6 ms·

As must be repeated in every thread on antitrust: Antitrust law is about much more than just monopoly. Apple doesn't have one, nor do they need one to be prose

As must be repeated in every thread on antitrust: Antitrust law is about much more than just monopoly. Apple doesn't have one, nor do they need one to be prosecuted for anticompetitive behavior and abuse of market position. If you're not familiar with the difference between the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act, this is a good primer: https://www.britannica.com/event/Clayton-Antitrust-Act https://www.britannica.com/event/Clayton-Antitrust-Act Apple is about to get bitten hard, not for being a monopoly, but for anticompetitive business practices.

bgorman 6y ago
Apple can just point to mobile Safari. There is nothing stopping you from building whatever you want on the web these days.
- AsyncAwait 6y ago
  Even there, they limit PWAs and do not allow competitors to use their own engines.
- jedberg 6y ago
  I can list a ton of APIs that are available to native iPhone apps that aren't available to apps via Safari. Push notifications being the most notable, in part because they are purposely not supporting an open standard.
  - inetknght 6y ago
    > I can list a ton of APIs that are available to native iPhone apps that aren't available to apps via Safari. And thank God for that! I don't want websites in Safari to have the APIs available to a native app!
    - la_oveja 6y ago
      You would be asked to give permission to these APIs, just like you do in a normal web browser.
    - jedberg 6y ago
      Me neither! That's why we need 3rd party app stores.
      - inetknght 6y ago
        > Me neither! That's why we need 3rd party app stores. Nope, not at all. You want 3rd party app stores because: 1) you don't believe Apple's walled garden is worth a 30% cut 2) you dislike Apple's lack of transparency in their app review procedures 3) you're unable to sideload an app onto your "customer's" devices One or more of those are why you "need" third party app stores. And, I think you've got a valid argument for any of them. But none of those have anything to do with what APIs are available to websites in Safari.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - arthurcolle 6y ago
      Yeah, forcing you to buy apps in Apple's walled garden. Such an uninformed take.
- emsy 6y ago
  Apple has a history of very late adoption up to complete dismissal of web standards such as Web Bluetooth to prevent just that.
- paxys 6y ago
  Except that Apple themselves choose to not support the necessary APIs in Safari that would make PWAs feasible.
- syshum 6y ago
  >>There is nothing stopping you from building whatever you want on the web these days. ummm Safari stops you given it is a terrible browser, and is non-compatible with many modern features
- g_p 6y ago
  Apple's restriction of access to device capabilities/sensors through web "apps" would likely be arguable as a restriction designed to prevent this, and force you into entering their burdensome and anti-competitive marketplace with fixed 30% fee.
- ultrarunner 6y ago
  Give me PWA notifications and I'd be more apt to agree with you.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  They can try, but since it's not really possible to build Fortnite and make it run efficiently on mobile safari, I doubt they'll get very far. Section III is the missing piece of the legal puzzle for me. I have in the past been convinced that the presence of Android is sufficient to prevent a lawsuit like this from succeeding against Apple. But now I'm not so sure. III. Competition in the Sale of Mobile Devices Cannot Discipline Apple’s Conduct in the iOS App Distribution or iOS In-App Payment Processing Markets. 156. Competition in the sale of mobile devices cannot constrain Apple’s anti-competitive conduct described in Parts I and II. 157. First, Apple’s power in the relevant markets described above is not disciplined by competition in the sale of mobile devices because Apple mobile device customers face significant switching costs and customer lock-in to Apple’s iOS ecosystem. How many news articles have we seen about the power of iMessage to keep people in the Apple ecosystem? It's gonna be hard for Apple to argue that they don't try to engender consumer lock in given their plain reluctance to interoperate and all the news articles talking about how strong this effect is. I think Epic has a chance here. Certainly it's a gamble I'd love to see them win. IANAL.
