4 ms·
> Does anyone disagree that Apple and Google have the right to just go "this app store business is just not worth the headaches, we're gonna shut it all down."
by baddox 6y ago
> Does anyone disagree that Apple and Google have the right to just go "this app store business is just not worth the headaches, we're gonna shut it all down."
There might be legal issues with drastically reducing the functionality of devices after they've been sold, but I would imagine they could do this for new devices going forward. I think this points out a subtlety in the arguments of most people who take Epic's side in this struggle: it appears that Apple could avoid these allegations of anticompetitive behavior by either increasing or decreasing the restrictions placed on third-party software distribution. That's a little bizarre, but it surely must be the case, unless the argument is that all electronics manufacturers must provide an easy way to owners to run third-party software (think game console, GPS devices, stereo receivers, car infotainment systems, the microcontroller in every switching power supply, etc.). Presumably the response to this subtlety is that "iPhones are general-purpose computers, but game consoles, etc. aren't," but I disagree with that both in theory and in practice based on what buyers of these devices expect to be able to do with the devices.
- sjy 6y ago> it surely must be the case, unless the argument is that all electronics manufacturers must provide an easy way to owners to run third-party software Antitrust has always been about big companies abusing market power. These concepts are contestable, which means the law can only be enforced through expensive, time-consuming trials, but it doesn’t mean that the law is meaningless or not useful. The laws against assault and murder are also quite contestable in borderline cases of self-defence, but they are useful, and it’s easy to generate examples where the law is clearly not applicable just as with antitrust.