10 ms·

> 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

> 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.
      - kmeisthax 3y ago
        The US actually had it right when the antitrust laws were written. The Libertarian Party and Austrian Economists fucked it up for the rest of us by convincing everyone that "no, actually, antitrust is just about prices and consumer welfare, not control". This interpretation was ahistorical and illiberal, but it became history regardless, like to the point where Originalism as applied to antitrust law is derided as "hipster antitrust". America's failings in economic development and infrastructure are not strictly caused by monopolization of the economy. South Korea's economy is run by like three chaebols[0] but they have working infrastructure. The problem with America is that we have a government that doesn't like to spend money, plus a group of illiberal, antidemocratic NIMBYs who make budgeting impossible by jacking up the cost of projects after they've already been estimated and committed to. Since I already shat on the Libertarian Party, let me shit on the Democratic Party next. California and New York have legal climates that are unusually hospitable to NIMBYism. They figured out how to weaponize environmental review laws, to the point where actual reports about environmental infrastructure necessary for mitigating or surviving climate change say that we can't build the infrastructure because it'll get tied down in NIMBY red tape. In California this manifests as delays, cancellations, and massive wind farms in Wyoming; in New York it's cost overruns as bribes are paid to whoever can look the other way to get things passed through. Either way we can't build shit in our most populated states. If there's a root cause for all of this, it's "vetocracy". In a democracy, when a decision is made, the people on the losing end of this decision agree to lose. However, since at least the 1970s, there has been several parallel movements to roll back decisions already made and form new mechanisms to prevent new decisions from being implemented. Antitrust was a rollback, NIMBYism was a new mechanism, but in either case, we're being dragged out of our brief experiment with liberal democracy by people who stand to gain from it. [0] The Korean for Zaibatsu[1] [1] The Japanese for Chaebol[0]
        rpmisms 3y ago
        Just to defend the libertarians briefly, no legal bullying tactics means trusts have a significantly harder time forming and maintaining their monopolies.
        3y ago
    - brandensilva 3y ago
      Just a slight clarification. The first Apple iPhone did not have an app store.
      - meepmorp 3y ago
        I think what they meant could be rephrased as, "for as long as there's been an App Store, it's been part of the OS. "
        oarsinsync 3y ago
        Which I believe is also false. The jailbroken appstores predate the apple appstore.
        kohlerm 3y ago
        What does thad mean "part of the OS"? It is not built into the kernel, and is therefore no part of the OS. I do not see why the same would not apply to Apple. But maybe the US legal system is just totally broken ...
        meepmorp 3y ago
        There's plenty of parts of an OS that aren't the kernel.
        ClumsyPilot 3y ago
        You are playing semantics - "He is not a slave, he is an endantured servant, nothing wrong here"
        meepmorp 3y ago
        I'm rephrasing another person's statement to clarify what (I believe) they meant. Separately, that's kind of a gross choice of comparisons.
      - godzillabrennus 3y ago
        It was added to the original iPhone with iPhone OS 2.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > 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. "Apple doesn't offer an App Store market" is just assuming the conclusion. Nobody expects you to get competing app stores from Apple -- you get them from Apple's competitors. What Apple ought to be in trouble for is interfering with their operating system customers' ability to patronize competing app stores.
      - batty_alex 3y ago
        > What Apple ought to be in trouble for is interfering with their operating system customers' ability to patronize competing app stores. This isn’t illegal. Equivalent to a “No outside food and drink” sign or not letting randos sell things in your own storefront It’s not illegal just because you don’t agree with the philosophy of a closed ecosystem
        Wowfunhappy 3y ago
        > This isn’t illegal. Equivalent to a “No outside food and drink” sign or not letting randos sell things in your own storefront In that case, someone else owns the storefront. I own my phone, not Apple. If Apple would like to claim that I merely lease my phone, they need to update all their marketing so it isn't misleading. They should also be on the hook for repairs (without AppleCare), and all the other responsibilities that typically accompany a leased product.
        diffeomorphism 3y ago
        Obviously not equivalent.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > Equivalent to a “No outside food and drink” sign or not letting randos sell things in your own storefront Your phone isn't Apple's storefront. Their storefront is. Prohibiting their customers from patronizing any other store is clearly anti-competitive. > It’s not illegal just because you don’t agree with the philosophy of a closed ecosystem It's not legal just because you agree with the philosophy of a closed ecosystem. "A closed ecosystem" is inherently anti-competitive and should be illegal.
  - MBCook 3y ago
    But it wouldn’t because I don’t think that’s what it means. They appear to have ruled that Google has a monopoly because they’ve been squashing everyone else who should have been able to make an App Store by Google’s policies. Apple isn’t squashing anyone, they just don’t allow it in the first place. So I don’t think this would apply to Apple because of the line of reasoning. I know most people on hacker news think Apple should be forced to allow alternate app stores, but I don’t think this ruling can be used for that. It appears you would need something else.
    - frumper 3y ago
