In what metric is Apple a monopoly?
1) They use their market power over something they created in order to gain advantage in a market they did not create (payment processors). There's no technical reason to link the two except that's it's good for Apple's bottom line.
2) Apple's app store is like running a Mall where Apple rents store, or Apple being a landlord renting apartments. The agreement to receive rents comes with implied duties like allow fair competition, and Apple overtly giving themselves undue advantage violates that.
Apple's app store is the store, not a mall, 100% build, owned and operated by Apple. Developers are goods suppliers, like milk to Wallmart. Want a better deal? Build your own store or sell elsewhere. You cannot expect Wallmart stocking your empty milk bottles for free with a printed message "now you can buy milk on milk.com"
P.S. Quite a lot of products in I buy in $LOCALSTORE link to the manufacturer's web site, and more than a few manufacturers allow direct sales. No store here would imagine it could force the manufacturer to use only its preferred credit method in their web site.
It's generally illegal to use a monopoly on one thing to acquire a monopoly on another thing when that harms society, and that is the claim here.
Microsoft alone created windows, that's fine. Microsoft used their monopoly on windows to gain monopolies on other pieces of software, and that was problematic.
And Apple is not forcing anyone to write ios apps. They are curating a store. Should lawmakers dictate to Walmart which products to stock or how much to buy and sell them for?
Apple is not forcing anyone to write iOS apps, Microsoft and IBM did not force anyone either. Still, the law acted, because anti-competitive market behaviour is illegal.
Microsoft was also cited for forcing OEMs to pay for a license for Windows for each PC sold whether or not the PC shipped with Windows.
The MS case was different, but some elements are similar (use of private APIs; ability to choose default apps which is still not complete in iOS), and some are things MS never dreamt they could do.
The use of “private APIs” is a red herring. Every software developer for the last forty years knows about the concept of a public interface that they promise not to change and private implementation details. Some languages force it and others do it by convention.
My other point is that some Apple app store apps can use APIs that every other app would get banned for. People complained about that when it came MS; It's not better when Apple does it.
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/how-compaqs-clone-comp...
No one could argue that IBM is any more than a bit player in PCs in 1983.
iMessage is not an “Apple Store app” any more than the phone app. Text messages and phone calls are kind of vital to be called a phone.
However, it is true that some of Epic's claims were brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Act which do not necessarily require monopoly power. (Section 1 has to deal with unreasonable restraints of trade, whereas Section 2 deals with monopolies.)
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
Whether or not Apple has a monopoly is irrelevant for the antitrust laws.
So even though there are some antitrust violations (e.g. price fixing or bid rigging) where monopoly power is indeed irrelevant, it is very specifically relevant in the context of Epic's lawsuit against Apple.
The "platform" is the thing the customer paid for when they bought the phone.
Because not supporting them is anti-competitive. Markets require competition to operate. It is obviously not feasible for an individual app developer to build their own phone hardware and operating system and convince everyone to switch to it from iPhones just in order to avoid Apple's app distribution system, so requiring that is unreasonable.
By this tortured logic Tesla should be forced to have a marketplace of self-driving implementations which their cars must support because that is technically a market.
And they must not unfairly promote Autopilot.
It's not arbitrary. It's based on whether there are reasonable substitutes. Exxon is a reasonable substitute for Chevron when buying gasoline for your 2020 Ford F150, because you can use either one. Google Play is not a reasonable substitute for the Apple App Store when buying apps for your 2020 Apple iPhone, because you can't actually use it for that.
> By this tortured logic Tesla should be forced to have a marketplace of self-driving implementations which their cars must support because that is technically a market.
It has nothing to do with forcing them to do something. They just shouldn't be able to prevent someone else from producing an autopilot implementation for their cars. And what's so unreasonable about that? It's plainly anti-competitive.
To answer your question, yes, Apple should be forced to allow other payment system. The current anti-competitive arrangement both disadvantages non-Apple payment systems, and prevents users from switching to Android if they wish (since subscriptions are managed by Apple, and it difficult to access that without an Apple device...).
Yes, they could do that. I just don't understand the reason why they should be forced to.
Anti-competitive by mandating use of their products, rent seeking because 30% is absurd (but alas legal), and as one twitter thread pointed out, if the web hadn't already existed, no existing web browser could possibly have passed Apple's app store policies.
It used to be possible to get payments on iOS going without using Apple's payments, before Apple set their eyes upon that market.
The console makers actually actually do things for Fornite, other than offering a download. Sony sells like a Fornite + Playstation bundle, and do marketing with them.
It's not available on Steam store for example.
https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-sta...
- the antitrust committee investigating them
https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/26/antitrust-investigation...
That doesn't seem like a monopoly to me. Apple has huge competition on the mobile market. Windows Phone 8 only had Microsoft's own app store, was that a monopoly with its <5% market share? I think not.
That sounds like an argument that "every single current game console and almost all other modern devices with app support" are maintaining monopolies on app distribution on their platform, what's your point? Epic Games is not obligated in any way to sue every company breaking the law just because they chose to sue one that is.
I can see the pragmatic sense in that argument, but I'm pessimistic and see it more as Tim trying to avoid destroying a relationship with strategically critical partners while achieving new strategic goals on mobile. Trying to have his cake and eat it too.
He's also allowed to believe that there is a stronger case against Apple and sue them first, and then sue the other people later if he wins the first suit convincingly, which is what I personally suspect is going to happen.
Software development and access to American consumers is no longer free and open.