Epic Games Files Complaint to Support UK Antitrust Watchdog's Apple Probe

[bn-7bc]

Neither company has a right to exist if they're going to be this moany about everything.

This just in: A company's main purpose in life is making its owners (shareholders) the most mony legaly posible (ie; without breaking any law sow badly that authorities wake up)

 

[bn-7bc]

My iPhone contains no health data, and can be searched by any cop for any reason they like. Only an idiot would think their iPhone is "secure". My Mac contains decades of financial records and personal correspondence, and would require a judge-issued search order to investigate.

"Security through Appstore Control" is just a variation of "Security through obscurity".

iOS doesn't need to be locked down, you personally may need the feeling of security through only getting your apps from Apple. But the truth is, that Appel's control of the App store has not eliminated malware from iOS, as that poor bastard who lost 600k from an app that Apple had already been told was a scam app by the makers of the proper one found out.




Once again, other people having the ability to get apps from third parties will not effect you, unless Apple's app store is so toxic, so badly run, that developers will abandon it the moment an alternative is available.

Currently, iOS security is built on an assumption that every app on the device is honest and trustworthy. We know for a fact that every app on the appstore is not honest and trustworthy. For iOS to be secure enough to deal with the malware on Apple's appstore, it will by necessity be secure enough to deal with malware from any other source. You will have a more secure iOS when there are multiple appstores.

Ok I'm not a loyer, but erched for any reason seams a bit off the mark (At lest from a european setendpoint) , Am I wrong in beleving a warrant is needed to complll you to give them your pass code,. or for them to break out their legal hacking tools?

 

[qoop]

This just in: A company's main purpose in life is making its owners (shareholders) the most mony legaly posible (ie; without breaking any law sow badly that authorities wake up)

NEWSFLASH: Didn't understand much of that tbh. I'm eating a lovely ham sandwich.

 

[mattspace]

Ok I'm not a loyer, but erched for any reason seams a bit off the mark (At lest from a european setendpoint) , Am I wrong in beleving a warrant is needed to complll you to give them your pass code,. or for them to break out their legal hacking tools?

In Australia, you can be held more of less indefinitely depending on the circumstances for refusing to provide passwords or unlock a device. Usually what happens id the cops just brutalise you to get the device open, then delete any video footage of themselves, then look for evidence of any crime so they can claim just cause.

If they get bored of just holding you while they wait, there's a multi-year jail term for the crime of refusing to unlock devices.

 

[mattspace]

The difficulty in your argument is your definition of these things as separate commercial entitles that are distinct from the ecosystem as a whole. Apple will be arguing that these are not separate commercial entities but are part of a single integrated package. You cannot apply a horizontal business model to a vertically integrated company. Leave horizontal business models to horizontally integrated companies (e.g., google).

But businesses are constantly required to treat aspects of themselves as independent entities for regulatory purposes. That's the very heart of antitrust law - a diversified company cannot use its control of one aspect of a market, to disadvantage a company that competes with one of its subsidiaries, simply by claiming they're a single integrated entity.

Microsoft tried that with Internet Explorer, and it failed.

The owner of a freight railway line, that also has a fertiliser business, cant refuse to carry the freight of a competing fertiliser company - because owning a certain degree of power in a market, brings with it a commensurate degree of responsibility to the non-discriminatory management of that market.

Just like the president isn't an elected king with absolute rule (much to the last US President's dismay), simply being dominant in a market, een in a market that you as a company built from scratch, doesn't give you autocratic rights - you build anything, and it's governments who set the rules, just as surely as they set the architectural and engineering rules on a building you build on "your" land.

The logical conclusion of someone considering different parts of the iOS ecosystem is individual commercial entitles would be for Apple to allow you to install a different operating system on the iPhone, which is clearly absurd

What's clearly absurd about it? You buy an iPhone, you own it, you can do whatever you like with it, including install your own choice of operating system.

