3 ms·
They are different markets. If you have an iPhone you must use Apple's store, Google's store is not competition for that market. For Google, use of the store
by not2b 6y ago
They are different markets. If you have an iPhone you must use Apple's store, Google's store is not competition for that market. For Google, use of the store is not required, but there's a risk to side-loading because ideally there would be competing stores that also do quality control and security audits, and there aren't. So it isn't a duopoly, it's one absolute monopoly and one near-monopoly.
- nradov 6y agoThe legal definition of a "market" is always going to be somewhat subjective and arbitrary. I doubt whether a US federal court would define the market the same way you did.
- dragonwriter 6y agoThe predominant test is market or pricing power, whether the people you are selling the good or service move to putative competitors in response to pricing/conditions changes you make. If Apple makes their terms more onerous, does it drive purchasers of their app distribution service to the Play Store? If not, they aren't competing in the same market.
- nradov 6y agoEpic Games hasn't purchased any app distribution services from Apple or Google. Epic is the vendor here, not the customer. The money flows from Apple to Epic. What Apple is doing feels unfair, but making an antitrust case against them is going to be a stretch with current laws.
- not2b 6y agoIf I want to buy a game to play on my phone, and there is only one seller, it's a monopoly. Yes, I could buy a new phone, and then buy the game from a different store. But then I'd be buying a different product (Fortnite for Android instead of Fortnite for iPhone).
- nradov 6y agoIt depends on how the court decides to define the market. Is the market limited to Fortnite on Apple devices? All games on Apple devices? Fortnite on all devices? All video games everywhere? The laws and precedents provide some general guidance but there's no clear and simple procedure defined for deciding what constitutes the "market" in the context of a particular case. Don't presume to know what a court will decide. In particular the legal concept of a product doesn't work the way you describe.