Activist Judge: "How can you justify making more profits than companies barely scraping by?"
Apple: "We seek to be here 10-20 years from now and therefore seek the profits necessary to achieve that."
Activist Judge: "I personally think you should make only profit necessary to barely remain in business, and I honestly don't care what your investors think."
I’m embarrassed on your behalf.
Judge Gonzales-Rogers has rules in Apple’s favor on all but one count. Her ruling stated that Apple wasn’t a monopoly, that the 30% cut, while high, was legal and that that Apple could charge a cut even if the purchase was made outside of the store. She even went as far as to say making a lot of money isn’t illegal.
That you ignored her entire ruling and made up a factually incorrect narrative to personally attack the judge is just sad.
I think you should expand on 'wasn't a monopoly' because her ruling, IIRC, was severely conditioned by how Epic brought its arguments to court. Wasn't it all specific to video games?
And I may be mistaken on this but didn't she go as far as to say if the case had been brought to court in a different manner, her ruling may have changed?
And an open question: was it limited to law in California?
Judge Gonzales clearly shot down Epic argument that Apple had any sort of "monopoly", when using "iOS" as the "relevant market". Trying to use "iOS" as the "relevant market" was the argument Epic took to court. The Judge knew that very rarely can the "relevant market" be of a single brand, when determining a monopoly, under US anti-trust laws. She knew that the SCOTUS had only once ruled that a single brand can be used as the relevant market in an anti-trust case. This was Kodak vs Image Tech Services. And certain conditions had to be met. Plus here, iOS is Apple IP. Every IP owner of have a monopoly with regards to their IP. Copyright, patent and trademark laws grants owners this "monopoly".
Remember, Microsoft monopoly isn't in the Windows OS market. They have a monopoly in the desktop (including laptops) computer OS market because Windows OS was installed on over 95% of the World's desktop computers. (And still installed on over 70% of the Worlds desktop computers). The "relevant market" is not Windows OS but desktop computer OS.
This case has a good write up of what's involve in trying to use a single brand market as the relevant market.
Alivecor lost but it's not revealed why. But the same Judge that allowed the trial to go forward using a single brand market, was the one that decided in Apple favor.
She also shot down Apple argument that the market should be the gaming market, that not only includes Android but also computers and game consoles. This would have significant;y reduce Apple "relevant market" share. But the Judge narrowed down the "relevant market" to "mobile gaming" and "mobile gaming transaction". Thus the "relevant market" is a duopoly. Which actually increased Apple "relevant market" share but not to the point of having a "monopoly", with Android as their only other real competitor, for now.
The Federal Court Judge ruled that Apple had not been proven to have a monopoly under US Anti-Trust laws. This because Epic was trying to have "iOS" as the "relevant market". Only Apple anti-steering policies were in violation of CA Unfair Competition Law. Apple anti-steering policy was not found in violation of any US anti-trust laws. But because Apple US HQ is in CA, the Judge felt that CA UCL can be applied. And not only in CA but for the whole US. Apple tried to appeal this and lost. They might had had a chance if the SCOTUS had agreed to hear their appeal. But the SCOTUS allowed the lower court ruling to stand by not hearing the case. It's not often that the courts can force a company to abide by a State law, in every State, but not unheard of. Not so much for the sake of competition but for the sake of all US consumers.
BTW- The SCOTUS had already ruled once that a company's anti-steering policies was not in violation of anti-trust. But every case is different.
Activist Judge: "How can you justify making more profits than companies barely scraping by?"
Apple: "We seek to be here 10-20 years from now and therefore seek the profits necessary to achieve that."
Activist Judge: "I personally think you should make only profit necessary to barely remain in business, and I honestly don't care what your investors think."
I’m embarrassed on your behalf.
Judge Gonzales-Rogers has rules in Apple’s favor on all but one count. Her ruling stated that Apple wasn’t a monopoly
I think you should expand on 'wasn't a monopoly' because her ruling, IIRC, was severely conditioned by how Epic brought its arguments to court. Wasn't it all specific to video games?
