If I sell paper cups to Walmart they will take a 12-17% cut for “entitlements”. I can’t compete with the white label house brand on price that doesn’t have those entitlements. The house brand can also operate on a razor thin margin because that product isn’t critical to their business. This is why when you go into pretty much any grocery, electronics, automotive or whatever store the house brand is always at least a dollar cheaper.
This argument is so much FUD.
A paper cup company sells their cups to Walmart at wholesale prices. Walmart buys all the cups they sell in their stores, including the "Walmart brand" generic cups, and so "resells" them to the end customer. Because Walmart is "reselling" the cups, it can charge whatever it wants on whatever products it wants.
Not even remotely the same thing to what Apple does: Apple just claims to be a transaction processor facilitating a direct sale between an app-maker and a customer. Except that Apple charges its competition 30% and itself nothing.
They use to use this sort of scenario as the textbook example of antitrust violations. Antitrust enforcement fell out of favor in the West following the actions against Microsoft, but it looks like the EU is girding up to start enforcing it again.
Somewhat fair if we are talking about Walmart stores. But Walmart.com still charges fees just to sell on there, and they don’t (necessarily) buy anything. Same for Amazon.com.
If Apple’s policies are an antitrust violation then it will likely extend to Amazon, Walmart, and any other retailer that also sells their own product. It would also impact Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo.
I’m not actually again inst that. I just find the Spotify case to be particularly weak.
If Apple’s policies are an antitrust violation then it will likely extend to Amazon, Walmart, and any other retailer that also sells their own product. It would also impact Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo.
Amazon, Walmart.Com Marketplace...no. Because if you want to sell Physical Product X, you can sell on Amazon and Walmart.com. Or Ebay. Or your own website. You can't sell an iPhone app through the Google Store. Amazon has raised antitrust concerns, but they are very different from the ones facing Apple. Walmart.com hasn't raised any...because they aren't attempting to use their existing market position in physical retail to reduce competition in online retail.
Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo. No, because you can buy games for each console in physical stores, you don't have the same issue--none of these company's stores is the sole way to sell your game to a owner of that console.
The Spotify case is may not be the strongest case, but it's just one of hundreds or thousands. And worse for Apple, Spotify is an EU company, and the EU is still very much in favor of enforcing antitrust laws.
(I assume your reference to Shopify was a typo. Not sure what their beef with Apple is, if any.)
Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo. No, because you can buy games for each console in physical stores, you don't have the same issue--none of these company's stores is the sole way to sell your game to a owner of that console.
The physical games require the approval of the respective platform owners who also take a cut.
This argument is so much FUD.
A paper cup company sells their cups to Walmart at wholesale prices. Walmart buys all the cups they sell in their stores, including the "Walmart brand" generic cups, and so "resells" them to the end customer. Because Walmart is "reselling" the cups, it can charge whatever it wants on whatever products it wants.
Not even remotely the same thing to what Apple does: Apple just claims to be a transaction processor facilitating a direct sale between an app-maker and a customer. Except that Apple charges its competition 30% and itself nothing.
They use to use this sort of scenario as the textbook example of antitrust violations. Antitrust enforcement fell out of favor in the West following the actions against Microsoft, but it looks like the EU is girding up to start enforcing it again.