      Apple actively squashes attempts to jailbreak the phone which allows for additional app stores. The fact they aren’t mainstream alternatives is because Apple takes actions to stop the competition.
lcw 3y ago
I mean sure, but in a practical sense the company becoming the only seller of gasoline happened through anti-competitive behavior and not just because they have a superior gasoline product. I think that two app stores controlling 100% of distribution and setting their rates similarly feels pretty anti-competitive.
- MBCook 3y ago
  If two companies end up in that situation without breaking the law, then there’s nothing wrong with it legally by definition. It becomes an issue for the legislature to fix. Not the courts.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jncfhnb 3y ago
If we see fair competition reducing fees massively in android vs Apple, Apple’s abuse will be clear
- inlined 3y ago
  Unless Apple has a most favored nation clause—another legal practice that should be outlawed
- nolist_policy 3y ago
  This. It isn't productive to think about this like "Google lost, Epic won" or "Google lost, Apple won". Rather think about this as Google lost, Android won. If this ruling goes trough, Android becomes an more open platform by default. Think about it: Steam, itch.io and GOG stores on Android.
- amadeuspagel 3y ago
  What we will see is that you will need a different app store for every game on android, while on iOS you can get them all from the App Store. The only thing that will be clear is that Apple got it right the first time by not allowing other app stores.
  - jncfhnb 3y ago
    This isn’t what happens on PC And there’s no reason to think it will happen here. You might have a few stores but they will largely compete with each other, reduce prices, and offer freebies. Fuck the App Store. I want to use steam.
    - amadeuspagel 3y ago
      It's exactly what happened on PC. Want to install Starcraft? Have to use Battle.net. Want to install Fortnite? Have to use the Epic Store.
      - jncfhnb 3y ago
erichocean 3y ago
> Only the abuse of a monopoly position to advance your interest in other markets is illegal. Two markets ARE at play for consumers: mobile phone hardware (with OS) and mobile app stores/apps. Apple is using it's monopoly in the former to create/enforce a monopoly in the latter. You can tell there are two separate markets because you, the consumer, make (at least) two separate purchases to participate.
- skydhash 3y ago
  In the case of Apple, it's the same market. Because the only way to get access to the App Store is through an iPhone bought from Apple. And the only way to run an iOS app is with the same iPhone.
  - kmeisthax 3y ago
    Yes, but this is only because Apple designed the phone that way. Apple should not be immune from antitrust law purely because they decided not to allow competition.
    - skydhash 3y ago
      They do allow competition. Build your own phone and your own app store.
      - Qwertious 3y ago
        That's like saying that everything in the US is legal, since you're perfectly able to renounce your citizenship and move to Somalia where there aren't any laws.
      - cycomanic 3y ago
        So by that argument if MS would have disallowed installation of any other browser it would have been OK, because competitor could just build their own operating system. The whole argument is that Apple is leveraging the position in one market (hardware) to gain advantage in another market. Your answer is "competitors can always build their own hardware" don't you see that this is a nonsensical argument?
downWidOutaFite 3y ago
ipso facto, if the monopolist doesn't even let a market exist then by definition they're not abusing it.
blackguardx 3y ago
What about this landmark case: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alcoa https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alcoa
tw04 3y ago
>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. I mean, it's far more than that. Most importantly: >Historically they have been held to include exclusive dealing, price discrimination, refusing to supply an essential facility, product tying and predatory pricing. While IANAL - even as a plebe I can pretty easily tie refusing to allow third party app stores to both refusing to supply an essential facility, and product tying. Why should my choice of hardware or OS dictate the apps I'm allowed to install? That's 100% product tying. It would be one thing if third parties just had no interest in supplying an alternative app store. It's another thing entirely to lock them out via your monopoly on the ecosystem.
- throwaway17_17 3y ago
  Some specificity is required when discussing legal concepts like tying and essential facility. For tying, while not a firm ‘rule’ the most common application of tying is limited to the ‘tied’ product being from another market when compared to the ‘tying’ product. Also, the current appellate court standard (worded semi-informally) is that a tying of products raises antitrust concerns when it restricts competition AND provides no benefit to consumers. As to essential facility, the most impactful factor for the plaintiff (as in the hardest burden for the government to overcome to establish monopolistic abuse) is as follows: the plaintiff is REQUIRED to prove that the compelled permission to competitors to utilize the “facility” does not interfere or allow for detrimental effects of the dominant firm’s ability to serve its own customers. Apple’s historic marketing speak and other ‘on the record’ statements about the app store’s exclusivity ensuring tight control for the security of Apple’s customers is directly written to advance defenses to these two claims. You can certainly argue that Apple’s conduct is characterized as abuse of monopoly, but there arguments against that can also be compelling. The above IS NOT and should not be considered legal advice.
- TerrifiedMouse 3y ago
  > Why should my choice of hardware or OS dictate the apps I'm allowed to install? Do you own an iPhone? I suspect that the vast majority of people complaining about Apple's "lock down" are people who don't even use an iPhone. If you do own an iPhone ... why the heck did you buy one knowing its limitations. It's like buying a pink shirt when you hate pink, despite the availability of shirts of other colors, then going to the manufacturer to complain about the color.
