Is there a reasonable rationale for Apple not being entitled to the commission?
The commission amount is irrevelant really.
The fact that the control of the commission lies in the hands of one controller is a different story.
If anyone of the 5 companies reduced commissions then others would be driven by market forces to match very quickly.
That's a different story. Here, it is Apple and Apple alone. That's the point in many of the current investigations.
If there were 5 companies representing app stores on iDevices and matching pricing, then no doubt the word 'cartel' would be popping onto the competition radar.
That isn't the case though. First we have to see how these investigations play out for Apple.
Notice your iKnockoff companies aren’t being sued here?
Epic may have developed Fortnite, but Apple continues to create more and better iPhones, which in turns brings in customers, and loyalty, and provides a service level that few companies can provide and an entire ecosystem that makes freeloaders like Epic a lot of money. 30% is chump change compared to how it was in the early years of boxed software.
Consumers pays for the iPhones, which gives Apple a fair piece of change already. The comparison of AppStore with a brick and mortar store is simply ludicrous. If that was the case Apple should be charging by the square footage [MBs] of storage and transport not what the product actually costs.
Is there a reasonable rationale for Apple not being entitled to the commission?
The commission amount is irrevelant really.
The fact that the control of the commission lies in the hands of one controller is a different story.
If anyone of the 5 companies reduced commissions then others would be driven by market forces to match very quickly.
That's a different story. Here, it is Apple and Apple alone. That's the point in many of the current investigations.
If there were 5 companies representing app stores on iDevices and matching pricing, then no doubt the word 'cartel' would be popping onto the competition radar.
That isn't the case though. First we have to see how these investigations play out for Apple.
That really depends on how the market is defined. If the market is "gaming on computing devices" then there definitely ARE several companies who have settled on the 30% commission and have made (or cemented) it (as) the "industry standard."
The trouble with your stipulation that this case is about "Apple and Apple alone" is that it tries to define the market as "gaming on Apple's iOS devices" and I don't see that as relevant because EVERY SINGLE COMPANY that makes something has a monopoly on what they make, and "abuses" that monopoly power to the best of their ability to maximise their profits.
Apple is competing with other gaming devices (not necessarily just portable devices), and in that context there is a plethora of evidence to show that Apple is not the dominant player by volume, is not an "essential service," is not making decisions that contradict its stated reasoning, and has a 90%+ satisfaction rating from its customers. There is also plenty of evidence to show that Apple is highly profitable, is not 100% effective at controlling the software available in the App Store and that there is bad will between Apple and developers.
Operating an ineffective market is not illegal, failing to be 100% accurate and consistent in your decisions is not illegal, charging a (perceived high) commission is not illegal. If the known problems with a market are not to your liking, operate in markets where you feel better served. If the only high-profit market is one where there are problems you can't live with, then either suck it up in the name of making money or change your business to maximise your profits in the low-profit markets - or even get into a different business where you can make more money.
Is there a reasonable rationale for Apple not being entitled to the commission?
The commission amount is irrevelant really.
The fact that the control of the commission lies in the hands of one controller is a different story.
If anyone of the 5 companies reduced commissions then others would be driven by market forces to match very quickly.
That's a different story. Here, it is Apple and Apple alone. That's the point in many of the current investigations.
If there were 5 companies representing app stores on iDevices and matching pricing, then no doubt the word 'cartel' would be popping onto the competition radar.
That isn't the case though. First we have to see how these investigations play out for Apple.
Notice your iKnockoff companies aren’t being sued here?
Hmm... I wonder WHY?
Could it be due to my phone having two huge official app stores from which to choose and a dedicated search engine to pull apps from still more sources?
What would they be sued for? Giving too much choice to consumers?
That said, Google is being investigated (not sued) for potential anti competition practices.
Is there a reasonable rationale for Apple not being entitled to the commission?
The commission amount is irrevelant really.
The fact that the control of the commission lies in the hands of one controller is a different story.
If anyone of the 5 companies reduced commissions then others would be driven by market forces to match very quickly.
That's a different story. Here, it is Apple and Apple alone. That's the point in many of the current investigations.
If there were 5 companies representing app stores on iDevices and matching pricing, then no doubt the word 'cartel' would be popping onto the competition radar.
That isn't the case though. First we have to see how these investigations play out for Apple.
Notice your iKnockoff companies aren’t being sued here?
Hmm... I wonder WHY?
Could it be due to my phone having two huge official app stores from which to choose and a dedicated search engine to pull apps from still more sources?
What would they be sued for? Giving too much choice to consumers?
That said, Google is being investigated (not sued) for potential anti competition practices.
