12 ms·

If it's anti-competitive at 95% market share, it's anti-competitive at 50%. Your position is hypocritical and wrong. Everyone should follow the same rules, not

by ece 5y ago

If it's anti-competitive at 95% market share, it's anti-competitive at 50%. Your position is hypocritical and wrong. Everyone should follow the same rules, not make up their own.

simondotau 5y ago
Apple did follow the rules as they currently exist. There is presently no rule against operating a walled gardens in the manner Apple does. If such a rule existed, we'd all know about it. You would have cited it. Apple's critics would be able to quote the rule verbatim. And Epic's case against Apple would have been a slam dunk. Don't be embarrassed to admit that you're the one wanting to make up new rules. It's okay to want new rules. Be honest about it. If you are interested in having your perspective challenged, the commentator for whom I most agree with on this is Hoeg Law, who has published extensive commentary on the Epic vs Apple lawsuit. If you are interested in hearing a view that differs from your own, I can commend his publications to you: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1zDCgJzZUy-TrSXpg6irNK7kbZt-NY0O https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1zDCgJzZUy-TrSXpg6ir...
- movedx 5y ago
  Really well said. I believe Apple are doing what they think is best for everyone, including their shareholders, within the rules (which sometimes aren't clear and can be easy to break without realising it.)
- ece 5y ago
  The Epic case is a slam dunk, Apple has monopolized the iOS app distribution market since the beginning of the iPhone. Epic is just the first one with motive and the money to bring a challenge against Apple. Yes, after a couple of decades of large companies which have consolidated platforms to a handful of sites and services that the majority of the population uses, yes it's time for some additional rules. I completely support the Cicilline bill. If you'd like to get out of your bubble, I'd read the open markets institute's briefs in the Epic case and the Cicilline bill. https://www.openmarketsinstitute.org/publications/epic-games-antitrust-suit-against-apple-reveals-again-the-harms-of-tying https://www.openmarketsinstitute.org/publications/epic-games... https://cicilline.house.gov/sites/cicilline.house.gov/files/documents/American%20Innovation%20and%20Choice%20Online%20Act%20-%20Bill%20Text.pdf https://cicilline.house.gov/sites/cicilline.house.gov/files/...
  - simondotau 5y ago
    > The Epic case is a slam dunk This belief suggests that perhaps you might be the one stuck in a bubble. I've been greedily consuming alternative views on this case but seen very few legal analysts describe the case as being anything other than an uphill climb for Epic. I have read numerous amicus briefs from the Open Markets Institute, but I'm not aware of them issuing an amicus brief in the Epic vs Apple case. If this exists, can you please offer a link to that? The latter is a proposal to change the rules and is therefore not relevant to the question of whether Apple were "follow[ing] the same rules," as you put it. Needless to say, I don't agree with the Cicilline bill or any other attempts to frame competition on a platform level. Most egregiously, they almost always carve out special interest exceptions and protections for video games on televisions, but not video games on mobile devices. Have you got anything else you think I should read?
    - ece 5y ago
      The tech press could do a better job here IMO, I think this article is ok: https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2021/05/23/the-epic-v-apple-judge-does-not-seem-to-be-buying-apples-defense/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2021/05/23/the-epic-v... Rules can be better defined and updated, so I don't think the Cicilline bill is "changing" the rules. It's just giving the FTC an explicit mandate instead of the hands-off position it has taken so far wrt Apple. The other platforms get some new/updated rules too. I don't see the "special interest" distinction you're making at all, Apple is free to set the rules they want in their App Store. They just can't disallow alternate app stores like they have been doing. Apple themselves argued "people buy devices" so why shouldn't we frame competition at the platform level? Why shouldn't people be able to do what they want on their phone instead of needing two phones? The open markets page I linked to has a link to the Epic brief they filed: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e449c8c3ef68d752f3e70dc/t/5f284fb2753c57364d6e107c/1596477363128/OMI+Brief+in+Shah+v.+VHS+San+Antonio+Partners+-+Filed.pdf https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e449c8c3ef68d752f3e7...
      - simondotau 5y ago
        > I think this article is ok: That article is utterly rudimentary reportage. There is no legal analysis, or really any depth of analysis at all. You really should seek out specialist analysts like Richard Hoeg who have in-depth, intersectional understanding of both competition law and technology platforms. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5WS5D6GydY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5WS5D6GydY If you don't like the idea of watching long-form commentary, his speaking style is clear enough that I find his voice eminently clear at 2X speed. Use the YouTube shortcut keys shift–comma (<) and shift–period (>) to quickly change the playback speed. > Rules can be better defined and updated In the excruciatingly pedantic context of law, "better defined rules" and "updating the rules" are synonymous with changing the rules. You can spin it however you like, but as the law stands right now, what Apple is doing is legal. Out of curiosity, do think that Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo should also be forced to dissolve control over their platforms as well? > They just can't disallow alternate app stores like they have been doing. Until such time as a law is established to disallow walled gardens of technology platforms, they absolutely can. You are welcome to argue that they shouldn't be allowed to disallow alternate app stores, but arguing for the status quo to be changed is an entirely different argument. It's also worth noting that the law is absolutely on Apple's side when it comes to licensing Apple's intellectual property, which all iOS developers must do in order to use the software development tools they supply. So even if Apple is forced to allow side-loading of alternative stores, there is absolutely no question that Apple would be allowed to require a percentage cut of revenues from apps developed using their tools—just as Epic is entitled to ask of developers who use Unreal Engine. > a link to the Epic brief they filed That is not a brief filed in the Epic vs Apple trial. It doesn't have anything to do with Apple. As far as I can tell, no such amicus brief exists. Yet you seem convinced it does exist and that you've read it.

