Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
It has nothing to do with App Store or operating system, that’s not even relevant. Here’s what is:

You can’t define the market so narrowly that it only includes a single brand, then claim that brand has a monopoly.

The relevant market isn’t app stores for iPhones, the relevant market is app stores for smartphones.

But even though Apple doesn’t have a monopoly, there are still rules. If Apple is in violation, they’ll be set right by the court.

An iOS app is fundamentally different from an Android app and it cannot run on Android.
How can you claim the same market when what's sold are not interchangeable substitutes?
 
I was waiting for you explain using the that term against a App Store like environment integrated to iOS and IPadOS. Is the Apple TV, Books, Music is that all illegal also?

I can uninstall Apple Music, TV and Books. Apple also allows Spotify, Kindle, Netflix etc. No tying.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: TiggrToo
Go read the appellate court's opinion. Facts affirmed. Microsoft's tying was illegal. Only remedies (originally they want to break up Microsoft) reversed.
Is this not correct?

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge Jackson's rulings against Microsoft. This was partly because the appellate court had adopted a "drastically altered scope of liability" under which the remedies could be taken, and also partly due to the embargoed interviews Judge Jackson had given to the news media while he was still hearing the case, in violation of the Code of Conduct for US Judges.[24] Judge Jackson did not attend the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals hearing, in which the appeals court judges accused him of unethical conduct and determined he should have recused himself from the case.[25]
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maximara
I was waiting for you explain using the that term against a App Store like environment integrated to iOS and IPadOS. Is the Apple TV, Books, Music is that all illegal also?
Apple was already nervous about Spotify's antitrust complaint, so they let people choose music services in new iOS.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: TiggrToo
I can uninstall Apple Music, TV and Books. Apple also allows Spotify, Kindle, Netflix etc. No tying.
True, but if you need to get them back you use the Apple App Store. But does the process that pertains to software installs which is the Apple App main purpose represent anything illegal because its part of the OS? This just is a good example of how less capable the iOS/IpadOS examples are. Its why I never want a Apple Silicon environment utilizing something similar for Macs.
 
Is this not correct?

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge Jackson's rulings against Microsoft. This was partly because the appellate court had adopted a "drastically altered scope of liability" under which the remedies could be taken, and also partly due to the embargoed interviews Judge Jackson had given to the news media while he was still hearing the case, in violation of the Code of Conduct for US Judges.[24] Judge Jackson did not attend the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals hearing, in which the appeals court judges accused him of unethical conduct and determined he should have recused himself from the case.[25]

I asked you to read the appellate court's opinion.
"Relying upon the district court's findings of fact, we determined that Microsoft took three actions to bind IE to Windows: (1) it excluded IE from the "Add/Remove Programs" utility; (2) it commingled in the same file code related to browsing and code used by the operating system so that removal of IE files would cripple Windows; and (3) it designed Windows in such a manner that, in certain circumstances, a user's choice of an internet browser other than IE would be overridden. Id.at 64-65. Although all three acts had anticompetitive effects, only the first two had no offsetting justification and, therefore, "constitute[d] exclusionary conduct [] in violation of § 2." Id. at 67." https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/373/1199/474311/
 
You don't recall agreeing to the Terms and Conditions of App Store?

Terms and conditions are prominently displayed when you set up and use any apple device or service. Apple is not at fault for your memory not working as it should.
 
Last edited:
Illegally TIES.
Do you understand what tying means?

Illegal tying is when a monopolist ties a product from a market they don’t have a monopoly in to a product in a market they do. There is no market Apple has a monopoly in. If the courts have so clearly stated that Apple’s single branded MacOS product is not a monopoly, I don’t expect they’ll find iOS a monopoly. There is no illegal tying.

Microsoft had a monopoly in x86 operating systems. They were in a position to illegally tie. Apple is not.
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: Alan Wynn

Illegal tying is when a monopolist ties a product they don’t have a monopoly in to a product they do. There is no product Apple has a monopoly in. If the courts have so clearly stated that Apple’s single branded MacOS product is not a monopoly, I don’t expect they’ll find iOS a monopoly. There is no illegal tying.

Microsoft had a monopoly in x86 operating systems. They were in a position to illegally tie. Apple is not.

"Apple iOS continues to hold its large share of the smartphone operating systems’ market within the United States, claiming more than half of the market in May 2020." (https://www.statista.com/statistics...by-smartphone-platforms-in-the-united-states/)
 
"Apple iOS continues to hold its large share of the smartphone operating systems’ market within the United States, claiming more than half of the market in May 2020." (https://www.statista.com/statistics...by-smartphone-platforms-in-the-united-states/)

Now it’s time for me to ask you: Do you understand what monopoly means?

