Court Rules Apple Can Be Sued for Monopolizing iPhone App Market

[mithion]

This lawsuit is ridiculous. The competition is occurring at the app level. If somebody made an app and is selling it for $5, nothing is preventing you from writing your own and selling it for $4. Including the capability to buy apps outside the store will not change anything.

Now I know some people have issues with that restriction, but part of it quality control. If you download a program that is either poorly designed, or flat out malicious that wasn't vetted by apple, and said app damages your devices, this will cause users to perceive the issues as being part of the platform in general. And so it would not only damage the reputation of the developer, but that of apple as well.

It is highly desirable to have an App Store where apps go through a minimum of QA and have good sand boxing security features. It enhances the platform experience as a whole.

 

[code-m]

This lawsuit is such a steaming pile of garbage. If the plaintiffs have such an issue with App Store pricing, let them get Android devices instead.



There. Fixed it for you.

So by your example. I like using MacOS. Too bad you can only install apps from the MAS. Suck it up buddy, use Windows, Linux, etc as you can install apps from anywhere.

Thank you for the words of advice, according to you freedom of choice and speech is dead. I forgot fear mongering the innocent that there are threats that always existed. Hey lets created an AppStore threat level similar to the HomeLand threat level gage.

If you want to be safe, unplug all your devices that have a computer and those that connect to the internet. If not you are a hypocrite and are living an illusion of safety. Wake-up.
[doublepost=1484267121][/doublepost]

You obviously don't understand the point of what was posted.

One study found that 20% of Android apps steal data.

Just a couple months ago more than 1 million Google accounts were stolen by malware apps and 86 apps available in third-party marketplaces can root 74 percent of Android phones. And that was just one instance.

Yes, stuff occasionally gets through the Apple review process, but it's far better than the lack of review we see on the Android side.

Pointing the finger game I see.

Stuff "occasionally' gets though Apple's vetting process that takes how many days if not weeks to get approved. Even with this mechanism in place there are apps that are released with exploits and some are not even known until months/years later. Apple approves some apps, then "magically" removed. Until Apple recourses its decision. Question here is what other exploits that have flown under the Apple radar that you or I are unaware of until the "white-hat" security community looks into. Many times those many unsuspecting users information have been jeopardized and they TRUSTED Apple and the AppStore. Let down, you better believe it.

No one here is arguing that the Google PlayStore or the AppStore does not have malware, however to say that Apple is immune, if just arrogance. I do not know what the Google PlayStore app vetting process entails, however that is something Google has to fix. People who install APK from third-party "should" know the risks involved, don't blame it all on Google here. We also do not know what Android OS version majority are running or if the OEM installed something that is malicious. Guess what it happens, it happens on a desktop OS as well. Malware has existed before, it still exists and will continue to do so, regardless how much you close a system down. If it connects to the internet it is at risk.

Want to be safe, disconnect from the internet.

 

[ProjectManager101]

These kind of articles show why not everybody can vote.

Apple has been pulling applications at will, for example, there was this app that was pulled with no reason. The app was to help you find your lost new apple wireless headphone. Apple wanted people to buy a new one, not to find a lost one.

There are many applications who are limited in performance because Apple just do not want them to be more efficient like music applications that can not transmit audio to the computer in real time when an iPad or iPhone is connected via lighting connector. And things like that.

In my iPad I can not install the applications I want, just the ones Apple wants to.

 

[dilbert99]

but There's no monopoly here. If you don't like Apple's app store policy, There's a giant swath of Android manufacturers out there offering competitions, many come with their own App stores. If you're looking for an open and free market, that exists.

Sounds like a contradiction.
I'd say there is a monopoly. On a mac, you can download an app from anywhere. On iOS its Apple or your out of luck.

But where then does this "monopoly" end? What about OS? Apple has 100% of iOS installations on iPhones. is that not a monopoly preventing me choice of what OS I want? (although, I would love to buy an iPhone running android )

Sure, I can install any OS on a mac, why not on a phone too.

 

[code-m]

These kind of articles show why not everybody can vote.

Apple has been pulling applications at will, for example, there was this app that was pulled with no reason. The app was to help you find your lost new apple wireless headphone. Apple wanted people to buy a new one, not to find a lost one.

There are many applications who are limited in performance because Apple just do not want them to be more efficient like music applications that can not transmit audio to the computer in real time when an iPad or iPhone is connected via lighting connector. And things like that.

In my iPad I can not install the applications I want, just the ones Apple wants to.

