13 ms·

For anyone curious why Google lost: >Epic v. Google [...] hinged on secret revenue sharing deals between Google, smartphone makers, and big game developers, on

For anyone curious why Google lost: >Epic v. Google [...] hinged on secret revenue sharing deals between Google, smartphone makers, and big game developers, ones that Google execs internally believed were designed to keep rival app stores down. Without finding the same thing in Apple, I doubt this will affect Apple's case much, but of course I should mention I'm not a lawyer; I'm perfectly happy to be schooled if someone more knowledgeable comes along!

Wowfunhappy 3y ago
Apple doesn't need to strike secret deals to keep out alternative app stores because they've made alternate app stores completely impossible. If the result of this case is "you can have a monopoly as long as your device and ecosystem are 100% locked down", that's terrible!
- EA-3167 3y ago
  I don't get it, so no company can provide a walled garden? Or at least, not if they're successful? That doesn't make sense to me, why is that not an acceptable and desirable feature for some people? You don't have to buy an iPhone, this isn't like a railroad or a telecom that owns all of the possible infrastructure. If you want a walled garden get an iPhone. If you want freedom with all that implies, go Android.
  - cyberax 3y ago
    > I don't get it, so no company can provide a walled garden You can provide a walled garden. But that's not Apple does. Instead, Apple is a mafia that shakes down all the vendors for the right to sell in their semi-open market square. If Apple iOS were a walled garden, it would have contained only Apple applications.
    - dantheman 3y ago
      The mafia shakes down people who don't interact with them, apple does not.
      - Wowfunhappy 3y ago
        How do I develop a mobile app which a majority of people in the US will be able to use without interacting with Apple?
        spiderice 3y ago
        Figure it out lol. That’s what Apple had to do. Why are you expecting a free pass to do what took them decades?
        smoldesu 3y ago
        Because decades ago, "figuring it out" entailed visiting a website and downloading a software installer. Why is Apple expecting everyone to forget about that and pay them the difference instead?
        CharlesW 3y ago
        You create a web app or website.
        vineyardmike 3y ago
        > a mobile app which a majority of people in the US will be able to use Even using Apple, you can't do this, because you need a separate Android and iOS app already. Big picture though, I don't think you really have a "right" or entitlement to just access everyone. You're not entitled to use someone else's business, even if it's a good one. You can't just go and sell your product in the AT&T store, you need to agree to their terms. Even if you make a phone that only works on the AT&T network, you still need to agree to their terms. You can't sell in Target or Walmart or Costco or even Amazon just because you want to. Oh and you may be quite disappointed to discover many of them take >30% cut too. Apple thinks of the iOS App Store as another storefront, and you need their permission to put your product on their "shelves". The courts agree.
    - EA-3167 3y ago
      I don't think stores have an obligation to carry your products, it isn't like supermarkets are breaking the law because they don't have an open-door policy on products. You don't have some intrinsic legal right to use someone else's infrastructure to sell your own stuff, on your terms. Framing this as a legal or ethical issue leaves me cold, when the reality is just... you'd PREFER higher margins. I get it! I'm not saying that's wrong, it just isn't a legally enshrined right.
      - Wowfunhappy 3y ago
        > I don't think stores have an obligation to carry your products, it isn't like supermarkets are breaking the law because they don't have an open-door policy on products. I agree. However, consumers have the right to go to a different supermarket, without selling their house.
        nostrebored 3y ago
        And supermarkets have no obligation to build expressways to their competitors! We can take these analogy absurdities wherever — the harsh reality is that nobody is stopping someone from building an open ecosystem phone. But there isn’t enough demand. As a consumer, why should I care? As a company, unless I’m building my own walled garden for company phones, why should I care? What’s the market here?
        Wowfunhappy 3y ago
        > We can take these analogy absurdities wherever — the harsh reality is that nobody is stopping someone from building an open ecosystem phone. But there isn’t enough demand. I don't think there's too little demand, I think there's too much profit incentive in the other direction. Only a tiny number of companies on earth have the resources to build a successful mobile platform. If you are lucky enough to be one of those companies, you're not going to leave money on the table.
        wvenable 3y ago
        > the harsh reality is that nobody is stopping someone from building an open ecosystem phone. The harsh reality is that manufacturing capacity and network effects actually prevents building an open ecosystem phone. You will never be able to purchase the best chips and displays. I think we need to stop pretending that regulating competition is a bad thing. Competition is what makes capitalism work as an economic system. Without competition capitalism is inefficient and harmful. If we can inject more competition into the system as a whole, wherever possible, it's going to be good for consumers.
    - 3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
      When someone comes to your store and says "I'll wreck your store unless you cut me 30% of your revenue" that's the mafia. When someone comes to your store and says "I made the streets and regulate the power, water supply, sewer, and everything else in this place, cut me 30% of your revenue in taxes" that's the government. And you'd do well to not confuse those so haphazardly. Apple didn't come to your app and with no cause blackmail you to get your money. They created an ecosystem that did not exist before, and they have to maintain it. Paying for it is completely rational.
      - cyberax 3y ago
        > When someone comes to your store and says "I'll wreck your store unless you cut me 30% of your revenue" that's the mafia. That's exactly what Apple does. If you make a mobile app (for example, a presentation manager) you _have_ to support iOS, or you will go out of business. As a developer, you simply don't have a choice. You have to either support iOS, or get out of mobile apps entirely.
        mcphage 3y ago
        > You have to either support iOS, or get out of mobile apps entirely. What? That’s not true. There are plenty of Android-only developers.
        cyberax 3y ago
        Any example of a major Android-only app for the US?
        zappb 3y ago
        Beeper Mini, Fortnight, several Google apps.
        cyberax 3y ago
        Keyword: major. Fortnight is the only example, and it's on its way to SCOTUS. Google apps, which one?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - m463 3y ago
      > Instead, Apple is a mafia that shakes down all the vendors for the right to sell in their semi-open market square. I think they actually have a monopsony since you can only sell to apple. If there were other app stores, you could sell to them instead. "In economics, a monopsony is a market structure in which a single buyer substantially controls the market as the major purchaser of goods and services offered by many would-be sellers. The microeconomic theory of monopsony assumes a single entity to have market power over all sellers as the only purchaser of a good or service. This is a similar power to that of a monopolist, which can influence the price for its buyers in a monopoly, where multiple buyers have only one seller of a good or service available to purchase from." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony (And they probably have a monopoly wrt iphone customers)
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - aprilthird2021 3y ago
    Walled garden is fine. Charging exorbitant fees because you've strong armed any and all competition out of the game isn't. A reasonable fee with 0 competition would be fine. No fee, while hiking the prices of the devices would be fine.
    - EA-3167 3y ago
      How can you seriously say "any and all competition" when Android and Google exist?
      - dns_snek 3y ago
        You're looking at it from the user's perspective, this case is about B2B. Imagine you're working on a hardware product that can communicate with your other devices over Bluetooth. How exactly do you avoid Apple in this scenario? You can't, or you won't be in business for very long. You need to develop an app because Apple intentionally gimps their browser, and to release the app you must agree to their terms. They're in a dominant position that allows them to dictate unfavorable terms to the rest of the industry which, among other things, stifles innovation.
