[klyrs]

> I'm pretty sure that will have massive opposition, because they are deathly scared of opening their devices back to the general-purpose computers they actually are.

Who's the opposition coming from? Apple? They can fart around and waste time and money on appeals, but if they get hit with an antitrust ruling there isn't much they'll be able to do about it.

[scarface74]

So tell me again when an “antitrust” ruling has ever been applied to a company with less than 50%?

[dragonwriter]

> So tell me again when an “antitrust” ruling has ever been applied to a company with less than 50%?

50% of what is the issue, though. Some arbitrary descriptive market the target company preferred to be used for the antitrust analysis, or the actual market in which substitution, and thus actual competition, occurs as found by the court hearing the case?

Because defining the relevant market is not infrequently a contentious point in antitrust.

[scarface74]

So can I define Epic having a monopoly on being able to buy things in Fortnite? What if I want to sell my cool “Scarface dance” next to the “Carlton dance” within Fortnite without paying the “Epic Tax”?

[apatters]

I upvoted your comments based on a good faith belief that you're open to learning more about how antitrust law works. It has little to do with market share, and everything to do with a concept called "market power."

Market power is the ability to coerce people into paying more for something via a mechanism other than actually offering a better product or service. A textbook example which most people would agree is bad is a trust/cartel situation where a few players artificially limit supply, and then can raise the price on consumers because there are no competitors. But if a firm is able to drive up prices with impunity for any reason, it's likely they possess market power.

When a firm possesses excess market power it's good for that firm, but bad for the market, consumers, and society. By definition a firm with a lot of market power has very little competition, so even as their margins grow, product quality will decline and price will increase. (Sound like Apple in 2020?) And new firms will find it difficult to compete in that market even as the firm with market power grows very rich, which exacerbates the problem of wealth inequality. (Sound like America in 2020?)

A society which doesn't place some sort of checks on a firm's ability to acquire market power ends up being a place where the way to get ahead is to find an unfair advantage, abuse it, and screw everyone else. (Again, sound familiar?)

At this point it's almost certain that Google is violating antitrust regulation by abusing its market power (proven in the EU, and the US looks poised to start filing lawsuits this year). Apple, Amazon and a few others are up for debate and it's also fair to say that antitrust regulations should evolve to address the tech industry more effectively. The antitrust problem isn't limited to tech however, anti-competitive behaviors of questionable legality have proliferated all over the US since the 80s due to a lax regulatory environment.

If you want to learn more about this topic, Matt Stoller's newsletter "BIG" on Substack is a phenomenal place to start.

[nodamage]

> Market power is the ability to coerce people into paying more for something via a mechanism other than actually offering a better product or service.

How exactly does Apple "coerce people into paying more for their phones via a mechanism other than actually offering a better product or service", and what is that mechanism?

> But if a firm is able to drive up prices with impunity for any reason, it's likely they possess market power.

How is Apple actually able to "drive up prices with impunity for any reason"? It seems to me, the more Apple raises iPhone prices, the more people are priced out and decide to switch to a cheaper phone instead.

[commoner]

The matter under contention is the pricing of in-app purchases, not the pricing of phones. By disallowing app stores other than Apple's App Store, Apple is coercing users to pay an inflated price for in-app purchases, since it takes a 42.8% price hike to negate Apple's 30% fee.

[apatters]

I'm not sure that they are. I did say that something smells rotten (products getting worse and prices going up), but this alone is not justification for punitive measures.

The government playbook in this sort of situation is normally to start subpoena'ing emails, execs etc. and look for hard evidence of actual anti-competitive practices. They're not only interested in a business model as it's described in the media, they want to know what company execs actually did. If they find something they file a suit.

[dragonwriter]

> So can I define Epic having a monopoly on being able to buy things in Fortnite?

If price increases for Fortnite IAP don't, empirically, drive people to stop buying them in favor of alternatives of some kind, yes. Or, rather, you can't define the market that way, but if there is no substitution effect a US court considering an anti-trust claim is likely to see that as the relevant market, not some broader, say, battle royale game IAP market in which price-driven substitution does not occur.

[ksm1717]

I guess that’s the value of evaluating on a case by case basis. Depends on what you define as a market worth pursuing antitrust issues for. I would also argue this informally happens when people start to talk about antitrust as it’s usually applied to markets that are general enough that more or less everyone participates in (or feels consequences from) them.