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> Monopolies aren’t illegal. Only the abuse of a monopoly position to advance your interest in other markets is illegal. So for example, if you had a dominant market position for a particular category of phone operating systems, and you wanted to advance your interest in the market for app distribution...
- wilg 3y ago
  Seems like you could make that apply to any product right? If you can define the market as literally just your own product? Like if Joe's Coffee has a dominant market position in selling Joe's Coffee it would be monopolistic to use that to advantage to sell donuts?
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    There is a difference between selling donuts in the coffee shop and preventing anyone who drinks your coffee from buying a competitor's donuts.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - rezonant 3y ago
      And, to extend the analogy, paying the coffee patrons you think might consider opening a competitive donut shop next door to avoid that from happening (ie Google).
      - Qwertious 3y ago
        "Coffee patrons" would be consumers - literally paying consumers to not shop at your competitor is just offering extremely low (i.e. negative) prices, which may be perfectly legal depending on the context. Paying off gamedevs would be analogous to paying off dough-makers (or doughnut bakers?) to only supply your store, and not your competitor, which would be super illegal. AMD sued Intel for very similar activity, and won.
cycomanic 3y ago
There has been several prominent cases where Apple removed some app from the store just to bring out an app in the same space. Also Apple products don't have the same restrictions as others when in comes to ads, api etc. To me that sounds quite clearly like like they are abusing their monopoly position.
- Sander_Marechal 3y ago
  Perhaps, but that is not what Epic vs Apple was about.
rezonant 3y ago
That doesn't make the premise any less ridiculous; it's only illegal to pressure people not to make a competitor, if you make it technically impossible to have a competitor, that's all fine. Being charitable, these are two different juries. It's a little annoying that, in a country where iOS is the dominant OS, the iOS monopolist is exonerated and the non-iOS monopolist is recognized- nonetheless this is still a big win for consumer rights.
nolok 3y ago
> They decided Google has an illegal tie between its Google Play app store and its Google Play Billing payment services, too. Just this part alone would applies to Apple the same way
- sbuk 3y ago
  And the Judge found in Epics favour on that point. Apple have a temporary reprieve, but there is an injunction ordering them to allow developers to advertise other means of payment.
mschuster91 3y ago
> Monopolies aren’t illegal. Only the abuse of a monopoly position to advance your interest in other markets is illegal. It should be though. Unchecked monopolies, duopolies and oligopolies are antithetical to a free market economy - they stifle competition and make the market un-free as well: - for employees, they're bad because monopolies (or cartels) suppress their freedom to go to a better employer. The best case to look at is actually the tech sector, where large corporations colluded to keep compensation down [1], but there's also more evil cases like WalMart that go as far as underpay their employees so badly that they can only survive on food stamps [6]. - for suppliers, they're bad (in the correct term of a monopsony) because having only a few (or only one) buyer depresses their ability to get fair prices for products, e.g. in agriculture [2], or in WalMart [3][4] - for customers, they're bad because they can't (realistically) go to alternatives, especially if the monopoly in question has extinguished competitors by advantages of scale - again, WalMart is a nasty example [5]. - for society as a whole, they're bad because, again, large actors like WalMart can devastate vibrant community centers like malls, leading to dereliction of entire neighborhoods in a domino effect [7], and eventually the erosion of local tax bases, leading to funding issues for basic government services. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L... [2] https://usceconreview.com/2022/07/06/america-where-even-sustenance-is-monopolized/ https://usceconreview.com/2022/07/06/america-where-even-sust... [3] https://www.businessinsider.com/wal-marts-suppliers-feel-pressure-2015-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/wal-marts-suppliers-feel-pre... [4] https://www.wsj.com/articles/wal-mart-ratchets-up-pressure-on-suppliers-to-cut-prices-1427845404 https://www.wsj.com/articles/wal-mart-ratchets-up-pressure-o... [5] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/walmart-effect.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/walmart-effect.asp [6] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/walmart-and-mcdonalds-among-top-employers-of-medicaid-and-food-stamp-beneficiaries.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/walmart-and-mcdonalds-among-... [7] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/20/how-mall-closings-in-america-hurt-the-towns-depending-on-them.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/20/how-mall-closings-in-america...
- naasking 3y ago
  > It should be though. Unchecked monopolies, duopolies and oligopolies are antithetical to a free market economy - they stifle competition and make the market un-free as well Some markets only support a natural monopoly though. If you forcefully break up every monopoly you'll always be in court, because after winning the case and breaking up a company, the next natural monopoly will form within a few years. The best compromise is to only go after them if they're abusing their position. I agree the standards for that are too low though.
red-iron-pine 3y ago
> Monopolies aren’t illegal. I think there are a lot of laws about this. Guys get nicknames like "The Trust Buster" for going after them.