        skydhash 3y ago
        > Imagine you're working on a hardware product that can communicate with your other devices over Bluetooth. How exactly do you avoid Apple in this scenario? I can't think of nothing that is paired over Bluetooth that couldn't be done better with some other medium. Even Apple use a superset of Bluetooth to get its devices working properly together.
  - naremu 3y ago
    I think a lot of this stems from "take backsies" on a long term subconscious level. The HN audience in particular is not just tinker-friendly, but the vast majority surely lived through the era of Apple where Jobs pitched the iPhone as more of a gateway to the internet in your pocket, web apps were even mentioned as being a major feature/philosophy. Not to mention the "old world" of premobile OSes which still have the basic understanding that I can install programs programmed for this platform, without "protection" and the "protection fees" associated with a centralized monopoly, an old world of which macOS could never shed in the name of profits, but iOS and beyond has become the battleground for redefining the computing experience to the mainstream: is it supposed to be a bladerunner 2049 esque experience of hitting the predetermined icons on my pocket vending machine, infantilizing and commodifying people's lifestyle for wealth concentration of a company that uses it's wealth to...hmm. It is, at the very least though, a bit of a betrayal to those used to the old ways. At the worst, it's part of a larger regression against individualism.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - bg24 3y ago
    Having a walled garden is fine. I use iPhone and apple products from day 1. That said, charging 30% of subscription in the App Store seems ridiculously high if you put yourself in the 3rd party vendor place. For comparison, Amazon charges 15%. AWS marketplace charges <10%.
  - wraptile 3y ago
    > no company can provide a walled garden? Or at least, not if they're successful? Yes. Why are we so ok on giving up our rights like this? "no company is allowed to inside trade/use slaves/have a monopoly" - yes!
  - thfuran 3y ago
    >I don't get it, so no company can provide a walled garden? Or at least, not if they're successful? Framing things as you have leads to the impression that, by analogy to oppressing a person, restricting a large company is bad. But a company is not a person. Companies are legal constructs that exist because they are useful to society. A monopoly distorts markets and stifles innovation by disadvantaging potential competitors. This is not beneficial to society and so should not be permitted. So yes, a sufficiently large company should not be permitted to do things that might be permissible for a smaller company.
  - Animats 3y ago
    > I don't get it, so no company can provide a walled garden? Or at least, not if they're successful? Exactly. If you take US antitrust law as written, once you're close to being the dominant player, you can't have a walled garden.
    - HlessClaudesman 3y ago
      So the law says that once your city reaches a certain size you must let in the barbarian hordes? In this case the barbarians are the malicious apps that would have been stopped by app store vetting. Seems like a bad deal for the average citizen of that city. I think tech savvy users should be able to (after jumping through a few hoops) do whatever they want with their phones, without any fear of reprisal from software and hardware manufacturers. If Apple and Google insist on strangling this market then Tim Sweeney has the money to develop a competing phone ecosystem, it could be a great business opportunity if a large number of users and developers are actually not being well served. But he may find that this underserved population is a quite small slice of the total addressable market, and that walled gardens actually do a good job for the vast majority of users, protecting my oblivious grandma who clicks on everything from a horde of scammers.
- rtpg 3y ago
  Apple offers the same kinds of deals (see Netflix discussions) though there the rationales are different, which leads to sweatier "Apple has to offer deals because their value add is so bad, and having alternative app stores would help"-style arguments... I don't really know of a good legal argument there.
  - colechristensen 3y ago
    Is Apple's deal with Netflix anticompetitive though? Google is paying hardware manufacturers to use their search and for exclusivity with their store. Both of those are more or less explicitly to keep out competition. Apple cut a deal with Netflix but what competition does it squash? These are just different issues.
    - rtpg 3y ago
      I agree the issues are different! I do believe there’s a subtle argument to be made about how Apple can use its customer base to “pick winners” (combo of huge user base + App Store being the only entry point), on top of things like offering sweetheart deals to certain apps. Meta being allowed to get away with so much “against the App Store rules” stuff is legit IMO. Anticompetitive behavior can be downstream of stuff like this, even if Apple isn’t actively quashing something but merely making it way easier for certain places to absorb the costs (especially if the deal was only offered to Netflix but not to other platforms). Its not a ironclad argument by any means but its something
    - hatsix 3y ago
      It squashes competition with Netflix
      - MBCook 3y ago
        But Apple didn’t decide that only Netflix could be on their platform. And they didn’t take money to cause problems for other streaming video services. That’s what Google did according to the verdict. They paid money to stop competitors. In fact Apple negotiated that deal to keep Netflix on the platform because Netflix wasn’t happy paying 30% (surprise). It’s not good that they’re playing favorites secretly, but it’s not the same thing
- TerrifiedMouse 3y ago
  > If the result of this case is "you can have a monopoly as long as your device and ecosystem are 100% locked down", that's terrible! Monopolies aren’t illegal. Only the abuse of a monopoly position to advance your interest in other markets is illegal. E.g. It’s not illegal to be the only seller of gasoline in the country. It is illegal though to bundle laundry powder with gasoline sales to corner the laundry powder market.
  - fnordpiglet 3y ago
    100% correct. I was involved in the Netscape Microsoft anti trust case and this is specifically the finding that led to their loss (way too late for us)
    - hedora 3y ago
      The jury found that Google has a monopoly on the Android platform. That would extend to Apple and iOS, but I’ll be shocked if that finding is turned into a legal precedent that is upheld on appeal. For one thing, the jury is probably more technically savvy than the judges that will ultimately decide this case.
      - fnordpiglet 3y ago
        Monopolies are not illegal. It’s leveraging the monopoly to exert force on adjacent markets that is. In the case here googles foul play is making side deals for preferential treatment against other app stores given their control over the handset operating system. Apple doesn’t offer an App Store market and never has nor ever represented otherwise, the app store is and always has been part of the operating system. This isn’t true for Google. Maybe for you and I this is splitting hairs, but splitting hairs is 99% of the law.
        onli 3y ago
        According to https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-1 https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopol... it does not have to be about adjacent markets. Maintaining a monopoly alone can be illegal, depending on the means. Blocking all other means of distributing apps in a reasonable way absolutely should have been enough to get Apple sanctioned. Blocking alternatives with economic incentives is now forbidden, but blocking the access using code is allowed. This is stupid. But sure, jury trial. And also US judges in this area are especially broken, with their warped understanding of when a monopoly is harmful. --- Of course the other part of this is stupid as well. It should be illegal to have a monopoly, and it's the job of the government to break monopolies to enable competition. The US has it completely backwards here, and this is a big reason why that country is failing in key areas of economic development and infrastructure.
- echelon 3y ago
