I think Apple thinks they're going to lose, so they tried to apply as much pressure as possible to get Epic to settle prematurely. I can't see why else they would have done it, it just strengthens Epic's case.
Per that analysis, there are massive differences vs the Microsoft case.
- safari is a minority marketshare browser and already existed when iOS was created; Windows already had its marketshare dominance before the browser was invented
- Portable music also pre-existed before iOS.
iPhone and Android were laughing stocks in 2008. To say these points are anticompetitive would require proving they achieved their marketshare by parlaying their existing dominance into a new market, and it’s not clear that happened, especially given the thriving of alternatives like Chrome, Spotify, Tidal, etc.
There is also a bunch of not-actually-anticompetitive points
- charging developers for use of the platform
- disallowing competitive tools
- controlling platform access altogether
All of the above would imply the game console makers like Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft have been anticompetitive for decades. It’s not likely.
The crux to me is if there is a “right to a market“ for otherwise vertically integrated components. Just beside their was a market in he past for those things, doesn’t mean they need to be enshrined in laws. It would be akin to declaring game platforms or mobile platforms as public utilities so that ISVs in other adjacent platform markets can legally force the extension of their business model on other ecosystems. It’s been done with
power generation/distribution,
alcohol brewing/distribution/sales, and
car manufacturing/sales/service.
But those had massive unintended consequences.
There is one area where there may be a clear legitimate issue: Abuse of private APIs. But it would have to be proven.
