3 ms·

> Is it just me or does this argument seem insanely flimsy? I'm not sure if it is just you, but both the district court and appellate court are on board with i

> Is it just me or does this argument seem insanely flimsy? I'm not sure if it is just you, but both the district court and appellate court are on board with it. And honestly, I can see why. Apple argued that they provide a bunch of services and access to their IP in exchange for $99/year and a commission over the sales. The courts have deemed that an acceptable business model. The district court was hemming and hawing a bit over the actual commission rate being set at 30% (15% for small devs) and at the fact that some developers essentially subsidize others but ultimately didn’t make a ruling on any of that in part because Epic didn’t bring it up as an argument. The appellate court, however, went a step further and stated in no uncertain terms that it was kosher. If you think about it, it makes sense. We see similar business models with differential pricing all over in commerce for various reasons. Sometimes, it’s for goodwill, sometimes, to reach customers that would otherwise be harder to convert into a sale, sometimes, it’s based on usage and who puts the most strain on a system and sometimes, it’s for more egalitarian reasons. Military discounts, student discounts or even free usage, senior discounts, teacher discounts, first responders, etc. These are all examples of differential pricing. In particular, the student stuff is interesting because the philosophy there seems to be that as long as you don’t make revenue from it (commercial use), “we” don’t need to make a profit from you. > It’s like a toll road arguing "no, driving on the road is free of course, we just charge at the entrance and exit for the privilege of looking at the toll road". I don’t think the analogy is apt, but we see similar stuff on toll bridges. I’ve got a bridge near me where toll rates are based on vehicle type and axles. While the pricing is slightly higher for commercial vehicles (e.g., trucks), it’s not proportional to the increased cost of upkeep those vehicles cause. Edit: Also realized that only one direction is burdened with tolls. The other way isn't. > What does it take for the legal system to be able to call BS on a claim like that? A very carefully crafted legislative change, I suppose, if possible at all. Currently, with SCOTUS’ refusal to take up the case, this is standing law, and it’s challenging to craft legislation that wouldn’t have reverberating effects across all of commerce while simultaneously only hitting Apple.

enragedcacti 3y ago
Thanks for your reply, I definitely see what you mean with other pricing schemes and how there is pretty wide latitude for what type of price discrimination is justifiable. I mostly just find it silly that at no point does anyone seem to address the elephant in the room that the only way to access some hundreds of millions of users is through Apple, and that almost certainly influences the fee in a way that can't be really be explained by the value of the IP. Does the argument require us to believe the fee would still be 30% if iPhone had practically zero users? Or is that legally irrelevant assuming that they aren't found a monopoly?
- theresistor 3y ago
  > Does the argument require us to believe the fee would still be 30% if iPhone had practically zero users? Or is that legally irrelevant assuming that they aren't found a monopoly? While not zero users, the default fee has been set at 30% since the beginning of the App Store, long before Apple had the level of market dominance it has today. This argues in favor of it being acceptable: developers were willing to accept that fee without monopoly pressure being applied, since nobody has successfully argued that Apple held a monopoly in 2008.

enragedcacti 3y ago

Thanks for your reply, I definitely see what you mean with other pricing schemes and how there is pretty wide latitude for what type of price discrimination is justifiable. I mostly just find it silly that at no point does anyone seem to address the elephant in the room that the only way to access some hundreds of millions of users is through Apple, and that almost certainly influences the fee in a way that can't be really be explained by the value of the IP. Does the argument require us to believe the fee would still be 30% if iPhone had practically zero users? Or is that legally irrelevant assuming that they aren't found a monopoly?

theresistor 3y ago
> Does the argument require us to believe the fee would still be 30% if iPhone had practically zero users? Or is that legally irrelevant assuming that they aren't found a monopoly? While not zero users, the default fee has been set at 30% since the beginning of the App Store, long before Apple had the level of market dominance it has today. This argues in favor of it being acceptable: developers were willing to accept that fee without monopoly pressure being applied, since nobody has successfully argued that Apple held a monopoly in 2008.