6 ms·

It has happened before. The Hollywood Antitrust Case of 1948 changed how movies were sold. None of them had a monopoly, but it was a case of vertical integratio

It has happened before. The Hollywood Antitrust Case of 1948 changed how movies were sold. None of them had a monopoly, but it was a case of vertical integration very similar to Apple's App Store. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic....

gjsman-1000 3y ago
True, legal court cases can happen, but I can only address what the situation on the ground is right now. Also, the DOJ announced that rule is no longer-binding as of last year. If you were, however, to penalize Apple; you would need to come up with a legal differentiation between a smartphone and a game console, as well as why the game console business model is moral and legal, but the locked-in smartphone market should be immoral and illegal. Considering there's no such thing as a "general purpose computing device" in the law; you would also need to come up with a pretty good explanation why Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft get to keep their exclusivity privileges but Apple loses theirs. And that's a tricky nut to solve. Because you might say, "well, a smartphone can do way more than a game console." Well, that's only because the game console is so locked down - but a game console remains theoretically capable of anything a PC could do otherwise. If it wasn't for a lockout, you could install Windows on it and use it as a node in a supercomputer. Does that mean Apple would be legally fine if the smartphone was more locked down then? It's tricky.
- ThatPlayer 3y ago
  >you would need to come up with a legal differentiation between a smartphone and a game console Not really, they can just leave it up to the court's interpretation. "I know it when I see it" has been used in a court before. Just define it as a smartphone: No one is going to call a gaming console a smartphone, nor vice versa. And applying a ruling to a specific industry isn't new either: see that Hollywood anti-trust case again. It was never applied to TV shows. Otherwise Netflix Exclusives wouldn't be a thing. Or any other "Only on Disney Channel/Cartoon Network/etc" show.
  - MBCook 3y ago
    Wouldn’t work. Epic was expected to turn around after this suit and use it against the console makers if they won. They want to have their app/game store everywhere, not just PC and smartphone. Also, hasn’t “I know it when I see it” been criticized as a poor test since it was stated based on how arbitrary it is?
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > “I know it when I see it” has been used in a court before. It’s been used in a court, but not too much effect; the popular source of that is a discussion of “hardcore pornography” in a concurrence to a Supreme Court decision in an obscenity case which was notable for having a majority on the ruling in the case, but no consensus by any more than two justices on either a rationale for the ruling, or (among the dissenters) on the reasons for rejecting the ruling.
- jbverschoor 3y ago
  Don't forget that Unreal has a monopoly on their engine :), and own a huge part of the games (an other) markets itself
kayodelycaon 3y ago
Agreed but there are some important differences that make this a harder sell to the court: 1. No one is stopping developers from selling their apps in Android markets. 2. Apple hasn't attempted to prevent android app markets from existing. 3. Apple can make the argument that they own the market on merit, therefore their monopoly on selling iOS apps is legal. 4. It has to be proven this is bad for consumers. Apple is claiming their control benefits consumers, which again justifies their monopoly. And as mentioned elsewhere, Apple may be forced to allow side-loading, but still require their 30% on all transactions. And nothing stops Apple from enforcing security policies on things like private apis on side-loaded apps. Unfortunately I think the likely result is going to be a partial victory no one is happy with. :(
- realusername 3y ago
  > 1. No one is stopping developers from selling their apps in Android markets. The Play Store has almost identical rules and pricing compared to the App Store, how is that a competitor?
  - CrampusDestrus 3y ago
    In a perfectly competitive market products are basically the same and cost basically the same. The fact that the Play Store is similar to the App Store doesn't mean it's not competitive
    - realusername 3y ago
      The only change in pricing that ever happened in those marketplaces was in direct reaction of this anti trust lawsuit, does that answer your question?
      - CrampusDestrus 3y ago
        You have established a wrong causual link and I pointed it out. I didn't ask any questions

gjsman-1000 3y ago

True, legal court cases can happen, but I can only address what the situation on the ground is right now. Also, the DOJ announced that rule is no longer-binding as of last year. If you were, however, to penalize Apple; you would need to come up with a legal differentiation between a smartphone and a game console, as well as why the game console business model is moral and legal, but the locked-in smartphone market should be immoral and illegal. Considering there's no such thing as a "general purpose computing device" in the law; you would also need to come up with a pretty good explanation why Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft get to keep their exclusivity privileges but Apple loses theirs. And that's a tricky nut to solve. Because you might say, "well, a smartphone can do way more than a game console." Well, that's only because the game console is so locked down - but a game console remains theoretically capable of anything a PC could do otherwise. If it wasn't for a lockout, you could install Windows on it and use it as a node in a supercomputer. Does that mean Apple would be legally fine if the smartphone was more locked down then? It's tricky.

ThatPlayer 3y ago
>you would need to come up with a legal differentiation between a smartphone and a game console Not really, they can just leave it up to the court's interpretation. "I know it when I see it" has been used in a court before. Just define it as a smartphone: No one is going to call a gaming console a smartphone, nor vice versa. And applying a ruling to a specific industry isn't new either: see that Hollywood anti-trust case again. It was never applied to TV shows. Otherwise Netflix Exclusives wouldn't be a thing. Or any other "Only on Disney Channel/Cartoon Network/etc" show.
- MBCook 3y ago
  Wouldn’t work. Epic was expected to turn around after this suit and use it against the console makers if they won. They want to have their app/game store everywhere, not just PC and smartphone. Also, hasn’t “I know it when I see it” been criticized as a poor test since it was stated based on how arbitrary it is?
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > “I know it when I see it” has been used in a court before. It’s been used in a court, but not too much effect; the popular source of that is a discussion of “hardcore pornography” in a concurrence to a Supreme Court decision in an obscenity case which was notable for having a majority on the ruling in the case, but no consensus by any more than two justices on either a rationale for the ruling, or (among the dissenters) on the reasons for rejecting the ruling.
jbverschoor 3y ago
Don't forget that Unreal has a monopoly on their engine :), and own a huge part of the games (an other) markets itself

kayodelycaon 3y ago

Agreed but there are some important differences that make this a harder sell to the court: 1. No one is stopping developers from selling their apps in Android markets. 2. Apple hasn't attempted to prevent android app markets from existing. 3. Apple can make the argument that they own the market on merit, therefore their monopoly on selling iOS apps is legal. 4. It has to be proven this is bad for consumers. Apple is claiming their control benefits consumers, which again justifies their monopoly. And as mentioned elsewhere, Apple may be forced to allow side-loading, but still require their 30% on all transactions. And nothing stops Apple from enforcing security policies on things like private apis on side-loaded apps. Unfortunately I think the likely result is going to be a partial victory no one is happy with. :(

realusername 3y ago
> 1. No one is stopping developers from selling their apps in Android markets. The Play Store has almost identical rules and pricing compared to the App Store, how is that a competitor?
- CrampusDestrus 3y ago
  In a perfectly competitive market products are basically the same and cost basically the same. The fact that the Play Store is similar to the App Store doesn't mean it's not competitive
  - realusername 3y ago
    The only change in pricing that ever happened in those marketplaces was in direct reaction of this anti trust lawsuit, does that answer your question?
    - CrampusDestrus 3y ago
      You have established a wrong causual link and I pointed it out. I didn't ask any questions