Epic Games Lays Off Over 800 Employees as Apple Legal Battle Drags On

[Abazigal]

Barring any legal violations, "warnings" would likely be fine. Again, I think the best approach here is to strengthen the product instead of limiting or restricting its capabilities and I feel Apple has the talent and resources to make iOS better even after allowing sideloading, alternative app stores, etc. Requiring Apple to do so will give them the push they need to make the product better and more flexible in the long run.

I feel the two are mutually exclusive. You can’t really have a more open platform that is also safer and more secure; it’s one or the other. The freedom to download apps elsewhere also means the risk of downloading the wrong app, replete with the consequences that come with doing so.

If you are saying that apple needs to spend more resources policing their platform after making it accessible to third party app stores, then I question why Apple should be expected to do all this extra work for no financial gain, when it’s a solved issue to begin with and the problem was one imposed on them externally.

 

[jlc1978]

The consumer may be "harmed" by the lack of competition/choice in app access, browser engine options, payment methods, etc. Antitrust laws are largely about promoting free and open competition and by

Unless it results in higher costs then there is no harm.

Apple restricting certain things on iOS they are restricting free and open competition in the mobile OS market. Enforcing these types of laws are necessary to help make this market and similar markets more open now and in the future.

iOS is not the mobile OS market; there are alternatives. Merely being big does not a monopoly make.

It will be interesting to see how the DOJ case(s) against Google/Alphabet play out and what the expected case(s) against Apple will focus on.

Yes, it will be interesting.

 

[Abazigal]

It will be interesting to see how the DOJ case(s) against Google/Alphabet play out and what the expected case(s) against Apple will focus on.

I doubt any lawsuit brought against Apple by the DOJ will actually go anywhere. They just don't have a case. You can't blame Apple for making so good a product that so many people willingly pay a premium for them to the point where Apple now has the majority market share in the US.

 

[jlc1978]

I doubt any lawsuit brought against Apple by the DOJ will actually go anywhere. They just don't have a case. You can't blame Apple for making so good a product that so many people willingly pay a premium for them to the point where Apple now has the majority market share in the US.

Exactly, just because people want Apple to do things differently doesn't mean they have to or should be forced to.

I suspect, the upshot of the EU's rules will leave teh consumer and smaller developers worse off, or at best no better oof, in many ways beyond just security.

 

[webkit]

If you are saying that apple needs to spend more resources policing their platform after making it accessible to third party app stores, then I question why Apple should be expected to do all this extra work for no financial gain, when it’s a solved issue to begin with and the problem was one imposed on them externally.

They would have to do it in order to comply with local laws and regulations. Companies are all the time having to do things at their expense to meet antitrust, health and safety, labor, insurance, etc. laws.

I doubt any lawsuit brought against Apple by the DOJ will actually go anywhere. They just don't have a case. You can't blame Apple for making so good a product that so many people willingly pay a premium for them to the point where Apple now has the majority market share in the US.

Part of their case would be that Apple is engaging in anticompetitive behavior by restricting app access on dominant iOS in not allowing sideloading, alternative app stores, etc.

 

[webkit]

Unless it results in higher costs then there is no harm.

"Higher costs" are not the only potential harm to consumers, and antitrust laws are not necessarily just about consumers anyway. Restricting access to certain products or services, even if they are free, the same price or the other is more expensive, can still be an antitrust violation.

iOS is not the mobile OS market; there are alternatives. Merely being big does not a monopoly make.

Just because there are alternatives does not negate antitrust laws. In the 1990s, for example, people could choose Windows, Mac OS, OS/2, Linux, BeOS, etc. yet that didn't stop the U.S. DOJ from going after Microsoft. Today, people can choose Google search, Bing, DDG, Brave search, etc. yet that isn't stopping the U.S. DOJ from going after Google.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

As I've stated on here in the past, simply being a monopoly is not itself illegal. It's that plus "anticompetitive behavior" that can create legal issues depending on the country/region, case, etc.

And the bar for anticompetitive behavior is fairly high when looking at earlier cases by Standard Oil, AT&T and Microsoft. Apple has not engaged in practices anywhere close to these other companies. It can even be said that their restrictive OS (limited only to their own hardware) and App Store economy (also limited to their own hardware) are both downsides that limit their market reach to only devices they sell.

If a consumer has no Apple device in their possession, Apple exerts no market pressure over them (again, unlike Standard, AT&T, and Microsoft at those times).

 

[Unregistered 4U]

I doubt any lawsuit brought against Apple by the DOJ will actually go anywhere. They just don't have a case. You can't blame Apple for making so good a product that so many people willingly pay a premium for them to the point where Apple now has the majority market share in the US.

They really don’t. I believe someone else referenced the Kodak case where a company that makes a thing that is limited to using other things that company makes is not a cause for legal action. The illegal acts performed by other companies were the reason why judgement was brought against them. What Microsoft did was illegal regardless of their size… there’s no “size” component of antitrust actions.