And I may be mistaken on this but didn't she go as far as to say if the case had been brought to court in a different manner, her ruling may have changed?
The Federal Court Judge ruled that Apple had not been proven to have a monopoly under US Anti-Trust laws.
She did not rule on Apple's overall anti-competitive position. That was not the crux of the legal case put in front of her. Her ruling on the question of an Apple monopoly was a very narrow one regarding the relative merits in a very specific market. In fact, Judge Gonzalez implied that had Epic filed and pursued the lawsuit put to her from a different legal perspective, they might have had more success with arguing antitrust. In essence, Epic's attorneys may have asked the wrong questions.
She stated in her ruling "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 [Epic] did not focus on this topic.
I feel that helped Epic make a more effective and focused legal case when a similar antitrust suit against Google was argued and won. Had they done the same with Apple, the case may have turned out differently, as suggested by Judge Gonzalez. But they did not, and Epic doesn't get a do-over.
For those readers who sometimes don't look past the headlines, The TLDR version: The Epic/Apple ruling did not address and certainly did not answer questions concerning Apple's overall monopoly exposure.
You may not be embarrassed by your behavior but is most certainly embarrassing.
I am not labeling you with not-so-friendly terms like uninformed or liar.
I realize some folks have an itching desire to always be right in internet debates, but that's not what I seek. I shared an opinion. Some will accept it, while others will reject it. So be it. I am satisfied that you and I THINK DIFFERENT. I don't expect to convince you. Perhaps you don't expect to convince me either, but you don't hold back in casting verbal stones. I see no reason to get so bent out of shape about this. In the greater scheme of things, this topic and our thoughts on it don't matter.
Sometimes being nice is the best course of action when arguments lead nowhere. So in parting ways with you on this topic, I wish you well.
Gonzalez-Rogers pointed out that Analysis Group found that the lowest
acceptable rate would be just 12.3 percent. "And yet you are charging 27
percent," the judge noted. "How do you justify the other 15 percent you
are charging?" she added.
"We want to."
That's all the justification they need. They providing absolutely everything that these developers are using to sell and distribute their apps. Expecting all that for free, or thinking you have some right to dictate what they're allowed to make is about as fascist as it gets.
You may not be embarrassed by your behavior but is most certainly embarrassing.
I am not labeling you with not-so-friendly terms like uninformed or liar.
I realize some folks have an itching desire to always be right in internet debates, but that's not what I seek. I shared an opinion. Some will accept it, while others will reject it. So be it. I am satisfied that you and I THINK DIFFERENT. I don't expect to convince you. Perhaps you don't expect to convince me either, but you don't hold back in casting verbal stones. I see no reason to get so bent out of shape about this. In the greater scheme of things, this topic and our thoughts on it don't matter.
Sometimes being nice is the best course of action when arguments lead nowhere. So in parting ways with you on this topic, I wish you well.
+1. A few posters need to throttle back a couple of ticks from making every alternative opinion into a personal affront that must be attacked loudly, sometimes profanely, and too often without any modicum of respect. The forum discussions would be much better if they did, and AppleInsider a more pleasant place for visitors to hang out and perhaps inclined to become a member. Our numbers are dwindling, in no small part due to the tone of the conversations.
She also shot down Apple argument that the market should be the gaming market, that not only includes Android but also computers and game consoles. This would have significant;y reduce Apple "relevant market" share. But the Judge narrowed down the "relevant market" to "mobile gaming" and "mobile gaming transaction". Thus the "relevant market" is a duopoly. Which actually increased Apple "relevant market" share but not to the point of having a "monopoly", with Android as their only other real competitor, for now.
I think she tried to stack the deck against Apple as much as possible. She knew the argument of Apple having a monopoly on iOS would not pass judicial sense. It was a silly argument from Epic to begin with. She tried to do the next most narrow thing possible by defining the mobile digital gaming transactions market that only included iOS and Android. She ignored Nintendo Switch because it was too new. That was ridiculous. The Switch has the same Fortnite revenue share as iOS, about 7%.