Apple feels it is being green (with more money in its pocket from the consumer) when a customer loses one AirPod. We are Environmentally friendly (just as long as we make more money with a simple solution) by not curbing electronic waste.

Don't forget the flux app.

Innovation, Innovation, Innovation, Innovation......ah I mean Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers.....thats it.

 

[philmore13]

Sooo this makes as much sense and me during Sony because I can't play an Xbox game on it. I own the PS4 they should open it up so I can download a game from anywhere....wtf

 

[hiddenmarkov]

My point was that Apple may well encapsulate OS X and iOS into one system, thereby locking third party apps out of OS X. Also forcing people to have an Apple ID for a Mac.

They'd shoot themselves in the foot here. Its the more open access of mac os that is a seller.Take that away and some business would migrate away.

One of mac os's draw for some niche users is its related enough to Linux we get Linux originated ports more easily and readily. Often times these won't be dev key'd. the ports are a convenience, we take software guardian games as just a minor chore to get that functionality.

Or they are dev key'd....but they don't deal will apple store submission crap. Here is our app...dl, install. Why no app store? The app will never pass apple's (sometimes idiotic) submission rules.

Apple does not allow CLI interactive (or pure CLI use) applications on its store. Apple if they do not like how funky you get with API...will not allow the app submission. I have 1 or 2 apps now pulled from the store that are now direct DL. Apple said yeah....cool you really read up on our API, but you read too much. Bye bye now.

Number of mac os apps used out there cut off by pure store release would be quite large...and many could not "play ball" and recode even if they wanted too.


More commercial stuff...there goes steam to go for one of the bigger grey elephants in the room. All work and no play makes jack a dull boy. back in 2011 my entertainment needs a factor in the swtich to Mac OS on a MBP. A R script that should have been 2 hours to make took 8 hours because of issues....time to blow off some steam very much in order. A cool +100 factor was going down my steam library and seeing lots of games have that apple icon on them. Steam for me and others...was a consideration.

 

[Analog Kid]

I call BS on this from the moment they said this will lower prices. Lower them from what? Free? The problem with the App Store is that it's been so competitive that prices are too low to draw quality software.

I don't feel I have suffered from Apple restricting competition in any way. I do feel like if this suit succeeds, it'll negatively impact consumers by reducing the number of viable business models for mobile applications.

there was this app that was pulled with no reason. The app was to help you find your lost new apple wireless headphone. Apple wanted people to buy a new one, not to find a lost one.

Is this a fact, or are you manufacturing facts to try and sell your bias? Please link the statement from Apple explaining that this is why they pulled the app.

In my iPad I can not install the applications I want, just the ones Apple wants to.

This isn't a new thing. The App Store worked this way from the beginning, and you knew it when you bought your iPad. If you preferred a different business model, you should have chosen a different tablet.

 

[Techexec]

Most people would cry foul if after paying several thousand dollars to Ford or GM or Toyota for a vehicle, the manufacturer required all additinal parts or upgrades (even stereos, speakers, and alarm systems) be purchased from the vehicle manufacturer's marketplace (their approved dealer service providers).

So, why is it that everyone thinks the situation is so different for software? When someone buys an iPhone, it is purchased (not licensed, which would be a completely different situation), thus the owner should not be locked into a wholly restrictive ecosystem with limited choices and captive pricing.

The app store structure requires that Apple be paid for anything that goes onto an iPhone that was already purchased by someone. Even free apps provide revenue to Apple because the developer must pay a fee to be authorized to publish apps in the app store. This is a problem!

 

[calzon65]

Just like Europe went after Microsoft for its alleged monopoly (remember the arguments over Microsoft's browser and being accused of a closed system preventing competition), well now the shoe is on the other foot and it's Apple's turn to deal with being accused of monopolizing something. Success can have consequences.

 

[Stella]

Sooo this makes as much sense and me during Sony because I can't play an Xbox game on it.

LOL. Totally different - this story is not about being able to use iOS apps on a different phone platform.

 

[code-m]

I call BS on this from the moment they said this will lower prices. Lower them from what? Free? The problem with the App Store is that it's been so competitive that prices are too low to draw quality software.

I don't feel I have suffered from Apple restricting competition in any way. I do feel like if this suit succeeds, it'll negatively impact consumers by reducing the number of viable business models for mobile applications.


Is this a fact, or are you manufacturing facts to try and sell your bias? Please link the statement from Apple explaining that this is why they pulled the app.

