Apple Asks Judge to Dismiss App Store Monopoly Lawsuit

[unlimitedx]

Fail. Nice strawman attempt.
Who's talking about Andriod? We're talking about iOS.
The developer has no CHOICE but to sell their APPLE app except through Apple.
[dice]try again[/dice]

your analogy was talking about not being able to buy an accessory (app) from another store (android market)

The developer made a conscious choice to begin with in the first place to make an app for the iOS platform. Nobody is pointing a gun at a developer that they MUST sell their app thru Apple they can easily develop the same app for another platform windows/android etc.

 

[jonathan1683]

I'm sorry, am I missing something from you argument? Basically, you're first saying how users don't benefit from alternative stores, only to talk then at length about how you benefit from more choices yourself. Is it just me, or are you being just a wee bit self-contradictory here?

To be honest, such self-contrariness does not surprise me anymore on this forum. Brand loyalty is a good thing, but only from the point of view of the company. For the consumer, it always increases the transaction price. Having more choice has never really harmed anyone. The simple fact is that in real life one size does not fit all.

However, it's really interesting to see the lengths people will go to in order to defend a company they are invested emotionally in. Here a few more examples of bending the logic up to it's breaking point:

1)

Honestly, where's the common sense in that? Each developer decides for themselves if they want to enter a market tied in to a particular platform. Developing an app for a new operating system involves sufficient know-how, capital investment, time, marketing, etc. and you have to think of the size of the potential market to know if the investment will pay off. No law will (or should) force a developer to invest in the development of an app for a specific operating system. Let the market decide. It's different with selling apps. Apple's restrictive management of the AppStore is not encouraging free-market competition.

2)

That is a totally different case. Developing a game for a different platform involves programming the game from scratch (even if you can reuse the concept, script, music, etc), so it still entails serious costs. Besides, with computer games and software, you buy a license to use it on a particular number of machines anyway. So you might actually need to buy multiple copies of the same programme even if it's going to be used on the same platform but different machines. But there is no reason why you should not be able to buy the game from a vendor of your own choice, or even from your friend who's done with it. Try that on an iOS.

So are all those comparisons between Apple's practices and that of any other company. Whether XYZ Co. Ltd. is acting as a monopoly is irrelevant here. The lawsuit is against Apple, and it's Apple's practices that are of concern here. And if the argument is that the whole market is monopolized, so Apple's not doing anything wrong by playing to the established rules, then (putting the question of who established those rules in the first aside for a while) it seems to me that it's about time to do something about the market, and that Apple's a good place to start. By all means, you don't have to stop at Apple. As a consumer I'll welcome more choice anytime. I might not use the alternative, but, then again that is also a choice of sorts. And I'll probably profit in the end, even if I don't go to an alternative vendor, as competitive pressure might force Apple to lower its profit margins.

Btw. I'm not going to append my post with the usual disclaimer for this forum on the lines of "Honestly, I love my iPod, iPhone, iPad, Mac (cross out whichever does not apply), but I don't like some of Apple's practices. Such poor attempts at providing an alibi for oneself are kind of silly and only divert attention from the discussion at hand. I just wish people would let their arguments and opinions stand trial of logic on their own.

The simple fact is that Apple has for a long time been doing stuff in a way that may be raising antitrust concerns. Anybody who keeps denying that must be really thick-headed. I guess that's a survival trait. After all, anyone who can be as blind to Apple's monopolistic malpractices as some people here seem to be must be running into walls all the time. I can see that a tick skull would come in handy here.

Thank you, well said. Love the emotional attachment part. I can't believe how many people don't see how apple controls everything people do on their phones. I should be able to install any app I want for whatever purpose I need without their horrible looking appstore GUI they made in IOS6. It's all about customer choice and I want something else. I would not even purchase another device unless it was jailbreakable, but I really wish I didn't have to do that. Also on the piracy comment, I don't think that applies to everyone. I pay for all my apps including cydia apps.

 

[hexblot]

I think people are missing the point. Its not about your option to buy another phone but when one vendor holds a very high percentage of a marketshare then he has a monopoly and can not force practices to exclude other competitors.

Microsoft has been fined big times in Europe today for not providing other internet browsers with their operational system.

Microsoft decided it is not disputing, will pay the fine and apologized and committed to fix the mistake.

