> I fail to understand how HN and the court system do not think the same against Apple
"The court system" is not a collective entity with a shared set of thoughts. Different judges, different arguments, in one case (but not the other) a jury, these things make a difference.
The appellate process and the system of binding precedent goes with it serves to somewhat make things more consistent overall than individual trial court processes would when considered over a longer time and a larger number of cases, but cases very close in time ending up with different trial court decisions despite broadly similar fact patterns are not really surprising.
> So they dont look at precedents in court system in USA ?
I literally described how that impacts things: "The appellate process and the system of binding precedent goes with it serves to somewhat make things more consistent overall than individual trial court processes would when considered over a longer time and a larger number of cases".
Its funny how "binding precedent" doesnt apply to the same court that gave both decisions. It is the Northern district Court of california. Thus precedents mean nothing and Jury is free to give arbitrary decisions.
> Its funny how "binding precedent" doesnt apply to the same court that gave both decisions.
I dunno, the fact that precedent is only binding when it is from a higher appellate court to a court subordinate to that appellate court isn't what I'd describe as "funny", just rather sensible.
> Thus precedents mean nothing
Not that I've seen any inconsistent legal ruling offered between the two cases. The fact that the broad outline of the case is similar doesn't mean the decisive legal questions are, but, yes, precedent from a trial court decision isn't binding (same or different court), only, at best, persuasive, and then only if it is a citable (published) decision in the first place, which most trial court decisions are not.
> Jury is free to give arbitrary decisions.
Well, no, the jury is "free" to give answers that the trial judge finds to be reasonably supported by the evidence to the questions the trial judge poses to the jury.
And that's not directly affected by precedent anyway, precedent only governs questions of law, not fact, and juries don't answer questions of law, only fact.
Well 20 Yrs ago, Microsoft faced an Anti trust lawsuit in Federal court for shipping a browser, now Apple and Google both ship with a ton of software not just browser and restrict users from installing the software of their choice, yet Apple seems to be not facing any backlash. While Google lost for the same cause. This seems not only arbitrary but also shows the weakness in US court system and Arbitration by a Jury. The anti trust lawsuit against Microsoft could be a precedent for a case against both Apple and Google.
> Lookup "jury nullification" if you're curious to learn more about juries giving arbitrary decisions.
Nullification only applies to criminal cases (the discussion here is about civil, not criminal, law) and only in one direction. Lookup "directed verdict of acquittal", "judgement as a matter of law", and "judgement non obstante veredicto".
This is true in one sense (that the jury doesn't always have the final word) but does not seem to actually argue against the point made in loaph's comment.
I think what loaph is saying is that a jury, when making a decision, can make any decision it wants, without consequences (except in exceptional cases, e.g. jury tampering).
The jury might never get to actually make a decision, and a guilty verdict can be overruled by a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (or as a result of an appeal, etc.), but legally, when a jury has made a decision, they can't be punished for making it, even if they were unreasonable in reaching that verdict.
How did whether juries are punished become germane? I thought the question at issue was just consistency vs capriciousness of the courts taken as a whole.
“Trial” inatead of “district”, and “supreme” is unnecessary, since in the cases where it is right in US court systems it is redundant with “appellate” and its wrong in New York, where “the Supreme Court” is one of many kinds of trial court (but where there are also appellate divisions and appellate terms of the Supreme Court which serve as intermediate appellate courts, with the ultimate appellate court—equivalent tothe Supreme Court in most other US jurisdictions—being the Court of Appeals.)
They do, but not proactively. You have to bring a case before the court for the precedent to get considered.
Lots of things that are legal/illegal are only so because they haven't been tested in court. Precedents are also specific and sometimes the details of a case make it different enough that the precedent does not apply.
I don’t think this deserves t be downvoted. It’s just a misunderstanding. What you’re thinking of is a different concept in the US legal system called res judicata or issue preclusion.
I don’t think the parent is particularly clear about what it’s referring to or why the Apple decision would be binding. It just looks like two ships passing in the night over precedent vs estoppel.
So what’s the right number? 0%? Any number would elicit moaning from the peanut gallery. Look at retail store gross margins on the products they sell (I.e. their cut of the retail price), and the terms they set for their wholesalers.
The right number is decided by competition. Different payment processors vie for customers by offering better deals until profit margins stabilize at a reasonable level. That's impossible with a monopoly.
Thank you for this. People seem to get bogged down in what percentage is right or wrong (something that reasonable people can very reasonably disagree about), but ultimately the problem is that there's no competitive marketplace.
