But Apple does force developers to agree to their terms or lose access to 60% of U.S. consumers. You’re free to disagree, but a lot of people would see no difference between that and the other items you listed when it comes to acting anti-competitively.
Correct and Apple doesn’t control all smartphones. Using generics and not including a company’s trademarked names in the definition of a market provides a rational definition of a market.
Apple ONLY forces developers to agree to their terms on Apple’s iOS device which connects to Apple’s App Store. They have zero control over anything not made by Apple.
Except Apple has control over the entire smartphone experience for 60% of U.S. consumers.
Apple is stifling competition with its monopoly on app distribution through the App Store, attorneys general for 35 states told a California appeals court on Thursday.
The joint statement was submitted into the appeals process that is ongoing following the judge's decision in the Epic v. Apple lawsuit, with the attorneys general siding with the "Fortnite" video game maker on the issue, reports Reuters.
According to the Financial Times [paywalled], the US Department of Justice also challenged last year's ruling, saying in its own submission that the court had "committed several legal errors that could imperil effective antitrust enforcement, especially in the digital economy."
The DoJ said the court had interpreted the Sherman Act, an 1890 law prohibiting anti-competitive behavior, "narrowly and wrongly, in ways that would leave many anti-competitive agreements and practices outside their protections."
The judge's decision in the Oakland, California case mostly ruled against Epic last year, although both Apple and Epic Games have decided to appeal the original ruling as neither company was satisfied with the outcome. Epic Games wanted the court to force Apple to support third-party App Stores, which did not happen.
U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled that the 15% to 30% commission that Apple charges some app makers through its in-app payment system did not violate antitrust law.
Along with the states, professors and activist groups also weighed in through court filings that described legal arguments in support of Epic, according to Reuters.
The states said in their filing that the lower court erred when it decided that a key antitrust law did not apply to non-negotiable contracts Apple makes developers sign, a claim Epic also made when it first filed its appeal earlier this month.
Apple, which is expected to reply in March, said on Thursday it was confident Epic's challenge would fail, and that it remained "committed to ensuring the App Store is a safe and trusted marketplace for consumers and a great opportunity for developers."
Article Link: Epic vs. Apple Takes a Twist As 35 US States and Department of Justice Weigh in to Back 'Fortnite' Maker
You're mixing hardware monopoly a.k.a. gatekeeping with software distribution platforms availability.
The last time I saw a Mac virus was when Chris Johnson's Disinfectant and Gatekeeper were around. in 1993
When people talk about "malware" they tend to think viruses and as Malwarebytes states Windows is still "more prone to “traditional” malware". By contrast, "the top 10 Mac threats were adware and what are known as “potentially unwanted programs.”" In fact going back to the Malwarebytes report referred to several things come out:
And that logic could be applied to Xbox, Nintendo, and the like.
Regulators should look at console makers businesses practices as well. Are we ok with regulators looking at Apple now or was your point just a red herring?
Most of the time they wouldn't need to follow through, because under threat of losing their iPhone most consumers would straighten their legislators right out. This approach would put Apple in a position of power. Once you put a chip in their armor, every state, every municipality, every idiot 1,500 year old cryptkeeper politician that doesn't know anything about technology, is going to follow suit and try to bend Apple to their will. Which is unprofitable in the long term, since profit is what you care about. I'm a shareholder too, just not an incredibly short-sighted one.
Apple was charging the same percentage nearly everybody else was - Report: Steam's 30% Cut Is Actually the Industry Standard. The one good thing that came out of this was a reduction for the small developers by most of the players.
I'm not arguing that the garbage apps wouldn't leave the app store. I'm arguing that the garbage company would still expect you to have their app for whatever feature you need (paying bills, getting information, etc.) but instead of getting it through Apple's safe store, you have to get it through some shoddy third party store. The worst-case scenario is that as many companies as you do business with, you'd have to download from that many stores and they'd all be less secure than the app store.
So if this appeal goes against Apple or Congress passes the legislation currently in the Senate, do you think government will treat credibly a threat from Apple that they'll pull out of their most lucrative market? I would laugh straight in Cook's face on that one.
Yes, that's what I said. Was it better when a bunch of vultures pulled Netflix apart into 100 inconvenient services? Was everyone like "oooh wowwww, I'm so glad there are 100 different places to stream my shows now, this is so convenient"?
