Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Court Rules Apple Can Be Sued for Monopolizing iPhone App Market
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
an app costs $xxx to develop and maintain. by taking 30% of the developers profits, Apple obviously increases the price for an App by 30%.
Also Apple still does not provide any form of "upgrade" pricing and such.
Because this is how the real world works when someone get big and powerful.
It's generally a good thing for consumers.
We had Phone, Gas, Electricity etc in the UK before it was broken up.
It would be like Microsoft blocking things, they would be told no, they have to open thing up.
Companies are usually free to charge whatever they want for their products, provided they don't engage in illegal behavior that suppresses competing products.
Huh? The majority of apps on the App Store are NOT Apple apps and Apple doesn't set the price for them.
I disagree given the clear terms from Apple for the duration of the App Store's existence. If MS were to go to a walled-garden approach tomorrow, I can understand how that might be an uncompetitive practice. Even then, they could transition over a period of years to walled-garden.
Yes and No.
I have an app that mimics Siri functionality, before Siri. Apple suddenly disallows it and rolls out Siri. I can n o longer compete at any price point.
Apple is free to develop their own distribution channel with their App store. What they are not free to do is prevent people from buying apps from alternative distribution channels.
They vet any App uploaded. What they do not like will be rejected, sooner than later.
Also you can not do everyone, many system tweaking things where booted quickly. Eg. the initial 3rd party night mode. And then even copied by Apple as system feature.
Also you can not use any third party JIT compiler. So that all web browser need to use Apple's JaveScript and usually WebView, virtually making all iOS browser only an UI facade,
But there you jump the wrong way again.
It's about "choice", why can't i run apple and use other stores? i have multiple of every apple product this is not good for consumers.
Or maybe it's like a case of old, MS embedding IE into windows?
Why as a users can't i pick where i shop, its a very simple ask.
Having other stores does not remove your ability to only shop at Apple's, if you so wish.
People should have the ability to decide for themselves.
Americans sure like to sue. It's the national pass time. And it never fails to amuse me how ludicrous some of those law suits can be.
Apple = next trillion dollar company = how can we get a piece of that.
When you're talented and successful everyone wants a piece of your a*s.
Apple = next trillion dollar company = how can we get a piece of that.
When you're talented and successful everyone wants a piece of your a*s.
A U.S. Appeals Court today ruled that App Store customers can move forward with a lawsuit claiming Apple created an illegal app monopoly because it did not allow users to purchase iPhone apps outside of the App Store, reports Reuters.
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.
When the lawsuit was originally filed, Apple requested that it be dismissed because developers, not Apple, set prices for App Store apps. Apple simply provides the platform developers use to sell apps to customers.
According to today's ruling, because iPhone users purchase the apps directly from Apple, they have the right to file a lawsuit against the company.
An attorney for the plaintiffs in the case told Reuters that the aim of the lawsuit is to allow people to shop for iPhone apps wherever they want, an outcome that's unlikely due to security implications.The Appeals Court ruling does not address the specific monopoly allegations levied at Apple and pertains only to whether or not Apple can be sued for this issue.
Article Link: Court Rules Apple Can be Sued for Monopolizi
well, ..., and Ford always getting 30% for all gas sold, ...
and if they do not like one gas or the other, because it is too blue, or smells too nicely, they just kick 'em out, ... ;-)
Last edited:
No. 99% people don't care how the software gets on their computer or portable device. They just want the software. Apple's App store makes it dead simple for users to pay for it, install it, update it, and have some confidence of quality control. It doesn't get much better than that for users.
Perhaps the best analogy is that you can only buy a new Ford vehicle at a Ford dealership. Try as you might, you cannot buy one from Ford or from anyone else. If you don't like it, buy a Chevy. Franchise laws like this have withstood antitrust scrutiny for over 100 years. Do not see a discernible difference in how applications are served up vary from that model.
I can actually charge a Tesla (i don't have) on other charging stations, and my own wall plug.
Fantastic, just what the App Store needs - lower prices
My thoughts exactly. The competition in the App store is so fierce that it's reset the general public's perception of how much the hard work of programming should cost them. $.99 if it's good and $2.99 if it's REALLY good. This has driven the popularity of the much hated freemium model in games. It's free to play, but you gotta pay and pay big if you want to win.
our users had not issue to buy software license form us long before the AppStore even existed, ...heck, thanks god many still do ;-)
The law doesn't prohibit companies from controlling their own stores - but it does prohibit them from disallowing the distribution of untied products in competing stores.