- mhermher 6y ago
  Maybe their shitty and outdated implementation of standards is what is holding them back. Maybe just use another browser though right...
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
  You can't build a messenger in Safari that pings when someone is sending you a message. Actually, you wouldn't be able to do that even with app side loading, because Apple does not allow apps to work in background and must rely on push notifications to wake up from sleep. If Apple is forced to allow third-party stores, it should also be forced to allow third-party push notifications.
  - threeseed 6y ago
    And what other arbitrary features should Apple be "forced" to build. Especially ones like push notifications which in many cases are harmful to consumers.
    - darwinwhy 6y ago
      I'd much rather get my push notifications from Facebook Messenger through mobile Safari than be forced to install the full iOS app.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
      It should be up to device owners, not Apple to decide what services can send push notifications to device. On macOS, you can run a background service that listens to whatever the user needs. But on iOS, Apple behaves like it owns the device even after sale. This is not acceptable.
    - Osiris 6y ago
      It sounds more like removing restrictions than ADDING features. Push notifications already exist but with arbitrary restrictions. They don't have to "build" anything.
      - sneak 6y ago
        iOS push notifications from developers all go to Apple first, as the phones only maintain a connection to Apple. Every push notification goes through Apple servers only. They’d have to build a feature into iOS to allow it to maintain persistent connections to other notification services.
- ronanyeah 6y ago
  As a PWA developer I can only laugh at this comment.
- sebmellen 6y ago
  If you tried developing a PWA with mobile Safari support, and then reexamined this comment, I think you would quickly realize how ridiculous this sounds.
  - fooey 6y ago
    Safari is the new IE6, and it's hamstringing the web on purpose, just like MS did back in the day.
    - sebmellen 6y ago
      Great analogy. I always get annoyed when I end up on caniuse and Safari sticks out like a sore thumb, along with Opera Mini (lol).
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- virtue3 6y ago
  Yes Mobile Safari, where it is the -only- browser that is considered on iOS. "The WebRTC APIs have not yet been exposed to iOS browsers using WKWebView . In practice, this means that your web-based WebRTC application will only work in Safari on iOS, and not in any other browser the user may have installed (Chrome, for example), nor in an 'in-app' version of Safari.Sep 7, 2018" Im sure there are more examples.
s3r3nity 6y ago
Half-true. (Source: worked at a big 4 consulting firm >a decade ago for a few projects involving significant antitrust problems in the tech industry.) You need to have some significant market power (yes, vague) such that your elasticity of demand is steep and elasticity of supply of competitors is steep. The law is (purposefully?) vague, as the key arguments come down to: 1) Market definition 2) Definition and analysis of price impacts on demand 3) Ease of entry into the market by competitors Textbook example: Bing promoting Microsoft products when it was created (2009?) is not as problematic (read: won't get scrutinized by the US government) as Google promoting G Suite products.
- bosswipe 6y ago
  In the filing Epic tries to define an "iOS App Distribution Market" and an "iOS In-App Payment Processing Market". The suit will probably turn on whether the court accepts those definitions or not.