This isn't a new thing. The App Store worked this way from the beginning, and you knew it when you bought your iPad. If you preferred a different business model, you should have chosen a different tablet.

I can confirm, do a search on MacRumors who ran the story of this "bias app" that locates your lost AirPod that was removed less than a day after it was on the AppStore. Funny part was that some users mentioned to purchase it before Apple removed it off the Store. I was amused that it came true.

What if the iPad was given as a gift? Stop making assumptions.

 

[sbailey4]

Is this really so hard to understand? There are absolutely NO alternatives to buying IOS(!!!!) apps other than Apple's own app store. With the large market that Apple owns, this IS a problem for customers because there is no competition.

The comparison with IOS vs Android has abolutely nothing to do with it.

Now imagine a world where Windows applications could only be bought from Microsoft. You would be screaming havoc -- even though there are the Mac and Linux. But the fact that there are other operating systems doesn't really help the majority of Windows users, does it?

This lawsuit against Apple is long overdue.

And its been that way since day one yet you still purchased iDevices knowing it was this way. Perhaps don't buy Apple products IF this bothers you. Not like they just changed to doing it this way recently. So all of a sudden its a problem?

Good news indeed.

The restaurant comment is pointless, how about you change that to "all the restaurants are owned by one company" so they can not only set the menu, they control the price too. Opening this up will be a plus for all. If you want to eat at apple still, you can, if you want to walk down the road you also "could"..

Except all the apps are NOT owned by Apple. They dont set the price. Each developer owns their apps. Apple just distributes them FOR the developers and end users.

A more correct analogy would be buying a Ford automobile and then only allowed to buy gasoline from Ford. I agree with this ruling.

But if that were the case and Ford said the only way to get gas is from us you could either NOT buy a Ford or buy one with that understanding. Simple.

Anti competitive also has to do with apps being banned due to their content. For example, there isn't a single app containing porn. Because Apple doesn't allow it.

Not advocating for porn apps, just saying, if the content doesn't align with apple's vision, it isn't allowed. And there's no real avenue without jaikbreak to achieve it.

The fact that various levels of competition exist within a storefront does also not imply that there aren't certain anti competitive actions in place. For what it's worth itnused to be much worse. For a while (still talking hears) Apple wouldn't let apps into the store that duplicated functionality already in iOS. For example a calculator. "We already have one! Denied".

And if I own a restaurant and I choose NOT to allow alcohol, then thats my choice for my business. My patrons can either come eat some good food with iced tea or go somewhere else.

Lower prices doesn't mean just for the consumer, also for the developer because even free apps have to pay apple $99 per year for the privilege.

They pay for the distribution network. How many copies do you think a normal developer would sell on their own without the massive Apple ecosystem? Not to mention the ability to tap a button and BAM moments later the app is on your device ready to be used. Surely that is worth the $99 a year to have access to millions of end users searching for, say a weather app and you happen to have a great one you made that shows up right on the devices app store.

No need to always look for Android for the rescue: Do you want your Ford SUV only run on Ford gasoline?

If I bought it with that understanding, yep sure would. Otherwise I would not have bought a Ford SUV due to that fact.

And you would be okay with Ford taking 30% off the top? Don't think so.

Mike

So you think creating, running and maintaining a massive app store such as Apples is without cost to them? Should it be done for free? As stated, a dude creating some cool weather app in his basement now has access to millions of users to purchase his app all with no advertising costs or servers or bandwidth or backend system to get paid. Not a bad deal it seems to me. Take one example, the dude who made Angry Birds who later pulled it (and got a LOT of attention), look how much he was making per day when he opted to pull it. So hell yeah! Apparently its ok for a LOT of other folks out there as well because there are a lot of apps available and Apple has paid out a ton of $$ to those guys.

 

[gwhizkids]

Ok, I've had a chance to skim the court's opinion. This is merely a technical ruling that the plaintiffs have a statutory right to sue Apple as purchasers of apps from the App Store. Other circuits have held that end users are purchasing from app developers, thus barring a claim against Apple (you must be the seller to be a cognizable defendant). The 9th circuit disagrees. This sets up a conflict of circuits, which, given the gravity of the claims, will almost certainly result in this heading to the Supremes.

Just to be clear here, though, there was no adjudication of anti-competitive behavior on Apple's part. Just an opening of a door allowing a suit to be brought.

 

[sbailey4]

I can confirm, do a search on MacRumors who ran the story of this "bias app" that locates your lost AirPod that was removed less than a day after it was on the AppStore. Funny part was that some users mentioned to purchase it before Apple removed it off the Store. I was amused that it came true.