  Apple is horrible, but Google isn't blameless. Google and Apple are a duopoly that controls one of the most essential devices of our time. Their racket extends more broadly than Standard Oil. The smartphone is a critical piece of modern life, and these two companies control every aspect of them. - Tax 30% - Control when and how software can be deployed - Can pull software or deny updates - Prevent web downloads (Apple) - Sell ads on top of your app name or brand - Scare / confuse users about web downloads or app installs (Google) - Control the payment rails - Enforce using their identity and customer management (Apple) - Enforce using their payment rails (Apple) - Becoming the de-facto POS payment methods (for even more taxation) - Partnering with governments to be identity providers - Default search provider - Default browser - Prevent other browser runtimes (Apple) - Prevent browser tech from being comparable to native app installs (mostly Apple) - Unfriendly to repairs - Unfriendly to third party components (Apple) - Battery not replaceable - Unofficial pieces break core features due to crytographic signing (Apple) - Updates obsolete old hardware - Green bubbles (Apple) - Tactics to cause FOMO in children (Apple) - Growth into media (movie studios, etc.) to keep eyeballs on their platforms (Apple) - Growth into music to keep eyeballs on their platforms There are no other companies in the world with this level of control over such an important, cross-cutting, cross-functional essential item. If we compared the situation to auto manufacturers, there would be only two providers, you could only fuel at their gas stations, they'd charge businesses every time you visit, they'd display ads constantly, and you'd be unable to repair them without going to the provider. There need to be more than two providers. And if we can't get more than two providers, then most of these unfair advantages need to be rolled back by regulators. This is horrific.
  - shiroiuma 3y ago
    >Battery not replaceable You might be able to blame Apple for starting this and continuing it on their phones, but I don't think Google is pushing Android handset makers to do this at all, just like I don't think Google is pushing Samsung (and maybe some others) to eliminate 3.5mm headphone jacks on their phones. Unfortunately, I think this is one of those things where the whole industry is just copying each other. Non-removable batteries are better for manufacturers for various reasons, but bad for consumers, and they've conned consumers into accepting it. >Unfriendly to repairs Same here. Nothing is keeping Android phone makers from being repair-friendly. >Updates obsolete old hardware This is Apple-only. The Android counterpoint is "Updates simply cease after 2-3 years, leaving you with security vulnerabilities that won't be fixed", but here again it's the fault of the handset makers, not Google: they're just too lazy, and Google is too stupid and short-sighted to force them to support their phones longer-term to improve the Android brand image.
- tjean_z 3y ago
  Apple has published research on using AI to clone apps. It can't get worse source: https://blog.ml.cmu.edu/2021/12/10/understanding-user-interfaces-with-screen-parsing/ https://blog.ml.cmu.edu/2021/12/10/understanding-user-interf...
  - dlivingston 3y ago
    I read the paper. That's very cool research! I've never thought of representing UI as a graph before. Their code generation clearly leaves much to be desired (see the figure at page bottom).
- scythe 3y ago
  IANAL, but it's my understanding that courts like to stick to what they know. Apple's arguments about iOS security are rooted in abstruse technical concepts that a judge probably prefers to avoid ruling on directly, while Google's backroom wheeling and dealing is the kind of conventional skulduggery that is immediately recognized as an offense.
  - MBCook 3y ago
    I don’t think it’s because Apple conned them over. Google said you could start your own App Store and then secretly undermined people who tried to start their own App Store. That’s what they got in trouble for. There is no evidence of Apple making backroom deals to prevent people from doing things Apple said they could.
- jader201 3y ago
  What’s to stop Google from locking theirs down, too, at this point? Or would that be illegal since it was originally open?
  - wvenable 3y ago
    It's not that Android is open or locked down. Google can do whatever they want with own handsets, like Apple does, but Google is using their influence to affect the software market on other handsets.
- bofaGuy 3y ago
  I think the difference here is that Apple locks things down on Apple hardware running Apple software. On the other hand, Google is trying to manipulate the market to gain an advantage over competitors on non Google hardware running Google software. On the Apple side of things, the full vertical is Apple. That is not the case for Google.
  - kohlerm 3y ago
    Ok so Google is punished for being more open in the first case? Sounds fishy to me ...
    - inlined 3y ago
      Especially since Google had always had the AOSP as a reasonable way of demonstrating their commitment to the industry as a whole disjoint from the places where they thought the Google ecosystem provided extra value (which they admittedly require you to take wholesale)
      - gleenn 3y ago
        AOSP has effectively been dead for a long time. You need Google Play services for almost everything now and more and more creeps into the proprietary portion.
        jojobas 3y ago
        No you don't. Writing an app to use google services is a choice. There's MicroG for silly apps that require google services, and there's also life without using silly apps that require google services.
        stonogo 3y ago
        Please note how you dismiss apps requiring Google Play services as "silly," when most people who use those services use them as part of the hardware root of trust programs for work apps, or other device attestation for banking apps. Putting demeaning adjectives in front of the things you're arguing against isn't a compelling argument, I think you'll find, and "life without" banking and work apps leads to a lower quality of life for a lot of people.
- msh 3y ago
  I think a company going around saying "we are a open system you can do what you want with our product" and then making secret deals to limit that openess is worse than a company from day one saying we are selling a 100% locked down solution, take it or leave it.
  - andy_ppp 3y ago
    It really doesn't matter who is worse morally here, just both situations are bad for consumer choice. I find it amazing that Apple things it is okay to attempt to take 15% of Audible revenue if they allowed you to buy books in the app, for example.
    - pentae 3y ago
      It's 30%. It's only 15% after 12 months of a customer rebilling which is statistically insignificant number, and it was only done as a carefully orchestrated PR move to make people think 15% when it's really 30 - as you have demonstrated
      - ralfd 3y ago
        Is it statistically insignificant? My guess would be that sooner or later most subscribers are long term customers.
        michaelt 3y ago
        Depends on what type of subscription business it is. I've heard meal kit companies like Hello Fresh lose 90% of their customers in less than 12 months, as the generous new customer discount vouchers tail off. (Not that meal kit companies would be paying Apple 30%)
        beacham 3y ago
        [flagged]
- worksonmine 3y ago
  > If the result of this case is "you can have a monopoly as long as your device and ecosystem are 100% locked down", that's terrible! One could hope people would despise such a company and the market would fix it, but humans have proved the opposite. I've stopped trying to educate people and lost all faith in humanity. Most of them just don't care, as long as they've got their shiny stuff.
  - rpdillon 3y ago
    This is precisely my experience as well. I think what's happening is that everybody wants authoritarian control, and in fact prefers it, right up until the authority makes a decision that runs counter to their needs. But by then it's too late. It reminds me of the Newburgh Letter, suggesting that George Washington be declared king after winning the revolutionary war. It's like they missed the whole point of the exercise.
- pyrale 3y ago
  > If the result of this case is "you can have a monopoly as long as your device and ecosystem are 100% locked down", that's terrible! I guess part of the result is "you can't lock your ecosystem while pretending it's open". As for Apple's situation, it's different enough to warrant a separate lawsuit.
- sidlls 3y ago
  How is Apple a monopoly? They have a huge competitor in the mobile phone market: Google/Android. I could see arguing that Apple and Google are a duopoly.
- tinus_hn 3y ago
  Alternatively if you can’t have a closed ecosystem, there’s no incentive in creating the next generation of consoles and console gaming is dead.
- kkzz99 3y ago
  Will that not change with the new EU rules?
- TheBigSalad 3y ago
  I agree, but consumers have spoken with their wallets and overwhelmingly prefer a big corporation to have full control.
- turquoisevar 3y ago