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.
    - kmeisthax 3y ago
      The US actually had it right when the antitrust laws were written. The Libertarian Party and Austrian Economists fucked it up for the rest of us by convincing everyone that "no, actually, antitrust is just about prices and consumer welfare, not control". This interpretation was ahistorical and illiberal, but it became history regardless, like to the point where Originalism as applied to antitrust law is derided as "hipster antitrust". America's failings in economic development and infrastructure are not strictly caused by monopolization of the economy. South Korea's economy is run by like three chaebols[0] but they have working infrastructure. The problem with America is that we have a government that doesn't like to spend money, plus a group of illiberal, antidemocratic NIMBYs who make budgeting impossible by jacking up the cost of projects after they've already been estimated and committed to. Since I already shat on the Libertarian Party, let me shit on the Democratic Party next. California and New York have legal climates that are unusually hospitable to NIMBYism. They figured out how to weaponize environmental review laws, to the point where actual reports about environmental infrastructure necessary for mitigating or surviving climate change say that we can't build the infrastructure because it'll get tied down in NIMBY red tape. In California this manifests as delays, cancellations, and massive wind farms in Wyoming; in New York it's cost overruns as bribes are paid to whoever can look the other way to get things passed through. Either way we can't build shit in our most populated states. If there's a root cause for all of this, it's "vetocracy". In a democracy, when a decision is made, the people on the losing end of this decision agree to lose. However, since at least the 1970s, there has been several parallel movements to roll back decisions already made and form new mechanisms to prevent new decisions from being implemented. Antitrust was a rollback, NIMBYism was a new mechanism, but in either case, we're being dragged out of our brief experiment with liberal democracy by people who stand to gain from it. [0] The Korean for Zaibatsu[1] [1] The Japanese for Chaebol[0]
      - rpmisms 3y ago
        Just to defend the libertarians briefly, no legal bullying tactics means trusts have a significantly harder time forming and maintaining their monopolies.
        3y ago
  - brandensilva 3y ago
    Just a slight clarification. The first Apple iPhone did not have an app store.
    - meepmorp 3y ago
      I think what they meant could be rephrased as, "for as long as there's been an App Store, it's been part of the OS. "
      - oarsinsync 3y ago
        Which I believe is also false. The jailbroken appstores predate the apple appstore.
      - kohlerm 3y ago
        What does thad mean "part of the OS"? It is not built into the kernel, and is therefore no part of the OS. I do not see why the same would not apply to Apple. But maybe the US legal system is just totally broken ...
        meepmorp 3y ago
        There's plenty of parts of an OS that aren't the kernel.
      - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
        You are playing semantics - "He is not a slave, he is an endantured servant, nothing wrong here"
        meepmorp 3y ago
        I'm rephrasing another person's statement to clarify what (I believe) they meant. Separately, that's kind of a gross choice of comparisons.
    - godzillabrennus 3y ago
      It was added to the original iPhone with iPhone OS 2.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > 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. "Apple doesn't offer an App Store market" is just assuming the conclusion. Nobody expects you to get competing app stores from Apple -- you get them from Apple's competitors. What Apple ought to be in trouble for is interfering with their operating system customers' ability to patronize competing app stores.
    - batty_alex 3y ago
      > What Apple ought to be in trouble for is interfering with their operating system customers' ability to patronize competing app stores. This isn’t illegal. Equivalent to a “No outside food and drink” sign or not letting randos sell things in your own storefront It’s not illegal just because you don’t agree with the philosophy of a closed ecosystem
      - Wowfunhappy 3y ago
        > This isn’t illegal. Equivalent to a “No outside food and drink” sign or not letting randos sell things in your own storefront In that case, someone else owns the storefront. I own my phone, not Apple. If Apple would like to claim that I merely lease my phone, they need to update all their marketing so it isn't misleading. They should also be on the hook for repairs (without AppleCare), and all the other responsibilities that typically accompany a leased product.
      - diffeomorphism 3y ago
        Obviously not equivalent.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > Equivalent to a “No outside food and drink” sign or not letting randos sell things in your own storefront Your phone isn't Apple's storefront. Their storefront is. Prohibiting their customers from patronizing any other store is clearly anti-competitive. > It’s not illegal just because you don’t agree with the philosophy of a closed ecosystem It's not legal just because you agree with the philosophy of a closed ecosystem. "A closed ecosystem" is inherently anti-competitive and should be illegal.
- MBCook 3y ago
  But it wouldn’t because I don’t think that’s what it means. They appear to have ruled that Google has a monopoly because they’ve been squashing everyone else who should have been able to make an App Store by Google’s policies. Apple isn’t squashing anyone, they just don’t allow it in the first place. So I don’t think this would apply to Apple because of the line of reasoning. I know most people on hacker news think Apple should be forced to allow alternate app stores, but I don’t think this ruling can be used for that. It appears you would need something else.
  - frumper 3y ago
    Apple actively squashes attempts to jailbreak the phone which allows for additional app stores. The fact they aren’t mainstream alternatives is because Apple takes actions to stop the competition.