What if the iPad was given as a gift? Stop making assumptions.

Take it back or sell it. I hear the resell for Apple products is pretty good.

 

[code-m]

Most people would cry foul if after paying several thousand dollars to Ford or GM or Toyota for a vehicle, the manufacturer required all additinal parts or upgrades (even stereos, speakers, and alarm systems) be purchased from the vehicle manufacturer's marketplace (their approved dealer service providers).

So, why is it that everyone thinks the situation is so different for software? When someone buys an iPhone, it is purchased (not licensed, which would be a completely different situation), thus the owner should not be locked into a wholly restrictive ecosystem with limited choices and captive pricing.

The app store structure requires that Apple be paid for anything that goes onto an iPhone that was already purchased by someone. Even free apps provide revenue to Apple because the developer must pay a fee to be authorized to publish apps in the app store. This is a problem!

If the Apple product was leased, does that mean Apple Care should be included at no additional charge.

Apple wants you to own they product, however you are not free to do what you want with it. Another can of worm, something happens to Apple hardware. If in the warranty period Apple fixes it at no charge. Get Apple Care if you prefer the insurance. If you void the warranty too bad for you. If you want to get it fixed post warranty period, then acquire an Apple approved part and get it repaired any place. Let the third-party place provide you a warranty. If Apple wants to certify these third-party repair shops so be it.

Similar to having you car repaired at a third-party auto-shop vice the dealership. After all is it not Apple that thinks of it self as a luxury automotive brand.
[doublepost=1484269316][/doublepost]

Take it back or sell it. I hear the resell for Apple products is pretty good.

No soup for you or is it me, oh shucks.

Maybe s/he likes iOS and some of the app/game choices, however also wants the choice to load some third-party apps. Then what? Does choice exist in your world.

 

[Mascots]

Might as well open this can of worms:
So you can BootCamp into WindowsOS on an Apple Computer even though MacOS is the default OS and can install other OSes including via VM. Yet you are not allowed to installed any OS on an iPhone or iPad.

Android OS, can be installed on any device except iPhones/iPad as its locked down by Apple. The same can be said for an Apple Computer. However why not allow the your customers to install another mobile OS on an iPhone/iPad while still having iOS as the default. Security you say sure, however on MacOS we have FileVault and in iOS we have TouchID (enclaved chip).

You as the consumer are still paying the asking price for the hardware and the default software, why restrict users who want to experiment/develop. If Apple wants to say fine, this will void your warranty that is their choice.

Apple: We invite innovation
Reality: As long as its on our terms and you paid the price for the hardware.
Consumer: Yeah, Apple is innovating by providing me a choice.
Reality: Majority have forgot about basic freedoms and rights and are confused with all the Apple marketing BS as to what innovation and choice really is.

Blah blah, you're just ranting. It's REALLY simple and you can look it up: Apple controls the entire stack, from hardware to software, which is why they can do that. Microsoft, Android do not so they can not (Sans Surface and Pixel). This has been written no matter how much you want to complain.

Apple's ability to let you install Windows on your Mac is a convenience for getting switchers, not a right by which you receive like buying hardware from some vendor and Windows on top. If they wanted to be jerks, they could release a new MacBook that is incompatible with Windows and there'd be nothing anyone could do about it (as long as older MacBook's kept that ability)

 

[neutralguy]

So when some idiot downloads an app from "Bob's" App store and it steals all their financial information do they get to sue Apple for not preventing it? These are simply lawyers looking for a payday. And who gives a crap about Windows users not being able to use Linux or Mac apps? When you make a choice that's your choice. The other choice is to buy all three and use what you want, when you want to. I say again, MONEY GRAB.

When a malware steals information from your laptop, do you sue Microsoft?

 

[Analog Kid]

I can confirm, do a search on MacRumors who ran the story of this "bias app" that locates your lost AirPod that was removed less than a day after it was on the AppStore. Funny part was that some users mentioned to purchase it before Apple removed it off the Store. I was amused that it came true.

If you can confirm it, please do. All I can find is this:

Apple has not confirmed the reason why the app was removed from the store

 

[gwhizkids]

If you can confirm it, please do. All I can find is this:

Notice, all he does is confirm a story appeared. He attempts via smoke and mirrors to establish that the pulling of the AirPod finding app is necessarily due to anti-competitive impulses on Apple's part.

