4 ms·

How is this not all true for Apple and its app store?

yieldcrv 3y ago
there is no sanction in the US for monopolies if the market chooses that, you just cant do anticompetitive things in the process or while you have one so simply being in the exact same position is not enough, the details of exactly how you navigate it are more important with that in mind, Apple is still vulnerable based on their behavior, but its not a slam dunk by mere nature of being in the same position for example, revenue splits were always high in app stores, they didnt jack them up higher and in fact have come down periodically as if there was competition, and the market still chose to use them. app stores have always had heavy handed selective moderation approaches, it didnt get worse its gotten better in some regards. makes it very hard to prove antitrust just because the market kept subjecting itself to these
- tomComb 3y ago
  But they are not in the exact same position - Apple has a much tighter grip on their App Store than Google, and they don’t even need to: they make money selling the devices.
  - StressedDev 3y ago
    Apple’s app store policies product users. One thing Apple has done which is very good is regulate iPhone app decelopers.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - dgreensp 3y ago
    I'm sure that's how Google feels! "Unfairly competing in the 'Android app distribution market'?? We are Android!!" This is one of those legal situations I really can't wrap my head around, though. The point is the situations are different enough it would have to be a different legal framework for Apple's situation, and a different day in court. I think a ruling like this is good. We need more checks on Google, Apple, Amazon, etc.
clnq 3y ago
Well, it’s common law, not civil law. So lawyers, juries, judges and so on all heavily influenced the Epic Games v Apple outcome, as they did in Epic Games v Google. The next time someone sues Apple for this, there will be precedent. But then again, Epic Games v Apple might be used as precedent in Google’s appeal. EDIT/correction: Apparently, only appellate and higher courts can set precedent for case law. So it might take a bit longer for Epic Games v Google to set a precedent, while Epic Games v Apple has already been dealt by a higher court. The next time someone sues Apple, there might not yet be precedent set by Epic Games v Google. In theory. I’m not an expert on this. But this doesn’t happen as often in civil law countries I lived in (EU), where the law doesn’t apply before it’s written, and when it’s written, it applies universally. Things will even out in the US over time, I think. There will be case law for what’s allowed and what is not for everyone.
- Kranar 3y ago
  >The next time someone sues Apple for this, there will be precedent. Trial courts don't set precedent, only an appellate court or higher can set a precedent, and that precedent is only binding on lower courts. Since trial courts are the lowest courts, their decisions are not binding on any future trial and as a general matter do not set any kind of precedent.
  - clnq 3y ago
    Ah, thanks for the additional knowledge. I’ll edit my comment for clarification. Epic Games v Google is going to appellate now, though, isn’t it?
  - troad 3y ago
    It's kind of wild to see someone confidently posting legal analysis while obviously lacking an understanding of - uh - precedent.
    - clnq 3y ago
      I clearly stated “I’m not an expert on this” and publicly corrected my mistake to not mislead readers. Don’t fulminate, my brother, see comment guidelines on HN for more info. There’s need to act like this and your comment doesn’t contribute anything to the discussion.
MBCook 3y ago
I think Madeofpalk’s comment explains the (possible) issue very well. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38608075 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38608075 Apple has always been “here’s the rules, follow or go away”. Google was “we’re open!” except they kept undermining that.
- deepsun 3y ago
  It doesn't matter for US legal system how their marketing call that. It's either legal or not.
  - somesortofthing 3y ago
    Presumably there was a practical side to the difference in approach beyond marketing.
    - MBCook 3y ago
      Right. Apple never undermined any competitive App Store, they just didn’t allow them. That is legal according to the ruling on the Epic vs Apple trial.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - enraged_camel 3y ago
    It did matter to the jury, though.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ksherlock 3y ago
Epic vs Apple was decided by a judge. (The judge suggested a trial by jury but both Epic and Apple declined.) Since the judge decided it there's a written record and rationale for the decisions. Epic's argument was "Apple has a monopoly on the Apple App Store market". Apple's argument was "we don't have a monopoly on the games market". The Judge's decision was: "Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the digital mobile gaming transaction market". This was later appealed and the ruling was upheld. Epic vs Google was decided by a jury and God only knows what they were thinking. (All jury notes, doodles, etc are destroyed afterwards).