  - nodamage 6y ago
    Epic attempts to argue that the "iOS App Distribution Market" is a separate market from the overall app market, but if you look at their arguments, they apply equally to the video game market. - Games are platform specific, games developed for Xbox cannot substitute for games designed for Nintendo. - Users face substantial switching costs when switching platforms. They have to buy a new console and then replace all their games. - Each company controls the distribution of games on their respective platform. When you look at video games are they three separate markets of "games for Xbox", "games for Playstation", and "games for Nintendo"? Or are they three separate competitors competing in the global market of "video games" despite the above constraints? I think Epic is going to have a difficult time convincing a court with this argument.
    - treis 6y ago
      The relationship between game and console makers, and the one between console makers is very different than one between app makers and Google/Apple. Game studios and console manufacturers have historically negotiated on relatively equal footing. It's as important to console makers that game studios make games as it is for game studios to have access. So studios are courted and get a relatively fair shake. Apple/Google don't care if you don't make an app for their system. They're not giving any discounts or incentives to app makers. Console makers also are in a more competitive market. There were usually three makers plus near competitors like PC, web, and arcade gaming. Plus, not owning a console was an option. On the other hand Apple/Google barely compete with each other. Pretty much everyone is going to buy a smart phone and they're the two options. They're a cushy duopoly with no incentive to rock the boat.
cwhiz 6y ago
That isn’t how competition law works. From your own link: >the Clayton Act defined as illegal certain business practices that are conducive to the formation of monopolies or that result from them. Apple doesn’t have a monopoly so the latter does not apply. Are you legitimately suggesting that Apple’s behavior is conducive toward the creation of a monopoly?? I would really like to hear some legal arguments that support this position. Apple’s market is shrinking, not growing. It will be a supremely tough court battle to prove that Apple’s behavior will lead to market consolidation in Apple’s favor.
- lhnz 6y ago
  Surely buying apps on an iPhone is already a totally consolidated market. It's so tightly controlled that it's literally impossible for there to be any competitor iPhone app stores that consumers could move to. And not only that, but Apple is also stopping the implementation of browser features (WebPush, Service Workers, etc) that would appear to allow browser apps to compete with those downloaded from the App Store [0]. [0] https://twitter.com/HenrikJoreteg/status/1071611165946470400 https://twitter.com/HenrikJoreteg/status/1071611165946470400
  - cwhiz 6y ago
    Apple having control of their own platform is only anticompetitive if they already have a monopoly or if having control is likely to achieve a monopoly. Apple owns less than 20% of the worldwide smartphone market, and its shrinking. So, both requirements are missing. If you don’t like Apple, do you have alternative options? Yes. Unequivocally, yes. If there is a monopoly in the smartphone market, it’s Google.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  The Clayton Act is just part of US antitrust legislation. It originally targeted monopolies. It has has been amended many times since then to extend beyond monopolistic business activities to encompass all manner of anticompetitive business activities. Due to historical naming conventions, the modified legislation is still referred to by its original name.
kqvamxurcagg 6y ago
By their very nature, monopolies emerge in new and unexpected ways. They shouldn't have to fit an outdated definition to be fixed. Digital has changed everything, as the market capitalisation of Big Tech shows.

