> But then this is competitive pressure for Apple to charge lower fees and allow apps to handle payments themselves, at which point the app would be back in Apple's store because the customer prefers to buy it from there. Everyone benefits (except Apple).
No it isn't. The next moment Apple significantly lowers its comission, the same people will start whining about Apple "dumping the market" "to sink its competitors", and that it should be prosecuted under the same flawed anti-trust legislation. Been there, seen that: if your rates are too high you are a monopolist; if your rates are low you are dumping; and if your rates are the same as of your competitors then there's a "collusion".
If you’re a seemingly unstoppable corporate juggernaut, you’ll make enemies who think (rightly or wrongly) that your business practices are unfair, and they may successfully sue you using the laws intended to stop huge companies from engaging in unfair business practices.
I’m not sure what your point is here. That antitrust litigation is futile or counterproductive? The threat of it seems to be having positive effects already, looking at the front page of HN: https://techcrunch.com/2020/08/17/apple-expands-its-independ...
It's counter-productive, it aims at punishing successful where mere "bigness" is used as the proof of "unfair". We don't know how much cheaper Apple products could be if it hadn't have to spread costs of lobbying its interests in Washington DC across their device prices.
> The threat of it seems to be having positive effects already, looking at the front page of HN
it depends on your reliance on that kind of services and varies greatly among the userbase. I'm using Apple since 2014, I've never needed to use any of these services, and I would prefer to have a device that is hard to disassemble and is cheaper to produce without a loss in quality.
It’s true that we can’t know how much cheaper Apple products would be if the antitrust laws didn’t exist, and that some people (and not only shareholders) benefit from or prefer a less competitive market. But conversely, we don’t know how much worse things might be if there were no laws to keep “bigness” in check. I am convinced by the history of antitrust that competition regulators do more good than harm.
> But conversely, we don’t know how much worse things might be if there were no laws to keep “bigness” in check.
We know it from history for sure, that "bigness" of an economic player is not a problem. There was no anti-trust legislation prior 1913, and Standard Oil was lowering prices for their oil and kerosine every year in order to compete with emerging oil wells developers, which kept popping up dispite Standard's dominance. [1] Customers, large and small, were benefiting along the way. But notice how governments-coordinated OPEC influences the prices and ability to enter the market:
All very interesting questions, which Apple can raise in its defence to the lawsuit contending that the answer is “because of Apple’s unfair trade practices.”
No it isn't. The next moment Apple significantly lowers its comission, the same people will start whining about Apple "dumping the market" "to sink its competitors", and that it should be prosecuted under the same flawed anti-trust legislation. Been there, seen that: if your rates are too high you are a monopolist; if your rates are low you are dumping; and if your rates are the same as of your competitors then there's a "collusion".