Then today, there are like 3 or 4 dedicated gaming handsets (Steam Deck et al). The fact that these dedicated gaming handsets have come about is direct evidence that Apple isn't suppressing anything in the mobile gaming transactions market, whatever it is called. Can't see how anyone can make a monopoly argument here if new device classes are coming out, offering consumers many different ways to play Fortnite.
Likewise, the DOJ is doing the same thing, They are - at least in the PR document discussing their filing - making that most narrow market possible to claim Apple has a monopoly: basically expensive phones. It's probably their first bid, something they hope they can win after the judge determines what the market is, but the DOJ's definition should be laughed out of court.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez-Rogers make your ruling and move on, Apple will appeal and the Supreme Court will overrule you......This isn't the EU thank god.
My prediction: If Apple tries to appeal to SCOTUS, they'll decline to take it up, just as they declined the previous Apple appeal over Judge Rodriguez ruling.
Activist Judge: "How can you justify making more profits than companies barely scraping by?"
Apple: "We seek to be here 10-20 years from now and therefore seek the profits necessary to achieve that."
Activist Judge: "I personally think you should make only profit necessary to barely remain in business, and I honestly don't care what your investors think."
I’m embarrassed on your behalf.
Judge Gonzales-Rogers has rules in Apple’s favor on all but one count. Her ruling stated that Apple wasn’t a monopoly
I think you should expand on 'wasn't a monopoly' because her ruling, IIRC, was severely conditioned by how Epic brought its arguments to court. Wasn't it all specific to video games?
And I may be mistaken on this but didn't she go as far as to say if the case had been brought to court in a different manner, her ruling may have changed?
The Federal Court Judge ruled that Apple had not been proven to have a monopoly under US Anti-Trust laws.
She did not rule on Apple's overall anti-competitive position. That was not the crux of the legal case put in front of her. Her ruling on the question of an Apple monopoly was a very narrow one regarding the relative merits in a very specific market. In fact, Judge Gonzalez implied that had Epic filed and pursued the lawsuit put to her from a different legal perspective, they might have had more success with arguing antitrust. In essence, Epic's attorneys may have asked the wrong questions.
She stated in her ruling "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 [Epic] did not focus on this topic.
I feel that helped Epic make a more effective and focused legal case when a similar antitrust suit against Google was argued and won. Had they done the same with Apple, the case may have turned out differently, as suggested by Judge Gonzalez. But they did not, and Epic doesn't get a do-over.
For those readers who sometimes don't look past the headlines, The TLDR version: The Epic/Apple ruling did not address and certainly did not answer questions concerning Apple's overall monopoly exposure.
You are showing your negative Apple bias in your reply. The Judge job was not to rule on .... "... Apple's overall anti-competitive position". How can the Judge beforehand, think that Apple had any overall anti-competitive positions, before any proof brought to her in court? Without the proof of Apple having a monopoly or monopoly power, she can not rule that Apple was in any position to be anti-competitive (under US anti-trust laws). Her job was not to rule on Apple overall anti-competitive position, her job was to first determine whether Apple was in any position to be anti-competitive. And Epic did not prove that, except with Apple anti-steering policy under CA UCL. If Apple HQ was not in CA, Epic might not have even be able to win on that.
We are not the EU. We do not assume that any business is guilty or going to be guilty, of any anti-competitive behavior, just because they have a monopoly or have a dominate market share. In the US, it takes more that having a monopoly or dominate market share, to be proven guilty of anti-competition under US anti-trust laws. In the US, having a monopoly is not illegal.
