Apple Says 'We Won't Make an Exception' for Epic Games in App Store Dispute

[Spizike9]

It's called choice and Free Market. It's not a hard concept to understand, but often you can buy something cheaper from the manufacturer, sometimes it's cheaper from a third party.

Apple is a monopoly on their platform, something MS got sued for and lost in the 90's because they bundled Internet Explorer with their operating system. They didn't force consumers to use it and there were other choices.

Apple does not allow the opportunity for choice and it is all artificially limited, making them a monopoly.

Actually most times it’s more expensive to buy from the manufacturer as opposed to a third party reseller. The manufacturer doesn’t want to undercut their dealers and resellers so typically the manufacturer sells for MSRP all while 3rd parties sell for cheaper.

 

[Abazigal]

It's called choice and Free Market. It's not a hard concept to understand, but often you can buy something cheaper from the manufacturer, sometimes it's cheaper from a third party.

Apple is a monopoly on their platform, something MS got sued for and lost in the 90's because they bundled Internet Explorer with their operating system. They didn't force consumers to use it and there were other choices.

Apple does not allow the opportunity for choice and it is all artificially limited, making them a monopoly.

Being a monopoly in itself is not against the law.

Apple has a monopoly on iPhones regardless of whether it has sold 1 iphone or a billion iPhones, so that alone is not enough to make a case against Apple.

Microsoft got into trouble because they had majority market share in the PC market (close to 100%), so their actions threatened to severely curtail competition in the market.

Apple has only 15% market share worldwide, and there’s plenty of alternatives in the form of a seemingly endless array of android handsets, and there is no evidence of Google and Apple colluding to prevent new entrants into the smartphone market. If anything, it’s Google who has made the market extremely uncompetitive by essentially giving away their OS and their services for free. Meanwhile, Apple had for the longest time dealt only in the premium segment of the market, which meant in theory that there should be a large untapped market for the rest to fight over. Companies like Microsoft and Blackberry have tried and failed because they simply could not compete.

I agree that Apple is a monopoly, but you would be hard pressed to show that harm has been done to the consumer because of it. If anything, a strong case can be made that a walled garden ecosystem has been a great boon to consumers.

I wouldn’t be against the idea of macOS becoming like iOS in that regard either.

 

[Anox]

Being a monopoly in itself is not against the law.

Apple has a monopoly on iPhones regardless of whether it has sold 1 iphone or a billion iPhones, so that alone is not enough to make a case against Apple.

Microsoft got into trouble because they had majority market share in the PC market (close to 100%), so their actions threatened to severely curtail competition in the market.

Apple has only 15% market share worldwide, and there’s plenty of alternatives in the form of a seemingly endless array of android handsets, and there is no evidence of Google and Apple colluding to prevent new entrants into the smartphone market. If anything, it’s Google who has made the market extremely uncompetitive by essentially giving away their OS and their services for free. Meanwhile, Apple had for the longest time dealt only in the premium segment of the market, which meant in theory that there should be a large untapped market for the rest to fight over. Companies like Microsoft and Blackberry have tried and failed because they simply could not compete.

I agree that Apple is a monopoly, but you would be hard pressed to show that harm has been done to the consumer because of it. If anything, a strong case can be made that a walled garden ecosystem has been a great boon to consumers.

I wouldn’t be against the idea of macOS becoming like iOS in that regard either.

at first I was afraid of the idea that macOS locked down can bring but now with people acting like Apple owes them, wanting to pick and choose how Apple should be and considering how unique that experience will be I’m all for it

there is alternative, you just prefer not to use it, so instead of painting them a bad guy for not liking their business, act upon your claims choose android...

 

[pasamio]

Microsoft got into trouble because they had majority market share in the PC market (close to 100%), so their actions threatened to severely curtail competition in the market.

Microsoft got in trouble for using their monopoly to deal behind the scenes and try to control what OEMs did with the threat of not selling them Windows licenses. That's death for an OEM to not be able to compete. They also tried to strong arm Netscape and then leveraged private APIs in Internet Explorer, which is what they settled on. Google's actions against Fortnite might rise to that but the closest I could see on the Apple side was that they might have given Amazon a better deal, though I doubt that will make a difference.

 

[HandITOVER]

SMH.

 

[I7guy]

In theory, Apple can't forced the developer to use only a single type of payment that imposed a 30% fee such as subscription, in-app purchases. The DOJ will rule it as a violation of antitrust law and make enforcement order to remove the restriction that harms alternative payment.

IMO, this may not play out the way you think it will. Apple doesn't put it's wet finger in the air, hoping things will work for the company. I'm sure they are prepared for all contingencies.

 

[cmaier]

Microsoft got in trouble for using their monopoly to deal behind the scenes and try to control what OEMs did with the threat of not selling them Windows licenses. That's death for an OEM to not be able to compete. They also tried to strong arm Netscape and then leveraged private APIs in Internet Explorer, which is what they settled on. Google's actions against Fortnite might rise to that but the closest I could see on the Apple side was that they might have given Amazon a better deal, though I doubt that will make a difference.

People keep talking about the amazon thing, but i don’t see how it can possibly be relevant. Even if there was some requirement to treat everyone the same (and in a free market where would such a requirement come from?), apple received OTHER things of value from amazon that more than make up for the discount. Remember that the amazon deal included amazon’s web store (amazon selling apple products and apparently removing third party sellers), amazon adopting certain sdk technologies on apple’s products, amazon making prime available on apple tv, etc.

 

[pasamio]

People keep talking about the amazon thing, but i don’t see how it can possibly be relevant. Even if there was some requirement to treat everyone the same (and in a free market where would such a requirement come from?), apple received OTHER things of value from amazon that more than make up for the discount. Remember that the amazon deal included amazon’s web store (amazon selling apple products and apparently removing third party sellers), amazon adopting certain sdk technologies on apple’s products, amazon making prime available on apple tv, etc.

I think that it stands as an example that it is indeed negotiable not a consistent rate for everyone, hopefully there will be more light shed on what exactly the program was that they were added to that granted them the special status. I don't think it will help Epic Games though as they're taking a different approach about the entire thing being fiat wrong.

 

[cmaier]

I think that it stands as an example that it is indeed negotiable not a consistent rate for everyone, hopefully there will be more light shed on what exactly the program was that they were added to that granted them the special status. I don't think it will help Epic Games though as they're taking a different approach about the entire thing being fiat wrong.

The idea that ”if it’s negotiable then it’s unfair and somehow illegal” is wrong, though. There’s no rule that you have to charge everyone the same amount.

 

[pasamio]

The idea that ”if it’s negotiable then it’s unfair and somehow illegal” is wrong, though. There’s no rule that you have to charge everyone the same amount.

I agree, I don't expect it to be a meritorious legal argument but I do expect to see it somewhere along the line.

 

[cmaier]

I agree, I don't expect it to be a meritorious legal argument but I do expect to see it somewhere along the line.

I think it comes from people thinking like children. “Mom and dad have to treat all us kids the same.”