4 ms·

They will make that argument, and the government will point out that Apple is trying to charge 27% everywhere those choice decisions were taken away, pretty con

They will make that argument, and the government will point out that Apple is trying to charge 27% everywhere those choice decisions were taken away, pretty conclusively proving... it's all about collecting the rent.

mjhagen 3y ago
> it's all about collecting the rent Which is not illegal.
- trothamel 3y ago
  Isn't this what this lawsuit will decide?
- immibis 3y ago
  It should be. Note that the economics word "rent" essentially refers to any and all unearned income that you acquired through raw power. Which, yes, includes real estate rent in excess of maintenance and financing costs.
bink 3y ago
Charging 30% is outrageous to me, but it also appears to be the standard used by almost all of their competitors. It'll be interesting to see how the government convicts Apple of doing something that almost all other large companies are doing. It's a no-win situation for them. If once they established themselves as the dominant player in the cell phone market they started undercutting everyone else on fees that could also be seen as predatory.
- skeptrune 3y ago
  But sideloading is viable for everything else... I think that's the core argument that makes what Apple does criminal
- arrosenberg 3y ago
  > it also appears to be the standard used by almost all of their competitors FWIW - this is further evidence of anticompetitive behavior. In a competitive market, entrants would be trying to drive distribution costs to 0. The fact that Apple makes its entire App Store revenue off those distribution revenues is highly telling. It would only be considered predatory if they charging a rate below their own costs of distribution. I.E. If it costs Apple $0.10 to cover the costs of app distribution per download, then it would be completely legal for them to charge $0.11, but illegal and predatory to charge $0.09.
  - ribosometronome 3y ago
    It's the standard used by almost all app stores, save for new entrants trying to buy their way into the market. Steam is 30% and there's nothing stopping you from installing alternatives. Nintendo's eStore is 30% and they control 100% of the mobile console market.

mjhagen 3y ago

> it's all about collecting the rent Which is not illegal.

trothamel 3y ago
Isn't this what this lawsuit will decide?
immibis 3y ago
It should be. Note that the economics word "rent" essentially refers to any and all unearned income that you acquired through raw power. Which, yes, includes real estate rent in excess of maintenance and financing costs.

bink 3y ago

Charging 30% is outrageous to me, but it also appears to be the standard used by almost all of their competitors. It'll be interesting to see how the government convicts Apple of doing something that almost all other large companies are doing. It's a no-win situation for them. If once they established themselves as the dominant player in the cell phone market they started undercutting everyone else on fees that could also be seen as predatory.

skeptrune 3y ago
But sideloading is viable for everything else... I think that's the core argument that makes what Apple does criminal
arrosenberg 3y ago
> it also appears to be the standard used by almost all of their competitors FWIW - this is further evidence of anticompetitive behavior. In a competitive market, entrants would be trying to drive distribution costs to 0. The fact that Apple makes its entire App Store revenue off those distribution revenues is highly telling. It would only be considered predatory if they charging a rate below their own costs of distribution. I.E. If it costs Apple $0.10 to cover the costs of app distribution per download, then it would be completely legal for them to charge $0.11, but illegal and predatory to charge $0.09.
- ribosometronome 3y ago
  It's the standard used by almost all app stores, save for new entrants trying to buy their way into the market. Steam is 30% and there's nothing stopping you from installing alternatives. Nintendo's eStore is 30% and they control 100% of the mobile console market.