Hacker News Reader

Comment by bfdm | Hacker News Reader

Of course it's monopolistic. What standard are you comparing to? You don't need to have 100% of the market to exert monopoly control.

Non-monopoly behavior would be users and developers having the choice to offer & install iOS apps outside of Apple's app store, but choosing the app store because the trade-off of fees is considered fair for the trust & platform convenience gained in exchange.

View on HN

> What standard are you comparing to

A real judge saying that Apple isn’t a monopoly…

https://www.businesstoday.in/technology/story/resounding-vic...

> the judge cleared the Cupertino-based company of monopolistic malpractices

That does not appear to be anything like affirming that they are not a monopoly. One can be a monopoly without being guilty of anticompetitive monopolistic behavior. Likewise, Epic failing to make their narrow case is not a statement of absolute fact about Apple's market or industry position; it is a statement that Epic's specific argument was not valid or sufficient to confirm their claims.

So whose viewpoint should I believe in whether Apple did anything wrong, a real judge or a random commenter on HN?

Neither? Judges are also just random people chosen to interpret "the law". That doesn't mean their interpretation can accurately determine what is or isn't monopolistic. Judges make historically "wrong" decisions all the time.

So we shouldn’t believe judges because after looking at the law, the case being argued by Epics high price lawyers and multiple appeals, all of the judges got it wrong. But only contact9879 knows the “truth”

No. My point is that case law and judges only operate within precedent and an interpretation of law. That doesn't mean that the conclusions drawn are "truth"-ful. I'd even argue that case law can not determine a "truth". What constitutes monopolistic behaviour is subjective and case law is reflective of that. In fact, decisions are called "judicial opinions". They are a best effort to determine a truth given the tools and environment within which courts operate. That doesn't mean that the verdict is "correct" (whatever that means in the context of deciding monopolies).

1) The court did rule against Apple on the anti-steering provision.

2) The case is on appeal to the Supreme Court.

3) Apple paid out a settlement in another monopolist case: https://smallappdeveloperassistance.com/

I don't particularly care what the current case law says, antitrust has been eroded for four decades to the point of being a joke. We need to overhaul this around the world and tame megacorps everywhere.

The behavior is plainly monopolistic and anticompetitive on its face. That it does not suffer judgement as violating any laws about such conduct is a sad reflection of our government corruption and unwillingness to regulate the corporations that provide most political funding.

“I don’t care what the law or judges say. I know I’m right because Apple paid off a judge and the judge was corrupt”???

Who said any of that? I mean our elected government (US and Canada alike) is evidently unwilling to enact & enforce toothsome antitrust. And that's a source of a huge portion of our bigger problems. Outsized influence by a small number of voices, and a toxic cycle of using the proceeds to buy more deregulation via political donation.

>Of course it's monopolistic. What standard are you comparing to? You don't need to have 100% of the market to exert monopoly control

No, but control of your own platform is not considered a monopoly if you don't have a monopoly on the overall market.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com