Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Asks Judge to Dismiss U.S. Antitrust Lawsuit

kognos said:
What is often confused on this forum is the difference between "monopoly" and "monopolistic behavior".

When you choose your Apple device, you have a market there. The app store.

There is no competition within the market of the Apple App store. In fact, that's the point.
Click to expand...

jeffg819 said:
And there are alternatives to every Apple product for sale in every market that Apple supplies.
Click to expand...

I trimmed it for you.

This isn't about the products that Apple sells. This is about the market that Apple controls within the App store and payment processes. Monopolistic behavior. It doesn't have to be a monopoly-defined vendor.

There are no alternative payment systems. Only Apple Pay (and its fees).
There are anticompetitive behaviors when products are sold which compete with Apple products.
Etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: maxoakland
Abazigal said:
Nintendo does the same thing with their switch console. Would you say they are engaging in monopolistic practices as well?
Click to expand...
With the Nintendo Switch, you have multiple ways to buy the apps, through multiple vendors, with multiple options for payment. As a gatekeeper, the market is open.

Nintendo Switch games can be purchased physical or digital, using any payment method, online or offline at your discretion. Even if Nintendo gets a cut, it's not part of the PAYMENT, in other words, you're paying $50 for a game no matter where you pay for it. This isn't about licensing fees, this is a quite literal Apple tax with Apple pay. If all app developers had a choice of Apple Pay with a fee, or external processing systems, it should be their choice. There's no "security" in having everything run through Apple. I mean, my mortgage payment doesn't need to run through Apple Pay for "security" ... it's ridiculous that Apple somehow thinks their payment system is better than everyone else, frankly. At the developer's expense, too.

Effectively sideloading for Nintendo is possible as well; the only real limitation I am aware of (like Apple) is: both systems have APIs that provide functionality. That's why jailbroken iPhones can run any application, not because they're special apps, but because it gets beyond that only-one-storefront barrier. Once the app is on the device, it'll run just fine. Not because it's bad, but because like any operating system, with coded APIs, it'll do what it is told.

So is Nintendo engaging in monopolistic practices? Not in the slightest. There is nothing wrong at all with creating a great device that has a specific targeted audience. Nintendo isn't restricting developers and consumers, isn't taking a percentage of every sale everywhere and preventing advertisements and preventing even knowledge about where to acquire product. They endorse it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: maxoakland
Art Mark said:
It's a really silly case for the DOJ to bring. Why don't they go after grocery stores for shelving fees?! Or oil companies that control pricing by throtteling processing?
Click to expand...
Apple sells iDevices and controls the means of distribution for the software we use on those iDevices. There's no other way to get software on our iDevices except through Apple.

Do grocery stores sell foods that can only be cooked on stoves that only they sell? No.
 
  • Like
Reactions: freedomlinux and maxoakland
kognos said:
With the Nintendo Switch, you have multiple ways to buy the apps, through multiple vendors, with multiple options for payment. As a gatekeeper, the market is open.

Nintendo Switch games can be purchased physical or digital, using any payment method, online or offline at your discretion. Even if Nintendo gets a cut, it's not part of the PAYMENT, in other words, you're paying $50 for a game no matter where you pay for it. This isn't about licensing fees, this is a quite literal Apple tax with Apple pay. If all app developers had a choice of Apple Pay with a fee, or external processing systems, it should be their choice. There's no "security" in having everything run through Apple. I mean, my mortgage payment doesn't need to run through Apple Pay for "security" ... it's ridiculous that Apple somehow thinks their payment system is better than everyone else, frankly. At the developer's expense, too.

Effectively sideloading for Nintendo is possible as well; the only real limitation I am aware of (like Apple) is: both systems have APIs that provide functionality. That's why jailbroken iPhones can run any application, not because they're special apps, but because it gets beyond that only-one-storefront barrier. Once the app is on the device, it'll run just fine. Not because it's bad, but because like any operating system, with coded APIs, it'll do what it is told.

So is Nintendo engaging in monopolistic practices? Not in the slightest. There is nothing wrong at all with creating a great device that has a specific targeted audience. Nintendo isn't restricting developers and consumers, isn't taking a percentage of every sale everywhere and preventing advertisements and preventing even knowledge about where to acquire product. They endorse it.
Click to expand...

I don’t think developers really care about the ability to sell apps through numerous storefronts, or for the option to use alternative payment options. That has always been a cover for the reality that they do not want to pay Apple (or any other App Store) their 30% cut. The implication is that if you use credit cards or PayPal, you only need to pay the payment processor 3% and get out of paying Apple their 30% cut.

It’s the same thing here. Even if I choose to sell a game via a physical switch cartridge, that cartridge is not going to run without permission from Nintendo, I still have to pay Nintendo their cut, and my final earnings is less than the 70% I would have gotten had I sold my game digitally (because it gets rid of all the distribution costs).

And that’s the thing - regardless of how I choose to release my game on the switch, I don’t think there is really a way of circumventing their 30% cut. Or are you saying that Nintendo would be fine with Fortnite keeping 100% of all IAPs?

Third, while it may technically be possible to sideload apps onto the switch, I am not convinced that this is something which Nintendo endorses. It may be more that they simply don’t think it’s worth their time and resources to actively block it, but it doesn’t mean it’s wrong of Apple to want to lock down their platform further.

People don’t care about whether a platform is open or closed. It’s always been about the money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: amartinez1660
turbineseaplane said:
When will they start?