lcw 3y ago

I mean sure, but in a practical sense the company becoming the only seller of gasoline happened through anti-competitive behavior and not just because they have a superior gasoline product. I think that two app stores controlling 100% of distribution and setting their rates similarly feels pretty anti-competitive.

MBCook 3y ago
If two companies end up in that situation without breaking the law, then there’s nothing wrong with it legally by definition. It becomes an issue for the legislature to fix. Not the courts.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

jncfhnb 3y ago

If we see fair competition reducing fees massively in android vs Apple, Apple’s abuse will be clear

inlined 3y ago
Unless Apple has a most favored nation clause—another legal practice that should be outlawed
nolist_policy 3y ago
This. It isn't productive to think about this like "Google lost, Epic won" or "Google lost, Apple won". Rather think about this as Google lost, Android won. If this ruling goes trough, Android becomes an more open platform by default. Think about it: Steam, itch.io and GOG stores on Android.
amadeuspagel 3y ago
What we will see is that you will need a different app store for every game on android, while on iOS you can get them all from the App Store. The only thing that will be clear is that Apple got it right the first time by not allowing other app stores.
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  This isn’t what happens on PC And there’s no reason to think it will happen here. You might have a few stores but they will largely compete with each other, reduce prices, and offer freebies. Fuck the App Store. I want to use steam.
  - amadeuspagel 3y ago
    It's exactly what happened on PC. Want to install Starcraft? Have to use Battle.net. Want to install Fortnite? Have to use the Epic Store.
    - jncfhnb 3y ago

