Hacker News Reader

Comment by fzzzy | Hacker News Reader

They don't have a monopoly.

anti-competitive behavior does not require a monopoly. For example two gas stations on a corner could enter into an agreement to fix prices. Neither has a monopoly on gasoline but the action is still illegal.

Yea, but in the US there are basically only two kinds of illegal anti-competitive behavior:

- Horizontal agreements, like the one you describe, where competitors cooperate in one way or another. Apple and Steam are not cooperating here.

- “Single firm conduct,” i.e. monopoly stuff.

Which laws do you think Apple is violating here?

"Single firm conduct" is not just "monopoly stuff". Dumping for example does not require a monopoly nor a willing partner. Additionally a company may not force resellers into a specific price regardless of whether they are a monopoly.

Personally I think mandatory app stores run afoul of exclusive dealing laws which do require a showing of market power to take force. The FTC had no problem enforcing this in the pipe fittings market [1] which has very healthy competition from china. A total monopoly is not required.

[1] https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/101-0080b/...

Collusion and illegal monopolies are entirely different.

Would Nintendo be in the wrong if they didn't allow PSVue on the switch?

False equivalent, one is banning someone from the store, the other is creating compatibility when one naturally doesn't exist.

How is that false? If Sony decided to port PSVue - the live tv streaming service that's available for iOS, Android, Roku, etc to the Switch and Nintendo refused it - what's the difference?

Every curated platform controls what can be in it - including all of the console manufacturers.