[zepto]

> Apple has been really dumb about antitrust law before. It’s not unrealistic to think they’d be dumb again. It’s not even dumb if you’ve been doing it routinely for years and only suffered consequences once or twice.

This logic might have held 5 years ago but doesn’t hold now. All the large tech companies are under heavy scrutiny and there are multiple anti-trust cases in play. The US administration appears to be anti-trust friendly, and there are hostile companies deliberately backing as many anti-trust actions as they can against Apple.

It makes no sense to imagine they would play into this for a minor discount on purchasing a trivial app.

It’s just as likely likely that a lawyer and an angry developer think it’s worth seeking a settlement in the current climate.

I agree there are hypotheses by which they could have done this but it’s bullshit to assume they must have done this.

[stonecraftwolf]

I’m curious about why you talk about Apple as though it’s a monolithic entity making coherent decisions. Tim Cook doesn’t need to have signed off on his himself as part of a grand strategy for it to have happened, and indeed the only evidence we do have available indicates that monopoly abuse of power is a tactic Apple has deliberately used before. Even if this is, as RileyJames posits, just the head of one team asking another for a favor in pursuit of an acquisition, it speaks to the corporate culture at Apple. Regardless, given the balance of actual evidence, it seems more absurd to extend the benefit of the doubt to the corporation that has abused market power in the past.

And while I don’t know if this was deliberate or a mistake, I think the more interesting point is that even if it was a mistake it demonstrates the danger of monopoly. The problem is structural. When a company has the market dominance of the FAANG companies, abuse is inevitable.

[zepto]

> the only evidence we do have available indicates that monopoly abuse of power is a tactic Apple has deliberately used before.

Yes, they fell foul of anti-trust law in Ebook pricing.

> Even if this is, as RileyJames posits, just the head of one team asking another for a favor in pursuit of an acquisition,

That’s just a made up explanation. It’s not ‘evidence’.

> it speaks to the corporate culture at Apple.

There is no evidence for this at all.

Remember, it’s just something a commenter made up. It’s not information about Apple, so it can’t ‘speak to Apple’s culture’.

> Regardless, given the balance of actual evidence, it seems more absurd to extend the benefit of the doubt to the corporation that has abused market power in the past.

At least you are clear about what you are actually saying:

You are going to assume Apple is guilty of this because they violated antitrust law over ebook pricing*, and that is your only evidence.

We have no evidence that they are guilty of this.

Maybe something will show up in court.