5 ms·

Of course they should. But, market dominance means agreement to such terms are not 'fair'.

by chrisacky 6y ago

TylerE 6y ago
Yes, total market dominance with 10% market share.
- uncoder0 6y ago
  In the US?
- bryanlarsen 6y ago
  60% market share by revenue in 2019. https://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-revenues/ https://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-revenues/
  - baddox 6y ago
    Isn't that just because Apple's customers are more willing to spend money on apps than other customers?
    - ayoisaiah 6y ago
      Willing is not the right word. They generally have a greater means to do so.
      - baddox 6y ago
        Of course. My point is that this doesn't seem to be related to any anticompetitive behavior on Apple's part. If Apple was using market power to force smartphone competitors out of the market to increase Apple's own market share, that would be one thing. But to accuse Apple of anticompetitive behavior because their small smartphone market share spends more money on apps than other smartphone owners does not seem reasonable.
        bryanlarsen 6y ago
        Epic is not suing Apple because Apple used nefarious means to achieve dominance. You, I and Epic would probably all agree they earned that dominance fair and square. But once you have dominance different rules apply.
        baddox 6y ago
        That's fair enough. I'm actually pretty sympathetic to the subjective argument "Apple is really big and profitable now, and I don't like their App Store rules, so let's try to get them to change it." I find it less ridiculous than arguments that attempt to construct some supposedly objective principle like "iPhone are general-purpose devices and therefore they must allow running unsigned code." Ideally, I'd prefer that this kind of back-and-forth between developers and Apple would happen strictly through negotiation, rather than invoking the court system, but I realize that not all markets are functioning well enough for this to be practical.
- jpalomaki 6y ago
  One could argue that they still have monopoly for the iOS part of the market. A bit like retail store having monopoly on certain geographic area. Not sure what's the business model behind Apple Arcade, but it looks Apple is in a way also competing on the gaming market. From this point of view their 30% cut from competitors' sales looks a bit worse.
- dstaley 6y ago
  Epic very specifically defined the "market" as iOS devices. Their argument is based on the assertion that Android is not an alternative to the App Store since it's a completely different operating system. So, Apple actually has 100% market share of the iOS market.
  - goodlifeodyssey 6y ago
    > Epic very specifically defined the "market" as iOS devices. That is true, but I think it is debatable whether that is a reasonable way to define "market". It would be as if a vendor wanted to sell their goods in a grocery store. The grocery store says no for some reason. The vendor disagrees and sues them, saying they have a monopoly on all grocery store sales on that particular corner. "Wait, but there is a grocery store across the street?" Well, in their law suite they defined market to be just that corner---they excluded the other corner where the Android grocery store is selling things.
    - dstaley 6y ago
      That is not an apt analogy because the switching costs for grocery stores is no where near as high with iOS. If you want the full argument I highly recommend reading the full legal filing.[1] [1] https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/apple-complaint-734589783.pdf https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/apple-complaint-734589783.pdf
- m-p-3 6y ago
  You don't need a monopoly to be struck with an antitrust lawsuit.
- PeterisP 6y ago
  Antitrust laws start applying long before total market dominance, and one of their goals is to proactively ensure that total market dominance is never reached. It certainly can be argued that they have a dominant position in a particular narrow market, and the court will look at these arguments and determine whether they do or not.

Of course they should. But, market dominance means agreement to such terms are not 'fair'.

TylerE 6y ago

Yes, total market dominance with 10% market share.

uncoder0 6y ago
In the US?
bryanlarsen 6y ago
60% market share by revenue in 2019. https://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-revenues/ https://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-revenues/
- baddox 6y ago
  Isn't that just because Apple's customers are more willing to spend money on apps than other customers?
  - ayoisaiah 6y ago
    Willing is not the right word. They generally have a greater means to do so.
    - baddox 6y ago
      Of course. My point is that this doesn't seem to be related to any anticompetitive behavior on Apple's part. If Apple was using market power to force smartphone competitors out of the market to increase Apple's own market share, that would be one thing. But to accuse Apple of anticompetitive behavior because their small smartphone market share spends more money on apps than other smartphone owners does not seem reasonable.
      - bryanlarsen 6y ago
        Epic is not suing Apple because Apple used nefarious means to achieve dominance. You, I and Epic would probably all agree they earned that dominance fair and square. But once you have dominance different rules apply.
        baddox 6y ago
        That's fair enough. I'm actually pretty sympathetic to the subjective argument "Apple is really big and profitable now, and I don't like their App Store rules, so let's try to get them to change it." I find it less ridiculous than arguments that attempt to construct some supposedly objective principle like "iPhone are general-purpose devices and therefore they must allow running unsigned code." Ideally, I'd prefer that this kind of back-and-forth between developers and Apple would happen strictly through negotiation, rather than invoking the court system, but I realize that not all markets are functioning well enough for this to be practical.
jpalomaki 6y ago
One could argue that they still have monopoly for the iOS part of the market. A bit like retail store having monopoly on certain geographic area. Not sure what's the business model behind Apple Arcade, but it looks Apple is in a way also competing on the gaming market. From this point of view their 30% cut from competitors' sales looks a bit worse.
dstaley 6y ago
Epic very specifically defined the "market" as iOS devices. Their argument is based on the assertion that Android is not an alternative to the App Store since it's a completely different operating system. So, Apple actually has 100% market share of the iOS market.
- goodlifeodyssey 6y ago
  > Epic very specifically defined the "market" as iOS devices. That is true, but I think it is debatable whether that is a reasonable way to define "market". It would be as if a vendor wanted to sell their goods in a grocery store. The grocery store says no for some reason. The vendor disagrees and sues them, saying they have a monopoly on all grocery store sales on that particular corner. "Wait, but there is a grocery store across the street?" Well, in their law suite they defined market to be just that corner---they excluded the other corner where the Android grocery store is selling things.
  - dstaley 6y ago
    That is not an apt analogy because the switching costs for grocery stores is no where near as high with iOS. If you want the full argument I highly recommend reading the full legal filing.[1] [1] https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/apple-complaint-734589783.pdf https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/apple-complaint-734589783.pdf
m-p-3 6y ago
You don't need a monopoly to be struck with an antitrust lawsuit.
PeterisP 6y ago
Antitrust laws start applying long before total market dominance, and one of their goals is to proactively ensure that total market dominance is never reached. It certainly can be argued that they have a dominant position in a particular narrow market, and the court will look at these arguments and determine whether they do or not.