, and would also be forcing Apple to make products it does not want to make

They can choose not to make products at all, if they don't want to make them within the regulatory framework societies have decided are applicable to the companies society allows to exist.

(and also take away consumer choice to pick an option that is vertically integrated. Consumers can already pick a horizontally integrated product by choosing android, we don’t need/want regulators to force every company to be horizontally integrated).

The only reason breaking integration between two products would harm those products, is if individually they are sub-par products, that rely upon functional subsidies to compete.

That just seems like promoting the existence of subpar products.

 

[mrochester]

But businesses are constantly required to treat aspects of themselves as independent entities for regulatory purposes. That's the very heart of antitrust law - a diversified company cannot use its control of one aspect of a market, to disadvantage a company that competes with one of its subsidiaries, simply by claiming they're a single integrated entity.

Microsoft tried that with Internet Explorer, and it failed.

The owner of a freight railway line, that also has a fertiliser business, cant refuse to carry the freight of a competing fertiliser company - because owning a certain degree of power in a market, brings with it a commensurate degree of responsibility to the non-discriminatory management of that market.

Just like the president isn't an elected king with absolute rule (much to the last US President's dismay), simply being dominant in a market, een in a market that you as a company built from scratch, doesn't give you autocratic rights - you build anything, and it's governments who set the rules, just as surely as they set the architectural and engineering rules on a building you build on "your" land.



What's clearly absurd about it? You buy an iPhone, you own it, you can do whatever you like with it, including install your own choice of operating system.



They can choose not to make products at all, if they don't want to make them within the regulatory framework societies have decided are applicable to the companies society allows to exist.


The only reason breaking integration between two products would harm those products, is if individually they are sub-par products, that rely upon functional subsidies to compete.

That just seems like promoting the existence of subpar products.

Society already decided that the App Store is fine to operate the way it does and has done for many years else it would not have existed in the first place.

It only becomes a problem and has to change when one party has too much power in the defined market. Depending on how you define the market (mobile apps or iOS apps) is the main determining factor here.

 

[laptech]

If past history is anything to go by, Apple will lose. The UK does not and has never liked a company holding a monopoly over others. Granted it can take many many years before the country acts on a company but that is mostly due to the political climate at the time. What ever the arguments are for being right or wrong, companies that once had a monopoly were told to change. British Telecom (BT) once held a monopoly on the telephone system. They owned the physical cable lines, the phone exchanges and the sub boxes and no one else was allowed to use them. they were told to change and allow others to use their infrastructure. Now you have a multitude of different phone companies. It was the same with British Gas. They owned the complete system. They were told to allow other comapnies to use their infrastructure and now you have a multitude of gase companies. The Post Office was taken out of public hands, went private and was told to hand over some of it's business to competing companies because the Post Office had the monopoly on postal deliveries and thus it goes on and other with other businesses.

Anyone that tries to use Walmart in their comments are doing so for the wrong reasons. Walmart is a supermarket and as such there are many other supermarkets. Walmart is a dominant player in the supermarket business but the advantage is is that if consumers do not like the products or prices in Walmart, there are other supermarkets they can goto to get the same or alternative product. This is the same for many many companies and businesses that product services or products to the consumer.

This is not the case for Apples app store. There is only ONE app store and it is wholly controlled by Apple. There is no competing app store that consumers of ios devices can connect to. Therefore, if an ios app developer wants to get their app out to consumers, they only have one choice and that is Apple and they have no option but to abide by what ever Apples decides and sets the conditions to be. if they do not like the terms Apple offer, it's a case of tough luck, your out.

In todays consumer world, the consumer has choice over many products and services. A consumer has multiple choices on where they purchase a car, clothing, furniture, phone services, insurance services, repair and maintance services, food, utility services (not all and can be dependant on where the person lives), washers and dryers, music but if a consumer owns an ios device, they can only got to ONE place to purchase apps for that device and thats the Apple app store.