Apple Store isn't a Point of Sale system you outsource to IBM.
It's inventory, delivery, and to an extent stewardship. The same with Steam. I don't expect junk and I expect refunds when I find it. Once you split that to a vendor the perverse incentives kick in and you end up right back in the Bad Place.
I personally think somewhere in the neighborhood of 18% is probably closer to sustainable, given all that we expect. And I also think Apple fucked up. If they had voluntarily reduced their fees and created the intro level at the same time, and a year or so earlier, they could have picked a higher number than they are likely now to end up with when all is said and done.
Did you just compare the markup of a retailer after negotiation with their supplier to the fee of a monopolist of the means of distribution on someone else's offered price? Because it seems to me those are very different things.
Yeah, I'm aware, but for the entities who have the revenue that justifies taking Apple or Google to court, it's 30%. Which is fairly egregious for a glorified package manager.
You can send encrypted notifications without any entitlement. I assume you are talking about sending notifications without displaying the notification to the user.
Sorry but I don't want random apps spaming me with junk. If they want to send me notifications, then yes they should request my (the user's) permission.
Not exactly. That would be a purely progressive tax like US income taxes. With the Small Business Program, what you say is only true the first time you cross 1 mil. Assuming your revenue never goes down (you can appeal if it does), in all future years you pay the full price. So if your app makes a consistent $1.5 mil / year, you’re paying the full tax on all of that revenue, not just $.5 of it.
This is a bit of a tangent, but I want to discuss how deviously literal the Supreme Court decided to be in order to avoid letting anyone establish any precedent about what was or wasn't a legal abortion.
The original filing said "It is also Dr. Karsan’s good faith belief and medical recommendation that that the Emergent Medical Condition Exception to Texas’s abortion bans and laws permits an abortion in Ms. Cox’s circumstances, as Ms. Cox has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from her current pregnancy that places her at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of her reproductive functions if a D&E abortion is not performed. Dr. Karsan is unsure how close to death her patients need to be before abortion is permitted under Texas law. As has been the case with prior patients over the last two years, Dr. Karsan is unsure if Ms. Cox’s current medical condition counts as close enough to death under Texas law for the Emergent Medical Condition Exception to apply." (clauses 139,140)
The Texas Supreme Court said "The pleadings state that Ms. Cox's doctor believes Ms. Cox qualifies for an abortion based on the medical-necessity exception. But when she sued seeking a court's pre-authorization, Dr. Karsan did not assert that Ms. Cox has a 'life-threatening physical condition' or that, in Dr. Karsan's reasonable medical judgement, an abortion is necessary because Ms. Cox has the type of condition the exception requires."
In short, the court decided that Dr. Karsan described the statute, and that Dr. Karsan stated that the statute applied, but Dr. Karsan did not actually say "the patient had a life-threatening physical condition," but only that the patient WOULD have a life-threatening condition if an abortion were not performed. Or at least that's probably the argument; it's not explained very well. Therefore, the Court cannot not rule on whether the abortion is legal or not. After all, only a doctor could make that determination, not a court (you can read the smirk).
Truly an amazing decision, and if there's an award in Hell for achievements in pedantry, that court would have a real shot. Sadly, the Court would probably be disqualified for such an award as they technically lied (Dr. Karsan did in fact say "Ms. Cox has a life-threatening physical condition"), and one presumes Hell's Pedantry Awards interpret such rules quite strictly.
What I never understood is how Republicans can be for one type of abortion say before 6 weeks but not for 15 weeks? What is their rationale? If Bible says that abortion is murder, and life begins at conception, then how can they allow abortion at 6 weeks and vote for that?
This is a tangent within a tangent, but it's basically a political strategy. Abortion bans are deeply unpopular, even in many Republican-majority states. By framing it "after six weeks", they're attempting to project the image that they're the reasonable ones. After all, women would have had six whole weeks to make up their mind! And it will allow an escape hatch for women in rape or incest situations.
As a practical matter, they know that many women won't realize they're pregnant until it's too late to feasibly schedule the procedure. They're minimizing the number of abortions while moving what the American public sees as reasonable from 24 weeks to 6. Once everyone's used to six, they can reduce it even more.
The religious beliefs that underlie these laws are the driving force. The people who hold these beliefs see the political system as a means to an end, and future losses do not matter if the goal is reached.
I grew up in an ultra conservative religious community, and as a kid, stuffed envelopes for a pro-life candidate’s campaign without fully understanding what it was I was doing, because I was a kid. I’ve seen the mindset up close, and it’s very worrisome.
