Apple not a monopoly but must allow alternate payment methods for apps, judge rules

12346

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 136
    Naiyas said: Epic seem to think they can expand their market by offering a 20% discount on in-game credits, but I suspect the growth opportunity with their current business model is not actually as big as they think it is.
    PC and consoles are where Epic made the vast majority of their $$ with Fortnite. Similar to BlueMail, they had no business trying to claim iOS was a monopoly when they were obviously so successful with the same software title on other platforms. 
    thtwatto_cobra
  • Reply 102 of 136
    danoxdanox Posts: 722member
    dewme said:
    I think the worst part of this deal for Apple is the 90 day deadline. I cannot imagine how Apple can roll out much of anything other than a quick hack in that time period unless they’ve been doing some preparation for this in the background.

    At the end of the day, as a consumer, I think the only change that we will see, and it’ll still be fairly uncommon, is that a number of Apps that are free to download with the lovely “In-App Purchase” tag will now have their own private payment system for what we all have come to love/loath - subscriptions. Instead of getting all of your subscriptions rolled up into your monthly Apple charge to your AppleID linked account, you’ll have to set up a separate payment for each subscription that goes to the third party. Doing so will mean handing out your personal and financial information to the third party.

    Is setting up a payment relationship with another vendor really that much of an inconvenience? For some folks no, but for others it’s just another opportunity for your personal information to be breached and another bill to keep track of. Personally, do I trust companies like Epic to safeguard my personal information with the same level of trust as Apple? No, but that’s just me.

    I’ve also been doing everything in my power to simplify my life. Consolidating subscriptions into bundles like Apple One make my life a little simpler. Having all of my third party app subscriptions rolled up into one billing cycle that hits my credit card predictably on cue is reassuring, as is knowing that if I have a billing problem, I can go to one source to obtain support to resolve the issue. 
    The crying developers will cry most users won’t take the next step and sign up with them also Apple will be paid for the ecosystem one way or the other it won’t be a free ride.
    dewmewatto_cobra
  • Reply 103 of 136
    stoneyg said:
    j2fusion said:
    I guess next we’ll see signs from the manufacturer in Walmart saying you can get a better deal for this item at Target. 
    This has always been my biggest frustration about Epic's claim with the App Store. Every retail location does this same thing. How you can force Apple to allow other payment options, when stores like Walmart are doing the exact same thing? 
    Perhaps Apple could start selling iPhones for 1¢ at retail locations like Wal Mart, but then charge a $698.99 activation fee on the device when the user sets it up. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 104 of 136
    dewme said:
    I think the worst part of this deal for Apple is the 90 day deadline. I cannot imagine how Apple can roll out much of anything other than a quick hack in that time period unless they’ve been doing some preparation for this in the background.

    At the end of the day, as a consumer, I think the only change that we will see, and it’ll still be fairly uncommon, is that a number of Apps that are free to download with the lovely “In-App Purchase” tag will now have their own private payment system for what we all have come to love/loath - subscriptions. Instead of getting all of your subscriptions rolled up into your monthly Apple charge to your AppleID linked account, you’ll have to set up a separate payment for each subscription that goes to the third party. Doing so will mean handing out your personal and financial information to the third party.

    Is setting up a payment relationship with another vendor really that much of an inconvenience? For some folks no, but for others it’s just another opportunity for your personal information to be breached and another bill to keep track of. Personally, do I trust companies like Epic to safeguard my personal information with the same level of trust as Apple? No, but that’s just me.

    I’ve also been doing everything in my power to simplify my life. Consolidating subscriptions into bundles like Apple One make my life a little simpler. Having all of my third party app subscriptions rolled up into one billing cycle that hits my credit card predictably on cue is reassuring, as is knowing that if I have a billing problem, I can go to one source to obtain support to resolve the issue. 
    The other consumer casualty of in-app subscriptions moving to individual vendors is the no-questions-asked, one-click cancellation policy seen with App Store subscriptions. 

    Some companies make subscribing easy and cancellation quite challenging, knowing that many people will delay or give up canceling if it takes too much time and effort. 

