There is harm done to other developers:
…cause Apple‘s current business terms means high transaction costs to these developers.
Which in turn mean higher prices (harm) to consumers.
Apple‘s great trick: they’re not directly harming consumers - but have hidden that behind developers’ App Store pricing.
👉🏻 If an app or subscription is considered „expensive“ on the App Store, many customers will „blame“ that on or complain about the developer charging such a high price. Most people will mentally attribute it to the developer, few will ask why or attribute it to the high transaction costs.
„That App, subscription or developer is expensive“.
Not „Apple makes it so expensive by charging 30% commission“
It’s a cognitive thing (often even if people rationally know better).
Same thing as with fuel prices or government taxes.
Yes, there is harm to other developers. The question is whether the DoJ is should be using antitrust to settle a dispute between business partners that is largely unrelated to consumers.
The idea that App Store pricing hurts consumers is not clear. Developers are angry at Apple because they want that money for themselves. It’s not clear it would be passed on to consumer. Sure, now they sell the app for cheaper on their websites, but that’s to show regulators that consumer harm was done. Not at all clear this lower price would continue in the future. Furthermore, consumers affirmatively choose Apple’s product, which has always had this limitation. And many of the limitations that developers hate, like limiting app tracking, forced integration with Apple Wallet and Apple Pay, IAP that makes it easy to unsubscribe, no battery-sucking chromium apps-
benefit consumers at the expense of developers. Maybe it’s worth it to pay 30% for that. Importantly, there are alternative products available that don't have this limitation, yet consumers aren’t gravitating towards them.
Fundamentally, Apple is not a monopoly towards its customers, who choose freely to buy from it. It
is a monopsony towards its developers, who have no choice but to sell on its store. Now I don’t know if the Sherman Act covers monopsony but it isn’t necessarily bad for consumers.
For example, the NHS has a monopsony over healthcare in the UK. If you’re a patient, you get free healthcare. If you’re a doctor, you get criminally underpaid. Breaking up the monopsony in this case would lead to higher prices. Now, one could argue that the NHS allocates resources inefficiently and encourages overuse of medical care that lead to waits and shortages because of the lack of price signals. One could argue that consumers would get better, higher-quality, more well-resourced medical care if the UK transitioned to a more free-market health system, even though they would pay more than they currently do (£0). But that’s an argument about capitalism vs socialism, and has nothing to do with antitrust law.
It‘s similar with Apple. One could argue that consumers would be better off with a more competitive app market overall because of innovation and market efficiencies, even if it means a less integrated and polished experience, where apps use more memory, do more tracking, aren’t in a single store, and are harder to unsubscribe from. But that is hard to prove and it certainly isn’t what is meant by consumer harm in antitrust law. You would be destroying features consumers actively want for future theoretical free market gains, with the immediate benefits accruing to multibillion dollar corporations.
Similarlt
