This is incorrect. First, some laws only carry fines which corporations can choose to pay instead of abiding. Second, in the US, you have the right to challenge laws, which is what's happening here. Third, my understanding is there is no "law" preventing this deal, only a pending lawsuit to cease the deal.
That's not what this is about. When a court finds that there was a violation of law, they can impose remedies that go far beyond what the law normally requires, and Apple says in the filing that they're concerned about "an extreme remedy that targets Apple by name and would prohibit any commercial arrangement between Apple and Google for a decade". I don't know this case in enough detail to say whether that statement is fair, but if it is there's clearly no general law against making commercial arrangements with Apple.
I wonder how many people agree with me that two unrepentant monopolists (and the two halves of a completely-indisputable duopoly) such as these justifiably shouldn't be allowed to make any financial deals with one another by default, in a fair and sane world.
Or at minimum, any such deal should be illegal unless explicitly approved by a regulator as not harming competition.
It is funny and a bit sad that many root for anticompetitive behavior by these companies out of what appears to be largely simply due to fanboyism.
Making markets highly competitive and open to new entrants/innovation is far better for society in the long run.
Is society better off if Visa can take 5% of every Transaction? Apple/Google 30%? Clearly not.
In a competitive market, margins will trend towards marginal value add of the player. Margins well in excess of the add are signs a market is not competitive.
Open protocols for payments, storefronts, Identity/Auth, messaging etc can solve most of these inefficiencies.
Eventually government will get smarter on technology. (Maybe on the cusp?)
It came out in the Epic trial that 90% of App Store revenue comes from pay to win games and loot boxes. Most of the other popular apps on either store are clients to services where Apple doesn’t get a cut at all.
You’ll have to forgive me if I don’t feel sorry for those types of apps - the 90%.
Well, seeing that I don’t buy pay to win in app purchases of games and none of my subscription services - Prime, various streaming services, Office365. etc - were purchased through the App Store, the other 10% don’t apply to me.
People pay Microsoft all of the time to buy games for XBox
It's not relevant. You're looking for something to complain about and latching on where it doesn't fit.
Even full approval of Apple's motion would not be rooting for anticompetitive behavior. It makes sense for Apple to be involved in this rulemaking. And it does seem like too much if the rule blocks any dealing between the two companies in any market.
But the above comment was far weaker than that. It was just saying a restriction that strong would prevent things that are not already illegal. That is a basic fact.
If the remedy the court and defendants/prosecution agreed to affects my ability to compete or contract, then I have a claim to that being an illegal remedy, as I was not a party to the suit and therefore did not have say in something that now binds me.
If what I'm doing is illegal, and the court rules that it is illegal, then I don't have right to do it with you (or anyone else), whether or not you like it.
Now, it may not be that black and white. If the ruling comes down to a negotiated settlement rather than a court judgment, then Apple very well may want some say in what that looks like.
If what you're doing is illegal, and the court orders you to stop it and also stop lots of other things not found to be illegal, and also to refuse to allow a counterparty to work with you in even more unrelated fields, then it's fair for the counterparty to insist on having a say.
In this case, the proposed remedy would prohibit Apple from using GCP. Or even buying a Chromebook. Merits of that remedy notwithstanding, I don't see how anyone could have a problem with Apple objecting.
It’s rarely that black and white; moreover, what defines whether is it legal or not is the lawsuit itself. If Apple believes it was not defended appropriately, it would make sense to join suit.