  > If the result of this case is "you can have a monopoly as long as your device and ecosystem are 100% locked down", that's terrible! The rule of thumb, in a very simplified way, is indeed that you can have a monopoly as long as you don’t actively leverage that power to stifle competition. That’s not a result of this case but a result of all the jurisprudence leading up to this case. And to a certain degree, that makes sense. The alternative, making all monopolies illegal, would cause too much havoc because it would affect almost everyone putting out a product. Say, for example, you’re a newcomer in the market of smart thermostats. By definition, you have a monopoly on your thermostats. If monopolies are by definition illegal, regardless of circumstance, you’d have to allow Nest to put software on your thermostat advertising their products. That’s an undesirable outcome, if only because it makes it harder for you to compete in that market.
  - gbalduzzi 3y ago
    I don't think this relates to Apple case. Apple doesn't allow other stores to exist on their ecosystem. That's a problematic monopoly, because competitors can not exists. That's different from what you are saying: other companies are allowed to create smart thermostat and compete against Nest
    - oleganza 3y ago
      By the same logic, other phonemakers can come over and make phones. The definition of what is a "market" is arbitrary and subjective. Google may be a monopoly in internet search, but only a small player in "global advertisement". And anyone anywhere is a monopolist in the very narrow definition of the market that includes their own ten customers. What's really important is the power play: your company should strive to hold a comfortable and stable monopoly position in a meaningful market (meaningful to you), while the government's role is to watch over all the businesses so that large numbers of people are not under heavy influence of external forces and not made unhappy. If any product exploits its monopoly by shifting the power from the government or making people sad, then gov steps in and interprets the rules in the way to correct this. Or, the gov is corrupt and helps keep that monopoly going :-)
- detourdog 3y ago
  Or it”s a great feature depending on your one’s opinion.
- shafyy 3y ago
  Apple will start allow sideloading, at least in the EU, because they are kind of forced to now by EU regulation.
- agloe_dreams 3y ago
  It was shown that Apple does have secret deals though. Part of it was that Apple could actually be hurt if some of the bigger players left - Amazon, Netflix, etc. Netflix had a really sharp deal if I'm not mistaken, like 10% compared to the 30% everyone else paid.
- ffgjgf1 3y ago
  > "you can have a monopoly as long as your device and ecosystem are 100% locked down" No. It’s you can have a monopoly if you treat everyone equally and don’t make secret deals with anyone. This is a generally accepted and non controversial practice in certain areas. Of course not saying that this should be the case for app stores or that Apple is actually treating everyone equally..
scythe 3y ago
Epic v. Apple did find some limitations to Apple's policies, but also found that Epic specifically didn't prove the abuse of monopoly power they wanted to. https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/12/22667694/epic-v-apple-trial-fortnite-judge-yvonne-gonzalez-rogers-final-ruling-injunction-breakdown https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/12/22667694/epic-v-apple-tri...
johnnyanmac 3y ago
>Without finding the same thing in Apple, I doubt this will affect Apple's case much it sounds like the EU is going to slowly push on Apple t do the very thing Epic wants regardless. https://appleinsider.com/articles/23/11/08/apple-admits-third-party-app-stores-in-europe-are-inevitable https://appleinsider.com/articles/23/11/08/apple-admits-thir... So I guess Epic had the right idea but the wrong angle (or simply the wrong judges in the US. Probably a bit of both).
- kmeisthax 3y ago
  Epic's angle was to get discovery so they could embarrass the shit out of regulatory agencies and legislators by pointing out how they were sleeping on an obvious, decades old antitrust case. It worked. The DMA wouldn't have been a thing without Epic suing.
ec109685 3y ago
Can you really say that was why they lost? A jury found Epic’s case compelling against Google while a judge did not with Apple. Is it a specific reason or a difference of opinion?
- nicce 3y ago
  They are completely different cases because Apple controls the manufacturing process of every iOS devices in every phase. But Google does not control the whole product lifetime of the every Android phone out there. On the latter monopoly abuse is bigger problem. But if you make, build, control and design everything from bottom to top on the product, then it is less about monopoly abuse. It is just single total product.
  - thereddaikon 3y ago
    I and I think many others disagree. Apple's case seems more egregious. Who are they to tell me what I can and can't do with my phone? Walled gardens may be a value add for some but it also spits in the face of first sale doctrine.
    - nicce 3y ago
      I don't like the idea of not owning my own phone either, but you are not exactly forbidden to do whatever you like with your phone. It is more about what are you capable of. This cap of capability has been increasing drastically with technology. Even if you had an old, repairable car, not everyone has capabilities to repair it or modify it to something else in the past. But now even less likely. The question is that how much they hinder on purpose? In the case of Apple, many times it might have been hindering on purpose, but some choices have also valid points. If you remember the old times of Android (and still), Android provides extra-ordinary attack surface for malware what iOS has never had. The distinction between Google and Apple is that you might think that with Android, as there are many manufacturers and brands, you have a choice, but it is just an illusion, if Google "abuses" it's market place with other manufactures. In the case of Apple, it's just Apple. Apple can do whatever they please but is unlikely affecting any other manufacturers or brands. If they want to compete with Apple, they need to be better than Apple. Of course, there is the value of user base. All the companies must try to adapt with the social behavior of people, and if they choose to use iPhone for playing games and listening music, companies must bring games and music on those platforms to be competitive. It is hard to get this userbase. The biggest issue of this particular case with Google were the deals. And other manufactures and companies since Google is not manufacturing the phones itself, but instead makes secret deals about the Play Store and other software. This goes to line of monopoly abuse, since it affects other companies and the illusion of choice, and also hinders innovation.
codingdave 3y ago
It should be noted that this was a jury decision. Juries are instructed on the relevant law, but ultimately they can give back whatever answer they want, for whatever reason they want. So while we can speculate why the answer came back as it did... and that speculation may be correct if the jury was following instructions, we won't know for sure unless someone on the jury chooses to come forward and explain their decision.
- ryao 3y ago
  Have you ever heard of a judge telling a jury that they are free to think for themselves and give the answer they want? If I recall, there is a term for that, called jury nullification and judges reportedly become upset if attorneys tell their juries about it. If you hear of a judge that encourages juries to think for themselves and answer as they think, rather than prescribing how to think to them, let me know.
  - Gene_Parmesan 3y ago
    I'm a lawyer. I've explained this so many times it's starting to bore me, but I have to keep doing it. Jury nullification has never existed as a right in any common law system. It is merely a descriptive term that lawyers use to describe a situation where a jury decides to ignore the law. Lawyers cannot instruct juries on its existence because, in the law, it doesn't exist. It only ever happens because juries cannot be punished for deciding contrary to what the law says; their right to their own reasoning is sacrosanct. It describes a situation where the jury ignores the law, and lawyers can never instruct juries to ignore the law, in any circumstance. Lawyers can never say "I know the law says X but if you ignore that, we can't punish you hint hint." It is a term that describes a crinkle in the law. It does not exist as a right, and juries are NOT entitled to do it, but at the same time, they cannot be punished for doing so. People who whine about jury nullification are one step below 'sovereign citizen' types in terms of driving me nuts with their willful misunderstanding of the law.
- crossroadsguy 3y ago
  I always wondered how the hell jury system works and how the hell they can put matters like this, or any matter for that matter, in the hands of a jury? Jury system seems so arbitrary to me. There is no explanation - no basis - just “we felt like this”, or rather “whatever, we want to do just do this”.

