|
|
|
|
|
|
by dpkonofa
2097 days ago
|
|
|
No, I'm suggesting that their tactics are neither anti-competitive nor draconian. Epic violated the terms of a store that they willingly entered into. Apple owns the App Store. They do not have a monopoly on mobile phones, app stores, or devices and, as Apple just provided to the judge in the case (who agreed with the response), Apple was the single largest driver in mobile growth and competition. How can they be anti-competitive if they've nearly single-handedly been responsible for the growth of those market segments? |
|
|
I think perhaps you don't know what anti-competitive means, or are thinking of it purely as a portion of monopolistic practices. Apple's actions in multiple levels of their platform are by definition anti-competitive.
> They do not have a monopoly on ...
A monopoly is not a prerequisite for anti-competitive practices, it's just something the U.S. identified in the late 1800's and early 1900's as something that makes anti-competitive practices very effective, so laws were made to combat them because they are easier to identify and classify. Stopping anti-competitive behavior that harms consumers (though increased prices and reduced options) is the goal. Stopping monopolies is just a side-effect.