there is no sanction in the US for monopolies if the market chooses that, you just cant do anticompetitive things in the process or while you have one so simply being in the exact same position is not enough, the details of exactly how you navigate it are more important with that in mind, Apple is still vulnerable based on their behavior, but its not a slam dunk by mere nature of being in the same position for example, revenue splits were always high in app stores, they didnt jack them up higher and in fact have come down periodically as if there was competition, and the market still chose to use them. app stores have always had heavy handed selective moderation approaches, it didnt get worse its gotten better in some regards. makes it very hard to prove antitrust just because the market kept subjecting itself to these

tomComb 3y ago
But they are not in the exact same position - Apple has a much tighter grip on their App Store than Google, and they don’t even need to: they make money selling the devices.
- StressedDev 3y ago
  Apple’s app store policies product users. One thing Apple has done which is very good is regulate iPhone app decelopers.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- dgreensp 3y ago
  I'm sure that's how Google feels! "Unfairly competing in the 'Android app distribution market'?? We are Android!!" This is one of those legal situations I really can't wrap my head around, though. The point is the situations are different enough it would have to be a different legal framework for Apple's situation, and a different day in court. I think a ruling like this is good. We need more checks on Google, Apple, Amazon, etc.

clnq 3y ago

Well, it’s common law, not civil law. So lawyers, juries, judges and so on all heavily influenced the Epic Games v Apple outcome, as they did in Epic Games v Google. The next time someone sues Apple for this, there will be precedent. But then again, Epic Games v Apple might be used as precedent in Google’s appeal. EDIT/correction: Apparently, only appellate and higher courts can set precedent for case law. So it might take a bit longer for Epic Games v Google to set a precedent, while Epic Games v Apple has already been dealt by a higher court. The next time someone sues Apple, there might not yet be precedent set by Epic Games v Google. In theory. I’m not an expert on this. But this doesn’t happen as often in civil law countries I lived in (EU), where the law doesn’t apply before it’s written, and when it’s written, it applies universally. Things will even out in the US over time, I think. There will be case law for what’s allowed and what is not for everyone.

Kranar 3y ago
>The next time someone sues Apple for this, there will be precedent. Trial courts don't set precedent, only an appellate court or higher can set a precedent, and that precedent is only binding on lower courts. Since trial courts are the lowest courts, their decisions are not binding on any future trial and as a general matter do not set any kind of precedent.
- clnq 3y ago
  Ah, thanks for the additional knowledge. I’ll edit my comment for clarification. Epic Games v Google is going to appellate now, though, isn’t it?
- troad 3y ago
  It's kind of wild to see someone confidently posting legal analysis while obviously lacking an understanding of - uh - precedent.
  - clnq 3y ago
    I clearly stated “I’m not an expert on this” and publicly corrected my mistake to not mislead readers. Don’t fulminate, my brother, see comment guidelines on HN for more info. There’s need to act like this and your comment doesn’t contribute anything to the discussion.

MBCook 3y ago

I think Madeofpalk’s comment explains the (possible) issue very well. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38608075 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38608075 Apple has always been “here’s the rules, follow or go away”. Google was “we’re open!” except they kept undermining that.

deepsun 3y ago
It doesn't matter for US legal system how their marketing call that. It's either legal or not.
- somesortofthing 3y ago
  Presumably there was a practical side to the difference in approach beyond marketing.
  - MBCook 3y ago
    Right. Apple never undermined any competitive App Store, they just didn’t allow them. That is legal according to the ruling on the Epic vs Apple trial.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- enraged_camel 3y ago
  It did matter to the jury, though.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ksherlock 3y ago

Epic vs Apple was decided by a judge. (The judge suggested a trial by jury but both Epic and Apple declined.) Since the judge decided it there's a written record and rationale for the decisions. Epic's argument was "Apple has a monopoly on the Apple App Store market". Apple's argument was "we don't have a monopoly on the games market". The Judge's decision was: "Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the digital mobile gaming transaction market". This was later appealed and the ruling was upheld. Epic vs Google was decided by a jury and God only knows what they were thinking. (All jury notes, doodles, etc are destroyed afterwards).