Many many years ago, if a car owner wanted to replace the lacklustre car radio in their car, they could only do so by buying a better model from the car makers authourised dealer and having it fitted by them. Consumer groups and independant businesses forced governent bodies to act and laws got changed. The same is now happening to Apple and also to Google with their Playstore.

Unless Apple has a legally compelling argument as to why they and only them are allowed to own and operate the ios app store, I have a feeling the UK and cases appearing in the EU will rule against them.

 

[mrochester]

If past history is anything to go by, Apple will lose. The UK does not and has never liked a company holding a monopoly over others. Granted it can take many many years before the country acts on a company but that is mostly due to the political climate at the time. What ever the arguments are for being right or wrong, companies that once had a monopoly were told to change. British Telecom (BT) once held a monopoly on the telephone system. They owned the physical cable lines, the phone exchanges and the sub boxes and no one else was allowed to use them. they were told to change and allow others to use their infrastructure. Now you have a multitude of different phone companies. It was the same with British Gas. They owned the complete system. They were told to allow other comapnies to use their infrastructure and now you have a multitude of gase companies. The Post Office was taken out of public hands, went private and was told to hand over some of it's business to competing companies because the Post Office had the monopoly on postal deliveries and thus it goes on and other with other businesses.

Anyone that tries to use Walmart in their comments are doing so for the wrong reasons. Walmart is a supermarket and as such there are many other supermarkets. Walmart is a dominant player in the supermarket business but the advantage is is that if consumers do not like the products or prices in Walmart, there are other supermarkets they can goto to get the same or alternative product. This is the same for many many companies and businesses that product services or products to the consumer.

This is not the case for Apples app store. There is only ONE app store and it is wholly controlled by Apple. There is no competing app store that consumers of ios devices can connect to. Therefore, if an ios app developer wants to get their app out to consumers, they only have one choice and that is Apple and they have no option but to abide by what ever Apples decides and sets the conditions to be. if they do not like the terms Apple offer, it's a case of tough luck, your out.

In todays consumer world, the consumer has choice over many products and services. A consumer has multiple choices on where they purchase a car, clothing, furniture, phone services, insurance services, repair and maintance services, food, utility services (not all and can be dependant on where the person lives), washers and dryers, music but if a consumer owns an ios device, they can only got to ONE place to purchase apps for that device and thats the Apple app store.

Many many years ago, if a car owner wanted to replace the lacklustre car radio in their car, they could only do so by buying a better model from the car makers authourised dealer and having it fitted by them. Consumer groups and independant businesses forced governent bodies to act and laws got changed. The same is now happening to Apple and also to Google with their Playstore.

Unless Apple has a legally compelling argument as to why they and only them are allowed to own and operate the ios app store, I have a feeling the UK and cases appearing in the EU will rule against them.

If the solution to avoid walmart is to simply shop at another supermarket, why is the solution to avoid apple not simply to buy an android device? This is the contradiction I don’t see being addressed. The same products (apps) will be available to android users as they are to iOS users.

The only point I’ve seen made to support this approach is that it costs money to buy an android phone whereas choosing to shop at another supermarket, in theory, doesn’t cost any additional money (in practice, it might cost you more to get there and take up more of your time, both of which are costs you have to consider when choosing not to shop at Walmart. Likewise, switching to android will cost you some money, but you will also have an iPhone to sell to recoup some of those costs).

 

[laptech]

Society already decided that the App Store is fine to operate the way it does and has done for many years else it would not have existed in the first place.

It only becomes a problem and has to change when one party has too much power in the defined market. Depending on how you define the market (mobile apps or iOS apps) is the main determining factor here.

Society has been focrced to accept the ios app store because their is no other choice, it classed as 'forced acceptance', basically meaning, in abscence of choice, persons are forced to accept the only option avaliable to them, thereby giving the impression that the product or service being offered to them is 'ok' or 'fine' when in actual fact it is the opposite.

