←back to thread

Apple fights to keep DOJ antitrust suit from reaching trial

(www.theverge.com)
80 points thunderbong | 4 comments | 21 Nov 24 00:03 UTC | HN request time: 0.745s | source
Show context
blackeyeblitzar ◴[21 Nov 24 00:12 UTC] No.42199597[source]▶
> Apple has argued the case against it is overly speculative and amounts to a “judicial redesign” of the iPhone. It’s sought to downplay its own influence, saying the government doesn’t allege a large enough smartphone market share to add up to monopoly power. It characterizes the third-party developers who claim they’ve been harmed as “well-capitalized social media companies, big banks, and global gaming developers.”

The word “monopoly” means different things in law and everyday use. To most people, Apple is a monopoly - it just means a company that is unjustifiably large and powerful and relatively immune to competition and pressure. We need to change the law to reflect this new reality, that anti trust isn’t just about monopolies but other large companies too.

The second bit, where they try to characterize developers abused by the App Store as powerful big capital is laughable. Even if they were, what are they next to Apple’s control over app distribution and their war chest of capital, which exceeds virtually all VC firms?

replies(5): >>42200061 #>>42200110 #>>42200172 #>>42200323 #>>42200474 #
1. braiamp ◴[21 Nov 24 01:39 UTC] No.42200172[source]▶
The concept you are looking for is market power or monopoly power. But in reality it should be anti-competitive behavior and market domination. There isn't anyone that would argue that a single or a group of firms dominating a sizeable amount of market, enough that they could, not that they do, influence and undermine the competitors is a desired status quo.

A good market competitiveness index (or really a set of indexes) should also influence automatic scrutiny.

replies(1): >>42200341 #
2. OrigamiPastrami ◴[21 Nov 24 02:06 UTC] No.42200341[source]▶
> There isn't anyone that would argue that a single or a group of firms dominating a sizeable amount of market, enough that they could, not that they do, influence and undermine the competitors is a desired status quo.

There are many people that believe monopolies are good, or at least that's what they say. Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen are notable examples that argue monopolies are good for innovation, as they supposedly allow for the flexibility to explore crazier research. I think this argument is bullshit and demonstrably false but there are influential people that advocate for it.

replies(2): >>42200473 #>>42201680 #
3. runevault ◴[21 Nov 24 02:28 UTC] No.42200473[source]▶
I feel like that argument is the new version of Trickle Down Economics.

In a sane world where people are not greedy? Yeah it could make sense because without the constraints of limited capital you can do whatever you want and it lets you be bold.

In the world we actually live in it does not work that way.

4. JumpCrisscross ◴[21 Nov 24 06:27 UTC] No.42201680[source]▶
Their arguments are more against anti-trust. Consider these cases. They will be concluded by Trump’s AG. Which means a DoJ under Gaetz or whomever will have the power to put the country’s largest companies under consent decrees that can contain almost anything. (My guess is something about free speech and DEI.)