erichocean 3y ago

> Only the abuse of a monopoly position to advance your interest in other markets is illegal. Two markets ARE at play for consumers: mobile phone hardware (with OS) and mobile app stores/apps. Apple is using it's monopoly in the former to create/enforce a monopoly in the latter. You can tell there are two separate markets because you, the consumer, make (at least) two separate purchases to participate.

skydhash 3y ago
In the case of Apple, it's the same market. Because the only way to get access to the App Store is through an iPhone bought from Apple. And the only way to run an iOS app is with the same iPhone.
- kmeisthax 3y ago
  Yes, but this is only because Apple designed the phone that way. Apple should not be immune from antitrust law purely because they decided not to allow competition.
  - skydhash 3y ago
    They do allow competition. Build your own phone and your own app store.
    - Qwertious 3y ago
      That's like saying that everything in the US is legal, since you're perfectly able to renounce your citizenship and move to Somalia where there aren't any laws.
    - cycomanic 3y ago
      So by that argument if MS would have disallowed installation of any other browser it would have been OK, because competitor could just build their own operating system. The whole argument is that Apple is leveraging the position in one market (hardware) to gain advantage in another market. Your answer is "competitors can always build their own hardware" don't you see that this is a nonsensical argument?

downWidOutaFite 3y ago

ipso facto, if the monopolist doesn't even let a market exist then by definition they're not abusing it.

blackguardx 3y ago

What about this landmark case: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alcoa https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alcoa

tw04 3y ago

>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. I mean, it's far more than that. Most importantly: >Historically they have been held to include exclusive dealing, price discrimination, refusing to supply an essential facility, product tying and predatory pricing. While IANAL - even as a plebe I can pretty easily tie refusing to allow third party app stores to both refusing to supply an essential facility, and product tying. Why should my choice of hardware or OS dictate the apps I'm allowed to install? That's 100% product tying. It would be one thing if third parties just had no interest in supplying an alternative app store. It's another thing entirely to lock them out via your monopoly on the ecosystem.

throwaway17_17 3y ago
Some specificity is required when discussing legal concepts like tying and essential facility. For tying, while not a firm ‘rule’ the most common application of tying is limited to the ‘tied’ product being from another market when compared to the ‘tying’ product. Also, the current appellate court standard (worded semi-informally) is that a tying of products raises antitrust concerns when it restricts competition AND provides no benefit to consumers. As to essential facility, the most impactful factor for the plaintiff (as in the hardest burden for the government to overcome to establish monopolistic abuse) is as follows: the plaintiff is REQUIRED to prove that the compelled permission to competitors to utilize the “facility” does not interfere or allow for detrimental effects of the dominant firm’s ability to serve its own customers. Apple’s historic marketing speak and other ‘on the record’ statements about the app store’s exclusivity ensuring tight control for the security of Apple’s customers is directly written to advance defenses to these two claims. You can certainly argue that Apple’s conduct is characterized as abuse of monopoly, but there arguments against that can also be compelling. The above IS NOT and should not be considered legal advice.
TerrifiedMouse 3y ago
> Why should my choice of hardware or OS dictate the apps I'm allowed to install? Do you own an iPhone? I suspect that the vast majority of people complaining about Apple's "lock down" are people who don't even use an iPhone. If you do own an iPhone ... why the heck did you buy one knowing its limitations. It's like buying a pink shirt when you hate pink, despite the availability of shirts of other colors, then going to the manufacturer to complain about the color.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> Monopolies aren’t illegal. Only the abuse of a monopoly position to advance your interest in other markets is illegal. So for example, if you had a dominant market position for a particular category of phone operating systems, and you wanted to advance your interest in the market for app distribution...

