6 ms·
Honestly at the time of writing, only gjsman-1000 has given you the correct answer if somewhat incomplete. Everyone else is just telling you what they think sho
by dagmx 2y ago
Honestly at the time of writing, only gjsman-1000 has given you the correct answer if somewhat incomplete. Everyone else is just telling you what they think should happen or putting it up to the difference in courts, while ignoring the evidence that Epic provided in the case.
The issue is not monopoly and this is where people get hung up. It’s about anticompetitive behaviour enabled by a monopoly (or any level of market dominance)
Google was found to be anticompetitive because even though they allow other stores and side loading, they were pushing OEMs to exclude other stores and making sweetheart deals to prevent apps going to other stores.
Hence they were using their market position to harm their competing stores.
Link to the findings https://www.theverge.com/23959932/epic-v-google-trial-antitrust-play-store-fortnite-recap https://www.theverge.com/23959932/epic-v-google-trial-antitr...
Apple has no competitor in the App Store for its platform outside of the EU, and therefore can’t be found anticompetitive on the same grounds that Google was.
They maybe found anticompetitive if they used their store to harm competition at the application level but that hasn’t been proven yet either. The closest has been in the EU (and to a lesser degree CA) where they were found in violation of anti-steering but those are distinct.
- tantalor 2y ago> Apple has no competitor in the App Store iOS and Android appstores are not distinct markets. They compete for the same users (mobile phone users).
- dagmx 2y agoAs much as you may say that out loud, it’s not how the market is defined and nobody has been able to interpret it your way in a legal context in any jurisdiction. The legal precedent is that each store only services the ecosystem they’re on, and that is the scope of the market. More so, Apple has argued and legally been accepted by the EU that the store for each of its platforms are scoped by the individual platform. So the iOS store is not the same as the iPadOS store. If you can prove your case legally, there are companies that will pay you tens of millions of dollars. Till then, opinions to the contrary are just shouting in the wind.
- solardev 2y agoMan, that's one tortured legal philosophy... so it's more anticompetitive to allow alternatives and use incentives to deter them, than to forbid them outright? Crazy world we live in.
- dagmx 2y agoWell, because it’s about anti-competitive actions. Again, it’s not about simply having a monopoly position. Epic couldn’t prove that Apple had taken anti competitive measures. Google on the other hand had it in writing that they did. It was a slam dunk case from the get go
- solardev 2y agoIn a sane world, the very fact that Apple doesn't even allow alternative app stores should be in and of itself anticompetitive.
- wtallis 2y agoEasier said than done. You still need some kind of criteria for deciding what is illegal tying vs justifiable integration. You cannot just decide what the outcome should be for Apple while avoiding the general question of how to draw the line that you want Apple to be on the wrong side of.
- matwood 2y agoThere is no law with being a monopoly or anticompetitive. A company must be found to be both. Proving a monopoly is the first hurdle that will continue to be challenging with Apple. That's why defining market is so critical in these cases. The government is already suggesting slices like 'performance smartphones' that make Apple look dominant.
- tzs 2y ago> There is no law with being a monopoly or anticompetitive. A company must be found to be both. Not quite. There is no need to prove a monopoly in order to prove a violation of US antitrust law. There FTC has a nice summary of the core federal antitrust laws here [1]. Some quotes: > The Sherman Act outlaws "every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade," and any "monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize." ... > The Federal Trade Commission Act bans "unfair methods of competition" and "unfair or deceptive acts or practices." ... > The Clayton Act addresses specific practices that the Sherman Act does not clearly prohibit, such as mergers and interlocking directorates (that is, the same person making business decisions for competing companies). [...] As amended by the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936, the Clayton Act also bans certain discriminatory prices, services, and allowances in dealings between merchants. It's pretty much all about unfair competition and about attempts to create a monopoly. [1] https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...
- matwood 2y agoNot sure why you've been downvoted since what you state was a key reason Google lost. They allow side-loading then took actions to prevent other stores from being side loaded. The judge in the Apple case also agreed with positioning iOS as part of the larger gaming market where Apple is acting just like game consoles. The judge even said the 30% was fair relative to the market. The anti-steering was a minor finding against Apple. I think the biggest risk for monopolistic behavior Apple has is with interop. It's one of the reasons I believe they have embraced RCS.
- SllX 2y ago> It's one of the reasons I believe they have embraced RCS. This isn’t to disqualify any of your other points, but because it keeps getting missed I’m going to include the missing context: The People’s Republic of China requires 5G phones going forward to support what they call “5G Messaging” and what we know as “RCS”. This is one of those it’s easier to comply and do it internationally than to only do it locally things, if you’re going to do it at all, and it costs Apple nothing additional by doing so.