nodamage

43 ms·

451.
by nodamage 6y ago
> The problem with this is that then you have to make the choice of app store together with the choice of the entire platform including the hardware and operating system and everything. Moreover, once you make the choice, it's hard
452.
by nodamage 6y ago
> The sort of ironic footnote in drawing a comparison to the Microsoft case is that while bundling IE with Windows killed Netscape's commercial prospects and it was certainly done with malice aforethought, it was also fundamentally
453.
by nodamage 6y ago
Huh? In 1904, Standard controlled 91 percent of production and 85 percent of final sales. Because of competition from other firms, their market share had gradually eroded to 70 percent by 1906 which was the year when the antitrust case w
454.
by nodamage 6y ago
What, specifically, are you alleging is a per se antitrust violation?
455.
by nodamage 6y ago
> Microsoft got nailed for bundling Internet Explorer in with Windows This was actually overturned during the appeal. Whether the act of bundling IE with Windows would have been itself an antitrust violation was ultimately never decided
456.
by nodamage 6y ago
I'm sure Apple would be just fine as well, I just found it a little funny that the previous poster claimed Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft were justified in taking 30% because of the "value of creating and enabling an entire eco
457.
by nodamage 6y ago
The other poster is correct, the issue of the fee is orthogonal to the issue of app distribution. After all, even if the fee were 5%, Epic could still argue they want to put in their own store where the fee was 4%.
458.
by nodamage 6y ago
That seems like an incredibly arbitrary distinction for why consoles are justified in taking 30% but Apple isn't. Apple created a software platform that has made developers billions of dollars, it seems to me there has been value creat
459.
by nodamage 6y ago
Microsoft had a monopoly over the operating system market (95% market share). > If they control what you can install on your phone, they have a monopoly. That's not how monopoly power is (legally) defined.
460.
by nodamage 6y ago
Strictly speaking, no. Monopoly power has been defined by the Supreme Court as the "power to control prices and exclude competition" and it is not based on a specific market share threshold. However, courts tend to start by examin
461.
by nodamage 6y ago
The definition you've linked does not really contradict my point considering it says that courts typically do not find monopoly power below 50% market share.
462.
by nodamage 6y ago
The EU cases aren't likely to inform how Epic's case is going to work out in a US court. The European Commission also just lost a lawsuit against Apple so just because they take an aggressive position doesn't mean it will hol
463.
by nodamage 6y ago
Yes I should have added the caveat "in an otherwise competitive market". If there was only one seller of houses then the tying would indeed be a problem.
464.
by nodamage 6y ago
You've added a number of details to this hypothetical scenario that weren't actually in the original scenario I was replying to. Let me go ahead and agree with you that if two companies have colluded to fix prices, then regardless
465.
by nodamage 6y ago
The relevant geographic market for this court case will be the entire United States, yes. It is possible, but rather unlikely given existing historical precedent, that Apple's current US market share will be considered a monopoly.
466.
by nodamage 6y ago
You're citing EU law but this case between Apple and Epic is happening in a US court, which has historically held higher requirements for the finding of monopoly power ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24312856 ). F
467.
by nodamage 6y ago
Nothing I said has anything to do with price fixing and collusion, so I am not sure why you are bringing it up. > Facepalm. This kind of snark is really unnecessary.
468.
by nodamage 6y ago
Content creators don't have a legal right to demand to distribute to a specific smartphone any more than they have a legal right to demand to distribute inside Walmart.
469.
by nodamage 6y ago
I am aware of that, however it is much easier to win an antitrust case against a company that has 95% market share. > The jurisprudence on this actually starts at 40%. Can you provide more background on this?
470.
by nodamage 6y ago
On the flip side, the fact that no one has successfully sued manufacturers of inkjet printers, coffee makers, cars, vacuum cleaners, and laptops over this issue should give you some clues as to how likely it is for Epic to win their case.
471.
by nodamage 6y ago
> Would you accept a house that only allowed furniture, food, books, electronics, devices from the company that built the house? Do you think it should be legal for a company to make a house with those conditions? Would I personally buy
472.
by nodamage 6y ago
Epic specifically brought several Sherman Act section 2 claims against Apple. The first step of proving a section 2 claim is establishing monopoly power. So even though there are some antitrust violations (e.g. price fixing or bid rigging)
473.
by nodamage 6y ago
The remedy in this scenario is to simply not buy Amazon fridges, not have the government step in and force Amazon to change its fridges. Legal intervention should not occur unless Amazon was the only fridge seller in the world.
474.
by nodamage 6y ago
> Is the only available counterweight for their behaviour "drop everything and buy a new $500 phone to express your discontent?" No. The counterweight is not buying an iPhone in the first place if side loading is important to y
475.
by nodamage 6y ago
Microsoft held significantly more market power at the time of their antitrust case (95%) than Apple currently does.
476.
by nodamage 6y ago
In determining whether a competitor possesses monopoly power in a relevant market, courts typically begin by looking at the firm's market share.(18) Although the courts "have not yet identified a precise level at which monopoly p
477.
by nodamage 6y ago
They can do that. They're just not allowed to mention that the price is cheaper on their website or other platforms.
478.
by nodamage 6y ago
In this case the Sherman Act is relevant because all of Epic's federal claims are brought under the Sherman Act. (There are some California specific claims too.) However, it is true that some of Epic's claims were brought under Se
479.
by nodamage 6y ago
Epic already had standing based on the $300 million in Fortnite IAP fees Apple has collected, they did not need to do anything else. The rest was for media attention.
480.
by nodamage 6y ago
> First, these statistics are for phones shipped, not current active users of said phones. That's fair, however I don't believe web usage is the correct metric to use either. In any case the numbers are still a far cry from the

More ›