bgorman 6y ago

Apple can just point to mobile Safari. There is nothing stopping you from building whatever you want on the web these days.

AsyncAwait 6y ago
Even there, they limit PWAs and do not allow competitors to use their own engines.
jedberg 6y ago
I can list a ton of APIs that are available to native iPhone apps that aren't available to apps via Safari. Push notifications being the most notable, in part because they are purposely not supporting an open standard.
- inetknght 6y ago
  > I can list a ton of APIs that are available to native iPhone apps that aren't available to apps via Safari. And thank God for that! I don't want websites in Safari to have the APIs available to a native app!
  - la_oveja 6y ago
    You would be asked to give permission to these APIs, just like you do in a normal web browser.
  - jedberg 6y ago
    Me neither! That's why we need 3rd party app stores.
    - inetknght 6y ago
      > Me neither! That's why we need 3rd party app stores. Nope, not at all. You want 3rd party app stores because: 1) you don't believe Apple's walled garden is worth a 30% cut 2) you dislike Apple's lack of transparency in their app review procedures 3) you're unable to sideload an app onto your "customer's" devices One or more of those are why you "need" third party app stores. And, I think you've got a valid argument for any of them. But none of those have anything to do with what APIs are available to websites in Safari.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - arthurcolle 6y ago
    Yeah, forcing you to buy apps in Apple's walled garden. Such an uninformed take.
emsy 6y ago
Apple has a history of very late adoption up to complete dismissal of web standards such as Web Bluetooth to prevent just that.
paxys 6y ago
Except that Apple themselves choose to not support the necessary APIs in Safari that would make PWAs feasible.
syshum 6y ago
>>There is nothing stopping you from building whatever you want on the web these days. ummm Safari stops you given it is a terrible browser, and is non-compatible with many modern features
g_p 6y ago
Apple's restriction of access to device capabilities/sensors through web "apps" would likely be arguable as a restriction designed to prevent this, and force you into entering their burdensome and anti-competitive marketplace with fixed 30% fee.
ultrarunner 6y ago
Give me PWA notifications and I'd be more apt to agree with you.
asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
They can try, but since it's not really possible to build Fortnite and make it run efficiently on mobile safari, I doubt they'll get very far. Section III is the missing piece of the legal puzzle for me. I have in the past been convinced that the presence of Android is sufficient to prevent a lawsuit like this from succeeding against Apple. But now I'm not so sure. III. Competition in the Sale of Mobile Devices Cannot Discipline Apple’s Conduct in the iOS App Distribution or iOS In-App Payment Processing Markets. 156. Competition in the sale of mobile devices cannot constrain Apple’s anti-competitive conduct described in Parts I and II. 157. First, Apple’s power in the relevant markets described above is not disciplined by competition in the sale of mobile devices because Apple mobile device customers face significant switching costs and customer lock-in to Apple’s iOS ecosystem. How many news articles have we seen about the power of iMessage to keep people in the Apple ecosystem? It's gonna be hard for Apple to argue that they don't try to engender consumer lock in given their plain reluctance to interoperate and all the news articles talking about how strong this effect is. I think Epic has a chance here. Certainly it's a gamble I'd love to see them win. IANAL.
mhermher 6y ago
Maybe their shitty and outdated implementation of standards is what is holding them back. Maybe just use another browser though right...
Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
You can't build a messenger in Safari that pings when someone is sending you a message. Actually, you wouldn't be able to do that even with app side loading, because Apple does not allow apps to work in background and must rely on push notifications to wake up from sleep. If Apple is forced to allow third-party stores, it should also be forced to allow third-party push notifications.
- threeseed 6y ago
  And what other arbitrary features should Apple be "forced" to build. Especially ones like push notifications which in many cases are harmful to consumers.
  - darwinwhy 6y ago
    I'd much rather get my push notifications from Facebook Messenger through mobile Safari than be forced to install the full iOS app.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
    It should be up to device owners, not Apple to decide what services can send push notifications to device. On macOS, you can run a background service that listens to whatever the user needs. But on iOS, Apple behaves like it owns the device even after sale. This is not acceptable.
  - Osiris 6y ago
    It sounds more like removing restrictions than ADDING features. Push notifications already exist but with arbitrary restrictions. They don't have to "build" anything.
    - sneak 6y ago
      iOS push notifications from developers all go to Apple first, as the phones only maintain a connection to Apple. Every push notification goes through Apple servers only. They’d have to build a feature into iOS to allow it to maintain persistent connections to other notification services.
ronanyeah 6y ago
As a PWA developer I can only laugh at this comment.
sebmellen 6y ago
If you tried developing a PWA with mobile Safari support, and then reexamined this comment, I think you would quickly realize how ridiculous this sounds.
- fooey 6y ago
  Safari is the new IE6, and it's hamstringing the web on purpose, just like MS did back in the day.
  - sebmellen 6y ago
    Great analogy. I always get annoyed when I end up on caniuse and Safari sticks out like a sore thumb, along with Opera Mini (lol).
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
virtue3 6y ago
Yes Mobile Safari, where it is the -only- browser that is considered on iOS. "The WebRTC APIs have not yet been exposed to iOS browsers using WKWebView . In practice, this means that your web-based WebRTC application will only work in Safari on iOS, and not in any other browser the user may have installed (Chrome, for example), nor in an 'in-app' version of Safari.Sep 7, 2018" Im sure there are more examples.

