3 ms·
> This is just literally wrong, by-definition. No it's not. There are plenty of ways to distribute software without Apple being involved at all. Perhaps you m
by nodamage 3y ago
> This is just literally wrong, by-definition.
No it's not. There are plenty of ways to distribute software without Apple being involved at all.
Perhaps you meant to argue that Apple has a monopoly on iOS software distribution, but that's not actually what was originally written. It's also highly questionable given that the courts have rejected "iOS software distribution" as a valid antitrust market for the purpose of monopolization claims.
- smoldesu 3y agoI didn't say they had a monopoly on all software distribution. I said that claiming Apple had no monopoly is wrong. > It's also highly questionable given that the courts have rejected "iOS software distribution" as a valid antitrust market for the purpose of monopolization claims. Pray tell, in which jurisdictions?
- nodamage 3y agoUnder US law the requirements for recognizing single brand aftermarkets are very particular, that’s why Epic failed to prove Apple held a monopoly over iOS software distribution.