5 ms·

What courts will need to decide is what constitutes a "market." The arguments against Apple all seem to hinge on the market being "people who own iOS devices,"

What courts will need to decide is what constitutes a "market." The arguments against Apple all seem to hinge on the market being "people who own iOS devices," while the argument in favor of Apple all seem to hinge on the market being "people who own a smartphone." In one of those, Apple is a monopolist. In the other, Apple isn't even the biggest company.

stale2002 6y ago
> In the other, Apple isn't even the biggest company. Actually Apple would be the biggest company, in the market of people who have smartphones in the US. They just recently have a bit over 50% of that market. Also, Apple does not need to be a literal, singular company for its actions to be illegal. Instead, it only needs to have significant market power. It doesn't even need to have a majority of the market. > the argument in favor of Apple Actually, no. Apple is making a much more silly argument that the market should be defined as "Things that can run video games", which can include things such as the XBox. If the market is instead defined as the % of people who own an apple smartphone, in the US, then Apple is ~50% of that market.
- d1zzy 6y ago
  > Actually Apple would be the biggest company, in the market of people who have smartphones in the US. They just recently have a bit over 50% of that market. Is Epic requiring Apple to only open their stores in the US?
  - NeutronStar 6y ago
    Does American law apply in Europe?
- 8note 6y ago
  Specifically for Epic's case, thing that run video games makes sense. I don't think epic has standing to argue something more generic?
- pwinnski 6y ago
  This is my point exactly. What the judge in each case has to determine is how best to define the market. Whether "smartphone owners" or "devices that play videogames" or "App Store users" or "iOS devices" or "computers" or "phones" or any number of other ways. Do you determine it in the US only, or world-wide? (US courts have jurisdiction only here, but can determine a market based on any parameters) Do you determine the majority player based on units, or gross revenue, or profits? Is your primary concern when it comes to damages companies (like Epic) or end users? And so on. People are blithely making cases here like all of these things are simple, but they're the key to this and all other similar cases, and it's not as clear as people seem to assume. Different judges might decide different things on different days, and none are necessarily wrong... or right!
  - stale2002 6y ago
    Although the nitty gritty details of the situation may be complicated, I do think that the high level situation is pretty simple. IE I am not sure how anyone could look at Apple's control over its market, and its policies, and disagree with the idea that Apple has significant control, and that its policies are anti-competitive. Regardless over the exact definition of a market that you use, it is quite clear that Apple has pretty significant market power over something and that its actions cause app prices to be significantly higher than they would be otherwise, if they allowed competing app stores.
    - pwinnski 6y ago
      Yes, but please note how you described it first: "Apple's control over its market." Inasmuch as its Apple's market, its theirs to do with as they please. The question is, is it Apple's market? Or is the market something bigger or smaller, or belong to someone else (iOS users, for example, or smartphone users), in which case their needs should be prioritized. Personally, I think Apple's too big, and I don't trust them (though my M1 Mac mini should arrive Tuesday nonetheless), and I think the government should act. That said, antitrust has generally been focused on acquisitions and mergers, which don't seem to be the issue in Apple's case. Apple has genuinely made a product, mostly on their own, that has attracted enough users that it's become a problem. This seems like a radically different issue from other large tech companies, most of which have very large acquisitions that could be--and should be--undone. And Epic is being disingenuous and inconsistent, and I don't think they're in the right here, either.
8note 6y ago
Shouldn't we be caring about smart phone app stores though? From elsewhere in the thread, Apple's app store revenue is 3x Google's and they both charge about the same in fees. The number of phones or iOS users seems irrelevant to the sales that go through the app store, and that apple is using its position as the app store owner to force app developers to use other apple products like Apple pay

stale2002 6y ago

> In the other, Apple isn't even the biggest company. Actually Apple would be the biggest company, in the market of people who have smartphones in the US. They just recently have a bit over 50% of that market. Also, Apple does not need to be a literal, singular company for its actions to be illegal. Instead, it only needs to have significant market power. It doesn't even need to have a majority of the market. > the argument in favor of Apple Actually, no. Apple is making a much more silly argument that the market should be defined as "Things that can run video games", which can include things such as the XBox. If the market is instead defined as the % of people who own an apple smartphone, in the US, then Apple is ~50% of that market.

d1zzy 6y ago
> Actually Apple would be the biggest company, in the market of people who have smartphones in the US. They just recently have a bit over 50% of that market. Is Epic requiring Apple to only open their stores in the US?
- NeutronStar 6y ago
  Does American law apply in Europe?
8note 6y ago
Specifically for Epic's case, thing that run video games makes sense. I don't think epic has standing to argue something more generic?
pwinnski 6y ago
This is my point exactly. What the judge in each case has to determine is how best to define the market. Whether "smartphone owners" or "devices that play videogames" or "App Store users" or "iOS devices" or "computers" or "phones" or any number of other ways. Do you determine it in the US only, or world-wide? (US courts have jurisdiction only here, but can determine a market based on any parameters) Do you determine the majority player based on units, or gross revenue, or profits? Is your primary concern when it comes to damages companies (like Epic) or end users? And so on. People are blithely making cases here like all of these things are simple, but they're the key to this and all other similar cases, and it's not as clear as people seem to assume. Different judges might decide different things on different days, and none are necessarily wrong... or right!
- stale2002 6y ago
  Although the nitty gritty details of the situation may be complicated, I do think that the high level situation is pretty simple. IE I am not sure how anyone could look at Apple's control over its market, and its policies, and disagree with the idea that Apple has significant control, and that its policies are anti-competitive. Regardless over the exact definition of a market that you use, it is quite clear that Apple has pretty significant market power over something and that its actions cause app prices to be significantly higher than they would be otherwise, if they allowed competing app stores.
  - pwinnski 6y ago
    Yes, but please note how you described it first: "Apple's control over its market." Inasmuch as its Apple's market, its theirs to do with as they please. The question is, is it Apple's market? Or is the market something bigger or smaller, or belong to someone else (iOS users, for example, or smartphone users), in which case their needs should be prioritized. Personally, I think Apple's too big, and I don't trust them (though my M1 Mac mini should arrive Tuesday nonetheless), and I think the government should act. That said, antitrust has generally been focused on acquisitions and mergers, which don't seem to be the issue in Apple's case. Apple has genuinely made a product, mostly on their own, that has attracted enough users that it's become a problem. This seems like a radically different issue from other large tech companies, most of which have very large acquisitions that could be--and should be--undone. And Epic is being disingenuous and inconsistent, and I don't think they're in the right here, either.

8note 6y ago

Shouldn't we be caring about smart phone app stores though? From elsewhere in the thread, Apple's app store revenue is 3x Google's and they both charge about the same in fees. The number of phones or iOS users seems irrelevant to the sales that go through the app store, and that apple is using its position as the app store owner to force app developers to use other apple products like Apple pay