And not that it’s relevant, but because it’s funny, if you read just a few sentences further in the article you linked you’ll see:

Android still the one to catch
Android, however, still holds the largest share of the United States smartphone operating systems’ market and has done for many years.​
 
Last edited:
This is really a chicken and the egg. Once can argue that Apple and creating a centralized app store has fueled Facebook and Snap reaching their valuation levels without that, they wouldn't be anywhere close to where they are now.
Agreed, and, specifically for the ones listed, most work just as well as web applications.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MacCheetah3
Now it’s time for me to ask you: Do you understand what monopoly means?

And not that it’s relevant, but because it’s funny, if your read just a few sentences further you’ll see:
Android still the one to catch​
Android, however, still holds the largest share of the United States smartphone operating systems’ market and has done for many years.​

This website says iOS is 59% in the US.
 
how is sideloading bad for small developer?
As I said, if Apple doesn't make money from IAPs, she would do it through the subscription to the developer program, which is now almost free. Therefore creating higher barrier to entry the market for small developers, while big fishes wouldn't be hurt.
 
Ok, this is a great distraction from the question I asked you, so let’s keep looking. Think you can find one that says 75%?

Even if they can't argue that the tie-in here is illegal per se, they can still apply the rule of reason approach to argue that it unreasonably restrained competition, where showing of monopoly is not required.
[automerge]1598853917[/automerge]

As I said, if Apple doesn't make money from IAPs, she would do it through the subscription to the developer program, which is now almost free. Therefore creating higher barrier to entry the market for small developers, while big fishes wouldn't be hurt.

You call $99/year almost free?
Now Google's about $30/lifetime is almost free.
 
An illegal agreement is illegal from the very beginning. That's why it's terms are unenforceable and Epic doesn't have to follow it at all.
Sorry, you are completely wrong here. An agreement is illegal if it is found to be illegal. That's what there are layers and judges for. Sorry, you are not an emperor and the US are not your kingdom. Unless stated so by a judge, the contract is legal. Your last phrase is also wrong: Epic had to follow the rules she agreed to sign, she did not and the account was terminated. Very simple. If everything was already settled, as you say, the account would still be valid, Epic would still be in the App Store and you could keep playing Fortnite on iOS. None of that is true since your statement has to be proved by reality and it will take some time before the judge will decide on this topic.
 
You call $99/year almost free?
Now Google's about $30/lifetime is almost free.
Yes. Absolutely. And if you cannot invest 99$/year, better you change job.
Google makes its money selling your data (you are the product sold), not selling a developer tool, that's a complete different business. You can't compare.
 
Even if they can't argue that the tie-in here is illegal per se, they can still apply the rule of reason approach to argue that it unreasonably restrained competition, where showing of monopoly is not required.


It requires a full-blown analysis of (i) definition of the relevant product and geographic market, (ii) market power of the defendant(s) in the relevant market, (iii) and the existence of anticompetitive effects. The court will then shift the burden to the defendant(s) to show an objective procompetitive justification.​

Remember, when you read “market power”, you can pronounce it “monopoly”. Do you understand what a monopoly is?

So what relevant product and geographic market does Apple hold monopoly power in with anticompetitive effects that outweigh the pro competitive justification?
 
  • Love
Reactions: Alan Wynn
Illegal or unconstitutional contracts exist. This can be argued.
Yup. However, the burden of proof is on Epic and given that they were not granted a TRO, the judge clearly does not think they have a slam dunk case. Certainly possible they will prevail, but not that clear cut.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TiggrToo
It’s not ended, yet.

EPIC will win, and Apple will have to pay damages later.
Ohh boy this will be expensive for Apple... 🤣
damages for EPIC
damages for antitrust in EU
damages for antitrust in US
plus a few other damages
Let's hope so. Apple has always been a proprietary POS company overcharging for mediocre quality. Imagine if Microsoft said "you cant install any programs on your computer, unless you buy it through us." That is 100% what is going on here. WHY does Apple need to be a middleman your transaction? They are acting like "Yeah, you bought the phone but we still own it and you can only do what we let you with it."
 
  • Haha
Reactions: PickUrPoison
An iOS app is fundamentally different from an Android app and it cannot run on Android.
How can you claim the same market when what's sold are not interchangeable substitutes?
Interchangeable substitutes are required to be in the same market? I thought it was interchangeable OR substitutable.

Based on characteristics, prices and intended use, imo Android and iOS are in the same relevant market, i.e. smartphones.

If the European Commission wants to define Apple’s relevant market as “unlicensable smartphone OSes” or “smartphone OSes that begin with the letter ‘I’ ” then I guess things could get interesting.
 
Last edited:
The courts need to rule against Apple. This is some serious antitrust/monopoly BS. If i buy a phone i should be able to do whatever TF i want with it. Apple store shouldn't be the only way you can buy/install apps. But w/e I have no real sympathy for Apple fanbois who have more money than sense. Apple was an overpriced status symbol, now it's just overpriced. You can always get better for less money.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.