> Almost no one is complaining about Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo's "monopolies" on what software runs on their video game consoles.
In general, those console platform owners have been much friendlier to publishers than Apple (and maybe Google) since game publishers generally have much more negotiation power against console platform holders. Nintendo's primary weak point has been lack of 3rd-party games. MS and Sony compete with each other to gain more exclusive offers and they even provide substantial subsidiary to developers. If you want to enforce your own arbitrary rule at the cost of losing CoD, I don't think it's going to be a good trade-off. Creative contents are usually not replaceable and publishers don't really have incentives to attack game platform holders in this dynamic.
The same thing doesn't really apply to App stores since 1. the upfront cost for buying a phone compared to usual apps is much higher (>100x), especially for the premium phone comparable to iPhone, while it's <10x for usual consoles 2. Apple (and Google) also has their own alternative services for many popular apps so hurting competitors by setting arbitrary rules is actually beneficial for them. In short, having a monopolistic status itself is not problematic but exercising it is.
So I'm trying to understand your point here. If a console maker charges 10% of revenue it's OK, but if Apple charges 30% it's illegal? And a court should decide the percentage allowed?
I'm no fan of Apple -- they engage in massive tax avoidance, labor arbitrage, and are just too big for my taste. Same criticism of Google. And Facebook. But you don't go from emotion --> must be illegal. There has to be some reasonable standard you can apply that will make sense across time and across companies/industries. What is that standard?
Perhaps congress should legislate the share of revenue that a platform is allowed to take. Not being ironic; if we are going to regulate this, let's do it with lawmakers instead of courts.
> If a console maker charges 10% of revenue it's OK, but if Apple charges 30% it's illegal?
There no such clear cut on what is acceptable or not. In fact, typically console makers charges much more than 10% but not much companies are complaining about that because it's more negotiable compared to the app store situation. The court may decide how to remedy this, but the decision won't be made simply based on the app store cut but take care of other contexts as well.
The real issue is, Apple has designed their product in order to retain complete control on potential customer facing interactions and is blatantly exercising their market power. The game platforms are usually not in a position to do so. Android might be slightly better but IMO this also needs to be addressed.
> There has to be some reasonable standard you can apply that will make sense across time and across companies/industries. What is that standard?
The existing antitrust framework is already capable of handling this app store situation; even assuming Apple is not a dominant player (which is a very optimistic assumption in favor of Apple; app store is likely a monopoly based on hypothetical monopolist test), tying iPhone, App Store and its payment module already brings significant legal risks. Though it still needs to evolve to address other situations such as Amazon or Google.
> The real issue is, Apple has designed their product in order to retain complete control
How has apple done this in a fundamentally different way from sony? I'm not seeing the difference here, which means I'm not seeing what you consider to be the real issue. Care to elaborate?
> The existing antitrust framework is already capable of handling this app store situation;
I think you are going to be dissapointed. Maybe EU antitrust would adopt more of a philosophical criteria for fairness, but US antitrust is unlikely to side with Epic here.
> US antitrust is unlikely to side with Epic here.
Having done a little digging into the relevant case law I agree with your assessment, US courts have generally been very reluctant to find antitrust violations in aftermarket scenarios where the customer was fully aware of aftermarket limitations before purchasing a product, had the opportunity to buy an alternative product without such limitations, and proceeded to buy the original product anyway.
I think the most likely outcome is Epic's case is dismissed based on failure to establish that "iOS app distribution" is a separate and relevant market for antitrust purposes.
In general, those console platform owners have been much friendlier to publishers than Apple (and maybe Google) since game publishers generally have much more negotiation power against console platform holders. Nintendo's primary weak point has been lack of 3rd-party games. MS and Sony compete with each other to gain more exclusive offers and they even provide substantial subsidiary to developers. If you want to enforce your own arbitrary rule at the cost of losing CoD, I don't think it's going to be a good trade-off. Creative contents are usually not replaceable and publishers don't really have incentives to attack game platform holders in this dynamic.
The same thing doesn't really apply to App stores since 1. the upfront cost for buying a phone compared to usual apps is much higher (>100x), especially for the premium phone comparable to iPhone, while it's <10x for usual consoles 2. Apple (and Google) also has their own alternative services for many popular apps so hurting competitors by setting arbitrary rules is actually beneficial for them. In short, having a monopolistic status itself is not problematic but exercising it is.