Hacker News Reader

Comment by chrisco255 | Hacker News Reader

Ultimately if Apple bends if will be good for the users in the long run. That's what matters.

And if Apple doesn't bend, we need antitrust action against these monopolies anyways.

People keep making this argument regarding the App Store but that’s not how monopolies are defined. Apple might have strict control over their walled garden but their walled garden itself isn’t the only walled garden. As such, people can buy different handsets running different operating systems and thus use a different repository on them. The fact that Apple don’t allow other repos on iOS doesn’t make it a monopoly in the legal sense because that would be like walking into a high street supermarket and demanding they stock a competitors own brand. If, however, that happened to be the only (or within a slender margin of that) supermarket chain in the country and they still refused to work with a specific supplier who makes a competing product, then there might be grounds to file for antitrust.

But Epic did start an antitrust case, and so far a judge has found that “serious questions do exist” and granted a temporary restraining order. That wouldn’t have happened if Epic was as obviously wrong about the monopoly question as you say. https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/21814075/c...

You’ve cherry picked a sentence there but the full paragraph actually has a less optimistic tone:

> Epic brings ten claims for violations of Sherman Act, the California Cartwright Act, and California Unfair Competition. Based on a review of the current limited record before the Court, the Court cannot conclude that Epic has met the high burden of demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits, especially in the antitrust context. However, the Court also concludes that serious questions do exist.

So no, a judge hasn’t suggested there is a winnable antitrust case here but he has acknowledged there are serious questions regarding unfair competition.

You’re right, the judge has not ruled that Epic is likely to win the lawsuit in the end, given that the case only just started. But you claimed that iOS was clearly not a legal monopoly, when Epic is suing to establish this point and a federal judge has entertained the argument and made orders based on it.

That’s not what the document actually says though. It says Epic games has filed a case with 10 claims, some of which are categorised as antitrust but none of which actually state the term “monopoly” (remember antitrust rules doesn’t just apply to monopolies). And again, it’s worth remembering that document demonstrates that even those antitrust claims weren’t well received by the judge.

Unless you can find another court document that does specifically mention the individual claims and states the word “monopoly”? The only references I can find is tabloid-level journalism covering the story (ie using vague summaries with common language rather than legal jargon accurately). If you can I’ll happily accept that the “monopoly” point is at least currently under legal dispute. But I can’t find any evidence to support that claim.

You can find this in Epic's filing. As you point out, Epic's federal antitrust claims were not as well received as their claims based on California law at the temporary restraining order stage, but they have not been finally resolved. https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/epic-v-apple-8-17-20-768927327...

> Apple conditions app developers’ access to app distribution through the App Store on their agreement to use Apple’s IAP to process all their customers’ in-app purchases of in-app content ... Epic is likely to prove that this conduct is: (a) tying per se; (b) an unreasonable restraint of trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Act under the rule of reason; (c) unlawful maintenance of a monopoly under Section 2; and (d) a denial of access to an essential facility under Section 2.

The current situation is called a duopoly. There are 2 walled gardens with approximately 50-50% revenue share in the developed world. One makes it almost impossible to distribute your own app on these, the other makes it just very hard. Both should be broken up, it's a bleak distopia that 2 companies headquartered a few miles from eachother decide who can publish software on mobile devices.

Indeed but that wasn’t the point I was making. I was saying those who argue the App Store as a monopoly (ie because it’s the only repository on iOS) miss the point of what a monopoly legally means.

I agree what we have is a duopoly.

I don't get this argument. The walled garden is something users opt into because it has benefits.

iPhone user here. I did not opt into a walled garden for the benefits. I am in this walled garden because I happened to buy an iPhone 10 yeas ago and now I'm locked in.

you... You don't have to keep buying iphones.

Switching to another platform is hard. That's why it's called a walled garden.

If Apple bends it will be to settle and cut a special deal with Epic.

They will never let it go far enough to truly threaten their walled garden.

I don't know that that's gonna be enough for Sweeney at this point.

> If Apple bends it will be to settle and cut a special deal with Epic.

But then who isn't going to want to take their place and get their own "special deal"?

It's possible Apple would then proactively reach out to the largest developers to make similar deals, but the risk is pretty low to Apple if it takes a company willing to launch a multi-year lawsuit costing millions and millions of dollars; many companies, even large ones, don't have that cheddar.

> if Apple bends if will be good for the users in the long run.

Im a user, and it will be very bad for my security and privacy of my data.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com