Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

nypost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 130 posts

Re: Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

#3

Post by danh »

tptacek wrote: post #2

Since Apple doesn't have anything resembling a monopoly in any market it operates in, and since all DoJ can do is file a suit that is predicated on them having one, this is unlikely to go anywhere.

Depends on your view of what a market is. Apple's app store is pretty dominant in the market for "mobile apps".

Re: Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

#4

Post by jacquesm »

tptacek wrote: post #2

Since Apple doesn't have anything resembling a monopoly in any market it operates in, and since all DoJ can do is file a suit that is predicated on them having one, this is unlikely to go anywhere.

Having a monopoly is not a requirement, all it takes is anti-competitive behaviour and the restriction of free trade.

Re: Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

#5

Post by _delirium »

tptacek wrote: post #2

Since Apple doesn't have anything resembling a monopoly in any market it operates in, and since all DoJ can do is file a suit that is predicated on them having one, this is unlikely to go anywhere.

I don't think tying claims need to prove an actual monopoly, just the somewhat lower standard that the seller has sufficient market power in the tying product's market for the tying arrangement to restrain trade in the tied product's market. It's been applied in the past to car manufacturers who tried to corner their own cars' replacement-parts market, even though the manufacturers didn't actually have a monopoly in the car market.

It's hard to prove, though, because it tends to require showing that the company did the tying solely or mainly for the purpose of restraining trade, as opposed to for some legitimate purpose. The car manufacturers lost because the courts didn't buy their argument that their attempts to limit the replacement-parts market were for quality-assurance reasons. Apple would have to argue that section 3.3.1 isn't intended mainly or solely to stop cross-platform compatibility, but has some legitimate, non-trade-restraining purpose, like improving the reliability or quality of iPhone apps. Probably even just "it makes it easier for us to review apps if they're all in the same languages" would be a good enough explanation. A bad result would be a leaked smoking-gun email saying "hey we should institute this policy to stop people from porting our apps to Android".

Monopoly leveraging is a separate (but related) concept, as far as I understand it, and a bit easier to prove, because there's a much stronger presumption that if it's happening, it's bad, regardless of the reasons.

(Edit: edited/expanded a bit for clarity)

Re: Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

#7

Post by ig1 »

tptacek wrote: post #2

Since Apple doesn't have anything resembling a monopoly in any market it operates in, and since all DoJ can do is file a suit that is predicated on them having one, this is unlikely to go anywhere.

Look at the antitrust lawsuits against printer manufacturers for ink refills. You don't have to have a monopoly in a sector (printers) to be subject to anti-trust laws, having a monopoly on consumables designed to work with your product can be sufficient.

Re: Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

#8

Post by archgrove »

Genuine question: How are the restrictions placed by Apple on what's allowed in the App Store any different then the restrictions placed by console owners on what's published for the XBox or PS3? For example, the XBox XNA community games system requires people to use .Net - there's no technical reason for this (the XBox is clearly capable of running native code). However, Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo still seem to be allowed to place pretty heavy licensing requirements on game publishers (so strict you can't actually know them without handing over a lot of cash).

I tend to agree with antitrust action most of the time, but it seems that platform owners should be able to have some say over their platform direction, if they honestly think that doing so is good for their business. Whilst they don't have a monopoly in the market, and there is plenty of choice for consumers, what benefit does the public get from forcing people trying the "Closed is better" business model to open up to direct competitors (who, depending on what you believe, might seriously damage the experience for end users)? If the market dislikes the closed system, it will fail. If it grows to be dominant, then sure - anti-trust seems reasonable. But whilst competition is thriving, it seems heavy handed to rule out certain business models.

Re: Antitrust inquiry into Apple over Section 3.3.1

#9

Post by houseabsolute »

archgrove wrote: post #8

Genuine question: How are the restrictions placed by Apple on what's allowed in the App Store any different then the restrictions placed by console owners on what's published for the XBox or PS3? For example, the XBox XNA community games system requires people to use .Net - there's no technical reason for this (the XBox is clearly capable of running native code). However, Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo still seem to be allo…

The main way they're different is that people have always expected consoles to be walled gardens. They have expected the same things of phones, but because the developer of this phone is Apple, they thought that the model would be more similar to the way desktop applications are developed. The only significant difference is one of expectations.
Post reply on HN