s3r3nity 6y ago

Half-true. (Source: worked at a big 4 consulting firm >a decade ago for a few projects involving significant antitrust problems in the tech industry.) You need to have some significant market power (yes, vague) such that your elasticity of demand is steep and elasticity of supply of competitors is steep. The law is (purposefully?) vague, as the key arguments come down to: 1) Market definition 2) Definition and analysis of price impacts on demand 3) Ease of entry into the market by competitors Textbook example: Bing promoting Microsoft products when it was created (2009?) is not as problematic (read: won't get scrutinized by the US government) as Google promoting G Suite products.

bosswipe 6y ago
In the filing Epic tries to define an "iOS App Distribution Market" and an "iOS In-App Payment Processing Market". The suit will probably turn on whether the court accepts those definitions or not.
- nodamage 6y ago
  Epic attempts to argue that the "iOS App Distribution Market" is a separate market from the overall app market, but if you look at their arguments, they apply equally to the video game market. - Games are platform specific, games developed for Xbox cannot substitute for games designed for Nintendo. - Users face substantial switching costs when switching platforms. They have to buy a new console and then replace all their games. - Each company controls the distribution of games on their respective platform. When you look at video games are they three separate markets of "games for Xbox", "games for Playstation", and "games for Nintendo"? Or are they three separate competitors competing in the global market of "video games" despite the above constraints? I think Epic is going to have a difficult time convincing a court with this argument.
  - treis 6y ago
    The relationship between game and console makers, and the one between console makers is very different than one between app makers and Google/Apple. Game studios and console manufacturers have historically negotiated on relatively equal footing. It's as important to console makers that game studios make games as it is for game studios to have access. So studios are courted and get a relatively fair shake. Apple/Google don't care if you don't make an app for their system. They're not giving any discounts or incentives to app makers. Console makers also are in a more competitive market. There were usually three makers plus near competitors like PC, web, and arcade gaming. Plus, not owning a console was an option. On the other hand Apple/Google barely compete with each other. Pretty much everyone is going to buy a smart phone and they're the two options. They're a cushy duopoly with no incentive to rock the boat.

cwhiz 6y ago

That isn’t how competition law works. From your own link: >the Clayton Act defined as illegal certain business practices that are conducive to the formation of monopolies or that result from them. Apple doesn’t have a monopoly so the latter does not apply. Are you legitimately suggesting that Apple’s behavior is conducive toward the creation of a monopoly?? I would really like to hear some legal arguments that support this position. Apple’s market is shrinking, not growing. It will be a supremely tough court battle to prove that Apple’s behavior will lead to market consolidation in Apple’s favor.

lhnz 6y ago
Surely buying apps on an iPhone is already a totally consolidated market. It's so tightly controlled that it's literally impossible for there to be any competitor iPhone app stores that consumers could move to. And not only that, but Apple is also stopping the implementation of browser features (WebPush, Service Workers, etc) that would appear to allow browser apps to compete with those downloaded from the App Store [0]. [0] https://twitter.com/HenrikJoreteg/status/1071611165946470400 https://twitter.com/HenrikJoreteg/status/1071611165946470400
- cwhiz 6y ago
  Apple having control of their own platform is only anticompetitive if they already have a monopoly or if having control is likely to achieve a monopoly. Apple owns less than 20% of the worldwide smartphone market, and its shrinking. So, both requirements are missing. If you don’t like Apple, do you have alternative options? Yes. Unequivocally, yes. If there is a monopoly in the smartphone market, it’s Google.
gamblor956 6y ago
The Clayton Act is just part of US antitrust legislation. It originally targeted monopolies. It has has been amended many times since then to extend beyond monopolistic business activities to encompass all manner of anticompetitive business activities. Due to historical naming conventions, the modified legislation is still referred to by its original name.

kqvamxurcagg 6y ago

By their very nature, monopolies emerge in new and unexpected ways. They shouldn't have to fit an outdated definition to be fixed. Digital has changed everything, as the market capitalisation of Big Tech shows.