Court Rules Apple Can Be Sued for Monopolizing iPhone App Market

[wheelhot]

Apple's closed-wall approach to app availability is a positive feature to most people but it is anticompetitive. Users should have the option of buying and installing apps from other sources. It should be their choice to assume the risk.

Posters are scratching their heads over the price argument because they are limiting themselves to the free or dollar apps. They are ignoring the costlier subscription apps that have to factor in Apple's generous take. Over time, Apple's markup can add up to $$$ for the consumer. Do these posters think the $Bn app store revenues came from free apps?

You do know that iOS updates are free cause Apple is getting that "take" to fund iOS development (and my guess MacOS as well)? Part of the reason why Google doesn't like people not using the Play Store or Google Search (in particular in China) cause they lose out ads revenue which is what Google make their money from.

And users do have the option of buying and installing apps from other sources, just jailbreak their phones and this is legal!

And you mentioned antivirus? Seriously? Why don't you just switch to Android, they're doing great there.

 

[groovyd]

this is SO what our judicial system need to focus on lol

 

[Tech198]

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

We all just want a simple toggle for the one thing u cannot do easily : jailbreaking..

I thought Apple allowed you to install apps outside of the app sore, but do it at your own risk.

 

[code-m]

Horrible idea. We'd have the same issue that exists now in the Android market. App experience is horrendous and doesn't is absolutely not user friendly, not to mention the security issues. Hell I guess now you could sue a game manufacturer for not letting you purchase extra content from wherever you want.

I have used and use all types of AppStores; Amazon, Apple, Google, Windows, etc. Never had a problem with any of them, then again I just don't go downloading any and all apps without looking if it actually developed by the rightful company, i.e. dept store apps.

I also beta-test and do in-house development for many platforms, I do not cater into the fear mongering. The best advice for someone unsure of an app or its developer is "proceed with caution." That advice can be used for anything in life.

 

[Glavin]

The U.S.A.'s legal system cannot be disintermediated fast enough via automation. Singularity save us.

 

[code-m]

That's the problem - it fundamentally compromises the way iOS functions from the ground up, and I reckon Apple will do whatever it takes to fight changing that structure.

The 1 Trillion revenue from the services business for the projected future will say that the Apple Mafia wants their cut or get cut. Yet we still only get 5GB free storage on iCloud
[doublepost=1484276622][/doublepost]

We all just want a simple toggle for the one thing u cannot do easily : jailbreaking..

I thought Apple allowed you to install apps outside of the app sore, but do it at your own risk.

You can side-load via DevTools, the only issue is signing apps that have to be renewed after a week. If this limitation was removed, JB will not be needed, compile the code and side-load. This way I can review the code before comping and installing.

 

[CE3]

Sam, you are right about the quality of the analogies and arguments in this thread.

Apple's closed-wall approach to app availability is a positive feature to most people but it is anticompetitive. Users should have the option of buying and installing apps from other sources. It should be their choice to assume the risk.

Posters are scratching their heads over the price argument because they are limiting themselves to the free or dollar apps. They are ignoring the costlier subscription apps that have to factor in Apple's generous take. Over time, Apple's markup can add up to $$$ for the consumer. Do these posters think the $Bn app store revenues came from free apps?

Unfortunately, the only way to correct a large company's attitude is to sue them

They can sue, but it's not going to change Apple's position, and, like you said, most people feel the pros of their closed system outweigh the cons.

If people want these apps so bad they can jailbreak their phones. The rest of us shouldn't have to potentially deal with crap like this to accommodate them.

 

[Paul Dawkins]

Nothing will happen. This is beyond idiocy.

 

[masterpace]

Nothing's gonna change in Apple practices after that "rulling" from a judge sitting in his sofa. The only thing that changes is now it's legal for you to obtain that cheaper third party app and install it on your system. Period. Apple owns the distribution platform (App Store) and to install any app in a user friendly way, you need the App Store. Apple will never allow its App Store application to install a third party app that hasn't been certified, both for quality and security reasons. So in the end, there won't be any impact and business as usual will remain as it should remain.

 

[Jessica Lares]

What if they're both a distributor and producer? The problem I see with their argument, and the related cases noted, is that Apple both gives them the distribution tools, but they're also giving them the production tools - Xcode, Objective-C, Swift, and frameworks that are mainly for developing for their platforms.

 

[2010mini]

Good.

How's this good? If the developers set the prices, where is the monopoly? There are many things you can only buy from one company. True there might be other stores that offer things LIKE it. But that is not the same.

 

[MacBH928]

It is no surprise that Apple is transitioning to a services based company. Music, Movies, Apps, Books, Pictures, Data, etc. The focus and company revenue will be service based hence all the data centre news. The focus from desktop/laptop hardware to mobile has been occurring for a while. A recent MacRumors article mentioned revenue growth from these services to project 1 Trillion USD. Easier to make money with software based services then invest a lot of R&D, production, testing, manufacturing, shipping, support, sales, promotion with hardware.

Apple is moving along the same lines of Sony, Microsoft, etc. It has always used the software to sell the hardware, not sure if it will now reverse and use services to sell the hardware. Expect longer refresh between hardware releases. Consider it a feeling.

1-You are not wrong, but no hardware=no services business. Its simple, people use iTunes because they use Macbook and iPhones. If Apple will be a service company, they will lose their customer base to other similar services like Google Play store and Amazon Video etc.

2-Apple has a strong following because their customers believe Apple has passion for tech, not whats most profitable to them. When Apple was facing bankruptcy their fans didn't quit on them. If Apple will just turn into another bean counter, abandoning best in class computers for profits, they will be just another Dell and their customer base will move along. Think about it, what makes Apple different from HP or Asus.

 

[sbailey4]

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.