Do think it’s ultimately short sighted because of the likely pendulum swing. But there is certainly a lot of damage to be done before that happens.
Interesting. Coming from a progressive european coutry, this sounds outrageously absurd. The idea of enacting laws based on the bible seems not just archaic but almost surreal. Are they stuck in the middle ages?
I can only speak for the bubble I grew up in, but almost everyone in that circle came from some kind of traumatic background. Vietnam vets, victims of sexual assault and other forms of abuse, etc.
These ultra religious groups provide a sense of community, and the highly restrictive rules and policies they espouse give them a sense of control - something that many of them have lost in various ways. It’s as sad as it is dangerous.
Some of them. It's not entirely different to or Poland's PIS or Northern Ireland's DUP, though I don't know of any modern major Republican leader who thinks the world is literally 6,000 years old.
Looking at data from 2022, about 13.6% of the population is White Evangelical Protestant, but that's been on the decline. It was around 25% a couple decades ago. Overall, just over half of the country is Christian, most being Protestant of some denomination.
But it's the White Evangelical Protestants that are the big driver here. You might think it's the 12.6% White Catholic and the 8.6% Hispanic Catholic populations that are the most fervently anti-abortion, but most actually vote for more liberal politicians.
The thing is, Evangelicals, if I understand correctly, weren't even that anti-abortion to begin with. That was seen as more of a Catholic issue historically. But what they're very big on is the idea that 1) America is the greatest country in the world, and 2) America is great because it's a Christian country. As such, they feel it's important to elect Christian leaders who feel and think like they do. And because they are predominantly white and their leadership is exclusively male, they want white men to be in control. (And I say this as a white, cisgender man.)
Because they've always been such a large percentage of the US population, and, more recently, because US distracting gives rural voters a greater voice than urban voters, they've been a large political force in the country since the 19th century, but in the 20th century, they were never so large as to completely dominate US politics. And this kinda worked well for both sides in the early 20th, since towns, counties, and states dominated by Evangelicals were largely autonomous enough to do whatever they wanted locally. But when desegregation came, and women entered the workforce in greater numbers, Evangelicals were forced to accept nonwhites and women holding important positions, even in their areas of the country.
Abortion became an issue they could use to gain support from Catholic voters, and as a wedge issue for the larger community. For Evangelicals, it was less about writing specific religious creeds into law, and more about forming strategies to gain political power so they could put the "right people" in back in charge of the country. It also helps reinforce that men are in control by removing autonomy from women.
> Why are politicians trying to pass a law that is, "deeply unpopular?" Do they want to lose elections, or something?
That is an interesting question which may have something to do with Game Theory and Prisoner's Dilemma. Even though Republicans as a whole will lose votes because of this, each individual Republican candidate will stand to gain an advantage over their primaries rivals by being perceived as more uncompromising, more principled.
And it is curious if not silly, 6 weeks is seen as, conceived to be "more principled", than 7 weeks.
The bible doesn't say anything at all about abortion. It wouldn't matter if it did though, because they have no problem ignoring plenty of things that actually are in it when it would conflict with political success.
If anything, that sounds like it's saying life begins _before_ conception, not at conception. By that logic, it's also murder to wear a condom or pull out
In a way we were set up before birth as said by Jeremiah above, because our DNA existed before we became the fertilized egg. Our DNA was in two parts which were then combined by the act of conception.
There's a large sect that believes that abortion should never be performed. However, the vast majority understands the pragmatism behind the six week restriction: forcing women to carry rape/incest/coerced babies incentivizes the raping/incesting/coercing parties to do so knowing that their actions will pay off. Allowing abortion before six weeks dissuades such behavior.
More practically, it allows you to claim what Jimbo here is describing without any practical loss. At two weeks pregnant, you likely haven't even had sex yet. A pregnancy test might not be positive until week five or so, and there are only a couple of abortion clinics in conservative states, so you've potentially got a window of just a couple of days between finding that you need one and getting one. So a six week ban is more of a PR move than an actual thing that people believe in.
But that argument goes both ways? Why should abortion be legal at 9 month but killing a born infant being one day older is murder? And if it is not then what is the cutoff point? The previous schelling point of viability (which was moved earlier over time by medical progress) also is unconvincing.
Time limits can be a pragmatic and tested solution. I think most European countries use 12 to 15 weeks.
Time limits make sense and EVERYBODY agrees they are a good thing.
But if you want a shorter time-limit you should give a good rationale for it. Why you want it 6 weeks but not 1 week?
