violations is also a common concern, with some calling for stronger penalties to deter future anti-competitive behavior. A minority of comments defend Apple, suggesting the ruling infringes on their right to control their platform and that in-app purchases provide valuable security and convenience.
The Hacker News comments section for the article "Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds" contains a robust discussion with varied perspectives on the ruling and its implications. Several commenters express skepticism about the judge's decision and the overall concept of antitrust actions against Apple. One highly-upvoted comment argues that Apple's actions, while possibly frustrating for developers, don't necessarily constitute anti-competitive behavior harmful to consumers. This commenter suggests that developers have other platforms available and that users ultimately benefit from Apple's curated app store experience. They question the judge's reasoning and the broader implications for platform owners' ability to control their ecosystems.
Another prominent line of discussion revolves around the definition of relevant markets. Some commenters debate whether the relevant market is "in-app payments" specifically or "mobile gaming transactions" more broadly. This distinction is crucial for determining whether Apple holds a dominant position and whether its actions are anti-competitive. One commenter highlights Epic Games' likely motive to expand its own payment system and questions whether this lawsuit genuinely benefits consumers.
Several commenters also discuss the practical implications of the ruling. Some speculate on how Apple might respond, including potential changes to its app store policies or appeals to higher courts. Others discuss the potential impact on developers, with some suggesting it could lead to lower prices for consumers while others worry about the fragmentation of the app ecosystem and potential security risks.
There's also a discussion about the role of government regulation in the tech industry. Some commenters argue that government intervention is necessary to prevent monopolies and ensure fair competition, while others express concern about overregulation and its potential to stifle innovation. One commenter points out the complexities of defining and enforcing antitrust laws in the rapidly evolving digital marketplace.
A few commenters express support for the ruling, arguing that Apple's control over its app store is excessive and harms both developers and consumers. They believe the ruling is a step towards a more open and competitive app market.
Overall, the comments section reflects a diverse range of opinions on the antitrust ruling, with many questioning its validity and implications while others see it as a necessary step to curb Apple's power. The discussion delves into complex legal and economic concepts related to antitrust law, market definition, and the role of platform owners in the digital economy.