That's true, but I've read GP's post more along the lines of "we've already heard those arguments and debated them, there's nothing new here".

Just repeating the same arguments (whether they're right or wrong) doesn't really help move the discussion forward...

The post can be a recap though or targeted at the general audience, not to us who "heard those arguments" before.

I don't know, it would be great if any of these people had bothered talking to a lawyer or an anti-trust scholar, a provenance that would matter a lot to understanding this issue.

For example, almost everyone here will learn more reading "Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox" (https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-parado...) to understand why Epic set things up the particular, exact way they did - because they got Apple to take down a store page that clearly gave consumers the option to buy something at a lower price.

If you don't want to be prejudiced by educational background, which is reasonable, you can easily tell if a take on the Apple v. Epic case is well-informed by simply Ctrl+F searching "consumer welfare." Additionally if the writer makes the distinction between the legal realism (what will happen, which is that Epic will relist but not sell IAP on the App Store anymore, and the outcome of the case will be non-precedent-forming), the legalism (what should happen, which is that Apple is reducing consumer welfare), and what you hope will happen, which surprisingly, for Ben Evans, I guess Apple makes even more money?

I'm not sure why people think this was some great legal trap pulled off here. Everyone already knows that Apple's commission is 30%. Simply charging less in the app doesn't actually show that Apple's commission is harming consumer welfare (or conversely with Spotify, charging more in iOS). Epic would have to show that Apple's alleged monopoly power is raising prices at a supracompetitive level in a relevant market.

You have a page, it says “if you pay using a credit card versus the same exact credit card except you give to Apple earlier, here is a 20% discount,” that is obviously increasing consumer welfare. Apple booted them when they made that page. It sort of doesn’t have to say anything about the commission, because it doesn’t matter.

Epic could have offered 20% off and STILL paid the commission, and if Apple booted them, it would still harm consumer welfare!

That’s why Ben Evans and Stratechery and so many tech takes are wrong, they’re just not informed on the status quo of antitrust. It’s not material where the consumer welfare comes from, it’s not material the goods being sold are imaginary IAP, etc etc.

> I don't know, it would be great if any of these people had bothered talking to a lawyer or an anti-trust scholar, a provenance that would matter a lot to understanding this issue.

By this logic, the vast majority on this forum have no business talking about this issue.

> Attack the argument, not its provenance!

Eh, it seems you didn't read past GP's first sentence.

I had no issues (at least procedurally) with the arguments past GP's first sentence, hence why I prefaced it with "unrelated". I was strictly attacking the first sentence. It is entirely possible to have targeted criticism of something...