You said: "I'll never understand why we've done nothing legally about this."
But nothing you've described is necessarily illegal so I think my point about your misconception stands. It might be anticompetitive (in your opinion) but that does not mean it is actually a violation of the law.
> "necessarily illegal"? So... it might be illegal?
That will depend on the outcome of the several current ongoing lawsuits and has not been established at this stage. I mean, just look at this case. A lot of people decided what Apple was doing was illegal after Epic filed suit and it turned out they were wrong.
> You didn't answer my question: "What have they done?"
I don't think there's much "right and wrong" in the court system. There's so much arbitrariness and even politicalization among judges. Just look at the Supreme Court.
The judge in the Epic trial, YGR, invented a whole new market concept out of thin air, "digital mobile gaming transactions", a market that neither side in the case argued for. I thought that was complete crap and a bad decision. What's the legal basis for a judge inventing a market? This seems like a classic case of judicial overreach.
One of the weirdest things about that market definition is that the App Store is not a game store. Of course there are a lot of games that make a lot of money in the App Store, but there are a ton of non-games in there too. (Also, WTF is "digital" supposed to mean? Are there analog mobile gaming transactions?)
I also thought, to be honest, that Epic's lawyers in the case were not great and seemed not fully prepared or technically knowledgeable. And some of the toughest questions for Apple were asked by YGR rather than by Epic.
"Entering into long-term agreements with Apple that require Google to be the default – and de facto exclusive – general search engine on Apple’s popular Safari browser and other Apple search tools."
That was precisely my complaint! So if I have a misconception, then apparently the Department of Justice also has the same misconception.
> The judge in the Epic trial, YGR, invented a whole new market concept out of thin air, "digital mobile gaming transactions", a market that neither side in the case argued for. I thought that was complete crap and a bad decision. What's the legal basis for a judge inventing a market? This seems like a classic case of judicial overreach.
This actually happens all the times in antitrust cases. Almost always the plaintiff argues for a very narrow market and the defendant argues for a very wide market. Then the judge has to come in and look at actual consumer behavior to decide what the relevant market actually is.
> One of the weirdest things about that market definition is that the App Store is not a game store. Of course there are a lot of games that make a lot of money in the App Store, but there are a ton of non-games in there too. (Also, WTF is "digital" supposed to mean? Are there analog mobile gaming transactions?)
I agree that the relevant market probably should have included all app transactions and not just gaming transactions but frankly it would not have changed the outcome of the case.
> That was precisely my complaint! So if I have a misconception, then apparently the Department of Justice also has the same misconception.
The way your original comment was phrased implied the problem was with having 93% market share in the first place. I was simply pointing out that's not illegal unless it was obtained or maintained through anticompetitive means. It remains to be seen whether such browser payments will be considered anticompetitive in the eyes of the courts.
> This actually happens all the times in antitrust cases. Almost always the plaintiff argues for a very narrow market and the defendant argues for a very wide market. Then the judge has to come in and look at actual consumer behavior to decide what the relevant market actually is.
That's not the issue. The issue is that the judge invented a market that nobody considered to be a market before the trial. The judge didn't refer to any other market analysis or economic literature but simply pulled "digital mobile gaming transactions" out of her ass.
> The way your original comment was phrased implied the problem was with having 93% market share in the first place. I was simply pointing out that's not illegal unless it was obtained or maintained through anticompetitive means.
> The issue is that the judge invented a market that nobody considered to be a market before the trial.
Not true. I'll just quote from the ruling:
"Epic proposed two single-brand markets: the aftermarkets for iOS app distribution and iOS in-app payment solutions, derived from a foremarket for smartphone operating systems. Apple, by contrast, proposed the market for all video game transactions, whether those transactions occur on a smartphone, a gaming console, or elsewhere. The district court ultimately found a market between those the parties proposed: mobile-game transactions—i.e., game transactions on iOS and Android smartphones and tablets."
I mean you said the judge made up a market out of thin air but what actually happened was she agreed with Apple's market definition minus gaming consoles.
But nothing you've described is necessarily illegal so I think my point about your misconception stands. It might be anticompetitive (in your opinion) but that does not mean it is actually a violation of the law.