Wowfunhappy 3y ago

Apple doesn't need to strike secret deals to keep out alternative app stores because they've made alternate app stores completely impossible. If the result of this case is "you can have a monopoly as long as your device and ecosystem are 100% locked down", that's terrible!

EA-3167 3y ago
I don't get it, so no company can provide a walled garden? Or at least, not if they're successful? That doesn't make sense to me, why is that not an acceptable and desirable feature for some people? You don't have to buy an iPhone, this isn't like a railroad or a telecom that owns all of the possible infrastructure. If you want a walled garden get an iPhone. If you want freedom with all that implies, go Android.
- cyberax 3y ago
  > I don't get it, so no company can provide a walled garden You can provide a walled garden. But that's not Apple does. Instead, Apple is a mafia that shakes down all the vendors for the right to sell in their semi-open market square. If Apple iOS were a walled garden, it would have contained only Apple applications.
  - dantheman 3y ago
    The mafia shakes down people who don't interact with them, apple does not.
    - Wowfunhappy 3y ago
      How do I develop a mobile app which a majority of people in the US will be able to use without interacting with Apple?
      - spiderice 3y ago
        Figure it out lol. That’s what Apple had to do. Why are you expecting a free pass to do what took them decades?
        smoldesu 3y ago
        Because decades ago, "figuring it out" entailed visiting a website and downloading a software installer. Why is Apple expecting everyone to forget about that and pay them the difference instead?
      - CharlesW 3y ago
        You create a web app or website.
      - vineyardmike 3y ago
        > a mobile app which a majority of people in the US will be able to use Even using Apple, you can't do this, because you need a separate Android and iOS app already. Big picture though, I don't think you really have a "right" or entitlement to just access everyone. You're not entitled to use someone else's business, even if it's a good one. You can't just go and sell your product in the AT&T store, you need to agree to their terms. Even if you make a phone that only works on the AT&T network, you still need to agree to their terms. You can't sell in Target or Walmart or Costco or even Amazon just because you want to. Oh and you may be quite disappointed to discover many of them take >30% cut too. Apple thinks of the iOS App Store as another storefront, and you need their permission to put your product on their "shelves". The courts agree.
  - EA-3167 3y ago
    I don't think stores have an obligation to carry your products, it isn't like supermarkets are breaking the law because they don't have an open-door policy on products. You don't have some intrinsic legal right to use someone else's infrastructure to sell your own stuff, on your terms. Framing this as a legal or ethical issue leaves me cold, when the reality is just... you'd PREFER higher margins. I get it! I'm not saying that's wrong, it just isn't a legally enshrined right.
    - Wowfunhappy 3y ago
      > I don't think stores have an obligation to carry your products, it isn't like supermarkets are breaking the law because they don't have an open-door policy on products. I agree. However, consumers have the right to go to a different supermarket, without selling their house.
      - nostrebored 3y ago
        And supermarkets have no obligation to build expressways to their competitors! We can take these analogy absurdities wherever — the harsh reality is that nobody is stopping someone from building an open ecosystem phone. But there isn’t enough demand. As a consumer, why should I care? As a company, unless I’m building my own walled garden for company phones, why should I care? What’s the market here?
        Wowfunhappy 3y ago
        > We can take these analogy absurdities wherever — the harsh reality is that nobody is stopping someone from building an open ecosystem phone. But there isn’t enough demand. I don't think there's too little demand, I think there's too much profit incentive in the other direction. Only a tiny number of companies on earth have the resources to build a successful mobile platform. If you are lucky enough to be one of those companies, you're not going to leave money on the table.
        wvenable 3y ago
        > the harsh reality is that nobody is stopping someone from building an open ecosystem phone. The harsh reality is that manufacturing capacity and network effects actually prevents building an open ecosystem phone. You will never be able to purchase the best chips and displays. I think we need to stop pretending that regulating competition is a bad thing. Competition is what makes capitalism work as an economic system. Without competition capitalism is inefficient and harmful. If we can inject more competition into the system as a whole, wherever possible, it's going to be good for consumers.
  - 3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
    When someone comes to your store and says "I'll wreck your store unless you cut me 30% of your revenue" that's the mafia. When someone comes to your store and says "I made the streets and regulate the power, water supply, sewer, and everything else in this place, cut me 30% of your revenue in taxes" that's the government. And you'd do well to not confuse those so haphazardly. Apple didn't come to your app and with no cause blackmail you to get your money. They created an ecosystem that did not exist before, and they have to maintain it. Paying for it is completely rational.
    - cyberax 3y ago
      > When someone comes to your store and says "I'll wreck your store unless you cut me 30% of your revenue" that's the mafia. That's exactly what Apple does. If you make a mobile app (for example, a presentation manager) you _have_ to support iOS, or you will go out of business. As a developer, you simply don't have a choice. You have to either support iOS, or get out of mobile apps entirely.
      - mcphage 3y ago
        > You have to either support iOS, or get out of mobile apps entirely. What? That’s not true. There are plenty of Android-only developers.
        cyberax 3y ago
        Any example of a major Android-only app for the US?
        zappb 3y ago
        Beeper Mini, Fortnight, several Google apps.
        cyberax 3y ago
        Keyword: major. Fortnight is the only example, and it's on its way to SCOTUS. Google apps, which one?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - m463 3y ago
    > Instead, Apple is a mafia that shakes down all the vendors for the right to sell in their semi-open market square. I think they actually have a monopsony since you can only sell to apple. If there were other app stores, you could sell to them instead. "In economics, a monopsony is a market structure in which a single buyer substantially controls the market as the major purchaser of goods and services offered by many would-be sellers. The microeconomic theory of monopsony assumes a single entity to have market power over all sellers as the only purchaser of a good or service. This is a similar power to that of a monopolist, which can influence the price for its buyers in a monopoly, where multiple buyers have only one seller of a good or service available to purchase from." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony (And they probably have a monopoly wrt iphone customers)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- aprilthird2021 3y ago
  Walled garden is fine. Charging exorbitant fees because you've strong armed any and all competition out of the game isn't. A reasonable fee with 0 competition would be fine. No fee, while hiking the prices of the devices would be fine.
  - EA-3167 3y ago
    How can you seriously say "any and all competition" when Android and Google exist?
    - dns_snek 3y ago
      You're looking at it from the user's perspective, this case is about B2B. Imagine you're working on a hardware product that can communicate with your other devices over Bluetooth. How exactly do you avoid Apple in this scenario? You can't, or you won't be in business for very long. You need to develop an app because Apple intentionally gimps their browser, and to release the app you must agree to their terms. They're in a dominant position that allows them to dictate unfavorable terms to the rest of the industry which, among other things, stifles innovation.
      - skydhash 3y ago
        > Imagine you're working on a hardware product that can communicate with your other devices over Bluetooth. How exactly do you avoid Apple in this scenario? I can't think of nothing that is paired over Bluetooth that couldn't be done better with some other medium. Even Apple use a superset of Bluetooth to get its devices working properly together.
- naremu 3y ago
  I think a lot of this stems from "take backsies" on a long term subconscious level. The HN audience in particular is not just tinker-friendly, but the vast majority surely lived through the era of Apple where Jobs pitched the iPhone as more of a gateway to the internet in your pocket, web apps were even mentioned as being a major feature/philosophy. Not to mention the "old world" of premobile OSes which still have the basic understanding that I can install programs programmed for this platform, without "protection" and the "protection fees" associated with a centralized monopoly, an old world of which macOS could never shed in the name of profits, but iOS and beyond has become the battleground for redefining the computing experience to the mainstream: is it supposed to be a bladerunner 2049 esque experience of hitting the predetermined icons on my pocket vending machine, infantilizing and commodifying people's lifestyle for wealth concentration of a company that uses it's wealth to...hmm. It is, at the very least though, a bit of a betrayal to those used to the old ways. At the worst, it's part of a larger regression against individualism.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- bg24 3y ago