 

[mkelly]

The decision reverses a 2013 ruling that dismissed the lawsuit, originally filed in 2012. The case, Pepper et al v. Apple Inc., alleges that by not letting users purchase apps from third-party sources, there was no price competition, leading to higher app prices.

*Higher* app prices? Higher than what? A nickel? The apps in the App Store are already incredibly undervalued - most users balk at spending $3.99 on an app that a developer spent weeks or months building, but have no problem dropping the same amount on a Starbucks Frappuccino every morning. I'm old enough to remember when a developer's time was actually *worth* something.

 

[code-m]

Blah blah, you're just ranting. It's REALLY simple and you can look it up: Apple controls the entire stack, from hardware to software, which is why they can do that. Microsoft, Android do not so they can not (Sans Surface and Pixel). This has been written no matter how much you want to complain.

Apple's ability to let you install Windows on your Mac is a convenience for getting switchers, not a right by which you receive by buying hardware from some vendor and Windows on top. If they wanted to be jerks, they could release a new MacBook that is incompatible with Windows and there'd be nothing anyone could do about it (as long as older Macbook's kept that ability)

BootCamp, VMWare, etc... well you sure showed me. Apple's market share only grew when it accepted x86 and welcomed Windows. As many business application were only Windows based. If Apple transitioned to x86 without allowing Windows apps, it would not see any growth, it would be the PPC days all over. It was one of Steve Jobs best decisions and I am not a big Windows fan either. Did it allow others to use Windows and its apps on the Mac, sure it is called CHOICE. Did I install Windows via BootCamp, nope. Did I use VMWare for certain small Windows only apps, sure.

In your world, I would have to run out and buy a Windows box to run a few Windows app. Stop being narrow minded. Apples arrogance lately is troublesome and I have been a long time Apple user. No I am not a fan-boy/girl or troll, so lets not go there.
[doublepost=1484270243][/doublepost]

If you can confirm it, please do. All I can find is this:

You really believe Apple will openly admit that they are in the wrong. Lets not forget, bend gate, touch disease, battery issue, antenna gate. Taken a long time for them to fix those issues after people stood up and fought what was the right thing for a company to do. I guess you do not like or want Freedom and Rights. Back to the cage you go.

https://www.macrumors.com/2017/01/06/finder-for-airpods-app/

Update: Finder for AirPods has been removed from the App Store by Apple. According to the creator of the app, Apple reportedly did not like the idea of people locating their AirPods and thus the app was deemed "not appropriate for the App Store."

Apple has not confirmed the reason why the app was removed from the store, and the app's developer recommends people ask for refunds via iTunes.
[doublepost=1484270400][/doublepost]

Notice, all he does is confirm a story appeared. He attempts via smoke and mirrors to establish that the pulling of the AirPod finding app is necessarily due to anti-competitive impulses on Apple's part.

Lets not forget about FLUX. And magically Apple version of it gets included in an iOS update. Smoke and Mirrors you say, keep living in that illusion.

 

[zorinlynx]

I'd be happy if Apple would simply add a switch to let us run sideloaded apps, much like MacOS has.

I could easily choose to leave the switch off and benefit from the security policies Apple has with the app store.

Or I could choose to do things at my own risk, and turn on the switch and sideload things like emulators, AirPods finder, and other things that Apple doesn't allow in the store.

Leave it to the user!

Of course it won't happen, but one can wish. You can already sort of do it with Xcode but it's more work than most people want to deal with, and it requires a Mac.

 

[code-m]

I'd be happy if Apple would simply add a switch to let us run sideloaded apps, much like MacOS has.

I could easily choose to leave the switch off and benefit from the security policies Apple has with the app store.

Or I could choose to do things at my own risk, and turn on the switch and sideload things like emulators, AirPods finder, and other things that Apple doesn't allow in the store.

Leave it to the user!

Of course it won't happen, but one can wish. You can already sort of do it with Xcode but it's more work than most people want to deal with, and it requires a Mac.

Such a simple solution, I forgot Apple will not go for it. As it benefits the user, cannot have that.

 

[zorinlynx]

Such a simple solution, I forgot Apple will not go for it. As it benefits the user, cannot have that.

It's always been my biggest complaint about the platform. iOS has been SO GOOD historically that I've found myself able to look past this, because having a reliable and secure phone is very important to me.

However, the hacker in me still wants to play with things like emulators, and Apple not allowing them makes me sad. iOS sandboxing is secure enough that we really SHOULD be allowed to sideload apps if we really want to.