Maybe s/he needs to consider that BEFORE buying into the ecosystem. And yeah it does. I chose to purchase Apple products and use its app store to get any apps I need for free or cheap. Otherwise I would have chosen an Android, or Windows phone. See there are choices. The point is its been this way since iOS was born, its Apples business model, and is advertised that way and always has been. Now all of a sudden people are bitching and moaning and suing over it?? Get over yourselves and stop spending your cash on Apple or any other product that you don't happen like their policies and rules. Especially stupid is AFTER folks make their purchase then they get pissy about the policies that were in place before they did so. If you dont like Apple's policies regarding how you get your apps then don't purchase Apple products. Quite simple. WTH is wrong with people?? Frivolous BS.

 

[sentiblue]

Bunch of morons got nothing to do... they want to compete with Apple using a far less secured system because they cannot verify the authenticity of apps... the apps are developed using Xcode, which is provided by Apple remember?

And then there's a judge who's even more dumb... approving this ruling and confirm with the world that somebody else can sell apps to iOS devices while they don't have the ability to guarantee quality to customers. They don't have the certificate private key to confirm a developer's identity remember?

 

[indychris]

The only thing more idiotic than the lawsuit is the appellate court that overturned the original ruling. Since when did 'monopoly' become defined as "any company that doesn't allow me to do anything I want"??

 

[Sevendaymelee]

So I guess Walmart can be sued for not allowing Target to sell Great Value brand food now? What a joke lol.

 

[Irock619]

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

Well then just dont buy a Ford.

 

[Seoras]

there was no price competition, leading to higher app prices
Wow! Hold on, I've been charging too much for my Apps?
I'm giving them away for free and I'm lucky if I make 10c per install.
[doublepost=1484282006][/doublepost]I wonder if this ruling is a reflection on the change going on in Washington?
By "opening up", iOS to 3rd party installs aren't we opening to door wide open.
Wasn't this what the FBI wanted?

I enjoy using my banking Apps on iOS but I'll be damned if I'd installed any banking software on my Android handset.
(Yes, I have both. I write Apps for a living).
If iOS gets cracked open I'm done with smart phone banking.

 

[Naimfan]

The level of understanding around this case is almost non-existent.

The Court of Appeals simply said that the plaintiffs do have standing to sue Apple. To have standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate three elements: An injury in fact in to a legally protected interest; a causal link between the injury and the complained-of action; and that it is likely that a favorable decision will redress, or correct, the injury. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-561 (1992).

As the article itself notes, no court has yet ruled on any of the substantive claims in the lawsuit. The 9th Circuit simply said that the the plaintiffs have met the requirements to show standing, hence, the suit may proceed. While Apple may very well petition the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari, the Supreme Court is unlikely to accept such a petition, at which point the case would be sent back to the district court for further proceedings and potentially an actual trial.

 

[B4U]

So what is next? Victoria's secret needs to start selling shaving cream for men?

 

[kdarling]

So what is next? Victoria's secret needs to start selling shaving cream for men?

Not even close. More like allowing Victoria's Secret panty buyers to get their bras from a different store if they wish. In other words, allowing normal rights.

This is not about making Apple themselves sell anything they don't want to.

It's about letting consumers get addon apps from any place they choose.

Apple can remain censored and controlling, and people who like that kind of environment can stick with them.

 

[FriendlyMackle]

The level of understanding around this case is almost non-existent.

The Court of Appeals simply said that the plaintiffs do have standing to sue Apple. To have standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate three elements: An injury in fact in to a legally protected interest; a causal link between the injury and the complained-of action; and that it is likely that a favorable decision will redress, or correct, the injury. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-561 (1992).

As the article itself notes, no court has yet ruled on any of the substantive claims in the lawsuit. The 9th Circuit simply said that the the plaintiffs have met the requirements to show standing, hence, the suit may proceed. While Apple may very well petition the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari, the Supreme Court is unlikely to accept such a petition, at which point the case would be sent back to the district court for further proceedings and potentially an actual trial.

I'm not a lawyer -- so please explain to me how Apple's App Store has 'injured' iphone purchasers. The iPhone was created by and is owned by Apple. The App Store was created by and is run by Apple. Purchasers of the iPhone should have been under no misunderstanding of the ownership of the iphone tech, software, and software/hardware access. Apple's 'limitations' and 'walled garden' have been a constant whine sung by the technorati (and of course competitors). So where is the injury to a legally protected interest?

 

[adib]

The "... leading to higher price..." argument is definitely out of touch with the current "race to the bottom" situation.

 

[Naimfan]

I'm not a lawyer -- so please explain to me how Apple's App Store has 'injured' iphone purchasers. The iPhone was created by and is owned by Apple. The App Store was created by and is run by Apple. Purchasers of the iPhone should have been under no misunderstanding of the ownership of the iphone tech, software, and software/hardware access. Apple's 'limitations' and 'walled garden' have been a constant whine sung by the technorati (and of course competitors). So where is the injury to a legally protected interest?

I have not read the original complaint, so I don't know what injuries the plaintiffs are claiming. The Court of Appeals did not decide if the plaintiffs had been injured, only that the plaintiffs have the right to continue with their case.

The district court is where the question of injury will be decided. Whether someone has suffered an injury is a question of fact, and that can only be determined in a trial court (here, that's the federal district court). Does that make sense?

 

[macsrcool1234]

The consumer wins.
[doublepost=1484284815][/doublepost]

Abuah?!

what?

listen, i'm all against monopolistic competitive practices.
I'm all for releasing some stranglehold on economies that filthy rich have. i'm all for competition for luxury items.

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.

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 )


this is a slippery slope. Sometimes, yes, Lawsuits are required to keep a company in check, but sometimes, these things are more dangerous to the market than helpful

This argument didn't work in the 90's and it doesn't work today.