    Some years ago I even had one company threaten to refer to a collections company when their evasive subscription cancellation policy coincided with an opportunity to not give them updated info on a renewed credit card. It seems we were at an impasse. They were making it difficult to cancel, and I was making it difficult to continue collecting payment. I prevailed, but not without a fight. 

    Hopefully Apple will still be able to require certain standards for inclusion of apps in the App Store, like making it as easy to cancel a subscription as it is to start one. 
    dewmemattinozwatto_cobrasconosciuto
  • Reply 105 of 136
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,321member
    I'm not sure this ruling will hold up under appeal. If the App Store isn't really a monopoly, why would Apple be disallowed from anti-steering clauses that are standard practice for web retailers and online sellers? 
    There was no ruling on whether the AppStore was a monopoly, or having any other antitrust/anti-competitive issues. This judge's ruling very narrowly addressed only a very narrow segment "the mobile gaming transactions market" which she defined as the relevant market. The headline infers a whole lot more to it. 
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 106 of 136
    tht said:
    [...]
    2. The market construction from Judge Gonzales' court is pathological, references regarding its size is incorrect, and basically provided no line of causation to anything pertaining to the Court's ruling. The "digital mobile games transactions" market as described was really just poorly reasoned. If you need 3 adjectives to describe it, you are already in a deep hole. While you may think it is reasonable sounding, the document further narrowed the market definition to exclude the Nintendo Switch and exclude China. So, only Android and iOS, and not including China where surely they have a huge chunk of game paying customers. Moreover, they excluded upcoming game streaming models, and readily admitted the market is in a state of flux because of it. Then they refer it to be a $100b market. They describe it as a "transactions" market. That means payment processing to me. If so, that means the revenue for this market is somewhere between 1% to 3% of the 100b revenue number. Ie, $1b to $3b. That's the current size of the market, not $100b which is the amount of money that the payment processor transacts, not the actual value of the market. As far as I can tell, this market definition didn't have anything to do with the Court's judgments, and so, I'm unclear on what this had to do with anything.

    3. Epic definitively lost their gambit, as currently written in the judgment. What it was trying to get was 100% share of the impulse spenders, who comprise 90% of the money spent on games. The document went through the usual discovery where they found out that the games market is dominated by just a few big spenders. Not a surprise as is this is true in a huge tracts of human endeavors. The remedy is a link which provides sufficient friction to stop enough impulse buyers from buying $100 of digital game currency every few days. If a player has to stop a game, go to a website and push a buy button, that's 1 step too many and they'd have to pay Amazon for the 1-click buy button patent if Amazon so chooses to enforce it. So, no Epic Games Store, no built buy button in the game, and likely having to include Apple's payment methods in addition to theirs, if Apple lets them back in the App Store.
    [...]
    I don't think the market construction language is so terribly hard to follow, at least in the opening statement. Here is the whole paragraph, FTA:
    "Ultimately, after evaluating the trial evidence, the Court finds that the relevant market here is digital mobile gaming transactions, not gaming generally and not Apple's own internal operating systems related to the App Store. The mobile gaming market itself is a $100 billion industry. The size of this market explains Epic Games' motive in bringing this action. Having penetrated all other video game markets, the mobile gaming market was Epic Games' next target and it views Apple as an impediment."
    The key is the dual clause after the finding, "not gaming generally and not Apple's own internal operating systems related to the App Store" -- the first was Apple's position, the second was Epic's position. But let's be clear -- the judge isn't splitting the difference here, or seeking common ground (there was none). No, she is simply narrowing the scope of the ruling. I think she finds this "relevant market" as a highly problematic one, and this ruling should be seen as an invitation to legislators (and Apple itself, though I don't think the judge sees Apple as being innocent, she sees Apple as happily profiting from it) to rein in this sort of predatory impulse spending.

    The final sentence above, in which the judge says the mobile gaming market (i.e., the "relevant market" in this case) is Epic's "next target," seems targeted at the future, as mobile gaming evolves on all the relevant market platforms. That sentence is aimed beyond Apple and iOS, basically telling Epic that this ruling applies to all other "digital mobile gaming transactions" platforms as well. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 107 of 136
    tht said:
    Ok, I read the judgement, except for the appendix and some footnotes, and my memory isn't that great anymore, but here are some comments:
    ...<paragraphs deleted>...
    Thanks. That's one of the best posts I've ever read on this website. I'm going to copy it into my iCloud Notes app for my permanent record. I'm not saying you are 100% right, but it was surely an informative and informed post.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 108 of 136
    dewmedewme Posts: 4,014member
    AppleZulu said:
    dewme said:
    I think the worst part of this deal for Apple is the 90 day deadline. I cannot imagine how Apple can roll out much of anything other than a quick hack in that time period unless they’ve been doing some preparation for this in the background.