 

[webkit]

And the bar for anticompetitive behavior is fairly high when looking at earlier cases by Standard Oil, AT&T and Microsoft. Apple has not engaged in practices anywhere close to these other companies. It can even be said that their restrictive OS (limited only to their own hardware) and App Store economy (also limited to their own hardware) are both downsides that limit their market reach to only devices they sell.

If a consumer has no Apple device in their possession, Apple exerts no market pressure over them (again, unlike Standard, AT&T, and Microsoft at those times).

The bar for anticompetitive behavior can vary and just because one company or person violates a law "less” than another doesn't mean they aren't still violating the law. If a speed limit is 55 mph and one person does 70 mph and another does 100 mph, they are both violating the law by speeding and deserve to be charged. Just because Apple may not be quite the same as Microsoft or another company doesn’t mean they aren't still violating antitrust laws.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

The bar for anticompetitive behavior can vary and just because one company or person violates a law "less” than another doesn't mean they aren't still violating the law. If a speed limit is 55 mph and one person does 70 mph and another does 100 mph, they are both violating the law by speeding and deserve to be charged. Just because Apple may not be quite the same as Microsoft or another company doesn’t mean they aren't still violating antitrust laws.

In this case it’s not violating a law less. Apple simply has not taken the illegal actions that led to prior companies being charged. It actually looks like they’ve taken extreme steps to avoid those actions (by specifically not licensing their software to third parties). It’s not impossible that the bar would be lowered such that companies that are not behaving in an illegal manner could be charged, but lowering it that far would also include a wide swath of other companies, also not behaving illegally, from unrelated industries.

 

[webkit]

In this case it’s not violating a law less. Apple simply has not taken the illegal actions that led to prior companies being charged. It actually looks like they’ve taken extreme steps to avoid those actions (by specifically not licensing their software to third parties). It’s not impossible that the bar would be lowered such that companies that are not behaving in an illegal manner could be charged, but lowering it that far would also include a wide swath of other companies, also not behaving illegally, from unrelated industries.

It doesn't necessarily matter if the software is sold separately, bundled/included with the hardware or both. Apple licenses iOS as part of the sale of the iPhone and iOS is a dominant player in the mobile OS market including having an even greater share in some countries than Android.

The bar is not necessarily being lowered at all.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

It doesn't necessarily matter if the software is sold separately, bundled/included with the hardware or both. Apple licenses iOS as part of the sale of the iPhone and iOS is a dominant player in the mobile OS market including having an even greater share in some countries than Android.

The bar is not necessarily being lowered at all.

The other companies were actually engaging in illegal practices. That’s the current bar. If Apple’s NOT engaging in illegal practices, then it WOULD be lowering the bar to take action against against a company not doing anything illegal.

 

[webkit]

The other companies were actually engaging in illegal practices. That’s the current bar. If Apple’s NOT engaging in illegal practices, then it WOULD be lowering the bar to take action against against a company not doing anything illegal.

Those other cases may reflect some past results but not necessarily the so-called bar. Going back to my speed limit analogy, 55 mph was the "bar" and even if police or courts in the past mostly or only charged people when they were going 65 mph or more on that road does not mean someone going 56 to 64 mph isn't violating the law and can’t be charged.

 

[kc9hzn]

To be clear, Microsoft’s problem wasn’t just “they were a monopoly”. They were using their influence to control markets outside Windows software. They were doing things like forcing hardware companies to that wanted to license Windows to pay for a Windows license for every computer they shipped, even those without Windows. They forced hardware companies to include Internet Explorer for free, with the threat of canceling their license. Microsoft having control over Windows is valid and expected. Microsoft having control over hardware makers is undue influence.

Apple isn’t forcing any outside companies to pay for iOS on all the phones they ship, including the ones without iOS. They’re not forcing Safari to be bundled with every phone with the threat of cutting off iOS licensing support. Apple has no influence outside products/services that are trademarks/servicemarks of Apple.

Exactly. They also used the threat of withdrawing Windows licenses from firms that were interested in licensing other OSes (most notably BeOS) in addition to Windows. What Microsoft did was far more than have a dominant market share, they more or less tried to destroy any competing OS on the dominant x86 platform. One wonders if settling the QuickTime/Video for Windows lawsuit and for the cash infusion in 1997 wasn’t a cynical attempt by Microsoft to avoid antitrust action.

 

[jlc1978]

And the bar for anticompetitive behavior is fairly high when looking at earlier cases by Standard Oil, AT&T and Microsoft. Apple has not engaged in practices anywhere close to these other companies.

Standard Oil is an interesting case and introduced the "rule of reason" into interpretation of what is an illegal monopoly. That concept basically says a monopoly is not illegal unless it unreasonably restrains trade. SCOTUS also identified three things that constituted illegal use of monopoly power: higher prices, reduced output, and reduced quality. Having a popular product that dominates a market does not automatically constitute an illegal monopoly.

It will be interesting to see how that rule is applied to tech companies.