Not sure which part you are referring to here. All I was trying to point out was that Apple does not have a defense of the form, "we discount our hardware and make up the difference by charging 30% on third-party software", whereas Sony et al would have that defense.
-
-
Sony can point to multiple times when they have sold consoles at break-even or at a loss, expecting to make back the loss and then profit off of their cut of third-party software. So the consumer "got something" for the overpriced software (eg., underpriced hardware).
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
That is generally how the consumer welfare standard operates - if the anti-competitive practice could be said to be part of a larger scheme that could be argued to help consumers get better products for less cost overall, then the Rule of Reasons says it's OK (roughly).
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Apple really has nothing like that to point to. They make a ton of money on the hardware, then make a ton of money on the software, the consumer basically just gets overcharged. So they have to come up with some other argument as to why the consumer is somehow not harmed by this.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
The defense of "well you could instead buy a Google phone" is not really a defense, because it is not clear why the ability to buy a Google phone means a consumer is better off than if they could instead buy an iPhone _and_ have an open App Store.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
So, if pressed properly (FINGERS CROSSED EPIC LAWYERS) into it, Apple will have to explain why consumers are better off if, when they buy an already-overpriced iPhone, they are then better served by having to pay Apple 30% of all software purchases instead of an alternative.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
And Epic did a nice job here by clearly offering an alternative payment method that would be cheaper for the consumer. So the court literally has in front of them clear evidence that the consumer would benefit if Apple _didn't_ restrict competition on its hardware.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @TimSweeneyEpic
I’m trying to imagine I managed to produce something highly efficiently and now not being able to attach whatever rules I want to it when selling it. Sounds super weird. Although obviously as a customer I’d benefit.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @meglio @TimSweeneyEpic
But it's not weird, you just haven't thought about the history :) "Attach whatever rules I want when selling it". What do you mean by that? Do you literally mean "whatever rules"? What is the limiting principle?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Unless you believe corporations can attach _any_ rule to a sale ("Black people have to buy a different version of the phone than white people", literally something companies did in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensboro_sit-ins …), then you believe that corporations must be limited in some way.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes
So the question has to be not _whether_ corporations can attach any rule they want - because I would argue the answer there to any reasonable person has to be clearly "no" - but rather what is the scope of rules that make sense in the public interest?
-
-
And our legal system has already developed - via legislation such as the Sherman Act and the Civil Rights Act, etc. - frameworks for viewing corporate sale conditions as to whether or not we view them as benefiting the public interest or not.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
These laws reflect the history of our country, and those two laws in particular represent significant restrictions on corporations that were important for the public's economic and civil rights that should not be dismissed with an idle "private companies can do what they want."
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.