    At the end of the day, as a consumer, I think the only change that we will see, and it’ll still be fairly uncommon, is that a number of Apps that are free to download with the lovely “In-App Purchase” tag will now have their own private payment system for what we all have come to love/loath - subscriptions. Instead of getting all of your subscriptions rolled up into your monthly Apple charge to your AppleID linked account, you’ll have to set up a separate payment for each subscription that goes to the third party. Doing so will mean handing out your personal and financial information to the third party.

    Is setting up a payment relationship with another vendor really that much of an inconvenience? For some folks no, but for others it’s just another opportunity for your personal information to be breached and another bill to keep track of. Personally, do I trust companies like Epic to safeguard my personal information with the same level of trust as Apple? No, but that’s just me.

    I’ve also been doing everything in my power to simplify my life. Consolidating subscriptions into bundles like Apple One make my life a little simpler. Having all of my third party app subscriptions rolled up into one billing cycle that hits my credit card predictably on cue is reassuring, as is knowing that if I have a billing problem, I can go to one source to obtain support to resolve the issue. 
    The other consumer casualty of in-app subscriptions moving to individual vendors is the no-questions-asked, one-click cancellation policy seen with App Store subscriptions. 

    Some companies make subscribing easy and cancellation quite challenging, knowing that many people will delay or give up canceling if it takes too much time and effort. 

    Some years ago I even had one company threaten to refer to a collections company when their evasive subscription cancellation policy coincided with an opportunity to not give them updated info on a renewed credit card. It seems we were at an impasse. They were making it difficult to cancel, and I was making it difficult to continue collecting payment. I prevailed, but not without a fight. 

    Hopefully Apple will still be able to require certain standards for inclusion of apps in the App Store, like making it as easy to cancel a subscription as it is to start one. 
    All good points. Even after canceling subscriptions I still get robocalls from service providers I left 3 years ago. Got two calls from them this morning- blocked them again for the umpteenth time. It’s whack-a-mole. The other thing I’ve seen with subscriptions is the propensity to send out renewal notices all of the time, even after you’ve just signed up for another year or however long the subscription lasts.

    I don’t slather blame across the whole developer community. There are a small number of very loud and obnoxious developers who are trying to play Apple. There are also developers who have a distorted view of why their stuff isn’t selling. But a lot of of developers appreciate the things that the App Store buys them for a modest investment in both their time and money. 
    thtwatto_cobra
  • Reply 109 of 136
    Naiyas said:
    I didn't see mentioned in the AI articles whether Apple can now revoke Epic's developer license, as it did last year, but with Epic at that time winning an injunction against Apple for that action being overreach at the time. So now that the case is over can Apple go ahead and revoke Epic's developer license?
    According to the judgement passed down Apple is cleared to revoke all developer licences for Epic including all of its subsidiaries and affiliates should it choose to do so as a consequence of one of Epic’s companies breaching the terms of its developer licence.

    The existing injunction has now expired. Whether Apple decides to do so is another matter given the prevalence of the Unreal Engine in games/apps unrelated to Epic directly.

    IMO, I don’t think Apple will retaliate in such a way as I suspect they are going to focus on meeting the conditions of the judgement. They have yet to say they will appeal and I doubt they will as they will need to counter Epics appeal and let’s face it, they effectively won all elements of the case except for the area we all knew they had shaky ground.
    I agree that the answer to my question is yes. I guess we don't know what Apple will do now. I.e., whether they will appeal, or whether they will take further action against Epic (perhaps not until the appeals period ends), or how Apple will interpret the one provision that they lost. The fact that Apple has not yet declared its intentions tells me that Apple's leading officers and/or lawyers are still debating what to do. This is exciting, like when a jury is taking days to make its decision. I guess Apple is kinda busy at the moment with the new product reveal on Tuesday.