Perhaps you are confusing the two situations.
Perhaps you're the one confused as to what to it means to be sued ....
It seems Google gave Epic a choice of stores, plus side loading from the internet. And Epic took advantage of it with Fortnight. But Google is still being sued by Epic for ant-competitive behavior anyway. Epic was not forced into using the Google Play Store because Google didn't give Epic any other choice.
Epic used the Google Play Store because that was where they would make the most profit with their free app on Android, even after paying Google a 30% commission.
Is there a reasonable rationale for Apple not being entitled to the commission?
The commission amount is irrevelant really.
The fact that the control of the commission lies in the hands of one controller is a different story.
If anyone of the 5 companies reduced commissions then others would be driven by market forces to match very quickly.
That's a different story. Here, it is Apple and Apple alone. That's the point in many of the current investigations.
If there were 5 companies representing app stores on iDevices and matching pricing, then no doubt the word 'cartel' would be popping onto the competition radar.
That isn't the case though. First we have to see how these investigations play out for Apple.
Notice your iKnockoff companies aren’t being sued here?
Hmm... I wonder WHY?
Could it be due to my phone having two huge official app stores from which to choose and a dedicated search engine to pull apps from still more sources?
What would they be sued for? Giving too much choice to consumers?
That said, Google is being investigated (not sued) for potential anti competition practices.
Perhaps you are confusing the two situations.
Perhaps you're the one confused as to what to it means to be sued ....
It seems Google gave Epic a choice of stores, plus side loading from the internet. And Epic took advantage of it with Fortnight. But Google is still being sued by Epic for ant-competitive behavior anyway. Epic was not forced into using the Google Play Store because Google didn't give Epic any other choice.
Epic used the Google Play Store because that was where they would make the most profit with their free app on Android, even after paying Google a 30% commission.
That’s a fair point. I should have been clearer.
The first part of my comment was focused on Android hardware manufacturers as per the comment I was replying too.
The second part was focused on the government angle as opposed to the private angle but it should have been clearer.
Comments
If Apple loses the US case in some way, it can leverage that defeat in courts around the world to get them to end their own legal cases against Apple.
So, a win is a loss, and a loss is a win. It reminds me of a line from my favourite song, "I feel like I win when I lose."
Hmm... I wonder WHY?
The entitlement of some people.
The trouble with your stipulation that this case is about "Apple and Apple alone" is that it tries to define the market as "gaming on Apple's iOS devices" and I don't see that as relevant because EVERY SINGLE COMPANY that makes something has a monopoly on what they make, and "abuses" that monopoly power to the best of their ability to maximise their profits.
Apple is competing with other gaming devices (not necessarily just portable devices), and in that context there is a plethora of evidence to show that Apple is not the dominant player by volume, is not an "essential service," is not making decisions that contradict its stated reasoning, and has a 90%+ satisfaction rating from its customers. There is also plenty of evidence to show that Apple is highly profitable, is not 100% effective at controlling the software available in the App Store and that there is bad will between Apple and developers.
Operating an ineffective market is not illegal, failing to be 100% accurate and consistent in your decisions is not illegal, charging a (perceived high) commission is not illegal. If the known problems with a market are not to your liking, operate in markets where you feel better served. If the only high-profit market is one where there are problems you can't live with, then either suck it up in the name of making money or change your business to maximise your profits in the low-profit markets - or even get into a different business where you can make more money.
What would they be sued for? Giving too much choice to consumers?
That said, Google is being investigated (not sued) for potential anti competition practices.
Perhaps you are confusing the two situations.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55678496
https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21368363/epic-google-fortnite-lawsuit-antitrust-app-play-store-apple-removal
https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/368284/Epic_Games_is_now_also_suing_Google_over_anticompetitive_Android_policies.php
https://www.zdnet.com/article/epic-games-extends-app-store-battle-to-google-in-australia/
It seems Google gave Epic a choice of stores, plus side loading from the internet. And Epic took advantage of it with Fortnight. But Google is still being sued by Epic for ant-competitive behavior anyway. Epic was not forced into using the Google Play Store because Google didn't give Epic any other choice.
https://www.pcworld.com/article/3539283/you-can-finally-play-fortnite-on-your-android-phone-without-side-loading.html
https://joyofandroid.com/android-app-store-alternatives/
Epic used the Google Play Store because that was where they would make the most profit with their free app on Android, even after paying Google a 30% commission.
The first part of my comment was focused on Android hardware manufacturers as per the comment I was replying too.
The second part was focused on the government angle as opposed to the private angle but it should have been clearer.