But her remark that ........ Apple is only saved by the fact that its share is not higher .... was referring to Apple market share using her definition of the "relevant market", which was a duopoly. In her "relevant market", Apple market share was about 55%. (That's 55% of the "mobile gaming transactions", not 55% of iPhone sales or Apple iOS has 55% market share of the mobile OS market.) Epic did not pursue this route. Epic took what they thought was going to be the easy and obvious route, which was that the "relevant market" was "iOS" and the Apple App Store is the only app store allowed on iOS. Thus a slam dunk on Apple having a "monopoly".
Even though nearly every one with any legal knowledge, except Epic lawyers, knew that that wasn't going to be easy and will most likely fail under SCOTUS scrutiny. What the Judge meant was that Epic should have tried to narrow the "relevant market" even further (in some kind of sub or secondary market), than what she's already done. This so that Apple would have a higher market share in that "relevant market". But having the "relevant market" already a duopoly, makes it pretty tough for Epic to do. Epic would need to eliminate Google Android from the "relevant market". That might lead back to a single brand "relevant market". And even then, it might not stand up to SCOTUS scrutiny.
Here's a good article written right when the trial began (and before any rulings), saying that maybe Epic should not be focused trying to prove that Apple have a monopoly, at all. But then, anti-competitive behaviors would be much harder to prove (in the US at least). And Epic main goal was to avoid paying Apple anything for the use of iOS, to greatly profit from. Very tough to prove that Apple behaved in any anti-competitive manner, without first proving that Apple have a monopoly. Specially when one have already made billions of dollars on iOS. And this with iOS Fortnite players making up less than 10% of the all Fortnite players.
You seem to have this notion that Apple is guilty of anti-competitive behaviors, but just only that no one have proven it yet. No Judge or jury should think that way. If it haven't been proven in a court of law, that Apple have a monopoly, then Apple do not have a monopoly. It's not .... Apple have a monopoly, only it hasn't been proven (in a court of law) yet. We are not the EU.
Activist Judge: "How can you justify making more profits than companies barely scraping by?"
Apple: "We seek to be here 10-20 years from now and therefore seek the profits necessary to achieve that."
Activist Judge: "I personally think you should make only profit necessary to barely remain in business, and I honestly don't care what your investors think."
I’m embarrassed on your behalf.
Judge Gonzales-Rogers has rules in Apple’s favor on all but one count. Her ruling stated that Apple wasn’t a monopoly
I think you should expand on 'wasn't a monopoly' because her ruling, IIRC, was severely conditioned by how Epic brought its arguments to court. Wasn't it all specific to video games?
And I may be mistaken on this but didn't she go as far as to say if the case had been brought to court in a different manner, her ruling may have changed?
The Federal Court Judge ruled that Apple had not been proven to have a monopoly under US Anti-Trust laws.
She did not rule on Apple's overall anti-competitive position. That was not the crux of the legal case put in front of her. Her ruling on the question of an Apple monopoly was a very narrow one regarding the relative merits in a very specific market. In fact, Judge Gonzalez implied that had Epic filed and pursued the lawsuit put to her from a different legal perspective, they might have had more success with arguing antitrust. In essence, Epic's attorneys may have asked the wrong questions.
She stated in her ruling "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 [Epic] did not focus on this topic.
I feel that helped Epic make a more effective and focused legal case when a similar antitrust suit against Google was argued and won. Had they done the same with Apple, the case may have turned out differently, as suggested by Judge Gonzalez. But they did not, and Epic doesn't get a do-over.
For those readers who sometimes don't look past the headlines, The TLDR version: The Epic/Apple ruling did not address and certainly did not answer questions concerning Apple's overall monopoly exposure.
Her job was not to rule on Apple overall anti-competitive position, her job was to first determine whether Apple was in any position to be anti-competitive. And Epic did not prove that,
Activist Judge: "How can you justify making more profits than companies barely scraping by?"
Apple: "We seek to be here 10-20 years from now and therefore seek the profits necessary to achieve that."
Activist Judge: "I personally think you should make only profit necessary to barely remain in business, and I honestly don't care what your investors think."
I’m embarrassed on your behalf.