    I want Apple to take a position of strength by actively fighting injustice. I don't like when people turn a blind eye to evil corporations, or evil governments, and take the approach that "if we're nice to them, they'll be nice back to us." No, we should fight them so that they stop being evil.
    edited September 2021 watto_cobra
  • Reply 110 of 136
    gatorguy said:
    I'm not sure this ruling will hold up under appeal. If the App Store isn't really a monopoly, why would Apple be disallowed from anti-steering clauses that are standard practice for web retailers and online sellers? 
    There was no ruling on whether the AppStore was a monopoly, or having any other antitrust/anti-competitive issues. This judge's ruling very narrowly addressed only a very narrow segment "the mobile gaming transactions market" which she defined as the relevant market. The headline infers a whole lot more to it. 
    Nice spin. The mobile gaming transactions market is the single largest portion of The App Store. If you can’t prove Apple is a monopolist in their biggest and most profitable segment you’re never going to convince anyone they are a monopolist in any other area.

    This ruling might as well have said the entire App Store isn’t a monopoly.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 111 of 136
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,996member
    gatorguy said:
    I'm not sure this ruling will hold up under appeal. If the App Store isn't really a monopoly, why would Apple be disallowed from anti-steering clauses that are standard practice for web retailers and online sellers? 
    There was no ruling on whether the AppStore was a monopoly, or having any other antitrust/anti-competitive issues. This judge's ruling very narrowly addressed only a very narrow segment "the mobile gaming transactions market" which she defined as the relevant market. The headline infers a whole lot more to it. 
    Nice spin. The mobile gaming transactions market is the single largest portion of The App Store. If you can’t prove Apple is a monopolist in their biggest and most profitable segment you’re never going to convince anyone they are a monopolist in any other area.

    This ruling might as well have said the entire App Store isn’t a monopoly.
    Spin?

    https://www.reuters.com/technology/epic-ruling-invites-future-efforts-paint-apple-monopolist-experts-2021-09-10/

    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 112 of 136
    Beautiful is that we will be able to see how harmful is for Consumers!

    next step: right to repair & etc ! I want to be able to change the battery on my iPhone, the memory on my Mac Mini and etc. !



    just how would change out the memory on a M1 Mac? It’s part of the SoC. That’s the point. 

    edited September 2021 watto_cobra
  • Reply 113 of 136
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,321member
    avon b7 said:
    gatorguy said:
    I'm not sure this ruling will hold up under appeal. If the App Store isn't really a monopoly, why would Apple be disallowed from anti-steering clauses that are standard practice for web retailers and online sellers? 
    There was no ruling on whether the AppStore was a monopoly, or having any other antitrust/anti-competitive issues. This judge's ruling very narrowly addressed only a very narrow segment "the mobile gaming transactions market" which she defined as the relevant market. The headline infers a whole lot more to it. 
    Nice spin. The mobile gaming transactions market is the single largest portion of The App Store. If you can’t prove Apple is a monopolist in their biggest and most profitable segment you’re never going to convince anyone they are a monopolist in any other area.

    This ruling might as well have said the entire App Store isn’t a monopoly.
    Spin?

    https://www.reuters.com/technology/epic-ruling-invites-future-efforts-paint-apple-monopolist-experts-2021-09-10/

    Typical Eric stuff. 
    elijahgmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 114 of 136
    crowleycrowley Posts: 9,342member
    gatorguy said:
    avon b7 said:
    gatorguy said:
    I'm not sure this ruling will hold up under appeal. If the App Store isn't really a monopoly, why would Apple be disallowed from anti-steering clauses that are standard practice for web retailers and online sellers? 
    There was no ruling on whether the AppStore was a monopoly, or having any other antitrust/anti-competitive issues. This judge's ruling very narrowly addressed only a very narrow segment "the mobile gaming transactions market" which she defined as the relevant market. The headline infers a whole lot more to it. 
    Nice spin. The mobile gaming transactions market is the single largest portion of The App Store. If you can’t prove Apple is a monopolist in their biggest and most profitable segment you’re never going to convince anyone they are a monopolist in any other area.

