nodamage

54 ms·

511.
by nodamage 6y ago
Except if having the choice of more than one app store was important to you, why did you buy an iPhone in the first place? You could have bought something else and and avoided the problem entirely.
512.
by nodamage 6y ago
> That is a district court case with no value as precedent. The relevant cases are listed after the text I quoted, the quote is merely summarizing existing precedent. > It's also questionable whether you can really get away with
513.
by nodamage 6y ago
That is a very good point. If Epic wants to argue that consumer welfare is harmed by the 30% commission then they are going to have to show evidence that a reduced commission would actually be passed onto the consumer. If the developers are
514.
by nodamage 6y ago
Your own link says: The Department is not aware, however, of any court that has found that a defendant possessed monopoly power when its market share was less than fifty percent.(30) Thus, as a practical matter, a market share of greater t
515.
by nodamage 6y ago
That's a pretty big oversimplification of their argument and antitrust law usually isn't so cut and dried. What they're saying is that in the market for product A, if sales of product A are usually bundled with product B, the
516.
by nodamage 6y ago
> 30% is only the standard because Apple set it so high. Both Steam and the Xbox Games Store predate the App Store by several years so your suggestion is literally impossible.
517.
by nodamage 6y ago
Huh? No, the Mac App Store also takes 30% of each sale.
518.
by nodamage 6y ago
It is somewhat amusing that Tim Sweeney complains that Apple's response came from their legal team when it is pretty obvious his original email was not written in good faith and was obviously written for PR purposes.
519.
by nodamage 6y ago
As I quoted above, a key factor the court will consider is whether the customer knew of the restriction at the time of purchase , could have made an alternative purchase without the restriction, and went ahead and purchased anyway .
520.
by nodamage 6y ago
> The issue isn't that Apple has a monopoly on "their app store" but rather that they have a monopoly on distribution of apps to the set of customers with iOS devices. You keep saying this but it's unlikely that the c
521.
by nodamage 6y ago
> Android devices are more than capable to hold their own against Apple's offerings nowadays and I haven't heard anyone complain about viruses and malware in like five years now. Of course part of the reason for this is because
522.
by nodamage 6y ago
Statcounter is based on web analytics [1] and thus measures browser usage, not device sales. Market research firms indicate Apple has 46% of the smartphone market by devices sold. [2] Also, the outcome in the Microsoft case was predicated o
523.
by nodamage 6y ago
Even if they sell the game on Amazon, they still pay Microsoft a royalty for each game sold. Whether you want to call it a "licensing fee" or a "Microsoft tax" seems like a matter of semantics. Also keep in mind that the
524.
by nodamage 6y ago
Except Epic wants to force Apple to allow third-party payments so they can entirely avoid the Apple fee.
525.
by nodamage 6y ago
It is really bizarre to think that language in a contract that says "if you break the agreement, the rest of the agreement terminates" is one-sided or retaliation when it's included in basically every contract ever written.
526.
by nodamage 6y ago
Just because you're physically able to download, install, and run something doesn't mean you have the legal right to use it. The developer tools come with a license agreement in which Apple legally grants you the rights to use the
527.
by nodamage 6y ago
Not sure why you think it is impossible when Epic literally did it. They hid the payment infrastructure in the version of the app that went through review, therefore it wasn't rejected during review. Then after it was approved, they en
528.
by nodamage 6y ago
Ah, so you're saying the key difference is that Apple has allowed the sale of third party content in their product. Do you agree then, that: 1. If Apple didn't allow the sale of third party content, they would be in the same posit
529.
by nodamage 6y ago
I think you've missed the point here. Neither Apple nor Epic have enough market share in their primary market (smartphones/games) to be considered monopolists. So instead, people move the goalposts to an aftermarket of the product
530.
by nodamage 6y ago
I mean, you changed the topic to whether antitrust cases require monopoly power, which I acknowledged wasn't required for certain types of violations such as price fixing, but is required for the original topic being discussed in thi
531.
by nodamage 6y ago
People keep saying this but in an antitrust case you cannot simply declare the narrowest market that fits your argument and expect the court to accept it. The court will examine the market reality and examine how consumers actually behave t
532.
by nodamage 6y ago
The claims of "unlawful monopoly maintenance" in particular. But you're right, I think their best chance of success is the tying claim between "iOS App Distribution" and "iOS In-App Payment Processing" whi
533.
by nodamage 6y ago
> “Conspiracy in restraint of trade” would fit perfectly what Apple/Google are doing. Proving a conspiracy claim requires two parties to knowingly participate in the conspiracy. While you may believe Apple and Google are conspiring
534.
by nodamage 6y ago
Not all antitrust violations require monopoly power, that is true. For example, price fixing is illegal even if the companies involved do not have monopoly power. However, several of the claims Epic made in their lawsuit do require provin
535.
by nodamage 6y ago
> Antitrust needs no monopoly to enforce. I'm not sure why you think this? Sure, certain Sherman Act violations (e.g. price fixing) do not require monopoly power to be considered illegal, but the specific claims in Epic's lawsu
536.
by nodamage 6y ago
> A monopoly by Standard Oil was pervasive in all of daily living because by the early twentieth century, they had control of more than 90% of the country's petroleum fuel production and logistics which they abused to keep any compe
537.
by nodamage 6y ago
The key difference is that Microsoft had 90% market share in the operating system market. Apple's 46% market share in the smartphone market is not likely enough to be considered holding "monopoly power".
538.
by nodamage 6y ago
Even if that were true (which is highly debatable given than an Xbox is basically a rebranded PC), there is no provision in US antitrust law that treats "general purpose devices" as different than "specialized hardware".
539.
by nodamage 6y ago
So, let's say hypothetically Epic allowed the sale of third-party skins in Fortnite. Would a skinmaker would be entitled to demand the following concessions? 1. The ability to install skins outside of the V-bucks store. 2. The ability
540.
by nodamage 6y ago
> On another note, regarding your first comments, in the late 90's Microsoft went through DOJ depositions and demands for breaking up simply because they bundled Internet Explorer with their operating system. The crucial point of th

More ›