If I want to purchase a car, there are many car sale places I can go to, authourised dealerships and independant car dealers. I can also look for better car deals from online car dealships. I have a choice of options. The same goes if I want to purchase a pair of jeans, there are many clothing stores and online clothing stores I can chose from BUT as a long term iphone owner, if I want to purchase an ios app, I have no choice, I only have one place I can go to and I have no choice but to pay the price the app store is telling me to pay. This is a problem and this is what the UK and the EU are looking into.

 

[mrochester]

Society has been focrced to accept the ios app store because their is no other choice, it classed as 'forced acceptance', basically meaning, in abscence of choice, persons are forced to accept the only option avaliable to them, thereby giving the impression that the product or service being offered to them is 'ok' or 'fine' when in actual fact it is the opposite.

If I want to purchase a car, there are many car sale places I can go to, authourised dealerships and independant car dealers. I can also look for better car deals from online car dealships. I have a choice of options. The same goes if I want to purchase a pair of jeans, there are many clothing stores and online clothing stores I can chose from BUT as a long term iphone owner, if I want to purchase an ios app, I have no choice, I only have one place I can go to and I have no choice but to pay the price the app store is telling me to pay. This is a problem and this is what the UK and the EU are looking into.

But you had the choice to buy the iPhone in the first place knowing that the App Store was the only place to get your apps. Why did you not pick a more appropriate device in the first place? Are you suggesting you just blindly bought an iPhone without researching your purchase first? Saving people from making bad purchasing decisions in a competitive market is not something any government should be regulating… the free market should be permitted to take care of that.

Consumers can pick from any number of smartphones in a competitive smartphone market.

Developers can pick from any number of platforms to develop their apps for.

No single consumer or developer is ever forced or required to even buy or use anything Apple never mind it being the only option they have.

 

[laptech]

But you had the choice to buy the iPhone in the first place knowing that the App Store was the only place to get your apps. Why did you not pick a more appropriate device in the first place? Are you suggesting you just blindly bought an iPhone without researching your purchase first? Saving people from making bad purchasing decisions in a competitive market is not something any government should be regulating… the free market should be permitted to take care of that.

Consumers can pick from any number of smartphones in a competitive smartphone market.

Developers can pick from any number of platforms to develop their apps for.

No single consumer or developer is ever forced or required to even buy or use anything Apple never mind it being the only option they have.

Wanting to have a better price for an ios app is not a bad purchasing decision. If an ios app is priced at $9.99, I want to be to able search for a better deal but I cannot. I am sure if I had the time and patience, I could search this forum and find numerous threads where owners of macbooks have complained that they wanted a certain device or program to be available to mac owners that was only available to Windows OS or they wanted a better price deal. By your ios v android os principle, your saying mac owners should not complain of something only being available and /or priced better on the windows platform and that they should dump the macbook and purchase a windows laptop, because that is exactly what your saying about the ios, if people don't like it, switch to android. Funny how that same argument is never applied to mac book owners, if you don't like it, get a windows machine.

 

[mrochester]

Wanting to have a better price for an ios app is not a bad purchasing decision. If an ios app is priced at $9.99, I want to be to able search for a better deal but I cannot. I am sure if I had the time and patience, I could search this forum and find numerous threads where owners of macbooks have complained that they wanted a certain device or program to be available to mac owners that was only available to Windows OS or they wanted a better price deal. By your ios v android os principle, your saying mac owners should not complain of something only being available and /or priced better on the windows platform and that they should dump the macbook and purchase a windows laptop, because that is exactly what your saying about the ios, if people don't like it, switch to android. Funny how that same argument is never applied to mac book owners, if you don't like it, get a windows machine.

Absolutely you should dump iOS and go android if something you want isn’t available. It’s precisely why I bootcamp windows on my MacBook Pro because not everything is available on macOS. Like I said, let the free market dictate what products people want.

You can search for a better deal… you browse the google play store and then decide whether saving the money (assuming there is a saving) is worth you getting an android phone or not.

