5 ms·
Apple has been charging since they allowed third party access to App Store. Quite different in this case. Epic and consumers know what they’re getting into with
by sem000 6y ago
Apple has been charging since they allowed third party access to App Store. Quite different in this case. Epic and consumers know what they’re getting into with Apple.
- codegladiator 6y agoAnd now everyone should know what they are getting into with any of these stores that 30% is normal. Fight back is futile. Just makes microsoft look like stupid business guys not charging 30% yet.
- krzyk 6y agoFirst, they don't charge everyone 30% (have you seen the emails between Amazon and Apple?). Second, why break up AT&T in 70s/80s, you know what you are getting into when you sing up a contract with them.
- scarface74 6y agoThe difference was that AT&T had a monopoly because of the government. They had a real monopoly. They were the only game in town.
- krzyk 6y agoReally? Didn't US have a mail service at that time? I think that is an alternative "platform" for communication (just like Android to Apple), a bit of a stretch but not much.
- sem000 6y agoAre you really comparing using a phone vs mail, to using iOS vs Android, or any other phone out on the market?
- krzyk 6y agoI'm showing that argument that iOS AppStore is not a monopoly because "If you don't like closed iPhone you can buy Android" is ridiculous. Of course you have alternative hardware+os that you can use, just like in case of telephony you had alternative hardware (paper) that you could use, which didn't stop US goverment to split AT&T up.
- scarface74 6y agoWhat can’t I do as efficiently on an Android device that I can do on an iPhone?
- matthewdgreen 6y agoThe FTC has a nice site that makes it clear that antitrust enforcement doesn't require a government-mandated or absolute monopoly. https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a... ETA: Fixed wrong link.
- scarface74 6y agoWell, you can quote the nice site from the FTC and provide your own interpretation. Or You can read the interpretation in this specific case from the judge who is presiding over it.
- matthewdgreen 6y agoThe "interpretation" in this case is just a few skeptical comments made in a hearing by the judge. And her comments mostly seem to address Epic's (dis)honesty in describing its motivation, they are not some deep statement on the foundation of antitrust law. The case is going to a jury trial.
- scarface74 6y agoWell, whose interpretation of the law should get more credence - yours or the judges?
- Apocryphon 6y agoInitial remarks do not constitute a decided interpretation.
- scarface74 6y agoWouldn’t you say that it is a more accurate representation than a random person on HN?
- 6y ago
- perryizgr8 6y agoSmae with Microsoft and internet explorer. People could just choose not to buy windows. I guess anti trust laws have changed in the interim.