Product lines are just languishing
Click to expand...
Whether people like the products or not, that's fine but just recently the M series chips alone was a huge gamble that Apple took. They could have failed spectacularly and now it seems that very same ballsy move was inadvertently gifted to Qualcomm and Microsoft and the rest of the PC world with the Qualcomm Snapdragon X Elite where they can finally move away from the complacency of Intel and beat Apple with the very same product. Just as with Windows 3 copying Macintosh and giving Microsoft and Intel a product and monopoly that they could milk for everything they could.
Google copied the iPhone and IOS and did the same when they created Android. And Both of these companies have bread-and-butter products like Search with Google and software and business solutions with Microsoft where they can just coast and "innovate" at a leisurely pace as they can just sit and manage their monopolies. Apple can't do that. They need to keep hustling and bringing in new products to a finicky and demanding consumer who gets bored easily. And most importantly, with each new product, they maintain a steady supply chain infrastructure that builds millions and billions on cutting-edge components with such economies of scale that benefit everyone wanting to get in on the action and put out a competing product with now off-the-shelf technologies they can pick and choose from. The simpletons in Washington don't see that or care, it's just politics and grandstanding.

There is much more to be said but this is just a comment section and nobody cares anyway. I just find it both sad and insane.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: amartinez1660
  • Like
Reactions: maxoakland
  • Like
Reactions: maxoakland
ApplesAreSweet&Sour said:
Nobody will ever give Apple the respect it deserves.

Every new iPhone is literally a technological revolution bettering the lives of everyone.

But anti trust lawsuits is all the thanks Apple ever gets. :(

Tim Cook needs to buy up some useless third world country and turn it into his own.

Then we can all move there and enjoy our Apple products without stupid EU and US politicians messing with perfection.

That would teach those morons!

Apple! Apple! Apple! Apple! Apple!
Click to expand...
Can’t tell if this is a joke because some people actually think like this
 
kognos said:
What is often confused on this forum (stockholm syndrome, since people seem to be blinded by raw product loyalty I guess) is the difference between "monopoly" and "monopolistic behavior".
Click to expand...
"monopoly power can harm society by making output lower, prices higher, and innovation less than would be the case in a competitive market."

www.justice.gov

Competition And Monopoly: Single-Firm Conduct Under Section 2 Of The Sherman Act : Chapter 2

This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact webmaster@usdoj.gov if you have any questions about the archive site.
www.justice.gov www.justice.gov

read what I said about the current competition.

google has out innovated apple in various areas, android devices are lower priced.
kognos said:
With the Nintendo Switch, you have multiple ways to buy the apps, through multiple vendors, with multiple options for payment. As a gatekeeper, the market is open.

Nintendo Switch games can be purchased physical or digital, using any payment method, online or offline at your discretion. Even if Nintendo gets a cut, it's not part of the PAYMENT, in other words, you're paying $50 for a game no matter where you pay for it.
Click to expand...
and no matter what, a portion of that $50 goes to Nintendo.

if you're arguing that Apple should adopt Nintendo's method under EU, Apple would actually be very happy. this also means that developers make less due to B&M's/store cut + platform cut + manufacturing overhead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: amartinez1660
If the U.S. Government is going to take on Apple, they'd better have better legislation that handles Apple, Google, Microsoft/Xbox, Valve/Steam, Sony/Playstation, Nintendo and more.

They should have considered an ongoing investigation as soon as third-party applications were available.
 
GMShadow said:
The DoJ's complaint could have been written by the EU (and probably was), it's the same nonsense.

The judge should dismiss the case, and then all parties in the DOJ involved should immediately be fired and subject to a full investigation for FARA violations.
Click to expand...
Why did all recent lawsuits from the EU have success if it was just "nonsense"?
 
Abazigal said:
(…) It’s the same thing here. Even if I choose to sell a game via a physical switch cartridge, that cartridge is not going to run without permission from Nintendo, I still have to pay Nintendo their cut, and my final earnings is less than the 70% I would have gotten had I sold my game digitally (because it gets rid of all the distribution costs). (…)
Click to expand...
(To anybody reading, this is trimmed, but both full posts are interesting)

To add to your points, which I personally find quite valid, even the physical cartridges themselves are licensed and provided by Nintendo, that’s why some companies have done some dishonest moves in the name of saving on outrageous fees when selling physical boxes:
  • having the lowest sized cartridge where only part of the game fits and the rest has to be downloaded
  • Having a paper code in place of the cartridge (!) to download the full content
Nintendo does QA, validates and decides who and which games can make it to the platform.
You want to develop for it? It isn’t a $100 fee which approves you in a couple of hours and off you go, you have to ask for a full blown physical development kit by filling a questionnaire and reasons why.

Imagine if Apple and Google forced you to buy a special 5x-10x priced phone that works just for development.

Sure it isn’t like 20 years ago, but it is a whole lot more gatekeeping. And the whole loop is so much more than a 30% fee too (if you get the chance that is). There’s also in that case both Nintendo’s and the retail’s piece to take.

Also I can buy a physical iPhone on any carrier store, Best Buy, Apple, Walmart, etc with any payment method style. I can also buy AppStore funds/gift-cards on any of those mentioned stores (just like it can be for Nintento’s eShop funds).

I didn’t get that line of defense… before it used to be “poor console manufacturers are selling their consoles at a loss” (as if someone forced them to make bad business moves).

At worst if one is a monopoly so is the other. Makes me think that defending one and bashing the other is more of an emotional take or just to be on trend.
 
california_kid said:
My message to DOJ - go after every single monopolistic utility provider regardless of what their dumb state legislators have to say about it and give all those billions in penalties back to the consumers. Then you have my blessing to go after Apple.
Click to expand...
Not that they need your blessing to go after Apple, but I'm with you on the first part.
 
Ridiculous case. Monopoly? Look at China. Blue bubble vs green bubble? Jeez. Our tax dollars at work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back