Apple's 'loss' is the best result for users, developers, Apple, and Epic

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 42
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,302member
    gatorguy said:
    Bosa said:
    I see this as a huge win for Apple.

    A federal judge just said “Apple Not Monopoly”, that is huge and makes it tougher for anyone else in the future to claim Apple is  a monopoly.

    the App Store payment thing , not everybody will want to connect to an outside store even with option, I won’t for sure
    That's NOT what the judge ruled.

    She was limiting her comment to a very narrow and targeted segment, "...the submarket for mobile gaming transactions", and  "does not find that Apple is an antitrust monopolist in the submarket". That's being so misunderstood, taken as far more than it actually is. This judgement was not about the AppStore (anti)competive environment as a whole, Just a very specific submarket, games, and a particular segment of that, in-app game payments.

    There was no "Apple is not a monopoly" ruling. 
    The sub-market that's being talked about here, and ruled on here, is Apple's largest market sector as it pertains to iOS and iPadOS. There is no antitrust precedent for "All iOS software" as a market category any more than there is "All Xbox software" or "all software sold on the Epic Game Store."

    Every lawyer we spoke to about it says this. This extremely powerful precedent will likely be challenged, but it is likely to be upheld.
    Many commenters here and elsewhere are misconstruing the judge's ruling as one absolving Apple of any antitrust issues connected to the AppStore. "Apple is not a monopoly" is overstating what was truly decided. As Judge Roberts wrote “The court does not find that it is impossible; only that Epic Games failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal monopolist”.

    As such I don't see any "powerful precedent" being set regarding any future claims of antitrust. Some upcoming lawsuit, and there will be, may or may not come to a different conclusion on a related competition issue and/or in a different relevant market. See page 39 in her ruling:

     “...the evidence does suggest that Apple is near the precipice of substantial market power, or monopoly power, with its considerable market share. Apple is only saved by the fact that its share is not higher, that competitors from related submarkets are making inroads into the mobile gaming submarket, and, perhaps, because plaintiff did not focus on this topic.”

    By the way, neither company thought the judge should consider the relevant market as being gaming app payments. She came up with that on her own, as of course she could.  
    edited September 11 crowleymuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 42 of 42
    red oak said:
    It is a naive to think allowing shady developers to link out to alternative payment systems is a "win for consumers", as you put it 

    It is going to be a s**** show 
    There’s an asterisk too many in s***
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.