This is just three big corporations fighting over their respective slices of the pie, if you think any of this is being said or done for your benefit I’m sure Epic has a plentiful supply of really tasty Koolaid for you. But no pie, sorry.
I never thought about it like this. It could be viewed differently because the Xbox is a game console and the iphone is a general handheld computer, but perhaps it should be illegal to restrict users installing software on your device by any means they choose, though there's no reason for you to support those means.
It's like claiming that nobody can have a monopoly on electric car charging stations because the customer could just buy a gasoline powered car and electric cars don't even have majority market share. It's still a monopoly. It's a monopoly on charging stations, not a monopoly on cars.
Yes, of course. The fact that you can't use the other company's chargers means that there are then two markets there, one for Tesla-vehicle charging stations and one for Nissan-vehicle charging stations. You can't substitute one for the other in that case, you need one compatible with your car. It's the same reason that gas pumps aren't the same market as electric car chargers, or that gas pumps aren't the same market as diesel pumps. If there is only one diesel pump in the state then it has a monopoly no matter how many gas pumps there are because you can't use gasoline in a diesel vehicle.
If you could use either type of charger with either type of car then they would be in the same market, because a customer who wants to charge their car could substitute either one for the other, so they would each actually be in competition with the other and neither would have a monopoly.
I think the fact that the "chargers" and the "cars" are hypothesized to be operated by the same company is what's messing people up.
Suppose you have two companies that each operate half the charging stations in the same region. One is Tesla, and you can only use them to charge a Tesla vehicle. The other is Exxon, which has started installing electric car chargers at their gas stations, and where you can charge any car including a Tesla. Well then Tesla hasn't got a monopoly on anything, because any Tesla owner can go charge their car at Exxon, and Exxon doesn't have a monopoly for Tesla vehicles, because they can also go charge their car at Tesla. But Exxon does have a monopoly for charging non-Tesla vehicles, because if you have a Nissan or a Chevy, you can't use the Tesla chargers, leaving Exxon as your only option.
1) The manufacturer lacks sufficient market power in the "foremarket". (In the case of Apple, this would be the sale of the phone. In your example, it would be the sale of the car.)
2) The consumer was aware of the "aftermarket" restrictions when buying the original product. (In the case of Apple this would be the App Store pricing and rules. In the car example it would be the location and cost of the charging stations.)
3) The consumer does not face substantial costs to switch to an alternative product. (The cost of buying a new car would probably be considered substantial but I'm not sure a new phone would.)
The courts have reasoned that if the consumer had sufficient information when making their initial purchase decision, then they had the opportunity to buy a competing product without those restrictions. If they went ahead and bought anyway, they knew what they were signing up for. It's like buying a razor and then being stuck with expensive replacement razor blades. Or buying a movie ticket and then being stuck buying expensive popcorn from that theater.
Yes, once you buy the movie ticket and enter the theater they have a "monopoly" on your snack purchases. No, you're not likely to win an antitrust claim against the theater.
The cost of switching phone platforms is massive compared to the app market. Phones can cost over $1000, apps are commonly $1, a difference of a thousand fold. And that's only the hardware cost. Then you have issues if there is any other app you need which is only available on one platform, or if you make use of Google or Apple services that are only well supported or supported at all on one platform and would incur substantial switching costs to move to the other.
You also have a different problem here:
> The courts have reasoned that if the consumer had sufficient information when making their initial purchase decision, then they had the opportunity to buy a competing product without those restrictions.
Which would only apply if there was a viable competing product without those restrictions. But there are only two viable phone platforms and Apple's has a strict monopoly while Google's has a de facto one where Google Play has >90% share of the Android market, and they both impose similar restrictions, so a viable option without those restrictions isn't there.
Furthermore, the customer for app distribution is at least as much the developer as the user -- they're the one who pays the app store's fee, right? -- and they don't get to choose which phone their customers have already bought.
Ultimately that is up to the courts to decide. But I will point out that in a previous case involving IBM S/390 computer systems, the court decided this requirement was not met, despite the hardware expense and associated software compatibility limitations.
> Which would only apply if there was a viable competing product without those restrictions. But there are only two viable phone platforms and Apple's has a strict monopoly while Google's has a de facto one where Google Play has >90% share of the Android market, and they both impose similar restrictions, so a viable option without those restrictions isn't there.
I'm not sure which specific restrictions you are referring to here. If the complaint against Apple is that you cannot install apps from 3rd party sources on your iPhone, there is a competing product that allows you to do that on the market.
> Furthermore, the customer for app distribution is at least as much the developer as the user -- they're the one who pays the app store's fee, right? -- and they don't get to choose which phone their customers have already bought.
This is not relevant for antitrust purposes. Developers are not entitled to demand a specific company give them access to that company's users.