So I guess you didn't actually read it. It does not say they are suing apple because prices are too high.
If developers could sell outside of the store they could sell 30% cheaper (what apple takes) and not lose a penny, in fact they would not have to pay the 100.00 a year either, so the prices could in fact be more than 30% cheaper and not hurt the developer one bit.
Developers if they sold outside of the store would make at least 30% more without apple's forced take so it's not making developers crap themselves at all. They should be licking their chops.
So it helps to read what they are actually being sued for and understand who it actually affects. It affects apple skimming off the top, not the developers.
You wrote: So I guess you didn't actually read it. It does not say they are suing Apple because prices are too high. Are you kidding me? "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."
As far as the new ruling, were they are allowed to sue because Apple doesn't let people buy apps outside the App Store, your logic supporting it is flawed:
1. Apps aren't the primary purpose of a phone, and in fact most people can get all the value they need from built in apps and free apps. Phone service and data are available from a variety of providers.
2. If a developer can't afford $100/year for the privilege of selling their product in a clean, safe market available to all users, then they certainly won't enjoy paying at least that much to set up, host, operate and maintain their own online store.
3. Large companies might potentially do "OK" letting people know about their apps if they were available outside the App Store, but smaller developers would have a much harder time being discovered/noticed, consumers would be reticent to download from these un-trusted sources, and developers would having a hard time finding an alternate app marketplace that would charge less than Apple's 30% and be in business very long.
Since this is a consumer class action suit, what the "producers" make isn't really the issue. It's what they charge consumers that matters in this suit. Nothing is keeping them from charging $1.30 (if they wanted to keep an even dollar in profit). And since the percentage is the same for all developers, it's an even playing field.
The percentage Apple is receiving is less than what many retailers charge, which is a 100% markup over wholesale or 50% of consumer cost. And what developers get in return for Apple's fee is considerable: an even playing field, guaranteed smooth fast delivery of their product, built-in discoverability by over a billion potential users, seal of anti-virus/anti-scam safety & approval from Apple which offers peace of mind for those consumers, etc. Developers would have to spend considerable marketing/hosting dollars of their own to create similar availability/discoverability as the App Store provides for 30% of what they sell. And of course no charge if they sell nothing, which is hardly the case with real world hosting/marketing outside the App Store. So it's hard to make a case that Apple is abusing this supposed "monopoly" by charging developers more than the open market would.
There may be ultimately be reasons why Apple should allow app sales outside of the App Store, but neither you nor the class action suits have touched on any of them.