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.

you logic is flawed -- you correctly mention it is about marketshare, however in your MS example you quote the wrong numbers. MS is considered a monopoly on the desktop since ~92% of dekstops have it ( http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0 ). Thus, if the OS comes with only IE bundled, it gives the company an "unfair advantage"

Contrast this to the mobile space. iOS and Android have about the same marketshare in the US, and in Europe Android clearly dominates. On those grounds, it's quite impossible to consider iOS a monopoly, since there isn't a single country that it has such a high markershare (nor does it want to).

Android on the other hand, can easily be considered a monopoly in countries such as Spain, with a marketshare of 89%, but it is pro-choice since it allows any kind of competition (alternative appstores such as Amazon.com , Slideme.org ).

 

[blackhand1001]

A simple toggle like this would make a ton of people happy.

 

[firewood]

You can't sell apps on iOS without having to go trough the app store..

This is false. False. False.

A developer can sell their app source code to any other enrolled iOS Developer, over a 100 thousand potential customers, completely outside the App Store, to run apps on any of a developer's up to 100 registered iOS devices. If you're smart, you'll enroll yourself as an iOS developer, learn to use Xcode, and download the code to lots of open source apps from github. That's what I do. I even give apps directly to my beta testers. No App Store in the way. No strict monopoly.

Or just develop and code your own apps from scratch. No Apple App Store needed.

Added: Also, Enterprises are allowed to set up their own iOS app stores for distribution to their employees. Many app developers sell apps and app development services to Enterprises. So no pure Apple iOS App store monopoly. There are other iOS app stores which you can find if you work for one of many many big corporations.

 

[Judas1]

of course it does. if you don't like Whoppers, you're entirely free to go to McDonalds. but don't expect one to offer the others products. or pizza.

Whoppers are developed in house so they belong to BK. Softwares are developed by other people yet Apple acts like they belong to them. See the difference?

 

[blackhand1001]

This is false. False. False.

A developer can sell their app source code to any other enrolled iOS Developer, over a 100 thousand potential customers, completely outside the App Store, to run apps on any of a developer's up to 100 registered iOS devices. If you're smart, you'll enroll yourself as an iOS developer, learn to use Xcode, and download the code to lots of open source apps from github. That's what I do. I even give apps directly to my beta testers. No App Store in the way. No strict monopoly.

Or just develop and code your own apps from scratch. No Apple App Store needed.

Thats not a real solution.

 

[Judas1]

your analogy was talking about not being able to buy an accessory (app) from another store (android market)

The developer made a conscious choice to begin with in the first place to make an app for the iOS platform. Nobody is pointing a gun at a developer that they MUST sell their app thru Apple they can easily develop the same app for another platform windows/android etc.

Look, it took developers time and money to make the app. In a free market, a good app should have high demand, and therefore the developer can charge more and negotiate a better deal with the seller. But since there's only one store, the Appstore, they can't. That's called a monopoly when one entity has so much control like that. Abd people don't want other stores that sell apps for different platforms. They want options of more stores than just the appstore, selling ios apps.

 

[firewood]

Thats not a real solution.

You don't need a "real" solution for it to be a legal solution. And it's a perfectly real solution for anyone with a Mac smart enough to code and use Xcode. Are you?

 

[charlituna]

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

Vertical integration also rarely pulls the abuse of a monopoly card since the whole notion of abuse is a company using power in one market to gain power in an unrelated one. That really can't happen in this sort of situation since its not an unrelated market. The App Store is specifically for software for the iPhone etc. Not phones in general.

If they were saying developers can't sell in any market including for other phone OSs that might fit the bill.

----------

One word: Cydia.

Until Apple gets them shut down and the creators tossed in jail, or there's some smoking gun that proves that folks are banned by Apple from selling via Cydia then that is a good point. If someone like Rovio chooses not to sell by such means that isn't Apple's fault

 

[Mums]

This would be in Oakland - entitlement victim capital of the world.

 

[Winni]

The two aren't comparable because Macs are largely content (including software) creation devices while phones and tablets are aimed for content consumption.

While this might be true for most people living in the real world, Apple's ads are trying to sell the iPad as a tool that can be used to create content. Heck, even when they introduced Pages for iPad, Phil Schiller used phrases like "you can write the next great American novel with Pages".

Then there is all that talk about the "Post-PC" era.

I think we currently are only two or maybe three device generations away from the era when those tablets and phones become fully self-hosted. In other words: Soon you will be able to write software FOR the phone/tablet directly ON the phone/tablet. This is where Canonical are headed with Ubuntu; actually, it's their vision to turn the smartphone in a full-blown PC via some sort of docking station. And in two years (at the latest!) smartphones will have more than enough CPU power to replace most desktop machines.

