41–50 of 156 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That has nothing to do with being a monopoly. That’s collusion.
That is... my point? Antitrust laws are not confined to monopoly concerns. To try and steer the conversation into that direction is a non-sequitur that doesn't necessarily matter. The headline isn't "textbook case of monopoly abuse."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What standard are you comparing to A real judge saying that Apple isn’t a monopoly… https://www.businesstoday.in/technology/story/resounding-vic...
> the judge cleared the Cupertino-based company of monopolistic malpractices That does not appear to be anything like affirming that they are not a monopoly. One can be a monopoly without being guilty of anticompetitive monopolistic behavior. Likewise, Epic failing to make their narrow case is not a statement of absolute fact about Apple's market or industry position; it is a statement that Epic's specific argument w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For starters, Apple is not a monopoly. You are not a monopoly on your own platform Doesn't matter. Antitrust laws address competition, monopoly is just a subset. The Apple App Store is an 800lb Gorilla is the app space, ergo, subject to pro-competition laws. The app developer can't sell his app on iPhones via another channel, iPhones make up a substantial part of the market, and that's why those laws exist and appl…
Luckily, we have a real judge in a real court in the Epic vs Apple lawsuit where the judge said that Apple isn’t a monopoly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course it's monopolistic. What standard are you comparing to? You don't need to have 100% of the market to exert monopoly control. Non-monopoly behavior would be users and developers having the choice to offer & install iOS apps outside of Apple's app store, but choosing the app store because the trade-off of fees is considered fair for the trust & platform convenience gained in exchange.
> What standard are you comparing to A real judge saying that Apple isn’t a monopoly… https://www.businesstoday.in/technology/story/resounding-vic...
2) The case is on appeal to the Supreme Court.
3) Apple paid out a settlement in another monopolist case: https://smallappdeveloperassistance.com/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is incoherent? Apple was the one that was found guilty under antitrust laws there, not Amazon.
That’s just the point. The ruling was incoherent. Amazon was deciding the prices of ebooks and taking a loss selling them below what the publishers were selling them to Amazon. This was hurting the publishers physical books sells. The publishers wanted to control their own prices. But one punisher couldn’t pull their books from Amazon unless they all did. Apple was working as a go between for all of the publishers an…
Further, though, you are literally arguing against the laws here. They were not found guilty of being a monopoly. They were found guilty of antitrust violations that included price manipulation in the one case, and wage manipulation in the other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Luckily, we have a real judge in a real court in the Epic vs Apple lawsuit where the judge said that Apple isn’t a monopoly.
Please do not distort the court decision. No official entities (such as FTC or DoJ) were involved in this case, it's just a private firm that failed to prove Apple's illegal monopoly (which is also different from market monopoly and/or antitrust conduct). Gonzalez has already explicitly revoked your statement. > "While the Court finds that Apple enjoys considerable market share of over 55% and extraordinarily high pr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Luckily, we have a real judge in a real court in the Epic vs Apple lawsuit where the judge said that Apple isn’t a monopoly.
Please do not distort the court decision. No official entities (such as FTC or DoJ) were involved in this case, it's just a private firm that failed to prove Apple's illegal monopoly (which is also different from market monopoly and/or antitrust conduct). Gonzalez has already explicitly revoked your statement. > "While the Court finds that Apple enjoys considerable market share of over 55% and extraordinarily high pr…
And if you haven’t been paying attention - government lawyers haven’t been doing too great lately making cases against BigTech.
Yet, HN posters are sure that Apple is a monopoly. Did their high price lawyers miss something that HN posters found?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Luckily, we have a real judge in a real court in the Epic vs Apple lawsuit where the judge said that Apple isn’t a monopoly.
Let's say you're right and Apple is not a monopoly under current antitrust laws, then all that proves is the laws are too lax.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You are not a monopoly on your own platform, especially if that platform doesn't even have the majority of the relevant market. iPhone has a market share of almost 70% in Japan, the location of the plaintiff. iPhone also has a market share of over 50% now in the United States, by the way. > A company makes a platform or product so that they dictate the terms and if it's a marketplace, what and how it accepts to sel…
> Phone has a market share of almost 70% in Japan, the location of the plaintiff. iPhone also has a market share of over 50% now in the United States, by the way. Neither one of those market shares are monopolies. > Historical revisionism. For more than 30 years prior to iOS, general-purpose computing platforms were mostly open with no vendor-controlled store. If you don't like the iOS platform then don't develop for…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is... my point? Antitrust laws are not confined to monopoly concerns. To try and steer the conversation into that direction is a non-sequitur that doesn't necessarily matter. The headline isn't "textbook case of monopoly abuse."
Well seeing that no one said that Apple is colluding with anyone, what is the point?
I am not even really arguing that they are guilty in this case. I flat out don't know. I do find it odd to see the unwavering defense of Apple in this.