  Having a walled garden is fine. I use iPhone and apple products from day 1. That said, charging 30% of subscription in the App Store seems ridiculously high if you put yourself in the 3rd party vendor place. For comparison, Amazon charges 15%. AWS marketplace charges <10%.
- wraptile 3y ago
  > no company can provide a walled garden? Or at least, not if they're successful? Yes. Why are we so ok on giving up our rights like this? "no company is allowed to inside trade/use slaves/have a monopoly" - yes!
- thfuran 3y ago
  >I don't get it, so no company can provide a walled garden? Or at least, not if they're successful? Framing things as you have leads to the impression that, by analogy to oppressing a person, restricting a large company is bad. But a company is not a person. Companies are legal constructs that exist because they are useful to society. A monopoly distorts markets and stifles innovation by disadvantaging potential competitors. This is not beneficial to society and so should not be permitted. So yes, a sufficiently large company should not be permitted to do things that might be permissible for a smaller company.
- Animats 3y ago
  > I don't get it, so no company can provide a walled garden? Or at least, not if they're successful? Exactly. If you take US antitrust law as written, once you're close to being the dominant player, you can't have a walled garden.
  - HlessClaudesman 3y ago
    So the law says that once your city reaches a certain size you must let in the barbarian hordes? In this case the barbarians are the malicious apps that would have been stopped by app store vetting. Seems like a bad deal for the average citizen of that city. I think tech savvy users should be able to (after jumping through a few hoops) do whatever they want with their phones, without any fear of reprisal from software and hardware manufacturers. If Apple and Google insist on strangling this market then Tim Sweeney has the money to develop a competing phone ecosystem, it could be a great business opportunity if a large number of users and developers are actually not being well served. But he may find that this underserved population is a quite small slice of the total addressable market, and that walled gardens actually do a good job for the vast majority of users, protecting my oblivious grandma who clicks on everything from a horde of scammers.
rtpg 3y ago
Apple offers the same kinds of deals (see Netflix discussions) though there the rationales are different, which leads to sweatier "Apple has to offer deals because their value add is so bad, and having alternative app stores would help"-style arguments... I don't really know of a good legal argument there.
- colechristensen 3y ago
  Is Apple's deal with Netflix anticompetitive though? Google is paying hardware manufacturers to use their search and for exclusivity with their store. Both of those are more or less explicitly to keep out competition. Apple cut a deal with Netflix but what competition does it squash? These are just different issues.
  - rtpg 3y ago
    I agree the issues are different! I do believe there’s a subtle argument to be made about how Apple can use its customer base to “pick winners” (combo of huge user base + App Store being the only entry point), on top of things like offering sweetheart deals to certain apps. Meta being allowed to get away with so much “against the App Store rules” stuff is legit IMO. Anticompetitive behavior can be downstream of stuff like this, even if Apple isn’t actively quashing something but merely making it way easier for certain places to absorb the costs (especially if the deal was only offered to Netflix but not to other platforms). Its not a ironclad argument by any means but its something
  - hatsix 3y ago
    It squashes competition with Netflix
    - MBCook 3y ago
      But Apple didn’t decide that only Netflix could be on their platform. And they didn’t take money to cause problems for other streaming video services. That’s what Google did according to the verdict. They paid money to stop competitors. In fact Apple negotiated that deal to keep Netflix on the platform because Netflix wasn’t happy paying 30% (surprise). It’s not good that they’re playing favorites secretly, but it’s not the same thing
TerrifiedMouse 3y ago
> If the result of this case is "you can have a monopoly as long as your device and ecosystem are 100% locked down", that's terrible! Monopolies aren’t illegal. Only the abuse of a monopoly position to advance your interest in other markets is illegal. E.g. It’s not illegal to be the only seller of gasoline in the country. It is illegal though to bundle laundry powder with gasoline sales to corner the laundry powder market.
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  100% correct. I was involved in the Netscape Microsoft anti trust case and this is specifically the finding that led to their loss (way too late for us)
  - hedora 3y ago
    The jury found that Google has a monopoly on the Android platform. That would extend to Apple and iOS, but I’ll be shocked if that finding is turned into a legal precedent that is upheld on appeal. For one thing, the jury is probably more technically savvy than the judges that will ultimately decide this case.
    - fnordpiglet 3y ago
      Monopolies are not illegal. It’s leveraging the monopoly to exert force on adjacent markets that is. In the case here googles foul play is making side deals for preferential treatment against other app stores given their control over the handset operating system. Apple doesn’t offer an App Store market and never has nor ever represented otherwise, the app store is and always has been part of the operating system. This isn’t true for Google. Maybe for you and I this is splitting hairs, but splitting hairs is 99% of the law.
      - onli 3y ago
        According to https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-1 https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopol... it does not have to be about adjacent markets. Maintaining a monopoly alone can be illegal, depending on the means. Blocking all other means of distributing apps in a reasonable way absolutely should have been enough to get Apple sanctioned. Blocking alternatives with economic incentives is now forbidden, but blocking the access using code is allowed. This is stupid. But sure, jury trial. And also US judges in this area are especially broken, with their warped understanding of when a monopoly is harmful. --- Of course the other part of this is stupid as well. It should be illegal to have a monopoly, and it's the job of the government to break monopolies to enable competition. The US has it completely backwards here, and this is a big reason why that country is failing in key areas of economic development and infrastructure.
echelon 3y ago
Apple is horrible, but Google isn't blameless. Google and Apple are a duopoly that controls one of the most essential devices of our time. Their racket extends more broadly than Standard Oil. The smartphone is a critical piece of modern life, and these two companies control every aspect of them. - Tax 30% - Control when and how software can be deployed - Can pull software or deny updates - Prevent web downloads (Apple) - Sell ads on top of your app name or brand - Scare / confuse users about web downloads or app installs (Google) - Control the payment rails - Enforce using their identity and customer management (Apple) - Enforce using their payment rails (Apple) - Becoming the de-facto POS payment methods (for even more taxation) - Partnering with governments to be identity providers - Default search provider - Default browser - Prevent other browser runtimes (Apple) - Prevent browser tech from being comparable to native app installs (mostly Apple) - Unfriendly to repairs - Unfriendly to third party components (Apple) - Battery not replaceable - Unofficial pieces break core features due to crytographic signing (Apple) - Updates obsolete old hardware - Green bubbles (Apple) - Tactics to cause FOMO in children (Apple) - Growth into media (movie studios, etc.) to keep eyeballs on their platforms (Apple) - Growth into music to keep eyeballs on their platforms There are no other companies in the world with this level of control over such an important, cross-cutting, cross-functional essential item. If we compared the situation to auto manufacturers, there would be only two providers, you could only fuel at their gas stations, they'd charge businesses every time you visit, they'd display ads constantly, and you'd be unable to repair them without going to the provider. There need to be more than two providers. And if we can't get more than two providers, then most of these unfair advantages need to be rolled back by regulators. This is horrific.
- shiroiuma 3y ago
  >Battery not replaceable You might be able to blame Apple for starting this and continuing it on their phones, but I don't think Google is pushing Android handset makers to do this at all, just like I don't think Google is pushing Samsung (and maybe some others) to eliminate 3.5mm headphone jacks on their phones. Unfortunately, I think this is one of those things where the whole industry is just copying each other. Non-removable batteries are better for manufacturers for various reasons, but bad for consumers, and they've conned consumers into accepting it. >Unfriendly to repairs Same here. Nothing is keeping Android phone makers from being repair-friendly. >Updates obsolete old hardware This is Apple-only. The Android counterpoint is "Updates simply cease after 2-3 years, leaving you with security vulnerabilities that won't be fixed", but here again it's the fault of the handset makers, not Google: they're just too lazy, and Google is too stupid and short-sighted to force them to support their phones longer-term to improve the Android brand image.