And in case of Apple, you will then wake up in a perfect digital prison where every move you make is tightly controlled by Apple.

And this is why it's a great thing that someone finally sued them for abusing their monopoly.

----------

This is false. False. False.

A developer can sell their app source code to any other enrolled iOS Developer, over a 100 thousand potential customers, completely outside the App Store, to run apps on any of a developer's up to 100 registered iOS devices. If you're smart, you'll enroll yourself as an iOS developer, learn to use Xcode, and download the code to lots of open source apps from github. That's what I do. I even give apps directly to my beta testers. No App Store in the way. No strict monopoly.

Or just develop and code your own apps from scratch. No Apple App Store needed.

Added: Also, Enterprises are allowed to set up their own iOS app stores for distribution to their employees. Many app developers sell apps and app development services to Enterprises. So no pure Apple iOS App store monopoly. There are other iOS app stores which you can find if you work for one of many many big corporations.

And how do you sell your apps to over 100 million consumers without going through Apple's App Store? THIS is what this is all about.

 

[flameproof]

I can not really understand the many 'pro monopoly' commets here. If Apple is fourced to give choice it means:

• Consumers have more choice
• Developers have more choice
• Consumers can compare prices
• Consumers still can chose iTunes if they want to

There is not a single disadvantage for those who want to stick to iTunes.

PS: I can't even get Apps from other countries iTunes stores - what a joke!

 

[silvetti]

it's not about phones or iOS.. it's about the apps.. and how every single app that goes onto an iphone, apple stands to profit off it...

if i want to buy irate turkey, i must buy it from apple..

it'd be like trying to buy photoshop for mac except i can't buy it from adobe or auth dealers for $600..
gotta buy it from apple for $800..

it's definitely a monopoly.. 100% of all apps must go through them..

only alternative is the unsupported semi-sheisty grey area of jailbreaking..

Ok, so Apps are also a monopoly. Twitter only allows certain third party hosts for their photos and videos... That's a monopoly, let's sue them because I want to use whatever else in THEIR product...

----------

PS: I can't even get Apps from other countries iTunes stores - what a joke!

If you don't know how to do that, you are the joke

 

[Dr McKay]

of course it does. if you don't like Whoppers, you're entirely free to go to McDonalds. but don't expect one to offer the others products. or pizza.

That comparison might have been remotely valid if Burger King was merely a company that distributed thousands of varieties of peoples homemade Burgers.

 

[flameproof]

If you don't know how to do that, you are the joke

Please show me an official Apple link how to do it.

 

[silvetti]

Please show me an official Apple link how to do it.

Show me where they say you can't just sign up for another account in a different country ?

If you want I can paste here how to create an account from Apple KB.

----------

A simple toggle like this would make a ton of people happy.
Image

And then you would have tons of malware as you have in Android and people would cry against Apple for putting that toggle.

 

[ds2000]

I'm a little unsure how this is a monopoly, I mean sure if it was apple only apps in the store but the fact thousands of independent people have gotten rich off the Appstore I simply don't get it.....

 

[gnasher729]

Added: Also, Enterprises are allowed to set up their own iOS app stores for distribution to their employees. Many app developers sell apps and app development services to Enterprises. So no pure Apple iOS App store monopoly. There are other iOS app stores which you can find if you work for one of many many big corporations.

That's actually quite a common case. The enterprise gets an "enterprise license", which gets them all the developer tools and always them to create their own specific applications and distribute them to iOS devices of all their users without Apple getting in their way in any way (and without Apple doing any checks on those apps), but also allows them to buy apps from any developer at whatever price and license they negotiate, and allows them to install those apps on the iOS devices of all their users.

 

[gnasher729]

I'm a little unsure how this is a monopoly, I mean sure if it was apple only apps in the store but the fact thousands of independent people have gotten rich off the Appstore I simply don't get it.....

The case is wrong on many, many levels.

First, Apple doesn't have a monopoly in the smartphone or tablet market. That stops the case immediately.

Second, Apple doesn't stop developers from selling their apps for iOS devices. That stops the case immediately.

Third, the only ones who can really complain are people who would want to run a store selling apps themselves, and they don't complain. So that stops the case immediately as well. Maybe Google and Amazon decided they are to busy running their own stores for Android, and there is no money to be made from selling to iPhone owners?

And as a developer, would I want to sell through some other store? It's not going to give me any more revenue. And with Apple, you know that they will have the cash to pay out the money that they owe you for sales. And Apple is so big, they can't afford to cheat you out of money. You wouldn't know that when just anyone opens a store. So as a developer, would you want to take the risk? What if the delivery doesn't work and your customers complain?

Look, it took developers time and money to make the app. In a free market, a good app should have high demand, and therefore the developer can charge more and negotiate a better deal with the seller. But since there's only one store, the Appstore, they can't. That's called a monopoly when one entity has so much control like that. Abd people don't want other stores that sell apps for different platforms. They want options of more stores than just the appstore, selling ios apps.

Of course they can sell through other stores. They can create a Windows app and sell it through Microsoft. They can create an Android app and sell it through Google. They are not restricted to selling through Apple. (It is well established that "natural monopolies", like Ford Motors being the only once making Ford automobiles, Beyonce being the only one making music song by Beyonce, don't count legally as monopolies, so Apple's monopoly on iDevices is not legally a monopoly).

And, of course, developers are _not_ suing Apple, so this point is moot anyway.

 

[firewood]

And how do you sell your apps to over 100 million consumers without going through Apple's App Store?

Customer acquisition has its costs. Every high volume consumer item company tries to get on walmart's shelves for a reason. That's business as usual. Not a legal issue.

If you don't want all of walmart's customers, a dev is perfectly free to just open up a small corner shop jn Podunk and sell apps directly to enterprises. But Apple is the only big box near Podunk.

 

[Rogifan]

This is great, about time too, just imagine if we had another option for getting apps on the iphone vs going through apple for everything? We would have more access to user developed apps and probably better tie in's into the OS itself.

To think I might be able to have a real alternative browser on an iPhone, that would be amazing! not some simple shell over webkit! Better yet Apple wouldn't be a crazy 30% take on everything! Helping developers keep money in pocket and out of Apples greedy hands. Not to mention how apple forces everything to go through their system for in app purchases, which is the worst invention in the world! in app purchases should die in a fire!

Hope the lawsuit continues!!

How is 30% greedy? Has anyone actually done an analysis and determined that the back end stuff, promotion, etc. that Apple does isn't worth 30%? If Apple and the AppStore are so awful why aren't developers leaving in droves? And why aren't iPhone and iPad sales plummeting?

 

[samcraig]

Ok, so Apps are also a monopoly. Twitter only allows certain third party hosts for their photos and videos... That's a monopoly, let's sue them because I want to use whatever else in THEIR product...

I can upload my photos and videos anywhere and post them on twitter.

Next?

----------

If Apple and the AppStore are so awful why aren't developers leaving in droves? And why aren't iPhone and iPad sales plummeting?

I'm not going to argue whether it's greedy or not/justified % or not.

But your last question is obvious.

iOS has a huge customer base. And again - the ONLY way to reach them is via Apple's App Store. So there's your answer. Why would a developer leave if they want to get their apps into wide release and adopted by Apple users? And the sales of iPhones and iPads have nothing to do with the 30% that is taken from developers.

The question is - if you COULD sell your app elsewhere - how many developers would choose to use that venue vs. Apple's App Store. Or would they use all possible avenues - which makes the most sense anyway.

And if there were other avenues - how much would Apple charge to get "certified"

 

[BaldiMac]

That's because there's no competition. Everybody has their own store in their own operating systems.

That's not true. There are many app stores available on Android devices.

Actually, its not that different no. You talk about agreements that is not really about choice, but force.

Yes, Microsoft was "forced" into a settlement because of their violations of antitrust law. They agreed to the browser ballot as part of the settlement to offset the gains they made through their illegal activity.

Not sure what you are getting at here.

Apple was never forced to any agreement neither on IOS or OSX.

Why would they be?

Think of this rationally.

And legally.

 

[heisenberg123]

The key thing is that you've always been able to get Mac Apps from other places and you still can. If they started requiring only the Mac App store they'd be taking something away for Mac OS X users.

BUT with the iPhone, the App Store been the only way to get apps legitimately (this topic isn't about jailbreaking, so I'm not going there), no one is surprised. Customers knew it when they got it and nothing has changed, they bought into a semi-closed system and stuck with it. You've got 2 weeks (or is it 30 days) to return it if you don't like it...

Gary

your right it has "always" been that way, that way is still by definition a "monopoly" which is the topic at hand