5 ms·

Competition is not anti-competitive. Excluding other third party sign on options would be problematic if Apple were abusing a dominant position among smartphon

Competition is not anti-competitive. Excluding other third party sign on options would be problematic if Apple were abusing a dominant position among smartphone makers, which is not the case by any objective measure.

sb8244 7y ago
Is it problematic if Apple says "you must include us if you include anyone else?" That seems anti-competitive to me.
- nihonde 7y ago
  That’s competing. Fair play unless you’re the dominant player in the relevant market.
  - maxerickson 7y ago
    Leveraging their status as the controller of the platform to require support for their solution is not the same thing as their solution competing head to head with other solutions. Note that I'm not making an argument about how to classify the behavior legally, I'm arguing that calling it "competing" is pretty generous.
  - summerlight 7y ago
    The trouble here is the definition of "market". Apple's ecosystem (which Apple has an absolute control on) doesn't seem to be very safe from being defined as a sole market since there's no viable substitute to the app store for Apple users. For instance, even if Apple decides to increase the app store fee to 50% so its app's prices as well, still consumers don't have much choice since buying a new phone is typically more expensive by order of magnitude than buying an app. This is also a part of Spotify's claim as well and Apple is trying to defend itself for this time unlike Apple v. Pepper.
    - nihonde 7y ago
      You can’t define Apple’s market as iOS customers unless there are no alternatives to iOS, which there most certainly are.
      - summerlight 7y ago
        I already have explained; there's no alternative to iOS for apple mobile devices unless you're willing to pay more than $500 for an equivalent level of android device. If Apple allows Android to be installed to Apple devices, then things can be different though.
        xvector 7y ago
        This is true with any industry. There is no alternative from Honda unless you are willing to spend <car-price> on another car.
        threeseed 7y ago
        Same applies to PlayStation, XBox, Switch, FitBit, Tesla, Thermomix etc. Pretty much the standard.
        sjwright 7y ago
        In fact software monopolies on hardware isn't pretty much the standard, it's a universal reality in just about all consumer products except one—the personal computer. And even then it's exceedingly rare for a consumer to deviate from the shipped software.
        nihonde 7y ago
        Are you really going to persist in claiming that Apple has a monopoly on its own products? If so, your grasp of competition rules is fatally flawed.
  - Mindwipe 7y ago
    "Dominant player" isn't especially relevant in European market law. Essentially the test is that you are of sufficient import to materially affect pricing in that market, which Apple definitely is.
    - nihonde 7y ago
      I was taught that Article 102 is the test for abuse of monopoly power in the EU. It actually uses the words “dominant position” if I’m not mistaken. I haven’t studied this since the late 90’s, so I may be out of date...
- EGreg 7y ago
  Yes it is anticompetitive. It is using Apple’s monopoly as gatekeeper of their app store. Apple would have long ago been cited for Antitrust if Android hadn’t had most of the market. I personally think that the definition of a trust is too narrow — one member of an oligopoly abusing its position as a platform provider and strongarming people is also pretty bad. https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2019/6/3/18650861/apple-department-of-justice-antitrust-authority-facebook-google-amazon-ftc-investigations https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2019/6/3/18650861/appl...
  - nihonde 7y ago
    That’s not how antitrust law works. It’s not a test of whether a company exerts too much control over its own customers. It’s a test of whether customers have some alternatives and a real opportunity to vote with their dollars.
    - EGreg 7y ago
      Yep, that’s what meant when I said that the definition was too narrow
      - nihonde 7y ago
        Antitrust is among the most mature areas of law, in terms of how these concepts have been thoughtfully wrangled over. I definitely encourage you to dig deep on how market scope is determined, if that’s interesting to you. There are many ways to manipulate a market but very few rise to the level of requiring state or regional government intervention.
    - Mindwipe 7y ago
      That's how American anti-trust law works. It's not entirely how European anti-trust law works.
    - sturgill 7y ago
      Apple has argued that developers are its customers (in the Pepper lawsuit). What options do developers have? Ignore the iOS market (those most likely to pay money)? There isn't a choice here: you let Apple have 1/3 of all of your revenue and you implement Apple Sign In. Because... competition?...

