6 ms·

It's irrelevant whether Apple are technically a monopoly or not; Apple abuses their iOS market power to force vendors to use their payment system.

by yyyk 6y ago

jjtheblunt 6y ago
Not being sarcastic, and I'm misunderstanding what you mean: how can Apple abuse their market power over something they alone created?
- yyyk 6y ago
  Two reasons: 1) They use their market power over something they created in order to gain advantage in a market they did not create (payment processors). There's no technical reason to link the two except that's it's good for Apple's bottom line. 2) Apple's app store is like running a Mall where Apple rents store, or Apple being a landlord renting apartments. The agreement to receive rents comes with implied duties like allow fair competition, and Apple overtly giving themselves undue advantage violates that.
  - mrh0057 6y ago
    Also have to mention apple is charging a fee way outside the norm for a payment processor at 30%. Have to also remember to deploy to the app store and a lot of the development has to be done on a Mac. So it is really equivalent of saying you must buy the factory from us, only sell in our store, and only use our payment processor.
  - nuker 6y ago
    > Apple's app store is like running a Mall where Apple rents store Apple's app store is the store, not a mall, 100% build, owned and operated by Apple. Developers are goods suppliers, like milk to Wallmart. Want a better deal? Build your own store or sell elsewhere. You cannot expect Wallmart stocking your empty milk bottles for free with a printed message "now you can buy milk on milk.com"
    - yyyk 6y ago
      The typical store model also has the store owner selecting products, paying in advance to the suppliers, and assuming partial liability - especially over fakes. Comparing it to a mall makes more sense IMHO, given that it's the developer that initiates the transaction here, pays to the mall owner, and assumes all liability. P.S. Quite a lot of products in I buy in $LOCALSTORE link to the manufacturer's web site, and more than a few manufacturers allow direct sales. No store here would imagine it could force the manufacturer to use only its preferred credit method in their web site.
- gpm 6y ago
  Very broadly speaking it's perfectly legal to have a monopoly on something, and Apple has a monopoly on the thing they created, and that's fine. It's generally illegal to use a monopoly on one thing to acquire a monopoly on another thing when that harms society, and that is the claim here. Microsoft alone created windows, that's fine. Microsoft used their monopoly on windows to gain monopolies on other pieces of software, and that was problematic.
Matticus_Rex 6y ago
That... rather shifts the goalposts, no?
- yyyk 6y ago
  No. Antitrust law doesn't apply to monopolies alone, and the requirement to use Apple's payment system is a key part of Epic's complaint.
bagacrap 6y ago
Actually I do think it matters if Apple is technically a monopoly, as laws are technical documents. If you agree Apple is not a monopoly then the worst thing you can say is, "I don't think Apple is being very nice." And Apple is not forcing anyone to write ios apps. They are curating a store. Should lawmakers dictate to Walmart which products to stock or how much to buy and sell them for?
- yyyk 6y ago
  Laws are technical document, and as I keep saying, legally a company does not need to be a monopoly to get the law to interfere against it. IIRC, the test in the US is "market power" + "harm to customer welfare", and there's a good case to be made that Apple meets it. Apple is not forcing anyone to write iOS apps, Microsoft and IBM did not force anyone either. Still, the law acted, because anti-competitive market behaviour is illegal.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    The IBM case was dropped after 13 years and nothing came of up. Microsoft was also cited for forcing OEMs to pay for a license for Windows for each PC sold whether or not the PC shipped with Windows.
    - yyyk 6y ago
      The legal proceeding terrified IBM to the point the PC became an open system, so they definitely had a market effect. The MS case was different, but some elements are similar (use of private APIs; ability to choose default apps which is still not complete in iOS), and some are things MS never dreamt they could do.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        IBM didn’t open up because of suit on mainframes. They really didn’t care about the personal computer market and just got open source parts and paid MS a little money for the operating system. The use of “private APIs” is a red herring. Every software developer for the last forty years knows about the concept of a public interface that they promise not to change and private implementation details. Some languages force it and others do it by convention.
thrwn_frthr_awy 6y ago
How should Apple get paid for a free app that has it's own payment system? Apple created a phone, IDE, language and entire ecosystem and from day 1 has charged 30%. They have not increased that as their marketshare increased. Should Apple be forced to allow an app to be released free and then accept payments outside of Apple?
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  Why shouldn't they? They got paid when the customer bought the phone. If the "free" app is handling payment processing and distribution itself, what is Apple doing that justifies receiving any money at all?
  - thrwn_frthr_awy 6y ago
    The ide, language, servers, and platform to support the app aren't worth anything? Really not trying to be dense here, I just don't see how this isn't just Epic thinking a price is too high and wanting to pay less.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      Then where is the option to use some other IDE, language, servers, etc.? The "platform" is the thing the customer paid for when they bought the phone.
      - thrwn_frthr_awy 6y ago
        I guess I just don't see why they should be required to support those other things. I agree that they could do that, but I don't see the reason to force them to. They created what they wanted because they didn't like the current offerings at the time–Epic or anyone else is free to do the same.
        AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        > I guess I just don't see why they should be required to support those other things. Because not supporting them is anti-competitive. Markets require competition to operate. It is obviously not feasible for an individual app developer to build their own phone hardware and operating system and convince everyone to switch to it from iPhones just in order to avoid Apple's app distribution system, so requiring that is unreasonable.