wilg 3y ago
Seems like you could make that apply to any product right? If you can define the market as literally just your own product? Like if Joe's Coffee has a dominant market position in selling Joe's Coffee it would be monopolistic to use that to advantage to sell donuts?
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  There is a difference between selling donuts in the coffee shop and preventing anyone who drinks your coffee from buying a competitor's donuts.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - rezonant 3y ago
    And, to extend the analogy, paying the coffee patrons you think might consider opening a competitive donut shop next door to avoid that from happening (ie Google).
    - Qwertious 3y ago
      "Coffee patrons" would be consumers - literally paying consumers to not shop at your competitor is just offering extremely low (i.e. negative) prices, which may be perfectly legal depending on the context. Paying off gamedevs would be analogous to paying off dough-makers (or doughnut bakers?) to only supply your store, and not your competitor, which would be super illegal. AMD sued Intel for very similar activity, and won.

cycomanic 3y ago

There has been several prominent cases where Apple removed some app from the store just to bring out an app in the same space. Also Apple products don't have the same restrictions as others when in comes to ads, api etc. To me that sounds quite clearly like like they are abusing their monopoly position.

Sander_Marechal 3y ago
Perhaps, but that is not what Epic vs Apple was about.

rezonant 3y ago

That doesn't make the premise any less ridiculous; it's only illegal to pressure people not to make a competitor, if you make it technically impossible to have a competitor, that's all fine. Being charitable, these are two different juries. It's a little annoying that, in a country where iOS is the dominant OS, the iOS monopolist is exonerated and the non-iOS monopolist is recognized- nonetheless this is still a big win for consumer rights.

nolok 3y ago

> They decided Google has an illegal tie between its Google Play app store and its Google Play Billing payment services, too. Just this part alone would applies to Apple the same way

sbuk 3y ago
And the Judge found in Epics favour on that point. Apple have a temporary reprieve, but there is an injunction ordering them to allow developers to advertise other means of payment.

mschuster91 3y ago

> Monopolies aren’t illegal. Only the abuse of a monopoly position to advance your interest in other markets is illegal. It should be though. Unchecked monopolies, duopolies and oligopolies are antithetical to a free market economy - they stifle competition and make the market un-free as well: - for employees, they're bad because monopolies (or cartels) suppress their freedom to go to a better employer. The best case to look at is actually the tech sector, where large corporations colluded to keep compensation down [1], but there's also more evil cases like WalMart that go as far as underpay their employees so badly that they can only survive on food stamps [6]. - for suppliers, they're bad (in the correct term of a monopsony) because having only a few (or only one) buyer depresses their ability to get fair prices for products, e.g. in agriculture [2], or in WalMart [3][4] - for customers, they're bad because they can't (realistically) go to alternatives, especially if the monopoly in question has extinguished competitors by advantages of scale - again, WalMart is a nasty example [5]. - for society as a whole, they're bad because, again, large actors like WalMart can devastate vibrant community centers like malls, leading to dereliction of entire neighborhoods in a domino effect [7], and eventually the erosion of local tax bases, leading to funding issues for basic government services. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L... [2] https://usceconreview.com/2022/07/06/america-where-even-sustenance-is-monopolized/ https://usceconreview.com/2022/07/06/america-where-even-sust... [3] https://www.businessinsider.com/wal-marts-suppliers-feel-pressure-2015-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/wal-marts-suppliers-feel-pre... [4] https://www.wsj.com/articles/wal-mart-ratchets-up-pressure-on-suppliers-to-cut-prices-1427845404 https://www.wsj.com/articles/wal-mart-ratchets-up-pressure-o... [5] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/walmart-effect.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/walmart-effect.asp [6] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/walmart-and-mcdonalds-among-top-employers-of-medicaid-and-food-stamp-beneficiaries.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/walmart-and-mcdonalds-among-... [7] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/20/how-mall-closings-in-america-hurt-the-towns-depending-on-them.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/20/how-mall-closings-in-america...

naasking 3y ago
> It should be though. Unchecked monopolies, duopolies and oligopolies are antithetical to a free market economy - they stifle competition and make the market un-free as well Some markets only support a natural monopoly though. If you forcefully break up every monopoly you'll always be in court, because after winning the case and breaking up a company, the next natural monopoly will form within a few years. The best compromise is to only go after them if they're abusing their position. I agree the standards for that are too low though.

red-iron-pine 3y ago

> Monopolies aren’t illegal. I think there are a lot of laws about this. Guys get nicknames like "The Trust Buster" for going after them.