4 ms·

Antitrust isn't limited to only monopolies. That is just the most easily discussed violation, no? For example, you are not a monopoly on your own platform, bu

by taeric 3y ago

Antitrust isn't limited to only monopolies. That is just the most easily discussed violation, no? For example, you are not a monopoly on your own platform, but working with anyone to raise the prices on another platform is illegal under this framework, as well.

scarface_74 3y ago
That has nothing to do with being a monopoly. That’s collusion.
- taeric 3y ago
  That is... my point? Antitrust laws are not confined to monopoly concerns. To try and steer the conversation into that direction is a non-sequitur that doesn't necessarily matter. The headline isn't "textbook case of monopoly abuse."
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    Well seeing that no one said that Apple is colluding with anyone, what is the point?
    - taeric 3y ago
      That antitrust != monopoly. That is it. Do I also need to add that antitrust != collusion? I am not even really arguing that they are guilty in this case. I flat out don't know. I do find it odd to see the unwavering defense of Apple in this.
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        No one is defending Apple. I’m pushing back against the silliness of the armchair lawyers on HN that say Apple must be a monopolist even though a real judge in the Epic vs Apple case said otherwise.
        taeric 3y ago
        I'll grant that is probably more valid for a larger portion of the discourse here than I realize. Doesn't feel relevant to my points, though.
coldtea 3y ago
>For example, you are not a monopoly on your own platform, but working with anyone to raise the prices on another platform is illegal under this framework, as well. That's when the players the work with form a "cartel". And even there it's not an antitrust case until we're talking about a majority of combined share. Else two or more two-bit players deciding to sell at the same price is not a cartel (nor a trust). If Panic and BareBones meet and decide to sell their editors for $100, it's nobody's concern.
- taeric 3y ago
  I picked that example because Apple has already lost in that scenario before. :D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_Inc. There is also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L..., so Apple hasn't exactly been free of antitrust legislation in the past...
  - Clent 3y ago
    That's an irrelevant scenario because it involves multiple companies working in concert. This is just Apple. I don't understand how this is any different than Sony or Nintendo deciding the terms to release games on their hardware. Is it because they charge for dev-kits and Apple doesn't. Are we certain it's in the public's interest to make development for Apple platforms more restrictive?
    - taeric 3y ago
      It is only relevant as evidence that antitrust != monopoly laws. They include monopoly laws, of course; but there is more to them than that. This isn't a decided case, such that I don't know what you are asking? Do we have evidence that Sony/Nintendo won't let you be a paying developer? More, do we have evidence that they would let you, but then after possibly benefiting from your efforts, kick you off their platform with no recourse? I confess I would not be too surprised if we do have some of that evidence, but I haven't seen it. We have seen plenty of shady crap from those companies, but there are material other differences that make them hard to compare.

by taeric 3y ago

scarface_74 3y ago

That has nothing to do with being a monopoly. That’s collusion.

taeric 3y ago
That is... my point? Antitrust laws are not confined to monopoly concerns. To try and steer the conversation into that direction is a non-sequitur that doesn't necessarily matter. The headline isn't "textbook case of monopoly abuse."
- scarface_74 3y ago
  Well seeing that no one said that Apple is colluding with anyone, what is the point?
  - taeric 3y ago
    That antitrust != monopoly. That is it. Do I also need to add that antitrust != collusion? I am not even really arguing that they are guilty in this case. I flat out don't know. I do find it odd to see the unwavering defense of Apple in this.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      No one is defending Apple. I’m pushing back against the silliness of the armchair lawyers on HN that say Apple must be a monopolist even though a real judge in the Epic vs Apple case said otherwise.
      - taeric 3y ago
        I'll grant that is probably more valid for a larger portion of the discourse here than I realize. Doesn't feel relevant to my points, though.

coldtea 3y ago

>For example, you are not a monopoly on your own platform, but working with anyone to raise the prices on another platform is illegal under this framework, as well. That's when the players the work with form a "cartel". And even there it's not an antitrust case until we're talking about a majority of combined share. Else two or more two-bit players deciding to sell at the same price is not a cartel (nor a trust). If Panic and BareBones meet and decide to sell their editors for $100, it's nobody's concern.

taeric 3y ago
I picked that example because Apple has already lost in that scenario before. :D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_Inc. There is also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L..., so Apple hasn't exactly been free of antitrust legislation in the past...
- Clent 3y ago
  That's an irrelevant scenario because it involves multiple companies working in concert. This is just Apple. I don't understand how this is any different than Sony or Nintendo deciding the terms to release games on their hardware. Is it because they charge for dev-kits and Apple doesn't. Are we certain it's in the public's interest to make development for Apple platforms more restrictive?
  - taeric 3y ago
    It is only relevant as evidence that antitrust != monopoly laws. They include monopoly laws, of course; but there is more to them than that. This isn't a decided case, such that I don't know what you are asking? Do we have evidence that Sony/Nintendo won't let you be a paying developer? More, do we have evidence that they would let you, but then after possibly benefiting from your efforts, kick you off their platform with no recourse? I confess I would not be too surprised if we do have some of that evidence, but I haven't seen it. We have seen plenty of shady crap from those companies, but there are material other differences that make them hard to compare.