sb8244 7y ago

Is it problematic if Apple says "you must include us if you include anyone else?" That seems anti-competitive to me.

nihonde 7y ago
That’s competing. Fair play unless you’re the dominant player in the relevant market.
- maxerickson 7y ago
  Leveraging their status as the controller of the platform to require support for their solution is not the same thing as their solution competing head to head with other solutions. Note that I'm not making an argument about how to classify the behavior legally, I'm arguing that calling it "competing" is pretty generous.
- summerlight 7y ago
  The trouble here is the definition of "market". Apple's ecosystem (which Apple has an absolute control on) doesn't seem to be very safe from being defined as a sole market since there's no viable substitute to the app store for Apple users. For instance, even if Apple decides to increase the app store fee to 50% so its app's prices as well, still consumers don't have much choice since buying a new phone is typically more expensive by order of magnitude than buying an app. This is also a part of Spotify's claim as well and Apple is trying to defend itself for this time unlike Apple v. Pepper.
  - nihonde 7y ago
    You can’t define Apple’s market as iOS customers unless there are no alternatives to iOS, which there most certainly are.
    - summerlight 7y ago
      I already have explained; there's no alternative to iOS for apple mobile devices unless you're willing to pay more than $500 for an equivalent level of android device. If Apple allows Android to be installed to Apple devices, then things can be different though.
      - xvector 7y ago
        This is true with any industry. There is no alternative from Honda unless you are willing to spend <car-price> on another car.
      - threeseed 7y ago
        Same applies to PlayStation, XBox, Switch, FitBit, Tesla, Thermomix etc. Pretty much the standard.
        sjwright 7y ago
        In fact software monopolies on hardware isn't pretty much the standard, it's a universal reality in just about all consumer products except one—the personal computer. And even then it's exceedingly rare for a consumer to deviate from the shipped software.
      - nihonde 7y ago
        Are you really going to persist in claiming that Apple has a monopoly on its own products? If so, your grasp of competition rules is fatally flawed.
- Mindwipe 7y ago
  "Dominant player" isn't especially relevant in European market law. Essentially the test is that you are of sufficient import to materially affect pricing in that market, which Apple definitely is.
  - nihonde 7y ago
    I was taught that Article 102 is the test for abuse of monopoly power in the EU. It actually uses the words “dominant position” if I’m not mistaken. I haven’t studied this since the late 90’s, so I may be out of date...
EGreg 7y ago
Yes it is anticompetitive. It is using Apple’s monopoly as gatekeeper of their app store. Apple would have long ago been cited for Antitrust if Android hadn’t had most of the market. I personally think that the definition of a trust is too narrow — one member of an oligopoly abusing its position as a platform provider and strongarming people is also pretty bad. https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2019/6/3/18650861/apple-department-of-justice-antitrust-authority-facebook-google-amazon-ftc-investigations https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2019/6/3/18650861/appl...
- nihonde 7y ago
  That’s not how antitrust law works. It’s not a test of whether a company exerts too much control over its own customers. It’s a test of whether customers have some alternatives and a real opportunity to vote with their dollars.
  - EGreg 7y ago
    Yep, that’s what meant when I said that the definition was too narrow
    - nihonde 7y ago
      Antitrust is among the most mature areas of law, in terms of how these concepts have been thoughtfully wrangled over. I definitely encourage you to dig deep on how market scope is determined, if that’s interesting to you. There are many ways to manipulate a market but very few rise to the level of requiring state or regional government intervention.
  - Mindwipe 7y ago
    That's how American anti-trust law works. It's not entirely how European anti-trust law works.
  - sturgill 7y ago
    Apple has argued that developers are its customers (in the Pepper lawsuit). What options do developers have? Ignore the iOS market (those most likely to pay money)? There isn't a choice here: you let Apple have 1/3 of all of your revenue and you implement Apple Sign In. Because... competition?...