4 ms·

This quote is relevant: The problem for Epic — and, I suppose, for me — is that to this observer it seems exceedingly likely that Apple is going to win this ca

This quote is relevant: The problem for Epic — and, I suppose, for me — is that to this observer it seems exceedingly likely that Apple is going to win this case, last night’s decision notwithstanding. Current Supreme Court jurisprudence is very clear that businesses — including monopolies — have no duty to deal with third parties, and if they do choose to deal with them (or are even compelled to), that they can choose the terms on which to do so. The only exceptions are if the monopoly in question changes the rules in an unprofitable way with the express purpose of driving out a competitor, or if any company — not even a monopoly — changes access to after-market parts and services. Current US antitrust law does not favor Epic in this matter. Of Epic's ten claims, their strongest claim is probably the one tying in-app payment processing to app distribution services, but even that one is far from a slam dunk. And even if they were to succeed on that particular claim, the likely outcome would be that they would get to keep their payment system in Fortnite, not that they would be able to run their own app store. I think people need to temper their expectations unless the laws change in the years it takes for this case to make it through the courts. A court ruling that Apple must allow third-party in-app payment systems is a somewhat realistic outcome, whereas a court ruling that Apple must permit third-parties to run their own app stores is probably a non-starter.

DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
> A judge ruling that Apple must allow third-party in-app payment systems is a somewhat realistic outcome, whereas a judge ruling that Apple must permit third-parties to run their own app stores is probably a non-starter. I gather judges really don't like to impose technical requirements - especially in a fast-moving industry like this. Ordering Apple to make the extensive changes required to allow for some kind of secure (as opposed to insecure, like Cydia) third-party App Store on iOS would be a massive undertaking that would probably cost the company north of a billion in total, especially regarding testing and security point. ...whereas ordering Apple to simply allow what is already possible (namely: permitting apps to collect payment details themselves through their own processors) is a good path forward. How would Apple respond to that though? In the event that Apple is required to allow third-party payment-processors that skirt the Apple tax, I think it's reasonable for Apple to introduce some kind of "app support fee" (beyond the annual $99/developer fee) - but Apple would be hard-pressed to negotiate a reasonable amount of that per-app. Perhaps $1 per app-download per year? Interesting times... I'm also interested in potential legislation regarding forcing Apple to permit third-party web-browsers and other banned software categories - Apple's technical arguments may have had some merit back in 2007-2012, but now that my phone has more RAM and processing power than my previous laptop (which still runs the infamously RAM-hungry Chrome 84 fine!) this isn't an argument that holds water. I'd love to be able to run "real" Firefox on iOS, for example (there is an argument about how Apple can only trust their own build of Webkit to have executable memory pages for the JavaScript JIT - that's going to be interesting). We should compare Apple to Microsoft of 1998: Microsoft was convicted of monopoly abuse by simply bundling Internet Explorer with Windows (granted, this includes integrating it into the shell too) - while Apple doesn't just bundle Safari with iOS, they outright ban any kind of proper competition - Microsoft was convicted for far less, so why should Apple be given a free-pass?
- nodamage 6y ago
  > I gather judges really don't like to impose technical requirements - especially in a fast-moving industry like this. Yes, the court in the Microsoft appeal explicitly said this. > Microsoft was convicted of monopoly abuse by simply bundling Internet Explorer with Windows Not quite. As I explain in another comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24289455 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24289455) Microsoft's problem is that they forced other companies (OEMs, ISPs, and Apple) to bundle IE at the expense of other browsers. Whether the sole act of bundling IE with Windows would have been itself an antitrust violation was not actually addressed by the court. Microsoft also had a much higher market share (95%) than Apple currently does.
  - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
    > Microsoft's problem is that they forced other companies (OEMs, ISPs, and Apple) to bundle IE at the expense of other browsers Was that separate from the anti-competitive OEM license / "Windows tax" issue around the same time? The one about how OEMs were "forced" to sell machines with Windows licenses and couldn't sell a machine without an OEM license to someone who just wanted a box to run Linux or OS/2 on?
    - nodamage 6y ago
      Yes, that was a separate case from 1994 and they ultimately settled with the DOJ. The browser stuff happened a few years later in 1998.
- easton 6y ago
  It shouldn’t cost a billion dollars at all. Third-party, officially sanctioned App Stores already exist on iOS: TestFlight and MDM providers (which can push enterprise created apps in a store interface). TestFlight is even shipped in the darn App Store! And Apple already made good security controls, allowing the user to press one button to nuke all of the apps that an MDM provider installed in the profile settings. It shouldn’t be that hard, maybe a little bit of dev time to write some new warnings for end users about leaving the walled garden and how to revert, but that’s it.

