[JumpCrisscross]

> Where you come down on this issue should really be based on whether you think a marketplace cut of revenue with extremely onerous conditions that prevent even minor bypasses should be legal or not when distribution on said marketplace constitutes 50% of the consumer market in the sector

This is a court case. Not a legislative session.

Where you come down on it should be based on the law. I believe the law should be changed. But based on existing law, it is difficult to find for Epic. Epic's strategy is, in effect, a high-risk lobbying endeavor.

[kube-system]

The Sherman Act is pretty general in phraseology[0] -- it is a courts job to determine if that description of forbidden business practices from the year 1890 apply to the specific actions Apple is taking today.

[0]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1

[warent]

Courts can and do make new laws and undo laws all the time. Whether or not they should is another matter entirely, but it is well within the court's power to reinterpret laws quite liberally.

[stale2002]

> Where you come down on it should be based on the law.

The comment that you responded to included facts that would support the idea that Apple's behavior is against the current law.

When they said that " said marketplace constitutes 50% of the consumer market"

This is a reason as for why Apple is breaking the law. It is an argument that Apple has significant market power, and is engaging in anti-competitive actions, which is illegal.

[pwinnski]

What courts will need to decide is what constitutes a "market."

The arguments against Apple all seem to hinge on the market being "people who own iOS devices," while the argument in favor of Apple all seem to hinge on the market being "people who own a smartphone."

In one of those, Apple is a monopolist. In the other, Apple isn't even the biggest company.

[stale2002]

> In the other, Apple isn't even the biggest company.

Actually Apple would be the biggest company, in the market of people who have smartphones in the US. They just recently have a bit over 50% of that market.

Also, Apple does not need to be a literal, singular company for its actions to be illegal. Instead, it only needs to have significant market power. It doesn't even need to have a majority of the market.

> the argument in favor of Apple

Actually, no. Apple is making a much more silly argument that the market should be defined as "Things that can run video games", which can include things such as the XBox.

If the market is instead defined as the % of people who own an apple smartphone, in the US, then Apple is ~50% of that market.

[pwinnski]

This is my point exactly. What the judge in each case has to determine is how best to define the market. Whether "smartphone owners" or "devices that play videogames" or "App Store users" or "iOS devices" or "computers" or "phones" or any number of other ways. Do you determine it in the US only, or world-wide? (US courts have jurisdiction only here, but can determine a market based on any parameters) Do you determine the majority player based on units, or gross revenue, or profits? Is your primary concern when it comes to damages companies (like Epic) or end users? And so on.

People are blithely making cases here like all of these things are simple, but they're the key to this and all other similar cases, and it's not as clear as people seem to assume. Different judges might decide different things on different days, and none are necessarily wrong... or right!

[stale2002]

Although the nitty gritty details of the situation may be complicated, I do think that the high level situation is pretty simple.

IE I am not sure how anyone could look at Apple's control over its market, and its policies, and disagree with the idea that Apple has significant control, and that its policies are anti-competitive.

Regardless over the exact definition of a market that you use, it is quite clear that Apple has pretty significant market power over something and that its actions cause app prices to be significantly higher than they would be otherwise, if they allowed competing app stores.

[pwinnski]

Yes, but please note how you described it first: "Apple's control over its market." Inasmuch as its Apple's market, its theirs to do with as they please. The question is, is it Apple's market? Or is the market something bigger or smaller, or belong to someone else (iOS users, for example, or smartphone users), in which case their needs should be prioritized.

Personally, I think Apple's too big, and I don't trust them (though my M1 Mac mini should arrive Tuesday nonetheless), and I think the government should act.

That said, antitrust has generally been focused on acquisitions and mergers, which don't seem to be the issue in Apple's case. Apple has genuinely made a product, mostly on their own, that has attracted enough users that it's become a problem. This seems like a radically different issue from other large tech companies, most of which have very large acquisitions that could be--and should be--undone.

And Epic is being disingenuous and inconsistent, and I don't think they're in the right here, either.

[pwinnski]

its actions cause app prices to be significantly higher than they would be otherwise, if they allowed competing app stores.

I'm not so sure this is true. Historically it's far from true, but this is 2020, not 2010, so there are definitely a few examples now of companies charging more to balance out Apple's fees. That said, Apple essentially created what was decried at the time as a rush-to-zero that made mobile apps free or close to it, in turn driving down the price of many non-mobile games.

Your statement seems to take only one side into consideration, while Apple will be highlighting both sides. If Fortnite in-game currency becomes less expensive, but the average game becomes more expensive, do we win or lose?

[d1zzy]

> Actually Apple would be the biggest company, in the market of people who have smartphones in the US. They just recently have a bit over 50% of that market.

Is Epic requiring Apple to only open their stores in the US?

[8note]

Specifically for Epic's case, thing that run video games makes sense. I don't think epic has standing to argue something more generic?

[8note]

Shouldn't we be caring about smart phone app stores though?

From elsewhere in the thread, Apple's app store revenue is 3x Google's and they both charge about the same in fees.

The number of phones or iOS users seems irrelevant to the sales that go through the app store, and that apple is using its position as the app store owner to force app developers to use other apple products like Apple pay

[intricatedetail]

Apple has essentially unlimited resources to perverse the law and that's something that needs to be stopped, whether through tighter legislation or through courts making interpretation of the law in favour of consumers. We shouldn't be supporting a company trying to exploit loopholes to their advantage.

[ryanlol]

> Apple has essentially unlimited resources to perverse the law

As does Epic, the other party to this case.