The original post talks about "want", which has nothing to do with intricacies of law, which I, and I assume most HN commenters, are not qualified to judge anyway.
I'm not sure you should disparage the particular knowledge HN posters might have. Also, the level at what this is discussed requires only rudimentary knowledge of antitrust laws, and the applications. So it's not like "qualified to judge" has a degree in law barrier.
> Apple is not a monopoly, so as far as I am concerned they have a right to charge whatever they want
The whole problem with antitrust cases however, is that they leverage their position and exclusiveness to do exactly that. So, your point that "it's not a monopoly because you can chose not to pay for it", is what people are pointing out might be missing the point.
> I'm not sure you should disparage the particular knowledge HN posters might have.
I don't think it is unrealistic of me to assume that only a small portion of HN users have experience as legal professionals.
> Also, the level at what this is discussed requires only rudimentary knowledge of antitrust laws, and the applications. So it's not like "qualified to judge" has a degree in law barrier.
I think it kinda does. I am not an expert on the application of anti-trust law so if I told Epic that they are completely wrong they will rightfully tell me where to shove it because we have people who's entire career path is dealing with the intricacies of law. Some random HNer saying that they are qualified to judge this case strikes me as particularly arrogant.
> The whole problem with antitrust cases however, is that they leverage their position and exclusiveness to do exactly that. So, your point that "it's not a monopoly because you can chose not to pay for it", is what people are pointing out might be missing the point.
Apple doesn't have exclusivity of anything except on the product that they built and wholly own. Said product is not a monopoly either, since even in the market where it enjoys the largest share it is only about 50% [0]. In other words, I cannot fathom how anti-trust law applies since Apple doesn't have much leverage to abuse in the first place. Game consoles have a long history of exclusivity but no one seems to think that is a big deal. I have yet to hear a compelling argument why the iPhone is special.
Surely, it then makes sense to perhaps take into account what people are saying, no? The issue here is a very clear cut case of antitrust. You seem to opine facts and laws shouldn't matter in this discussion on the assumption that only legal professionals can know stuff that is relevant, and those are as you put it, by assumption, not present. Then, you are repeating the, to be frank, tiresome talking point that doubles as missing the point, whilst being a strawman: "it isn't a monopoly, because you can buy an android". So to reiterate, "monopoly" as total market share isn't the issue here. It doesn't need to be for there to be a case of antitrust. And, it clearly is such a case, no matter how much you attempt to change the discussion to "is/isn't a monopoly". They are orthogonal issues. You can have monopolies and duopolies without there being grounds for anti-trust.
Just to summarize, and also hit the nail on the head, and perhaps be less polite (not intentional, but sometimes it helps with clarity): "In other words, I cannot fathom how anti-trust law applies since Apple doesn't have much leverage to abuse in the first place", you are 100% mistaken on both accounts (though spot on, on the inability). The former misconception I've already explained, the latter is to be found in troves, the article I linked earlier has a good explanation on a lot of points, and unwillingness to educate yourself is also your own business. So, I'm chalking this up as a willful ignorance, which is fine. I'm not really interesting in arguing with you, or all that bothered with trying to convince you. So, I suppose we can leave it as is.
