"The CAT said in its ruling that developers were overcharged by the difference between a 17.5% commission for app purchases and the commission Apple charged, which Kent's lawyers said was usually 30%."
Where does the 17.5% come from? I can't find it here or in the link Reuters article. Is that just the number that the tribunal decided was fair? If so I'd love to read the analysis of how they got there.
"""
919. The comparators available to us (the Epic Games Store, the Microsoft Store and Steam’s lower headline rate) suggest that the competitive rate of commission would be in the range of 12 to 20%. We do think it is reasonable to make some adjustment to that range to accommodate the points made by Apple about its premium brand, the quality of its offering and its established market position. However, we do not think those would be sufficient to displace the upper end of the range and are likely to operate mainly at the lower end, where the offerings are arguably less attractive to users for those reasons.
920. Applying again an approach of “informed guesswork”, on the basis of the evidence before us, we find that the likely range of Apple’s Commission for iOS app distribution services in the counterfactual is between 15% and 20%. For the purposes of quantifying the overcharge (for both the exclusionary abuses and the excessive and unfair pricing abuse) we will use the mid-point of that range, which is 17.5%.
Thanks for digging that out.
TLDR: they made it up.
What else would you expect?
It’s from a tribunal. They make judgements.
Judgment can be grounded in reality or it can be picking a random subrange of a list of somewhat random ranges and then picking a midpoint because why not.
It cannot be grounded in reality precisely because it's a monopoly. The whole point of laws against monopolies is to let the market figure out the fair rate, or to define the "fair" rate as the one that emerges in a competitive market. So by definition of what the whole case is about it is impossible to give a fair rate in this case. If you don't want to be subjected to guesswork, stop being a monopoly and let the market figure it out.
What would you expect them to do in this case in particular?
Consider Google Play, for starters.
Google play has a dominant market position as well and is presumably next for this sort of ruling
The gang learns what an oligopoly is
Wow sounds very comparable yet notably omitted from the ranges the tribunal considered. Sounds like you agree with me that they just made it up? Or are you saying that it's fair to exclude the app store of an open platform which has plenty of "free market" competition from side loaded and 3p distribution apps because ~vibes~?
Not considered? The words "Google Play" are in the judgment 47 times. Maybe you could read it?
By your logic, each of the two companies could use the other as an example and then both get away with breaking competition law. Two wrongs don't make a right.
> comparable yet notably omitted from the ranges the tribunal considered
Interesting to accuse people of not reading the document in a post where you don’t read a 3 sentence comment.
They have a literal section "(6) Description of the “comparator” platforms" where the very first item is "(a) Google and other Android platforms"
There's a section "112. On 10 June 2022, the CMA published the final report in its MEM Study, which contains a number of findings in relation to both Apple and Google."
It's amazing that you never even tried to read the actual document but already immediately assume a position that is trivially proven wrong.
> comparable yet notably omitted from the ranges the tribunal considered
Interesting to accuse people of not reading the document in a post where you don’t read a 3 sentence comment (and reply to the wrong one, but we can chalk that up to HN UI).
This is the correct comment to reply to.
Imagine if you actually read and understood the document instead of pressing on with your ignorance.
The court considered Google Play. And explained how Google Play has the exact dame issues as AppStore. So whatever Google Play is doing is irrelevant to a case against Apple.
It's not a difficult document to read and understand. Just lengthy.
I would quote relevant sections, but that would be a completely wasted effort.
Adieu.
What else would they do?
I haven't dug through the linked documents but it's probably in here some where... https://www.catribunal.org.uk/judgments/14037721-dr-rachael-...