    This ruling might as well have said the entire App Store isn’t a monopoly.
    Spin?

    https://www.reuters.com/technology/epic-ruling-invites-future-efforts-paint-apple-monopolist-experts-2021-09-10/

    Typical Eric stuff. 
    The words of the judge seem more pertinent than what Eric (hehe) are saying:
    "The Court does not find that it is impossible; only that Epic Games failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal monopolist."

    So not not an illegal monopolist, but not proven to be an illegal monopolist.  Which matters for this ruling, but could change in future rulings.

    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 115 of 136
    gatorguy said:
    avon b7 said:
    gatorguy said:
    I'm not sure this ruling will hold up under appeal. If the App Store isn't really a monopoly, why would Apple be disallowed from anti-steering clauses that are standard practice for web retailers and online sellers? 
    There was no ruling on whether the AppStore was a monopoly, or having any other antitrust/anti-competitive issues. This judge's ruling very narrowly addressed only a very narrow segment "the mobile gaming transactions market" which she defined as the relevant market. The headline infers a whole lot more to it. 
    Nice spin. The mobile gaming transactions market is the single largest portion of The App Store. If you can’t prove Apple is a monopolist in their biggest and most profitable segment you’re never going to convince anyone they are a monopolist in any other area.

    This ruling might as well have said the entire App Store isn’t a monopoly.
    Spin?

    https://www.reuters.com/technology/epic-ruling-invites-future-efforts-paint-apple-monopolist-experts-2021-09-10/

    Typical Eric stuff. 

    Typical for what? Calling out your usual BS posts? The more pertinent text from Judge Rogers was:

    “Given the trial record, the Court cannot ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws. While the Court finds that Apple enjoys considerable market share of over 55% and extraordinarily high profit margins, these factors alone do not show antitrust conduct. Success is not illegal.”

    Which is exactly what I’ve said all along. Being big and successful (and even a monopoly) isn’t illegal. So even IF Apple was declared a monopoly, it’s still not illegal. Apple can’t be punished for being wildly successful. They have to do something illegal, and there’s only two choices regarding antitrust law in the US:

    - Doing something illegal to get to your market position. Buying up competitors or undercutting them on prices until they go under are two classic examples.
    - Doing something illegal after you gain market power. Like increasing prices or adding onerous terms to you customers knowing they have no other choices in the market.

    Apple has done neither. Although they were found to be in violation regarding anti-steering, it’s irrelevant to the discussion of being a monopoly simply because Apple has always had these rules in place, long before they became as large as they are. So it’s an infraction, but nothing to do with Apples market position. Had Apple tried to add these rules AFTER becoming so successful they’d be in a lot more trouble. Like Google is, for starting out open and now trying to tighten things up and add restrictions to the use of Android (like their crackdown on IAP) now that Android has become the #1 mobile OS.

    I’m curious in what area do you think Apple
    can be found a monopolist? Instead of just disagreeing with everyone, why don’t you offer your opinion with some examples and reasons why?

    You won’t, because that’s not your MO. If you never actually take a stand on anything you don’t have to defend yourself, right?
    foregoneconclusionwatto_cobra
  • Reply 116 of 136
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,321member
    gatorguy said:
    avon b7 said:
    gatorguy said:
    I'm not sure this ruling will hold up under appeal. If the App Store isn't really a monopoly, why would Apple be disallowed from anti-steering clauses that are standard practice for web retailers and online sellers? 
    There was no ruling on whether the AppStore was a monopoly, or having any other antitrust/anti-competitive issues. This judge's ruling very narrowly addressed only a very narrow segment "the mobile gaming transactions market" which she defined as the relevant market. The headline infers a whole lot more to it. 
    Nice spin. The mobile gaming transactions market is the single largest portion of The App Store. If you can’t prove Apple is a monopolist in their biggest and most profitable segment you’re never going to convince anyone they are a monopolist in any other area.

    This ruling might as well have said the entire App Store isn’t a monopoly.
    Spin?

    https://www.reuters.com/technology/epic-ruling-invites-future-efforts-paint-apple-monopolist-experts-2021-09-10/

    Typical Eric stuff. 

    Typical for what? Calling out your usual BS posts? The more pertinent text from Judge Rogers was:

    “Given the trial record, the Court cannot ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws. While the Court finds that Apple enjoys considerable market share of over 55% and extraordinarily high profit margins, these factors alone do not show antitrust conduct. Success is not illegal.”

