4 ms·

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

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.
    - nodamage 6y ago
      Be that as it may, it's not really relevant to the question of whether Apple requiring apps to be distributed by their own App Store constitutes an antitrust violation.
gamblor956 6y ago
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. That is not a requirement for antitrust law. That is just some silly threshold the Justice Department set for itself so that it wouldn't have to do its job. Until the [EDIT: Clinton] administration, businesses were successfully charged with antitrust violations even though in many cases they were minor market participants on the basis of their actions resulting in anti-competitive effects. (Usually as a result of price-fixing agreements between smaller participants.) After the Microsoft case, the DOJ decided to bring "economic analysis" into the mix to "improve" their antitrust practice, and it resulted in the DOJ not pursuing any meaningful antitrust cases at all, on the grounds that basically everything was kosher if you looked at it from a sufficiently macroeconomic perspective. (This also overlapped with the Dubya administration, and there was strong political pressure not to go after American companies.) Interestingly enough, Apple was the last major antitrust case that the DOJ successfully pursued. (That case involved Apple arranging a price-fixing arrangement for ebooks.)

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.
  - nodamage 6y ago
    Be that as it may, it's not really relevant to the question of whether Apple requiring apps to be distributed by their own App Store constitutes an antitrust violation.

gamblor956 6y ago

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. That is not a requirement for antitrust law. That is just some silly threshold the Justice Department set for itself so that it wouldn't have to do its job. Until the [EDIT: Clinton] administration, businesses were successfully charged with antitrust violations even though in many cases they were minor market participants on the basis of their actions resulting in anti-competitive effects. (Usually as a result of price-fixing agreements between smaller participants.) After the Microsoft case, the DOJ decided to bring "economic analysis" into the mix to "improve" their antitrust practice, and it resulted in the DOJ not pursuing any meaningful antitrust cases at all, on the grounds that basically everything was kosher if you looked at it from a sufficiently macroeconomic perspective. (This also overlapped with the Dubya administration, and there was strong political pressure not to go after American companies.) Interestingly enough, Apple was the last major antitrust case that the DOJ successfully pursued. (That case involved Apple arranging a price-fixing arrangement for ebooks.)