[scarface74]

So the government should make decisions on a case by case basis? Isn’t that what everyone is whining about Apple doing - treating small developers and large developers differently?

I’m much more worried about the government deciding what happens to people randomly than a corporation. I don’t have to buy Apple products. It’s a lot harder for me not to have to deal with a capricious government.

[ksm1717]

I’m with you, I’m simply stating the upside. My further point was that it is already treated somewhat case by case by the selection of antitrust cases to pursue.

[Sargos]

You might be able to do just that after this Apple/Epic ruling. That's kind of why NFTs/digital ownership is so exciting. You might be able to buy or sell your dances on any store you want to and use them in the game.

[scarface74]

I wish I could be on the other side of a bet against most of HN, betting against all of the wannabe lawyers who don’t understand what a “monopoly” is and posting examples of market collusion showing how Apple/Google could be charged based on the App stores.

[cageface]

You can. Buy Apple stock.

[tomnipotent]

A lot, actually. It's called a "per se" ruling.

https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-case-filings-alpha

Most antitrust cases are for things like price fixing, bid rigging, and mergers.

[scarface74]

So “a lot” was a very specific example....

[tomnipotent]

The below took me about a minute to find through Google.

U.S. v Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S 150 (1940); United States v. Sealy, Inc., 388 U.S. 350 (1967); United States v. Topco Associates, Inc., 405 U.S. 596 (1972); Craftsmen Limousine, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 363 F.3d 761 (8th Cir. 2004), Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. US 356 US (1940); Agnew v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 683 F.3d 328 (7th Circ. 2012); or In re Flat Glass Antitrust Litigation 385 F.3d 350 (3rd Cir. 2004), National Soc. of Professional Engineers v. U.S. 435 U.S. (1878); In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, 618 F 3d 300 (2010); or In re Southeastern Milk Antitrust Litigation, 739 F.3d 262 (2014).

[scarface74]

And this is why HN users make bad lawyers.

I picked one at random.

“Topco, a cooperative association of about 25 small and medium-sized independent regional supermarket chains operating in 33 States.”

I also looked up one about Ford vs a limo company that you deleted.

They all involve multiple companies colluding. It has nothing to do with one company setting prices in their own store.

[tomnipotent]

Your argument, if you can call it that, is completely incoherent.

You seem to be under the impression that anti-trust is isolated to monopolies, when clearly it is not. Apple and Google do not need to have a monopoly for the government to decide that their app store business model is anti-competitive, and there doesn't need to be precedence.

[glerk]

Is that how the law works?Apple is not a monopoly because you can choose Android. This is an awesome loophole. Visa is not a monopoly because there is also MasterCard. At&t is not a monopoly because you can choose Comcast.

[scarface74]

It’s a “loophole” that it isn’t a monopoly because you have a choice? That’s kind of a the definition of a monopoly. It’s even in the first two syllables of the word....

I love my choice of AT&T over Comcast. $70 all fees included gigabit up and down.

[klyrs]

Your argument is based on a lay-definition and not a legal definition. It's good to know your etymology, but that doesn't get far in court. From the wikipedia article on us antitrust law:

> When enterprises are not under public ownership, and where regulation does not foreclose the application of antitrust law, two requirements must be shown for the offense of monopolization. First, the alleged monopolist must possess sufficient power in an accurately defined market for its products or services. Second, the monopolist must have used its power in a prohibited way. The categories of prohibited conduct are not closed, and are contested in theory. Historically they have been held to include exclusive dealing, price discrimination, refusing to supply an essential facility, product tying and predatory pricing.

Apple is exercising exclusive control over the market of apps made for the phones they make, so it looks to me like they satisfy the first requirement. The second requirement is murkier, but several of the examples listed sound quite similar to how apple operates its store. IANAL but the more I read about their behavior, the more I become convinced of their monopoly status. Having a monopoly is not a crime. Abusing monopoly power is.

[scarface74]

>Your argument is based on a lay definition and not a legal definition..,From the wikipedia article on us antitrust law:

I’m going to let that sit right there.

[klyrs]

The article literally spells out the legal definition, summarizes numerous actual antitrust rulings, with plentiful citations to relevant laws and case law, many with full and well researched articles. Maybe give it a read. You might even find an example where 4 tobacco companies, each with less than 50% market share, were found to be abusing market dominance.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law

Or, keep on using the definition from your imagination. Whatever works.

[asddubs]

i think apple has more than 50% of the US market now actually

[shagie]

46% https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh...