Apple Asks Judge to Dismiss App Store Monopoly Lawsuit

[gnasher729]

The "If you don't like it, leave" doesn't fly with Monopoly investigations.

But the "there are plenty of other choices" defence does.

And you need to check what this complaint is about: It is about not having other stores than the AppStore. So people who can complain would be companies like Amazon, Google or Microsoft who want their stores to be available to iPhone users. As Rovio, people can buy "Angry Birds" for the iPhone, actually every single iPhone user can, so nothing to complain about. As a consumer, you can buy "Angry Birds" for the iPhone, or for other devices.

 

[Harrycooke]

If Apple allow other App Stores with less rigid security control then there will be more complaints. Also if something does come of this, Apple will still have to do security checks and probably charge the 3rd party App Store 30% 'rent'.

 

[salas2324]

Having alternative app stores would just turn the iphone experience into a crappy Android-type one where apps aren't reviewed and anyone can submit apps for release, causing for a lot more unhappy iPhone users cause this sweet new game they just downloaded crashes every time they open the app...

I understand this happens anyways, which bugs and what not, but from being a previous Android user, this was a LOT more prevalent

It certainly would not. Because this doesn't mean apple will force another store to you, it means it gives you an OPTION to use another store if you would like.
See, iPhone users really don't like to have options, and that's why there's android.
Sure you can use cydia but not everyone wants to jailbreak, especially when its frowned upon by apple.

 

[slffl]

Did you even read the article? They're being investigated for the way you can get the apps, You can only get them from a single App Store, Apples App Store. There's nowhere else to turn to for apps.

If you want to buy PS3 games or Xbox 360 games you can go to a number of different stores, dozens and dozens, or order them online, or download them. .

Where exactly can I download them other than the Playstation Store or Xbox Live online?

True you can buy the physical media anywhere, but once they go all digital downloads it will be just like the App Store.

 

[heisenberg123]

I take it you think the same way about gaming consoles?

And YOU CAN put what you want on it! Any dev can create an app and put it in the app store which you can then download. How are you being denied anything here?

but than why does the dev have to only have 1 store he can sell his application?

 

[Archangel158]

You can't not have a monopoly of your product. For Apple to have a Monopoly they would have to have much larger marketshare of the cell phone market. They own the App Store, and just like any store owner they set the fees and rules of the store.

Apple doesn't have a monopoly over the cell phones buisness. They have it over the software (apps) buisness done on their cell phone.

The iOS platform might not be a monopoly, but the App Store is exactly that. You can't sell apps on iOS without having to go trough the app store. You are forced to this because Apple has total control over its platform.

 

[heisenberg123]

Where exactly can I download them other than the Playstation Store or Xbox Live online?

True you can buy the physical media anywhere, but once they go all digital downloads it will be just like the App Store.

so your arguement is to use speculation on future events

 

[Rogifan]

I personally prefer one stop shopping on my iPhone and iPad. And since many apps are quite cheap how many people would really price shop different app stores because one might only take a 20% cut instead of Apple's 30%. I' m guessing not many.

 

[gnasher729]

Microsoft only holds 29.x% of internet browser and Apple holds way more then this on phone in North America so clearly Apple has a monopoly which is by customer choice but still can not force competitors out of its platform.

If the lawsuit was filed in Europe Apple I'm sure would have a much higher chances to lose.

Microsoft wasn't convicted and fined today. They were convicted and fined several years ago. They were then told by the court "we'll let you off with a hugely reduced fine, if you ship Windows not with Internet Explorer pre-installed, but with a screen where they can choose the browser of their choice". Microsoft agreed. Then some total idiot (and I can call anyone who costs his company $700 million dollars a "total idiot") removed that screen, so Microsoft has to pay a fine that was decided on years ago. Made when Microsoft had 90%+ of the browser market.

And of course Microsoft still holds 80%+ of the desktop market, while we are told again and again by people that Apple is totally losing in the smartphone and tablet market. (Which I don't agree with, but come on people, you can't claim at the same time that Apple is a monopoly and that they are losing).

 

[Ralf The Dog]

7-11 asks judge to dismiss 7-11 store monopoly lawsuit. "I want to buy stuff from Circle K when I am at 7-11!

 

[frviana]

Ok, so should Microsoft be investigated for having a monopoly on Xbox360 games? Should Sony be investigated for having a monopoly on PS3 games? Should Microsoft be investigated for not being able to run PS3 games? Should Sony be investigated for not being able to run Xbox360 games?

Very different story. Sony can write a game for XBOX and vice versa. They can also sell them anywhere and define the price they want for the game. They are not forced to sell the games into a single location controlled by a single provider.

Can you see the difference?

 

[horacebury]

Didn't Microsoft just do exactly the same thing with Surface/Win8? I guess it's only a monopoly if you're successful enough for people to be jealous.

 

[rhuber]

The kick in the head for me is that Microsoft was successfully labeled as having established a monopoly with respect to it's windows operating system for having bundled its own software as default applications within its OS. This happened even though there were no restrictions to the user with respect to what they installed, how they used it or where they obtained it.

Now Apple is called out over an ecosystem that is phenomenally more controlled and restricted while ensuring that they get a percentage of every and all transactions... yet we cry foul.

I'm having trouble seeing the logic here. If Microsoft was a monopoly, what does that make Apple? If Apple is not a monopoly, did the courts deal a remarkably grave injustice to Microsoft and others like them?

 

[Ralf The Dog]

This monopoly does do harm. By preventing Virus writers and 900 number hijackers from selling their scamware on the Apple Store, they are greatly harming the malware market.

 

[Dr McKay]

Where exactly can I download them other than the Playstation Store or Xbox Live online?

True you can buy the physical media anywhere, but once they go all digital downloads it will be just like the App Store.

So you're asking why Sony and Microsoft aren't being sued for something that you're saying without proof that they might do in the future?

But the "there are plenty of other choices" defence does.

What other choices? This is about only being able to buy apps from a single App Store that Apple have complete control over. If you want to get apps onto iOS you have to use the App Store, there are no other choices.

 

[tekno]

That's just how Apple works and always has. If you don't like it don't buy their devices. Get over it.

I didn't like it, I stopped buying their devices and I got over it. And I'm thoroughly enjoying Android.

But that's my decision - I guess when it comes to competition and business, it's down to the legal system to decide.

 

[samcraig]

I take it you think the same way about gaming consoles?

And YOU CAN put what you want on it! Any dev can create an app and put it in the app store which you can then download. How are you being denied anything here?

See above your post.

The case is about WHERE to purchase.

For gaming consoles you can buy games in dozens of different locations. Not just one store.

Whether you agree with the suit or not - recognize the simple fact that if you want an iOS app - you have one option. Not saying that's good or bad. But that's a fact.

If you want a PS3 game - you can go to many retailers and/or buy online.

If you want an Android app - you can go to Google Play, Amazon and I think a couple of others. And you can always side load - something that doesn't require a jailbreak.

 

[spazzcat]

Apple doesn't have a monopoly over the cell phones buisness. They have it over the software (apps) buisness done on their cell phone.

The iOS platform might not be a monopoly, but the App Store is exactly that. You can't sell apps on iOS without having to go trough the app store. You are forced to this because Apple has total control over its platform.

Right THIER cell phones...

 

[rdlink]

bring on the hate...

it would be absolutely wonderful if one could install third party apps from alternative sources without a jailbreak

bring on "advanced user mode"

I bought the iphone, it's mine, let me put what I want on it. Should be treated like a PC IMO. The lockdown only benefits Apple / certain developers / people that cant handle freedom (tech newbies that shouldn't enable 'advanced mode').

And there goes the ability for 90% of the people who carry one as their work device to use it anymore. The main reason why enterprises allow iOS devices to access email from their system is because it's a locked down OS, with built in security. Opening the device so it's more like a PC would eliminate that benefit. In fact, my organization requires anyone carrying an iPhone to sign an agreement that states they will not jailbreak their device.

 

[Ralf The Dog]

The kick in the head for me is that Microsoft was successfully labeled as having established a monopoly with respect to it's windows operating system for having bundled its own software as default applications within its OS. This happened even though there were no restrictions to the user with respect to what they installed, how they used it or where they obtained it.

Now Apple is called out over an ecosystem that is phenomenally more controlled and restricted while ensuring that they get a percentage of every and all transactions... yet we cry foul.

I'm having trouble seeing the logic here. If Microsoft was a monopoly, what does that make Apple? If Apple is not a monopoly, did the courts deal a remarkably grave injustice to Microsoft and others like them?

Microsoft had more than 90% of the market. 90% or greater puts you in a special legal category.

 

[samcraig]

And there goes the ability for 90% of the people who carry one as their work device to use it anymore. The main reason why enterprises allow iOS devices to access email from their system is because it's a locked down OS, with built in security. Opening the device so it's more like a PC would eliminate that benefit. In fact, my organization requires anyone carrying an iPhone to sign an agreement that states they will not jailbreak their device.

Can they use Android phones?

 

[rdlink]

See above your post.

The case is about WHERE to purchase.

For gaming consoles you can buy games in dozens of different locations. Not just one store.

Whether you agree with the suit or not - recognize the simple fact that if you want an iOS app - you have one option. Not saying that's good or bad. But that's a fact.

If you want a PS3 game - you can go to many retailers and/or buy online.

If you want an Android app - you can go to Google Play, Amazon and I think a couple of others. And you can always side load - something that doesn't require a jailbreak.

But Apple does not set the pricing. If app devs were setting higher pricing on the App store than they are on Google Play for the same App it might have some validity. Besides, when you bought the phone you agreed to the fact that you would only be able to download via the App store.

Personally, if Apple is ever forced to open up the devices to go to other stores, I will think long and hard about leaving the iPhone. Too much risk. One of the (many) reasons I haven't stayed in the Android ecosystem any of the 6 times I bought an Android device.

 

[rhuber]

Microsoft had more than 90% of the market. 90% or greater puts you in a special legal category.

That's actually a great point that I hadn't considered. (Not a lawyer). Does this mean that Apple was a monopoly, but no longer qualifies? I'm not arguing a side, I am legitimately curious how this works.

 

[samcraig]

But Apple does not set the pricing. If app devs were setting higher pricing on the App store than they are on Google Play for the same App it might have some validity. Besides, when you bought the phone you agreed to the fact that you would only be able to download via the App store.

What you agreed to or not doesn't matter if someone wants to claim monopoly.

Millions of people used one phone company and that was later deemed a monopoly and had to split up.

Again - I'm not making value judgments. Just stating the situation because some people here are making bad analogies.

 

[gotluck]

And there goes the ability for 90% of the people who carry one as their work device to use it anymore. The main reason why enterprises allow iOS devices to access email from their system is because it's a locked down OS, with built in security. Opening the device so it's more like a PC would eliminate that benefit. In fact, my organization requires anyone carrying an iPhone to sign an agreement that states they will not jailbreak their device.

I've been seeing android allowed more and more in enterprises lately. Outlook web access from infected home PC's is probably more dangerous anyway.

Enterprises could just force 'advanced user' to be disabled through domain management tools (ala automatic device wipe after failed passcode attempts and the general requirement of a passcode). Problem solved.