 

[laptech]

Absolutely you should dump iOS and go android if something you want isn’t available. It’s precisely why I bootcamp windows on my MacBook Pro because not everything is available on macOS. Like I said, let the free market dictate what products people want.

You can search for a better deal… you browse the google play store and then decide whether saving the money (assuming there is a saving) is worth you getting an android phone or not.

Bootcamp was only made because mac owners complained about needing to use windows software that was not available on mac os. Based on your argument and in this scenerio, mac owners didn't have a right to complain and should have used a windows machine instead because that is exactly what your saying about ios device owners, if it isn't available, move to android. Thus for macbook owners, if it's not available on mac os, move to windows. But as we all know, that is not what happened, hence the introduction of bootcamp.

Hypocritical comes to mind here, not available on ios, do not complain, instead move to android. Not available on mac os, complain to Apple and get it made available.

 

[mrochester]

Bootcamp was only made because mac owners complained about needing to use windows software that was not available on mac os. Based on your argument and in this scenerio, mac owners didn't have a right to complain and should have used a windows machine instead because that is exactly what your saying about ios device owners, if it isn't available, move to android. Thus for macbook owners, if it's not available on mac os, move to windows. But as we all know, that is not what happened, hence the introduction of bootcamp.

Hypocritical comes to mind here, not available on ios, do not complain, instead move to android. Not available on mac os, complain to Apple and get it made available.

I did not complain to Apple in either scenario so I’m definitely not a hypocrite!

Apple introduced boot camp when they switched to Intel processors as an additional feature for Mac buyers. Boot camp has gone away again with the introduction of M1 macs. I only bought a Mac once it was possible to also run windows on it. I will probably not be buying an M1 Mac on that basis.

You can complain to Apple as much as you please. But we are not talking about complaining to Apple here, we are talking about using government to force apple to give you want you want instead of letting the free market decide what products are available.

 

[theotherphil]

And in a world where Apple had not built a whole bunch of services that were tied to Apple branded hardware, like iMessage etc, that would be a reasonable argument - but every single vertical and horizontal integration Apple creates, every single "unique advantage" of Apple's iOS platform and market, weighs against the argument that Android is a movable equivalent.

On top of everything, the cases by Epic etc, are primarily about Apple using its control of a market (iOS in general), to prevent competition for a separate Apple commercial service - App vending, Binary hosting, and payment processing.

The ability of consumers to move to a different platform, does not change the fact that Apple is still acting within the iOS market with regards to developers, in a way that developers, and antitrust authorities, are arguing is against various competition laws.

Our Way of The Highway is, surprisingly, not a strong defence in antitrust law.

And this whole thing rests on the definition of a market and how narrow you can make that definition. If you make your definition so small, you can make any company a monopoly. Epic want to argue that the relevant market is iOS app distribution when they predominantly sell to the video game market. You can buy Epic‘s products on PC, Android, Sideloading, XBox, PlayStation, Nintendo, Apple etc, etc. Being kicked out of one distribution channel for breach of contract doesn’t stop Epic selling to their relevant market (video gamers). The actual relevant market will likely be defined by the courts as either video games distribution or mobile app distribution.

The courts have never accepted a market definition so narrow as iOS App Distribution because doing so will set an interesting precedent that will apply to every single industry and mean massive ripple effects down the line, many of which will be unanticipated.

It‘s pretty annoying that Burger King has a monopoly on Whopper distribution and don’t allow Macdonalds to sell the Big Mac in their stores.….especially when they advertise “have it your way”. Somebody should look into that.

 

[mattspace]

It‘s pretty annoying that Burger King has a monopoly on Whopper distribution and don’t allow Macdonalds to sell the Big Mac in their stores.….especially when they advertise “have it your way”. Somebody should look into that.

If Burger King sold you your stomach, and you required a surgical stomach transplant to a different brand of stomach to eat non-Burger King food, that might be a valid concern.

