> If a developer isn't using that infrastructure, they don't owe anything.
How would a developer build an iOS app without using any system calls or OS frameworks? Xcode?
“Infrastructure” is a blurry concept in such a deeply integrated system.
How would a developer build an iOS app without using any system calls or OS frameworks? Xcode?
“Infrastructure” is a blurry concept in such a deeply integrated system.
The real point is if Apple wants (or should have the right) to collect taxes on their infrastructure and act like a Government - think about VAT - or they are only selling consumer devices instead.
If I buy a tractor from John Deere and make money out of the products I can grow using that tractor I don't have to pay a fee to John Deere, even thought without the JD my fields would probably be much less profitable or plainly unprofitable.
So the question is: has Apple built a digital Nation? And in that case, should they be the only monopolistic option?
However, historically, this was almost always because the monopoly did something like change the rules to benefit themselves after they became a monopoly. From the law's perspective, Apple didn't do anything like that. Apple didn't raise the commission to, say, 50%. Apple hasn't changed the rules since, like, 2009 before they had the theoretical "monopoly" status. This makes proving an illegal monopoly case against Apple (because monopolies are not intrinsically illegal) more difficult.
Apple's push into payment processing here smacks very heavily of illegal tying to me, especially given how broadly Apple interprets competitor payment processing methods. In effect, the specific sin that got Fortnite kicked off was charging a lower price for using a company-specific gift card instead of using Apple's payment method. I don't see how that's not abusive tying.
If you are following Apple vs Epic, even Epic admits this and says they can't pinpoint when Apple became a supposed monopoly, and argues that the tying is illegal because Apple is so large, not that it was illegal to begin with (because Epic admits that it would not have been illegal when Apple started). This is also why many legal experts say Epic has an uphill battle, because antitrust really only addresses abuses in monopoly power, not so much on what got you to that monopoly power.
This couldn't be further from the truth. They have carved out many exceptions to the 30% commission over the years - often as part of sweetheart deals to attract larger entities that have negotiating leverage, such as Netflix and Amazon.
However, that relies on the idea that Apple is even a monopoly to begin with, and that really depends on what you define "the market" as. Is the product an iPhone and the whole cohesive experience with it (IAP and App Store included) in which case it's a duopoly at best, or are these separate markets that it is possible to have a monopoly in?
Once again you're wrong and you should really stop commenting on business law. There are a wide range of legal precedents that have bearing here and these specific dealings could absolutely be ruled as anticompetitive in court.
I have a question: in USA could Tesla force Tesla Powerwall owners to only buy electricity from Tesla approved suppliers and when they sell their product through Tesla store, Tesla gets a 30% cut?
And notably, Android seems to do fine both a) letting devs use the Android ecosystem for free, and b) allowing sideloading apps outside the Play Store.