It's irrelevant whether Apple are technically a monopoly or not; Apple abuses their iOS market power to force vendors to use their payment system.

by yyyk 6y ago

It's irrelevant whether Apple are technically a monopoly or not; Apple abuses their iOS market power to force vendors to use their payment system.

jjtheblunt 6y ago

Not being sarcastic, and I'm misunderstanding what you mean: how can Apple abuse their market power over something they alone created?

yyyk 6y ago
Two reasons: 1) They use their market power over something they created in order to gain advantage in a market they did not create (payment processors). There's no technical reason to link the two except that's it's good for Apple's bottom line. 2) Apple's app store is like running a Mall where Apple rents store, or Apple being a landlord renting apartments. The agreement to receive rents comes with implied duties like allow fair competition, and Apple overtly giving themselves undue advantage violates that.
- mrh0057 6y ago
  Also have to mention apple is charging a fee way outside the norm for a payment processor at 30%. Have to also remember to deploy to the app store and a lot of the development has to be done on a Mac. So it is really equivalent of saying you must buy the factory from us, only sell in our store, and only use our payment processor.
- nuker 6y ago
  > Apple's app store is like running a Mall where Apple rents store Apple's app store is the store, not a mall, 100% build, owned and operated by Apple. Developers are goods suppliers, like milk to Wallmart. Want a better deal? Build your own store or sell elsewhere. You cannot expect Wallmart stocking your empty milk bottles for free with a printed message "now you can buy milk on milk.com"
  - yyyk 6y ago
    The typical store model also has the store owner selecting products, paying in advance to the suppliers, and assuming partial liability - especially over fakes. Comparing it to a mall makes more sense IMHO, given that it's the developer that initiates the transaction here, pays to the mall owner, and assumes all liability. P.S. Quite a lot of products in I buy in $LOCALSTORE link to the manufacturer's web site, and more than a few manufacturers allow direct sales. No store here would imagine it could force the manufacturer to use only its preferred credit method in their web site.
gpm 6y ago
Very broadly speaking it's perfectly legal to have a monopoly on something, and Apple has a monopoly on the thing they created, and that's fine. It's generally illegal to use a monopoly on one thing to acquire a monopoly on another thing when that harms society, and that is the claim here. Microsoft alone created windows, that's fine. Microsoft used their monopoly on windows to gain monopolies on other pieces of software, and that was problematic.

Matticus_Rex 6y ago

That... rather shifts the goalposts, no?

yyyk 6y ago
No. Antitrust law doesn't apply to monopolies alone, and the requirement to use Apple's payment system is a key part of Epic's complaint.

bagacrap 6y ago

Actually I do think it matters if Apple is technically a monopoly, as laws are technical documents. If you agree Apple is not a monopoly then the worst thing you can say is, "I don't think Apple is being very nice." And Apple is not forcing anyone to write ios apps. They are curating a store. Should lawmakers dictate to Walmart which products to stock or how much to buy and sell them for?

yyyk 6y ago
Laws are technical document, and as I keep saying, legally a company does not need to be a monopoly to get the law to interfere against it. IIRC, the test in the US is "market power" + "harm to customer welfare", and there's a good case to be made that Apple meets it. Apple is not forcing anyone to write iOS apps, Microsoft and IBM did not force anyone either. Still, the law acted, because anti-competitive market behaviour is illegal.
- scarface74 6y ago
  The IBM case was dropped after 13 years and nothing came of up. Microsoft was also cited for forcing OEMs to pay for a license for Windows for each PC sold whether or not the PC shipped with Windows.
  - yyyk 6y ago
    The legal proceeding terrified IBM to the point the PC became an open system, so they definitely had a market effect. The MS case was different, but some elements are similar (use of private APIs; ability to choose default apps which is still not complete in iOS), and some are things MS never dreamt they could do.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      IBM didn’t open up because of suit on mainframes. They really didn’t care about the personal computer market and just got open source parts and paid MS a little money for the operating system. The use of “private APIs” is a red herring. Every software developer for the last forty years knows about the concept of a public interface that they promise not to change and private implementation details. Some languages force it and others do it by convention.

thrwn_frthr_awy 6y ago

How should Apple get paid for a free app that has it's own payment system? Apple created a phone, IDE, language and entire ecosystem and from day 1 has charged 30%. They have not increased that as their marketshare increased. Should Apple be forced to allow an app to be released free and then accept payments outside of Apple?

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
Why shouldn't they? They got paid when the customer bought the phone. If the "free" app is handling payment processing and distribution itself, what is Apple doing that justifies receiving any money at all?
- thrwn_frthr_awy 6y ago
  The ide, language, servers, and platform to support the app aren't worth anything? Really not trying to be dense here, I just don't see how this isn't just Epic thinking a price is too high and wanting to pay less.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    Then where is the option to use some other IDE, language, servers, etc.? The "platform" is the thing the customer paid for when they bought the phone.
    - thrwn_frthr_awy 6y ago
      I guess I just don't see why they should be required to support those other things. I agree that they could do that, but I don't see the reason to force them to. They created what they wanted because they didn't like the current offerings at the time–Epic or anyone else is free to do the same.
      - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        > I guess I just don't see why they should be required to support those other things. Because not supporting them is anti-competitive. Markets require competition to operate. It is obviously not feasible for an individual app developer to build their own phone hardware and operating system and convince everyone to switch to it from iPhones just in order to avoid Apple's app distribution system, so requiring that is unreasonable.