| > Taking a 30% cut from app store sales isn't anti-competitive though That is not what the court case is asserting is anti-competitive. The anti-competitive action is that Apple prevents competing app stores on the platform. Preventing competitors from competing is explicitly the definition of anti-competitive. High prices can be a consequence of anti-competitive behavior but is not really the main issue. The main issue has to do with.... reducing competition by stopping competitors, which Apple definitely does. Apple doesn't even pretend to claim that it is not preventing competitors, honestly. The question is whether Apple is large enough that anti-competition laws apply to them. (Which they obviously are, given that they now have 52.4% of the phone duopoly, as of last month) > it allows other platforms to compete on price No, actually. Competing app stores cannot be put on the iPhone, due to Apple's actions. These competing app stores cannot compete for iPhone users. > it favored IE Apple favors its own app store, over competitors, in that it literally prevents other app stores from competing at all on the iPhone. > Apple allows all apps No, it does not allow other app stores, no. > If you think it costs too much, don't pay it! You should read the lawsuit. The anti-competitive behavior is not the price. This instead had to do with Apple preventing competing app stores. Also, that is a bad argument, because "just dont use it" is not a valid defense when a company is engaging in anti-competitive practices. > Nobody is forcing you to distribute software for the iPhone Another bad argument. This would not at all be valid if Microsoft used it as an argument regarding software installed on the PC. That argument would be invalid, if microsoft prevented competitors from being installed on PC. > If you're lamenting No, I am saying that anti-competitive practices should be stopped. |