    Which is exactly what I’ve said all along. Being big and successful (and even a monopoly) isn’t illegal. So even IF Apple was declared a monopoly, it’s still not illegal. Apple can’t be punished for being wildly successful. They have to do something illegal, and there’s only two choices regarding antitrust law in the US:

    - Doing something illegal to get to your market position. Buying up competitors or undercutting them on prices until they go under are two classic examples.
    - Doing something illegal after you gain market power. Like increasing prices or adding onerous terms to you customers knowing they have no other choices in the market.

    Apple has done neither. Although they were found to be in violation regarding anti-steering, it’s irrelevant to the discussion of being a monopoly simply because Apple has always had these rules in place, long before they became as large as they are. So it’s an infraction, but nothing to do with Apples market position. Had Apple tried to add these rules AFTER becoming so successful they’d be in a lot more trouble. Like Google is, for starting out open and now trying to tighten things up and add restrictions to the use of Android (like their crackdown on IAP) now that Android has become the #1 mobile OS.

    I’m curious in what area do you think Apple
    can be found a monopolist? Instead of just disagreeing with everyone, why don’t you offer your opinion with some examples and reasons why?

    You won’t, because that’s not your MO. If you never actually take a stand on anything you don’t have to defend yourself, right?
    The judge's own words are all you need Eric. I was not arguing for either position.  To quote from the ruling itself, page 180 of 185 in the section "Conclusions":
    "Thus, and in summary, the Court does not find that Apple is an antitrust monopolist in the submarket for mobile gaming transactions"

    Read it for yourself
    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21060631-apple-epic-judgement

    BTW, from her comments you didn't mention:
    “The court does not find that it is impossible (that Apple is an antitrust monopolist); only that Epic Games failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal monopolist”
    edited September 2021 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 117 of 136
    Bosa said:

    the payment thing will not matter , 90 percent of developers will stay same because the cost of collecting your own payments will be much more of what Apple charges 
    Yeah, that math checks out. Stripe for example is 2.9% + 30 cents per successful charge. Apple charges 15-30%. lol
    A small business developer on 15% is better off on Apples system at $1.99 transactions. That is a pretty low friction amount for a spend, makes the game more likely to go viral.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 118 of 136
    thttht Posts: 4,205member
    "Ultimately, after evaluating the trial evidence, the Court finds that the relevant market here is digital mobile gaming transactions, not gaming generally and not Apple's own internal operating systems related to the App Store. The mobile gaming market itself is a $100 billion industry. The size of this market explains Epic Games' motive in bringing this action. Having penetrated all other video game markets, the mobile gaming market was Epic Games' next target and it views Apple as an impediment."
    The key is the dual clause after the finding, "not gaming generally and not Apple's own internal operating systems related to the App Store" -- the first was Apple's position, the second was Epic's position. But let's be clear -- the judge isn't splitting the difference here, or seeking common ground (there was none). No, she is simply narrowing the scope of the ruling. I think she finds this "relevant market" as a highly problematic one, and this ruling should be seen as an invitation to legislators (and Apple itself, though I don't think the judge sees Apple as being innocent, she sees Apple as happily profiting from it) to rein in this sort of predatory impulse spending.

    The final sentence above, in which the judge says the mobile gaming market (i.e., the "relevant market" in this case) is Epic's "next target," seems targeted at the future, as mobile gaming evolves on all the relevant market platforms. That sentence is aimed beyond Apple and iOS, basically telling Epic that this ruling applies to all other "digital mobile gaming transactions" platforms as well. 
    No, I definitely mean pathological, not that it was hard to follow. The Court had to define a market and obsessively define a market they did, with decisions that strain credibility.

    They really should have just said the market is the iOS and Android gaming market, or iOS and Android App Store market, or a more neutral "touchscreen" gaming market because that's what they essentially defined. Using the name of a company or a brand name to define the market obviously makes it too suspect. "Digital mobile games transactions" market is word salad. Just call it what it is.