Every aspect of Apple's products, that tie exclusively to other Apple products, reinforce that their products are not frictionlessly substitutable for another brand / platform.

Apple's app store is just a simple case of a common carrier, like a railroad, and Apple is using its ownership of the common carrier aspect of that, to reinforce their separate businesses of charging developers for providing merchant services, by excluding competitors from the ability to provide said merchant services to developers.

Or, for another example, a phone company which provides network service for point of sale terminals, deciding that people would have to buy POS from the phone company, and do their banking with the phone company, rather than just being able to plug whatever POS terminal they like, as supplied by the bank with whom they have their business banking account.

 

[I7guy]

If Burger King sold you your stomach, and you required a surgical stomach transplant to a different brand of stomach to eat non-Burger King food, that might be a valid concern.

Every aspect of Apple's products, that tie exclusively to other Apple products, reinforce that their products are not frictionlessly substitutable for another brand / platform.

Apple's app store is just a simple case of a common carrier, like a railroad, and Apple is using its ownership of the common carrier aspect of that, to reinforce their separate businesses of charging developers for providing merchant services, by excluding competitors from the ability to provide said merchant services to developers.

Or, for another example, a phone company which provides network service for point of sale terminals, deciding that people would have to buy POS from the phone company, and do their banking with the phone company, rather than just being able to plug whatever POS terminal they like, as supplied by the bank with whom they have their business banking account.

Sure, it's easy to say after almost 13 years, the ios app store is a common carrier. In 2008 it was a brilliant decision to open up the app store to get app developers to unleash their creativity, provide accounting, management and hosting services, and provide a one-stop place for iphone users to shop. The concept has been very successful.

Now 13 years later, it's being labeled as a common carrier. Well not so fast. Apple has every right to run it's business the way it seems fit. Now if the government in retrospect, wants to regulate "all app stores" that is their right. Yes the app store is a legal monopoly as is: iphone production, ios, icloud, apple tv, Apple music, etc.

The analogies above really don't do the app store justice and Epic's actions are all self-serving, with their interests at heart, not the consumers.

 

[I7guy]

Wanting to have a better price for an ios app is not a bad purchasing decision. If an ios app is priced at $9.99, I want to be to able search for a better deal but I cannot.[...]

If a developer is charging $9.99 for an app, do you believe that with alternate app stores charging less then a 30%/15% commission the dev will lower the price or pocket the difference? I think a dev will want every penny that comes from the sale of their apps. And if they are willing to lower the price, then nothing is stopping them from doing that on the ios app store.

Can you search for app that does an equivalent function for a lower price? Sure you can do that today...if such an alternative app exists.

 

[quarkysg]

Apple's app store is just a simple case of a common carrier, like a railroad, and Apple is using its ownership of the common carrier aspect of that, to reinforce their separate businesses of charging developers for providing merchant services, by excluding competitors from the ability to provide said merchant services to developers.

Probably stretching a little here. Following your rail anology, I would think that iOS would be a really well maintained and safe rail car traveling on the rail road. The rail car comes with a convenient store operating (App Store) in it where travellers in the rail car could purchase stuffs (i.e. Apps). If a traveler does not like traveling in the iOS rail car due to the limited or too expensive merchandise they can purchase, there are alternatives for the traveler to choose another rail car. Many rail cars can travel on the railroad.

If Apple is forced to allow third party App Stores, imagine what would happen next. Disney will be forced to allow many types of retail shops within it's premises that it does not currently allow for example.

 

[mattspace]

If Apple is forced to allow third party App Stores, imagine what would happen next. Disney will be forced to allow many types of retail shops within it's premises that it does not currently allow for example.

Not everything is a slippery slope. I don't understand why people have such a hard time with this concept - App stores can be regulated, and that regulation can stop at that point. This apocalyptic-cult idea that regulating one aspect of Apple will necessarily transfer to all other companies and industries is a child's view of regulation policy.

