3 ms·

There seems to be a lot of confusion in this thread regarding why Apple won their case against Epic while Google lost theirs. The key reason Apple won their ca

There seems to be a lot of confusion in this thread regarding why Apple won their case against Epic while Google lost theirs. The key reason Apple won their case is the fact that consumers generally purchase iPhones knowing ahead of time that their app download options are restricted to the App Store. If they disagreed with that restriction then they could have made the choice to purchase another phone instead, but deciding to purchase an iPhone anyway means they "knowingly agreed to the challenged restraint". Under US law the precedent is very clear (established by the Supreme Court case Eastman Kodak v. Image Technical Services and the 9th Circuit case Newcal v. Ikon) that if the consumer knowingly agrees to aftermarket restraints ahead of time then that aftermarket will essentially not be considered a monopoly for antitrust purposes. Source: The Epic v. Apple 9th Circuit ruling (specifically pages 30 to 40 which explains this in detail).

gardenhedge 3y ago
"Knowingly agrees" - that phrase is doing a lot. The average consumer who buys an iPhone has no idea about Apple approved apps or app store restrictions. There also not told about it when purchasing the device or setting it up.
- willseth 3y ago
  Before using the App Store, you have to agree to terms of service. No one reads it, but they could! They are told to look at it and must acknowledge they agree before they can use the service. What else are you going to do, force anyone buying any device with services attached to sit in a little room and interrogate them until you're sure they understand every detail?
  - gardenhedge 3y ago
    In my country chemists are required to give you some information before selling you certain drugs. Something similar could be done.
    - willseth 3y ago
      Do you have Apple Stores in your country? They're almost always packed. Could you imagine how insane it would be to do that? Would you no longer be able buy iPhones online? What you suggest is completely infeasible.
      - gardenhedge 3y ago
        We must be thinking about this different because it seems very straightforward to me for this particular scenario. By the way, I don't care if it slows down Apple's phones sold per minute/hour metric.
- nodamage 3y ago
  For the purposes of US antitrust law the onus is on Epic to prove that consumers did not know, and they did not provide any evidence either way.
surgical_fire 3y ago
> consumers generally purchase iPhones knowing ahead of time that their app download options are restricted to the App Store Even if Apple allowed other stores, consumers would still be able to choose to only download things from the Apple store. Not having that option only harms consumers and benefits Apple who gets to apply an undue tax on everything.
jzl 3y ago
It’s not like there was some centralized decision making here. It’s possible for the two cases to be contradictory, given jury vs bench, and a whole host of other reasons. I think it’s safe to say that there’s still a long road ahead for both cases, and it’s possible that one outcome will affect the other in the appeals process. Not to mention any legislation that might get passed as a result.
- nodamage 3y ago
  I agree that the cases are very different, I'm only speaking to the particulars of the Apple case here. That said I think the jury vs bench is a red herring here given that Apple prevailed at the appeals court level where there is no jury involved.

gardenhedge 3y ago

"Knowingly agrees" - that phrase is doing a lot. The average consumer who buys an iPhone has no idea about Apple approved apps or app store restrictions. There also not told about it when purchasing the device or setting it up.

willseth 3y ago
Before using the App Store, you have to agree to terms of service. No one reads it, but they could! They are told to look at it and must acknowledge they agree before they can use the service. What else are you going to do, force anyone buying any device with services attached to sit in a little room and interrogate them until you're sure they understand every detail?
- gardenhedge 3y ago
  In my country chemists are required to give you some information before selling you certain drugs. Something similar could be done.
  - willseth 3y ago
    Do you have Apple Stores in your country? They're almost always packed. Could you imagine how insane it would be to do that? Would you no longer be able buy iPhones online? What you suggest is completely infeasible.
    - gardenhedge 3y ago
      We must be thinking about this different because it seems very straightforward to me for this particular scenario. By the way, I don't care if it slows down Apple's phones sold per minute/hour metric.
nodamage 3y ago
For the purposes of US antitrust law the onus is on Epic to prove that consumers did not know, and they did not provide any evidence either way.

surgical_fire 3y ago

> consumers generally purchase iPhones knowing ahead of time that their app download options are restricted to the App Store Even if Apple allowed other stores, consumers would still be able to choose to only download things from the Apple store. Not having that option only harms consumers and benefits Apple who gets to apply an undue tax on everything.

jzl 3y ago

It’s not like there was some centralized decision making here. It’s possible for the two cases to be contradictory, given jury vs bench, and a whole host of other reasons. I think it’s safe to say that there’s still a long road ahead for both cases, and it’s possible that one outcome will affect the other in the appeals process. Not to mention any legislation that might get passed as a result.

nodamage 3y ago
I agree that the cases are very different, I'm only speaking to the particulars of the Apple case here. That said I think the jury vs bench is a red herring here given that Apple prevailed at the appeals court level where there is no jury involved.