foregoneconclusion

We’re living in a very corrupt age and business leaders appear to be fine with a lot of the corruption. 

elijahg said: I'm not saying there is a law around it, but anticompetitive behaviour is very opinionated and it would be much easier for Valve to justify that they "need" that profit to operate and invest than Apple can. This is especially true when you consider the lock-in, when the alternative requires the expenditure in the form of purchasing a different device.

The quote from the court is saying that 30% commission is too high relative to the intellectual property involved which = iPhone hardware + iOS + App Store. That's multiple IP developments versus the app developer that has a single IP development...their app. So the single IP developer gets 70% and the multiple IP developer gets 30%. I'm just saying that I don't follow how that is interpreted as supracompetitive. 

elijahg said: I suspect if the 30% commission was Apple's only major source of profit, like the commission on the Steam store is Valve's only real source of profit, the outcome would have been  different. 

What would that be based on though? Is there a law that limits profit margins based on how many different profit margins you generate? That has always seemed nebulous at best. Tim Sweeney's argument about consoles "losing money" on hardware and profiting on software isn't founded in law. It's just an example of another business model.

gatorguy said: To summarize: One, after trial, the Court found that Apple’s 30 percent commission “allowed it to reap supracompetitive operating margins” and was not tied to the value of its intellectual property, and thus, was anticompetitive. 

This has always been the part that doesn't make much sense. In order for Apple to offer the App Store, they had to develop both the phone hardware and operating system. And in order for the App Store to attract a large numbers of developers, iPhone/iOS would need to be highly successful with consumers. App developers are typically attracted to the systems that have large install bases. No idea how the court arrives at the conclusion that 30% is too high for what Apple developed: highly quality phone hardware + very popular OS + large install base of potential app customers.

I've always disagreed with the idea that anti-steering inside apps qualified as anticompetitive behavior (iOS provides a myriad of ways for app developers to communicate with their customers) BUT lying under oath and withholding of evidence is a major mistake by Apple.