tjean_z 3y ago
Apple has published research on using AI to clone apps. It can't get worse source: https://blog.ml.cmu.edu/2021/12/10/understanding-user-interfaces-with-screen-parsing/ https://blog.ml.cmu.edu/2021/12/10/understanding-user-interf...
- dlivingston 3y ago
  I read the paper. That's very cool research! I've never thought of representing UI as a graph before. Their code generation clearly leaves much to be desired (see the figure at page bottom).
scythe 3y ago
IANAL, but it's my understanding that courts like to stick to what they know. Apple's arguments about iOS security are rooted in abstruse technical concepts that a judge probably prefers to avoid ruling on directly, while Google's backroom wheeling and dealing is the kind of conventional skulduggery that is immediately recognized as an offense.
- MBCook 3y ago
  I don’t think it’s because Apple conned them over. Google said you could start your own App Store and then secretly undermined people who tried to start their own App Store. That’s what they got in trouble for. There is no evidence of Apple making backroom deals to prevent people from doing things Apple said they could.
jader201 3y ago
What’s to stop Google from locking theirs down, too, at this point? Or would that be illegal since it was originally open?
- wvenable 3y ago
  It's not that Android is open or locked down. Google can do whatever they want with own handsets, like Apple does, but Google is using their influence to affect the software market on other handsets.
bofaGuy 3y ago
I think the difference here is that Apple locks things down on Apple hardware running Apple software. On the other hand, Google is trying to manipulate the market to gain an advantage over competitors on non Google hardware running Google software. On the Apple side of things, the full vertical is Apple. That is not the case for Google.
- kohlerm 3y ago
  Ok so Google is punished for being more open in the first case? Sounds fishy to me ...
  - inlined 3y ago
    Especially since Google had always had the AOSP as a reasonable way of demonstrating their commitment to the industry as a whole disjoint from the places where they thought the Google ecosystem provided extra value (which they admittedly require you to take wholesale)
    - gleenn 3y ago
      AOSP has effectively been dead for a long time. You need Google Play services for almost everything now and more and more creeps into the proprietary portion.
      - jojobas 3y ago
        No you don't. Writing an app to use google services is a choice. There's MicroG for silly apps that require google services, and there's also life without using silly apps that require google services.
        stonogo 3y ago
        Please note how you dismiss apps requiring Google Play services as "silly," when most people who use those services use them as part of the hardware root of trust programs for work apps, or other device attestation for banking apps. Putting demeaning adjectives in front of the things you're arguing against isn't a compelling argument, I think you'll find, and "life without" banking and work apps leads to a lower quality of life for a lot of people.
msh 3y ago
I think a company going around saying "we are a open system you can do what you want with our product" and then making secret deals to limit that openess is worse than a company from day one saying we are selling a 100% locked down solution, take it or leave it.
- andy_ppp 3y ago
  It really doesn't matter who is worse morally here, just both situations are bad for consumer choice. I find it amazing that Apple things it is okay to attempt to take 15% of Audible revenue if they allowed you to buy books in the app, for example.
  - pentae 3y ago
    It's 30%. It's only 15% after 12 months of a customer rebilling which is statistically insignificant number, and it was only done as a carefully orchestrated PR move to make people think 15% when it's really 30 - as you have demonstrated
    - ralfd 3y ago
      Is it statistically insignificant? My guess would be that sooner or later most subscribers are long term customers.
      - michaelt 3y ago
        Depends on what type of subscription business it is. I've heard meal kit companies like Hello Fresh lose 90% of their customers in less than 12 months, as the generous new customer discount vouchers tail off. (Not that meal kit companies would be paying Apple 30%)
        beacham 3y ago
        [flagged]
worksonmine 3y ago
> If the result of this case is "you can have a monopoly as long as your device and ecosystem are 100% locked down", that's terrible! One could hope people would despise such a company and the market would fix it, but humans have proved the opposite. I've stopped trying to educate people and lost all faith in humanity. Most of them just don't care, as long as they've got their shiny stuff.
- rpdillon 3y ago
  This is precisely my experience as well. I think what's happening is that everybody wants authoritarian control, and in fact prefers it, right up until the authority makes a decision that runs counter to their needs. But by then it's too late. It reminds me of the Newburgh Letter, suggesting that George Washington be declared king after winning the revolutionary war. It's like they missed the whole point of the exercise.
pyrale 3y ago
> If the result of this case is "you can have a monopoly as long as your device and ecosystem are 100% locked down", that's terrible! I guess part of the result is "you can't lock your ecosystem while pretending it's open". As for Apple's situation, it's different enough to warrant a separate lawsuit.
sidlls 3y ago
How is Apple a monopoly? They have a huge competitor in the mobile phone market: Google/Android. I could see arguing that Apple and Google are a duopoly.
tinus_hn 3y ago
Alternatively if you can’t have a closed ecosystem, there’s no incentive in creating the next generation of consoles and console gaming is dead.
kkzz99 3y ago
Will that not change with the new EU rules?
TheBigSalad 3y ago
I agree, but consumers have spoken with their wallets and overwhelmingly prefer a big corporation to have full control.
turquoisevar 3y ago
> If the result of this case is "you can have a monopoly as long as your device and ecosystem are 100% locked down", that's terrible! The rule of thumb, in a very simplified way, is indeed that you can have a monopoly as long as you don’t actively leverage that power to stifle competition. That’s not a result of this case but a result of all the jurisprudence leading up to this case. And to a certain degree, that makes sense. The alternative, making all monopolies illegal, would cause too much havoc because it would affect almost everyone putting out a product. Say, for example, you’re a newcomer in the market of smart thermostats. By definition, you have a monopoly on your thermostats. If monopolies are by definition illegal, regardless of circumstance, you’d have to allow Nest to put software on your thermostat advertising their products. That’s an undesirable outcome, if only because it makes it harder for you to compete in that market.
- gbalduzzi 3y ago
  I don't think this relates to Apple case. Apple doesn't allow other stores to exist on their ecosystem. That's a problematic monopoly, because competitors can not exists. That's different from what you are saying: other companies are allowed to create smart thermostat and compete against Nest
  - oleganza 3y ago
    By the same logic, other phonemakers can come over and make phones. The definition of what is a "market" is arbitrary and subjective. Google may be a monopoly in internet search, but only a small player in "global advertisement". And anyone anywhere is a monopolist in the very narrow definition of the market that includes their own ten customers. What's really important is the power play: your company should strive to hold a comfortable and stable monopoly position in a meaningful market (meaningful to you), while the government's role is to watch over all the businesses so that large numbers of people are not under heavy influence of external forces and not made unhappy. If any product exploits its monopoly by shifting the power from the government or making people sad, then gov steps in and interprets the rules in the way to correct this. Or, the gov is corrupt and helps keep that monopoly going :-)
detourdog 3y ago
Or it”s a great feature depending on your one’s opinion.
shafyy 3y ago
Apple will start allow sideloading, at least in the EU, because they are kind of forced to now by EU regulation.
agloe_dreams 3y ago
It was shown that Apple does have secret deals though. Part of it was that Apple could actually be hurt if some of the bigger players left - Amazon, Netflix, etc. Netflix had a really sharp deal if I'm not mistaken, like 10% compared to the 30% everyone else paid.
ffgjgf1 3y ago
> "you can have a monopoly as long as your device and ecosystem are 100% locked down" No. It’s you can have a monopoly if you treat everyone equally and don’t make secret deals with anyone. This is a generally accepted and non controversial practice in certain areas. Of course not saying that this should be the case for app stores or that Apple is actually treating everyone equally..