    They used the word "mobile", yet declined to include the Nintendo Switch or the game streamer platforms because they were too new. The Switch came out in 2017 the same year Fortnite came out, the driver of this judicial action. They also said it was logical to include the Switch, but neither company provided Nintendo or Switch data, so they couldn't include it. In the market share determination, they said including prospective Switch data would lower Apple's market share, but not lower than 30% (Sherman antitrust value for having "market" power), so it was ok. That only implies they were number shopping to me, not that it was ok to do so.

    Speaking of the market share determination section itself, it was was just plain bad. They didn't compute market share. They computed, if you can call it that, revenue share and then called it market share. Since this was for the USA, maybe if they computed unit share or shared of the installed base, it would come out the same since the USA is close to a 50:50 split for iOS and Android, but we've seen the survey results ad infinitum. iOS users spend more than Android users. There are reasons why that have nothing to do with "transactions". Then, the game streaming platforms are about to turn the gaming market upside down, where the game streaming platform owners could take all of the App Store platform's game money. Similar to that, web apps aren't that far behind either. 

    I basically lit up when I read how the Court defined the market. Why should I trust the Court's judgement if they knowingly exclude data, facts, and circumstances? In a way, it was good for Apple as the market definition tilted largely against Apple in this case, tilted towards increasing Apple's "market share" of the defined market, and they came out not having a monopoly, but I definitely expect more exactitude from the Court's analysis, so obviously disappointed with that.

    Then, what the heck is a "transactions" market? I probably missed where it is defined. Is it who moves the money? Is it agreements between developers and the platform owners? Is it how money is spent? Most of the Court's determinations of Apple's monopoly status was based on Apple's revenue share or "market share" between Android and iOS. That's just the iOS and Android gaming market. The how people buy things is interesting too, but subject for a different post.

    I don't think this ruling is an invitation to legislatures to do something. It's an extrapolation too far for me. If it was, the Court should just say it, rather than leaving it up to people to interpret.
    foregoneconclusionwatto_cobra
  • Reply 119 of 136
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    avon b7 said:
    gatorguy said:
    I'm not sure this ruling will hold up under appeal. If the App Store isn't really a monopoly, why would Apple be disallowed from anti-steering clauses that are standard practice for web retailers and online sellers? 
    There was no ruling on whether the AppStore was a monopoly, or having any other antitrust/anti-competitive issues. This judge's ruling very narrowly addressed only a very narrow segment "the mobile gaming transactions market" which she defined as the relevant market. The headline infers a whole lot more to it. 
    Nice spin. The mobile gaming transactions market is the single largest portion of The App Store. If you can’t prove Apple is a monopolist in their biggest and most profitable segment you’re never going to convince anyone they are a monopolist in any other area.

    This ruling might as well have said the entire App Store isn’t a monopoly.
    Spin?

    https://www.reuters.com/technology/epic-ruling-invites-future-efforts-paint-apple-monopolist-experts-2021-09-10/

    Typical Eric stuff. 

    Typical for what? Calling out your usual BS posts? The more pertinent text from Judge Rogers was:

    “Given the trial record, the Court cannot ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws. While the Court finds that Apple enjoys considerable market share of over 55% and extraordinarily high profit margins, these factors alone do not show antitrust conduct. Success is not illegal.”

    Which is exactly what I’ve said all along. Being big and successful (and even a monopoly) isn’t illegal. So even IF Apple was declared a monopoly, it’s still not illegal. Apple can’t be punished for being wildly successful. They have to do something illegal, and there’s only two choices regarding antitrust law in the US:

    - Doing something illegal to get to your market position. Buying up competitors or undercutting them on prices until they go under are two classic examples.
    - Doing something illegal after you gain market power. Like increasing prices or adding onerous terms to you customers knowing they have no other choices in the market.

    Apple has done neither. Although they were found to be in violation regarding anti-steering, it’s irrelevant to the discussion of being a monopoly simply because Apple has always had these rules in place, long before they became as large as they are. So it’s an infraction, but nothing to do with Apples market position. Had Apple tried to add these rules AFTER becoming so successful they’d be in a lot more trouble. Like Google is, for starting out open and now trying to tighten things up and add restrictions to the use of Android (like their crackdown on IAP) now that Android has become the #1 mobile OS.