DaiPlusPlus 6y ago

> A judge ruling that Apple must allow third-party in-app payment systems is a somewhat realistic outcome, whereas a judge ruling that Apple must permit third-parties to run their own app stores is probably a non-starter. I gather judges really don't like to impose technical requirements - especially in a fast-moving industry like this. Ordering Apple to make the extensive changes required to allow for some kind of secure (as opposed to insecure, like Cydia) third-party App Store on iOS would be a massive undertaking that would probably cost the company north of a billion in total, especially regarding testing and security point. ...whereas ordering Apple to simply allow what is already possible (namely: permitting apps to collect payment details themselves through their own processors) is a good path forward. How would Apple respond to that though? In the event that Apple is required to allow third-party payment-processors that skirt the Apple tax, I think it's reasonable for Apple to introduce some kind of "app support fee" (beyond the annual $99/developer fee) - but Apple would be hard-pressed to negotiate a reasonable amount of that per-app. Perhaps $1 per app-download per year? Interesting times... I'm also interested in potential legislation regarding forcing Apple to permit third-party web-browsers and other banned software categories - Apple's technical arguments may have had some merit back in 2007-2012, but now that my phone has more RAM and processing power than my previous laptop (which still runs the infamously RAM-hungry Chrome 84 fine!) this isn't an argument that holds water. I'd love to be able to run "real" Firefox on iOS, for example (there is an argument about how Apple can only trust their own build of Webkit to have executable memory pages for the JavaScript JIT - that's going to be interesting). We should compare Apple to Microsoft of 1998: Microsoft was convicted of monopoly abuse by simply bundling Internet Explorer with Windows (granted, this includes integrating it into the shell too) - while Apple doesn't just bundle Safari with iOS, they outright ban any kind of proper competition - Microsoft was convicted for far less, so why should Apple be given a free-pass?

nodamage 6y ago
> I gather judges really don't like to impose technical requirements - especially in a fast-moving industry like this. Yes, the court in the Microsoft appeal explicitly said this. > Microsoft was convicted of monopoly abuse by simply bundling Internet Explorer with Windows Not quite. As I explain in another comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24289455 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24289455) Microsoft's problem is that they forced other companies (OEMs, ISPs, and Apple) to bundle IE at the expense of other browsers. Whether the sole act of bundling IE with Windows would have been itself an antitrust violation was not actually addressed by the court. Microsoft also had a much higher market share (95%) than Apple currently does.
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
  > Microsoft's problem is that they forced other companies (OEMs, ISPs, and Apple) to bundle IE at the expense of other browsers Was that separate from the anti-competitive OEM license / "Windows tax" issue around the same time? The one about how OEMs were "forced" to sell machines with Windows licenses and couldn't sell a machine without an OEM license to someone who just wanted a box to run Linux or OS/2 on?
  - nodamage 6y ago
    Yes, that was a separate case from 1994 and they ultimately settled with the DOJ. The browser stuff happened a few years later in 1998.
easton 6y ago
It shouldn’t cost a billion dollars at all. Third-party, officially sanctioned App Stores already exist on iOS: TestFlight and MDM providers (which can push enterprise created apps in a store interface). TestFlight is even shipped in the darn App Store! And Apple already made good security controls, allowing the user to press one button to nuke all of the apps that an MDM provider installed in the profile settings. It shouldn’t be that hard, maybe a little bit of dev time to write some new warnings for end users about leaving the walled garden and how to revert, but that’s it.