by ece 5y ago

If it's anti-competitive at 95% market share, it's anti-competitive at 50%. Your position is hypocritical and wrong. Everyone should follow the same rules, not make up their own.

simondotau 5y ago

Apple did follow the rules as they currently exist. There is presently no rule against operating a walled gardens in the manner Apple does. If such a rule existed, we'd all know about it. You would have cited it. Apple's critics would be able to quote the rule verbatim. And Epic's case against Apple would have been a slam dunk. Don't be embarrassed to admit that you're the one wanting to make up new rules. It's okay to want new rules. Be honest about it. If you are interested in having your perspective challenged, the commentator for whom I most agree with on this is Hoeg Law, who has published extensive commentary on the Epic vs Apple lawsuit. If you are interested in hearing a view that differs from your own, I can commend his publications to you: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1zDCgJzZUy-TrSXpg6irNK7kbZt-NY0O https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1zDCgJzZUy-TrSXpg6ir...

movedx 5y ago
Really well said. I believe Apple are doing what they think is best for everyone, including their shareholders, within the rules (which sometimes aren't clear and can be easy to break without realising it.)
ece 5y ago
The Epic case is a slam dunk, Apple has monopolized the iOS app distribution market since the beginning of the iPhone. Epic is just the first one with motive and the money to bring a challenge against Apple. Yes, after a couple of decades of large companies which have consolidated platforms to a handful of sites and services that the majority of the population uses, yes it's time for some additional rules. I completely support the Cicilline bill. If you'd like to get out of your bubble, I'd read the open markets institute's briefs in the Epic case and the Cicilline bill. https://www.openmarketsinstitute.org/publications/epic-games-antitrust-suit-against-apple-reveals-again-the-harms-of-tying https://www.openmarketsinstitute.org/publications/epic-games... https://cicilline.house.gov/sites/cicilline.house.gov/files/documents/American%20Innovation%20and%20Choice%20Online%20Act%20-%20Bill%20Text.pdf https://cicilline.house.gov/sites/cicilline.house.gov/files/...
- simondotau 5y ago
  > The Epic case is a slam dunk This belief suggests that perhaps you might be the one stuck in a bubble. I've been greedily consuming alternative views on this case but seen very few legal analysts describe the case as being anything other than an uphill climb for Epic. I have read numerous amicus briefs from the Open Markets Institute, but I'm not aware of them issuing an amicus brief in the Epic vs Apple case. If this exists, can you please offer a link to that? The latter is a proposal to change the rules and is therefore not relevant to the question of whether Apple were "follow[ing] the same rules," as you put it. Needless to say, I don't agree with the Cicilline bill or any other attempts to frame competition on a platform level. Most egregiously, they almost always carve out special interest exceptions and protections for video games on televisions, but not video games on mobile devices. Have you got anything else you think I should read?
  - ece 5y ago
    The tech press could do a better job here IMO, I think this article is ok: https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2021/05/23/the-epic-v-apple-judge-does-not-seem-to-be-buying-apples-defense/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2021/05/23/the-epic-v... Rules can be better defined and updated, so I don't think the Cicilline bill is "changing" the rules. It's just giving the FTC an explicit mandate instead of the hands-off position it has taken so far wrt Apple. The other platforms get some new/updated rules too. I don't see the "special interest" distinction you're making at all, Apple is free to set the rules they want in their App Store. They just can't disallow alternate app stores like they have been doing. Apple themselves argued "people buy devices" so why shouldn't we frame competition at the platform level? Why shouldn't people be able to do what they want on their phone instead of needing two phones? The open markets page I linked to has a link to the Epic brief they filed: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e449c8c3ef68d752f3e70dc/t/5f284fb2753c57364d6e107c/1596477363128/OMI+Brief+in+Shah+v.+VHS+San+Antonio+Partners+-+Filed.pdf https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e449c8c3ef68d752f3e7...
    - simondotau 5y ago
      > I think this article is ok: That article is utterly rudimentary reportage. There is no legal analysis, or really any depth of analysis at all. You really should seek out specialist analysts like Richard Hoeg who have in-depth, intersectional understanding of both competition law and technology platforms. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5WS5D6GydY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5WS5D6GydY If you don't like the idea of watching long-form commentary, his speaking style is clear enough that I find his voice eminently clear at 2X speed. Use the YouTube shortcut keys shift–comma (<) and shift–period (>) to quickly change the playback speed. > Rules can be better defined and updated In the excruciatingly pedantic context of law, "better defined rules" and "updating the rules" are synonymous with changing the rules. You can spin it however you like, but as the law stands right now, what Apple is doing is legal. Out of curiosity, do think that Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo should also be forced to dissolve control over their platforms as well? > They just can't disallow alternate app stores like they have been doing. Until such time as a law is established to disallow walled gardens of technology platforms, they absolutely can. You are welcome to argue that they shouldn't be allowed to disallow alternate app stores, but arguing for the status quo to be changed is an entirely different argument. It's also worth noting that the law is absolutely on Apple's side when it comes to licensing Apple's intellectual property, which all iOS developers must do in order to use the software development tools they supply. So even if Apple is forced to allow side-loading of alternative stores, there is absolutely no question that Apple would be allowed to require a percentage cut of revenues from apps developed using their tools—just as Epic is entitled to ask of developers who use Unreal Engine. > a link to the Epic brief they filed That is not a brief filed in the Epic vs Apple trial. It doesn't have anything to do with Apple. As far as I can tell, no such amicus brief exists. Yet you seem convinced it does exist and that you've read it.