<story><title>Apple wins antitrust court battle with Epic Games, appeals court rules</title><url>https://techcrunch.com/2023/04/24/apple-wins-antitrust-court-battle-with-epic-games-appeals-court-rules/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>GeekyBear</author><text>&amp;gt; How can the app store promote competition when it is a monopoly on iOS?&lt;p&gt;The court did not decide that the relevant market was iOS only, as Epic wanted.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; A threshold issue in any antitrust case is defining the “relevant market.” Here, Epic argued that the relevant market is Apple’s iOS system. Apple argued that the relevant market is the market for all digital video games, where it is one of many players. The court disagreed with both sides, and it instead defined the relevant market as “digital mobile gaming transactions.” Under this formulation, the court found that Apple has a 52–57% market share in the “digital mobile gaming transactions” market. But this was not enough for the court to conclude Apple has monopoly power.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.klgates.com&amp;#x2F;Court-Issues-Mixed-Ruling-in-Epic-v-Apple-Antitrust-Trial-10-6-2021&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.klgates.com&amp;#x2F;Court-Issues-Mixed-Ruling-in-Epic-v-...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;This article is about Epic losing their appeal of the lower court&amp;#x27;s rulings.</text></item><item><author>nu11ptr</author><text>&amp;gt; The App Store continues to promote competition, drive innovation, and expand opportunity, and we’re proud of its profound contributions to both users and developers around the world.&lt;p&gt;How can the app store promote competition when it is a monopoly on iOS? (I suppose they could be talking between different apps, but that isn&amp;#x27;t what this case was about)&lt;p&gt;UPDATE: The comments seem to imply I am giving my opinion on this case. I am not. I am commenting on the PR-speak given here. The app store does not, IMO, &amp;quot;promote&amp;quot; competition...it may arguably not hinder it, but given what the case is about, it is, I think, more competitive if others could use different methods of selling apps on iOS. That doesn&amp;#x27;t mean it is better, right, more fair, or anything else... just more &amp;quot;competitive&amp;quot; IMO. In short, I&amp;#x27;m commenting on the wording in their press release only.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>giobox</author><text>And this should be the first question almost anyone asks themselves in a discussion about an anti-trust&amp;#x2F;monopoly case - defining &amp;quot;the market&amp;quot; is the lynchpin upon which much of antitrust law works both in Europe and the United States.&lt;p&gt;Also be wary of comments in this thread that don&amp;#x27;t weigh this most important element of the entire process well.&lt;p&gt;All too often these discussions on anti-trust issues become meaningless on this site because everyone involved is using a personal definition for &amp;quot;the marketplace&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;Step one of any attempt to claim Apple holds a monopoly will require you to define exactly what the market is, in quite specific terms, and have the court agree. That didn&amp;#x27;t happen for Epic here.</text></comment>
<story><title>Apple wins antitrust court battle with Epic Games, appeals court rules</title><url>https://techcrunch.com/2023/04/24/apple-wins-antitrust-court-battle-with-epic-games-appeals-court-rules/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>GeekyBear</author><text>&amp;gt; How can the app store promote competition when it is a monopoly on iOS?&lt;p&gt;The court did not decide that the relevant market was iOS only, as Epic wanted.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; A threshold issue in any antitrust case is defining the “relevant market.” Here, Epic argued that the relevant market is Apple’s iOS system. Apple argued that the relevant market is the market for all digital video games, where it is one of many players. The court disagreed with both sides, and it instead defined the relevant market as “digital mobile gaming transactions.” Under this formulation, the court found that Apple has a 52–57% market share in the “digital mobile gaming transactions” market. But this was not enough for the court to conclude Apple has monopoly power.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.klgates.com&amp;#x2F;Court-Issues-Mixed-Ruling-in-Epic-v-Apple-Antitrust-Trial-10-6-2021&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.klgates.com&amp;#x2F;Court-Issues-Mixed-Ruling-in-Epic-v-...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;This article is about Epic losing their appeal of the lower court&amp;#x27;s rulings.</text></item><item><author>nu11ptr</author><text>&amp;gt; The App Store continues to promote competition, drive innovation, and expand opportunity, and we’re proud of its profound contributions to both users and developers around the world.&lt;p&gt;How can the app store promote competition when it is a monopoly on iOS? (I suppose they could be talking between different apps, but that isn&amp;#x27;t what this case was about)&lt;p&gt;UPDATE: The comments seem to imply I am giving my opinion on this case. I am not. I am commenting on the PR-speak given here. The app store does not, IMO, &amp;quot;promote&amp;quot; competition...it may arguably not hinder it, but given what the case is about, it is, I think, more competitive if others could use different methods of selling apps on iOS. That doesn&amp;#x27;t mean it is better, right, more fair, or anything else... just more &amp;quot;competitive&amp;quot; IMO. In short, I&amp;#x27;m commenting on the wording in their press release only.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>lapcat</author><text>&amp;gt; But this was not enough for the court to conclude Apple has monopoly power.&lt;p&gt;I don&amp;#x27;t understand that. How is a single company controlling more than half of the entire market not monopoly power?</text></comment>