It's notable that Google does allow their customers to side-load apps.

and Google doesn't ban use of other payment processors or have restrictions on "you can sell elsewhere for less"

> and Google doesn't ban use of other payment processors

They certainly do on the Play Store. Developers have until September of this year to comply with Google's rule to take 30% of sales and use its payment system[1] in their apps.

It's clearly more price fixing on the part of the Apple and Google mobile app distribution and payments cartel.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/28/google-to-enforce-30percent-...

I hadn't heard that. Thanks for the new info. They'd be another store I'd avoid like the plague if I was selling stuff.

if this isn't collusion and racketeering, then what is?

The market. Microsoft and Sony have been doing it for years.

So has Epic’s parent company

I think you misread the question. They didn't ask what this is, they asked what would qualify as collusion and racketeering if this doesn't.

Correct... let me know what is if this isn't because companies colluding to set prices? not sure what I'm missing if this isn't it...

How is the answer misplaced? It's saying that you don't need price collusion or racketeering or mens rea of any sort to informally converge on a position.

> It's saying that you don't need price collusion or racketeering or mens rea of any sort to informally converge on a position.

It is saying that, but that's not a reply to the question.

The question wasn't "What is it?", as in, "What is this, if it's not collusion?"

The question was "What is?", as in, "What would it take to count as collusion, if this doesn't?"

"This isn't collusion, it's just the market" addresses the former question. It doesn't address the later question, the one that was asked.

With the implication that a super narrow definition of collusion is not very useful.

This form of rhetorical questioning is a pretty common idiom.

"If this isn't stealing, than what is?"

That's not an open invitation for elucidation on property laws. It's an assertion in the form of a question.

I agree with everything you have said there.

In that situation, the question being asked is "what would they have to do for you to accuse them of stealing?", and there's an implication/assertion that your definition of "stealing" is too narrow.

Replying with "this isn't stealing, it's borrowing" doesn't answer the question, and it's ignoring the implication/assertion.

And that's basically what martimarkov did. They didn't say a single word that addresses the implication that such a narrow anti-collusion rule is too weak.

> No, they wouldn't.

I don't know why you think that. If someone developed a compelling new mobile platform that supported side-loading apps why wouldn't you move to it since that's what you value?

> Apple uses their hardware market dominance

It's dominant because it's good. Part of the reason it's good is because it's locked down. If it wasn't locked down it wouldn't be as good. The Android experience is miserable because they aren't as locked down.

> extracts rent from people who want to sell software on their hardware

I don't know what to say apart from this seems the most honest and reasonable thing in the world to me. They provide a service with legitimate value and ask people to pay for access to it.

The point is that in order to create a competitive app store the notional competitor would have to create an entire hardware ecosystem to rival Apple. Apple is tying the sale of products together (their phone hardware with the app store software) in order to profit from their app store and they prohibit the app stores of competitors. This is the definition of anti-competitive monopoly[1].

You also write that Apple is dominant because it is good and good because it is locked down. This is an argument that's first impossible to verify and second irrelevant. We can't know if "locking down" and preventing other app stores from existing makes Apple better or worse since we can't look at the counter-factual reality where Apple isn't locked down. My intuition would be that more choices would be better, but again, we can't know. The argument is irrelevant because it's still anti-competitive behavior and illegal regardless of if it makes the product better or not. I might sell more soda if I included a bit of cocaine in every bottle, but I couldn't argue that it was legal to do so because it made the product better. Bundling IE with Windows for free may have made Windows better, and yet...

1 - https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...

> this is the definition of anti-competitive monopoly[1]

Keep reading your own link.

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...

> Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area.

Apple has less than a 50% market share on smart phones.

Apple has more than 50% market share in the US[1]. The FTC is meant to protect American consumers, so the fact that Apple has a majority of market share in the US and is abusing their monopoly position in the US is relevant. The fact that Android leads iOS worldwide is less relevant.

1 - https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/north-amer...

Apple and Google dominate the mobile OS market with iOS being on 60% of devices in the US, and 40% with Android. Apple is responsible for 100% more sales in the mobile app distribution market compared to Google, but together they're responsible for over 99% of all mobile app sales in the US.

Read the definition you quoted from the FTC. Apple and Google are a group of two firms with monopoly positions in the mobile OS market and the mobile app distribution market. Google is even forcing developers to use their payment service on the Play Store and to give them a 30% cut[1] of all app sales to match Apple.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/28/google-to-enforce-30percent-...