scythe 3y ago

Epic v. Apple did find some limitations to Apple's policies, but also found that Epic specifically didn't prove the abuse of monopoly power they wanted to. https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/12/22667694/epic-v-apple-trial-fortnite-judge-yvonne-gonzalez-rogers-final-ruling-injunction-breakdown https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/12/22667694/epic-v-apple-tri...

johnnyanmac 3y ago

>Without finding the same thing in Apple, I doubt this will affect Apple's case much it sounds like the EU is going to slowly push on Apple t do the very thing Epic wants regardless. https://appleinsider.com/articles/23/11/08/apple-admits-third-party-app-stores-in-europe-are-inevitable https://appleinsider.com/articles/23/11/08/apple-admits-thir... So I guess Epic had the right idea but the wrong angle (or simply the wrong judges in the US. Probably a bit of both).

kmeisthax 3y ago
Epic's angle was to get discovery so they could embarrass the shit out of regulatory agencies and legislators by pointing out how they were sleeping on an obvious, decades old antitrust case. It worked. The DMA wouldn't have been a thing without Epic suing.

ec109685 3y ago

Can you really say that was why they lost? A jury found Epic’s case compelling against Google while a judge did not with Apple. Is it a specific reason or a difference of opinion?

nicce 3y ago
They are completely different cases because Apple controls the manufacturing process of every iOS devices in every phase. But Google does not control the whole product lifetime of the every Android phone out there. On the latter monopoly abuse is bigger problem. But if you make, build, control and design everything from bottom to top on the product, then it is less about monopoly abuse. It is just single total product.
- thereddaikon 3y ago
  I and I think many others disagree. Apple's case seems more egregious. Who are they to tell me what I can and can't do with my phone? Walled gardens may be a value add for some but it also spits in the face of first sale doctrine.
  - nicce 3y ago
    I don't like the idea of not owning my own phone either, but you are not exactly forbidden to do whatever you like with your phone. It is more about what are you capable of. This cap of capability has been increasing drastically with technology. Even if you had an old, repairable car, not everyone has capabilities to repair it or modify it to something else in the past. But now even less likely. The question is that how much they hinder on purpose? In the case of Apple, many times it might have been hindering on purpose, but some choices have also valid points. If you remember the old times of Android (and still), Android provides extra-ordinary attack surface for malware what iOS has never had. The distinction between Google and Apple is that you might think that with Android, as there are many manufacturers and brands, you have a choice, but it is just an illusion, if Google "abuses" it's market place with other manufactures. In the case of Apple, it's just Apple. Apple can do whatever they please but is unlikely affecting any other manufacturers or brands. If they want to compete with Apple, they need to be better than Apple. Of course, there is the value of user base. All the companies must try to adapt with the social behavior of people, and if they choose to use iPhone for playing games and listening music, companies must bring games and music on those platforms to be competitive. It is hard to get this userbase. The biggest issue of this particular case with Google were the deals. And other manufactures and companies since Google is not manufacturing the phones itself, but instead makes secret deals about the Play Store and other software. This goes to line of monopoly abuse, since it affects other companies and the illusion of choice, and also hinders innovation.

codingdave 3y ago

It should be noted that this was a jury decision. Juries are instructed on the relevant law, but ultimately they can give back whatever answer they want, for whatever reason they want. So while we can speculate why the answer came back as it did... and that speculation may be correct if the jury was following instructions, we won't know for sure unless someone on the jury chooses to come forward and explain their decision.

ryao 3y ago
Have you ever heard of a judge telling a jury that they are free to think for themselves and give the answer they want? If I recall, there is a term for that, called jury nullification and judges reportedly become upset if attorneys tell their juries about it. If you hear of a judge that encourages juries to think for themselves and answer as they think, rather than prescribing how to think to them, let me know.
- Gene_Parmesan 3y ago
  I'm a lawyer. I've explained this so many times it's starting to bore me, but I have to keep doing it. Jury nullification has never existed as a right in any common law system. It is merely a descriptive term that lawyers use to describe a situation where a jury decides to ignore the law. Lawyers cannot instruct juries on its existence because, in the law, it doesn't exist. It only ever happens because juries cannot be punished for deciding contrary to what the law says; their right to their own reasoning is sacrosanct. It describes a situation where the jury ignores the law, and lawyers can never instruct juries to ignore the law, in any circumstance. Lawyers can never say "I know the law says X but if you ignore that, we can't punish you hint hint." It is a term that describes a crinkle in the law. It does not exist as a right, and juries are NOT entitled to do it, but at the same time, they cannot be punished for doing so. People who whine about jury nullification are one step below 'sovereign citizen' types in terms of driving me nuts with their willful misunderstanding of the law.
crossroadsguy 3y ago
I always wondered how the hell jury system works and how the hell they can put matters like this, or any matter for that matter, in the hands of a jury? Jury system seems so arbitrary to me. There is no explanation - no basis - just “we felt like this”, or rather “whatever, we want to do just do this”.