Judge Gonzales-Rogers has rules in Apple’s favor on all but one count. Her ruling stated that Apple wasn’t a monopoly
I think you should expand on 'wasn't a monopoly' because her ruling, IIRC, was severely conditioned by how Epic brought its arguments to court. Wasn't it all specific to video games?
And I may be mistaken on this but didn't she go as far as to say if the case had been brought to court in a different manner, her ruling may have changed?
The Federal Court Judge ruled that Apple had not been proven to have a monopoly under US Anti-Trust laws.
......
I feel that helped Epic make a more effective and focused legal case when a similar antitrust suit against Google was argued and won. Had they done the same with Apple, the case may have turned out differently, as suggested by Judge Gonzalez. But they did not, and Epic doesn't get a do-over.
The reasons why Epic won against Google and loss to Apple, had more to do with the anti-competitive practices that Epic was able prove Google did, in order to maintain their monopoly power with the Google Play Store. Plus the trial outcome was determine by a jury. Where as with Apple, a Judge determined the outcome. But Epic had the choice for a jury trial with Apple and decided to go with just a Judge.
I'm sure that if Apple had made as many anti-competitive business practices as Google had (and kept records of it, even if they destroyed it later), in regards to maintaining their market power with the Apple App Store, Epic might also have won against Apple. The bottom line was that Epic was able to convince a jury that Google behaved like a "monopolist" and is not the "do no evil" company they proclaim to be, even if Google allows third party app stores and sideloading on Android.
I'm sure that if more people on the jury thought as highly of Google, as you do ....... Google would had won.
Comments
She did not rule on Apple's overall anti-competitive position. That was not the crux of the legal case put in front of her. Her ruling on the question of an Apple monopoly was a very narrow one regarding the relative merits in a very specific market. In fact, Judge Gonzalez implied that had Epic filed and pursued the lawsuit put to her from a different legal perspective, they might have had more success with arguing antitrust. In essence, Epic's attorneys may have asked the wrong questions.
She stated in her ruling "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 [Epic] did not focus on this topic.
I feel that helped Epic make a more effective and focused legal case when a similar antitrust suit against Google was argued and won. Had they done the same with Apple, the case may have turned out differently, as suggested by Judge Gonzalez. But they did not, and Epic doesn't get a do-over.
For those readers who sometimes don't look past the headlines,
The TLDR version:
The Epic/Apple ruling did not address and certainly did not answer questions concerning Apple's overall monopoly exposure.
I realize some folks have an itching desire to always be right in internet debates, but that's not what I seek. I shared an opinion. Some will accept it, while others will reject it. So be it. I am satisfied that you and I THINK DIFFERENT. I don't expect to convince you. Perhaps you don't expect to convince me either, but you don't hold back in casting verbal stones. I see no reason to get so bent out of shape about this. In the greater scheme of things, this topic and our thoughts on it don't matter.
Sometimes being nice is the best course of action when arguments lead nowhere. So in parting ways with you on this topic, I wish you well.
A few posters need to throttle back a couple of ticks from making every alternative opinion into a personal affront that must be attacked loudly, sometimes profanely, and too often without any modicum of respect. The forum discussions would be much better if they did, and AppleInsider a more pleasant place for visitors to hang out and perhaps inclined to become a member. Our numbers are dwindling, in no small part due to the tone of the conversations.
Then today, there are like 3 or 4 dedicated gaming handsets (Steam Deck et al). The fact that these dedicated gaming handsets have come about is direct evidence that Apple isn't suppressing anything in the mobile gaming transactions market, whatever it is called. Can't see how anyone can make a monopoly argument here if new device classes are coming out, offering consumers many different ways to play Fortnite.
Likewise, the DOJ is doing the same thing, They are - at least in the PR document discussing their filing - making that most narrow market possible to claim Apple has a monopoly: basically expensive phones. It's probably their first bid, something they hope they can win after the judge determines what the market is, but the DOJ's definition should be laughed out of court.