The Disney exampe would be if Disney owned a common road that lead to both Disney World, and land upon which a competing theme park was set up, and Disney charged a toll on that road that they could recoup for themselves, disadvantaging the competing theme park.

Developer services (Binary download hosting, Notarisation, DRM addition, payment processing) are a separate business activity, and the argument is that Apple is using its control of one market (iOS) to establish, or extend a monopoly on another market (developer services on iOS).

 

[mattspace]

If a developer is charging $9.99 for an app, do you believe that with alternate app stores charging less then a 30%/15% commission the dev will lower the price or pocket the difference? I think a dev will want every penny that comes from the sale of their apps. And if they are willing to lower the price, then nothing is stopping them from doing that on the ios app store.

Right, but this isn't really about the price of apps to users, it's about the price developers are paying Apple for services that would be cheaper to them if there were competitive options for Apple's developer services.

People seem confused by this issue - the "consumers" versus Apple in this case, are Developers, not users.

If a developer can make enough money because they're paying 6% vs 15-30%, and are offer upgrade pricing, they are less incentivised to do scummy and scammy things, like subscription pricing.

That alone is a net win.

 

[I7guy]

Not everything is a slippery slope. I don't understand why people have such a hard time with this concept - App stores can be regulated, and that regulation can stop at that point. This apocalyptic-cult idea that regulating one aspect of Apple will necessarily transfer to all other companies and industries is a child's view of regulation policy.[…]

I’m going to guess that regulation that just applies to Apple will end up in the Supreme Court.

 

[I7guy]

Right, but this isn't really about the price of apps to users, it's about the price developers are paying Apple for services that would be cheaper to them if there were competitive options for Apple's developer services.

People seem confused by this issue - the "consumers" versus Apple in this case, are Developers, not users.

If a developer can make enough money because they're paying 6% vs 15-30%, and are offer upgrade pricing, they are less incentivised to do scummy and scammy things, like subscription pricing.

That alone is a net win.

I don’t believe that model will change. Ask Epic. People are not confused, they have their viewpoints. Alternate app stores with different commissions will not fundamentally change the app model. And that’s in my opinion. If the consumers don’t benefit and are worse off due to lackadaisical policies, it becomes a loss for consumers.

 

[quarkysg]

This apocalyptic-cult idea that regulating one aspect of Apple will necessarily transfer to all other companies and industries is a child's view of regulation policy.

Wouldn't this be setting a precedence for future complaints. Complaining that iOS as a 'market' would be akin to complaining that 'Disneyland/Disney World' are a market unto themselves.

The Disney exampe would be if Disney owned a common road that lead to both Disney World, and land upon which a competing theme park was set up, and Disney charged a toll on that road that they could recoup for themselves, disadvantaging the competing theme park.

This is strecthing the argument again. If Disney owned such a road, that means it's Disney private property. The competing theme park would not be able to build anything on Disney's property without Disney's permissions. Besides, there's nothing stopping the competing theme park from building their own roads to their theme park.

 

[mrochester]

Not everything is a slippery slope. I don't understand why people have such a hard time with this concept - App stores can be regulated, and that regulation can stop at that point. This apocalyptic-cult idea that regulating one aspect of Apple will necessarily transfer to all other companies and industries is a child's view of regulation policy.

The Disney exampe would be if Disney owned a common road that lead to both Disney World, and land upon which a competing theme park was set up, and Disney charged a toll on that road that they could recoup for themselves, disadvantaging the competing theme park.

Developer services (Binary download hosting, Notarisation, DRM addition, payment processing) are a separate business activity, and the argument is that Apple is using its control of one market (iOS) to establish, or extend a monopoly on another market (developer services on iOS).

’developer services on iOS’ is too narrow a market definition. For app developers the market they are engaging in is ‘developer services on app stores’ of which there are many they can make use of (iOS, google play, Samsung, Xbox, PS, Steam etc).