Whereas those who didn't propose any change to Roe vs. Wade do not really need a reason for NOT making a change. There must be a reason when we make or try to make a change.
Because Republicans are trying to curry favor with everyone. Hard-liners like myself believe that abortion at any stage is morally equivalent to homicide—only acceptable if the life of the mother is also at risk. The 6 week ban doesn't actually solve the problem, just delivers a pyrrhic victory to win votes.
Maybe pick an analogy that isn’t picture perfect for starting a flame war? I don’t think it edifies anyone to bring that debate into a discussion about intellectual property rights.
You may be missing some context; there was a similar court case between Apple and Epic, and Apple won. While opinions on HN were mixed, I seem to recall more people coming out praising Apple and demonizing Epic.
Oh, does the site report this kind of info? That’s interesting, where? It would also be neat to know mobile vs desktop, and how’s the Linux population doing here.
Anecdotal and also not sure how reliable this info can be but I am the developer of HACK which is available on both iOS and Android and I have a significantly larger user base on iOS than android.
That's the closest thing to hard data we have. The only difference would be if there's some difference in tendencies between iOS and Android users to use the web versus an app.
Not sure that's reasonable. A quick search suggests current US market share is 58% iOS to 41% Android. If we assume HN readers are a representative sample of US mobile phone owners, then sure, you'd easily be right.
But of course there are plenty of HN users from outside the US. Another quick search suggests Android is around 66% in Europe, and iOS is only at 33%. Asia is ever more tilted toward Android, at 79% to 20%.
Even then, that assumes HN users' mobile OS preference mirrors that of the country/continent they are from, which feels a little unlikely to me; my gut feeling is that HN users to prefer Android at a greater rate (even if by not that much) than the rest of the people where they live.
But let's go back to assuming that HN's readership mirrors the mobile OS market share from country/continent they're from. It's not hard to drop that US 58% iOS number below 50% by subtracting US users from the total and adding users from literally anywhere else, where iOS usage is much lower.
Regardless, though, I think even if somehow the iOS numbers are still higher than the Android numbers, I think it's probably not that case that obviously everyone who uses an iPhone would side with Apple in this matter. Many/most would, but still likely not enough for it to be accurate to say that more than 50% of HN are a bunch of Apple apologists who will side with them in a legal matter and against Google in the exact same legal matter.
At some point in the last decade, large newspapers saw their local ad monopolies being disrupted by Google search ads so as the lost ad revenue they started running negative headlines on Google left and right for years. Apple also took advantage of this and portrayed themselves as the saviors of privacy. That created a negative perception of Google and a positive one for Apple affecting the society as a whole including HNers and these random sample (jury).
That’s like saying Porsche has a monopoly on all red mid-engine German sports coupes. Apps run on pocket computing devices with phone and data connectivity. Two operating systems compete in that space.
No, that's not like that at all. Can we stop making really poor car analogies that don't actually represent the issue at hand?
Regardless, at this point you're arguing against the court here. Google lost; they have a monopoly on Android app distribution. Maybe that'll get overturned on appeal, but I hope not.
Apple is just as sleezy as Google but doesn't have as much power and reach. If I don't want to, I don't have to interact with Apple at all. Google is much harder to avoid, impossible in some domains like email.
"The same against Apple" is very broad so I'm not sure what you're referring to, but Apple is presently less evil than Google.
* Google started out pure good and turned pure evil.
* Amazon started out mostly decent and turned mostly sleazy.
* Apple started out sort of in the middle and stated there.
"Middle" for Apple includes extremes in both directions. They do some pretty bad things with DRM, locking down devices, anti-repair, government corruption. They do some very good things with privacy, security, long-term support, and similar.
If it's a specific litigation (Epic v. Apple), courts are random. Very random. Legal processes have little grounding in any sort of objective anything, and kind of resemble a chaotic die roll.
Talking about app store specifically, the difference according to many on HN would seem to be that Apple can have a monopoly because they use it to protect you, but Google should not because they use it to exploit you. This sounds pretty silly to me but it seems to be pretty popular.
More-or-less the standard stuff. When fighting for right-to-repair in my state, the major opposition was an Apple lobbyist. You can also look at DRM, worker rights in the hellholes electronics equipment gets made, etc. Not all of this even makes sense; better workers' rights would probably benefit Apple on the net, since they would hurt cut-rate vendors more, but c'est la vie.
PageRank was at least partially funded by the intelligence community via the MDDS program. "Started out pure good" is revisionist. They definitely started out as the darlings of the tech world, but "don't be evil" was always ironic.