    I’m curious in what area do you think Apple
    can be found a monopolist? Instead of just disagreeing with everyone, why don’t you offer your opinion with some examples and reasons why?

    You won’t, because that’s not your MO. If you never actually take a stand on anything you don’t have to defend yourself, right?
    The judge's own words are all you need Eric. I was not arguing for either position.  To quote from the ruling itself, page 180 of 185 in the section "Conclusions":
    "Thus, and in summary, the Court does not find that Apple is an antitrust monopolist in the submarket for mobile gaming transactions"

    Read it for yourself
    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21060631-apple-epic-judgement

    BTW, from her comments you didn't mention:
    “The court does not find that it is impossible (that Apple is an antitrust monopolist); only that Epic Games failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal monopolist”

    As usual you refuse to take a stand.

    Why don’t you list areas in which Apple could be found guilty of being a monopolist? Surely you can come up with at least one example.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 120 of 136
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,321member
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    avon b7 said:
    gatorguy said:
    I'm not sure this ruling will hold up under appeal. If the App Store isn't really a monopoly, why would Apple be disallowed from anti-steering clauses that are standard practice for web retailers and online sellers? 
    There was no ruling on whether the AppStore was a monopoly, or having any other antitrust/anti-competitive issues. This judge's ruling very narrowly addressed only a very narrow segment "the mobile gaming transactions market" which she defined as the relevant market. The headline infers a whole lot more to it. 
    Nice spin. The mobile gaming transactions market is the single largest portion of The App Store. If you can’t prove Apple is a monopolist in their biggest and most profitable segment you’re never going to convince anyone they are a monopolist in any other area.

    This ruling might as well have said the entire App Store isn’t a monopoly.
    Spin?

    https://www.reuters.com/technology/epic-ruling-invites-future-efforts-paint-apple-monopolist-experts-2021-09-10/

    Typical Eric stuff. 

    Typical for what? Calling out your usual BS posts? The more pertinent text from Judge Rogers was:

    “Given the trial record, the Court cannot ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws. While the Court finds that Apple enjoys considerable market share of over 55% and extraordinarily high profit margins, these factors alone do not show antitrust conduct. Success is not illegal.”

    Which is exactly what I’ve said all along. Being big and successful (and even a monopoly) isn’t illegal. So even IF Apple was declared a monopoly, it’s still not illegal. Apple can’t be punished for being wildly successful. They have to do something illegal, and there’s only two choices regarding antitrust law in the US:

    - Doing something illegal to get to your market position. Buying up competitors or undercutting them on prices until they go under are two classic examples.
    - Doing something illegal after you gain market power. Like increasing prices or adding onerous terms to you customers knowing they have no other choices in the market.

    Apple has done neither. Although they were found to be in violation regarding anti-steering, it’s irrelevant to the discussion of being a monopoly simply because Apple has always had these rules in place, long before they became as large as they are. So it’s an infraction, but nothing to do with Apples market position. Had Apple tried to add these rules AFTER becoming so successful they’d be in a lot more trouble. Like Google is, for starting out open and now trying to tighten things up and add restrictions to the use of Android (like their crackdown on IAP) now that Android has become the #1 mobile OS.

    I’m curious in what area do you think Apple
    can be found a monopolist? Instead of just disagreeing with everyone, why don’t you offer your opinion with some examples and reasons why?

    You won’t, because that’s not your MO. If you never actually take a stand on anything you don’t have to defend yourself, right?
    The judge's own words are all you need Eric. I was not arguing for either position.  To quote from the ruling itself, page 180 of 185 in the section "Conclusions":
    "Thus, and in summary, the Court does not find that Apple is an antitrust monopolist in the submarket for mobile gaming transactions"

    Read it for yourself
    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21060631-apple-epic-judgement

    BTW, from her comments you didn't mention:
    “The court does not find that it is impossible (that Apple is an antitrust monopolist); only that Epic Games failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal monopolist”

    As usual you refuse to take a stand.

    Why don’t you list areas in which Apple could be found guilty of being a monopolist? Surely you can come up with at least one example.
    So you've at least admitted I was correct on the facts, but now want to change the discussion to one where I comment as a lawyer?? LOL. I am not one.  
    muthuk_vanalingam
Sign In or Register to comment.