5 ms·
""" 919. The comparators available to us (the Epic Games Store, the Microsoft Store and Steam’s lower headline rate) suggest that the competitive rate of commi
by bmandale 1y ago
"""
919. The comparators available to us (the Epic Games Store, the Microsoft Store and
Steam’s lower headline rate) suggest that the competitive rate of commission
would be in the range of 12 to 20%. We do think it is reasonable to make some
adjustment to that range to accommodate the points made by Apple about its
premium brand, the quality of its offering and its established market position.
However, we do not think those would be sufficient to displace the upper end
of the range and are likely to operate mainly at the lower end, where the
offerings are arguably less attractive to users for those reasons.
920. Applying again an approach of “informed guesswork”, on the basis of the
evidence before us, we find that the likely range of Apple’s Commission for
iOS app distribution services in the counterfactual is between 15% and 20%.
For the purposes of quantifying the overcharge (for both the exclusionary abuses
and the excessive and unfair pricing abuse) we will use the mid-point of that
range, which is 17.5%.
- shuckles 1y agoTLDR: they made it up.
- criddell 1y agoWhat else would you expect? It’s from a tribunal. They make judgements.
- shuckles 1y agoJudgment can be grounded in reality or it can be picking a random subrange of a list of somewhat random ranges and then picking a midpoint because why not.
- bmandale 1y agoWhat would you expect them to do in this case in particular?
- shuckles 1y agoConsider Google Play, for starters.
- bmandale 1y agoGoogle play has a dominant market position as well and is presumably next for this sort of ruling
- Jalad 1y agoThe gang learns what an oligopoly is
- shuckles 1y agoWow sounds very comparable yet notably omitted from the ranges the tribunal considered. Sounds like you agree with me that they just made it up? Or are you saying that it's fair to exclude the app store of an open platform which has plenty of "free market" competition from side loaded and 3p distribution apps because ~vibes~?
- lozenge 1y agoNot considered? The words "Google Play" are in the judgment 47 times. Maybe you could read it? By your logic, each of the two companies could use the other as an example and then both get away with breaking competition law. Two wrongs don't make a right.
- shuckles 1y ago> comparable yet notably omitted from the ranges the tribunal considered Interesting to accuse people of not reading the document in a post where you don’t read a 3 sentence comment.
- troupo 1y agoThey have a literal section "(6) Description of the “comparator” platforms" where the very first item is "(a) Google and other Android platforms" There's a section "112. On 10 June 2022, the CMA published the final report in its MEM Study, which contains a number of findings in relation to both Apple and Google." It's amazing that you never even tried to read the actual document but already immediately assume a position that is trivially proven wrong.
- bondarchuk 1y agoIt cannot be grounded in reality precisely because it's a monopoly. The whole point of laws against monopolies is to let the market figure out the fair rate, or to define the "fair" rate as the one that emerges in a competitive market. So by definition of what the whole case is about it is impossible to give a fair rate in this case. If you don't want to be subjected to guesswork, stop being a monopoly and let the market figure it out.
- IshKebab 1y agoWhat else would they do?
- awillen 1y agoThanks for digging that out.