Supreme Court Allows App Store Monopoly Lawsuit Against Apple to Proceed [Updated]

[cube]

not quite. MS had a dominate market positoin and was using it position to stifle competitoin in anothe rmarket. Very different form what is happening with the app store.

Apple is stifling competition on the sale of iOS apps.

 

[jlc1978]

No it is like selling software via your own distribution channel on Android, Windows or MacOS and not having to pay a cut to Apple, Google or Microsoft for services you do not need.

What you are saying is Walmart opening a Mall and demanding every store is technically "inside" Walmart by default and only using their registers at a 30% cut because "They built the mall".

They should be compensated for building it - sure. Some think This is just not the way... and now they can take them to court.

Ewxcpet that is exactly what a mall does - charge rent and often get an additional payment if sales exceed a certain threshold. Apple could charge each app developer a much larger fee to host their software which would probably drive 90% of the apps off the store.
[doublepost=1557779086][/doublepost]

Apple is stifling competition on the sale of iOS apps.

So? They hardly have a dominate position in the app market; and their marketplace is open to all who want to develop an app.
[doublepost=1557779211][/doublepost]

"Competing stores". LOL. Back in the days of Pocket PC's, late 90s early 2000s, there were many stores, like Handango and Brighthand. And vendors could sell direct too. And it was a HUGE PITA. Some used codes, some used activation servers, some used pre-activated apps you had to download. It was all over the map how they handled the purchasing and activation of apps. And if you needed to update your apps - good luck with that. Again. everyone had a different method - if you could even get to the updates for old purchasers.

People who complain about what is essentially the convenience of a single Apple store never had to go though all that bullcr@p us old-timers had to.

Roger that. Palm apps often came on disks with an activation key. Others we downloads such as one that turned your Treo into a hotspot.

 

[cube]

Ewxcpet that is exactly what a mall does - charge rent and often get an additional payment if sales exceed a certain threshold. Apple could charge each app developer a much larger fee to host their software which would probably drive 90% of the apps off the store.
[doublepost=1557779086][/doublepost]

So? They hardly have a dominate position in the app market; and their marketplace is open to all who want to develop an app.

They have a monopoly on the sale of iOS apps.

A developer does not need to host their software on someone else's servers when the platform is as it should be.

 

[jlc1978]

No. They are not right. ISVs have never been forced to pay a fee to the owner of a platform before the AppStore.

And an App Store did not exist back them, unless you count a brick and morter store that (surprise) took a cut of sales, as well as the company thet distributed the software. In the end, developers got a lot less tahn the 70/85% split they get now.

 

[cube]

And an App Store did not exist back them, unless you count a brick and morter store that )surprise) took a cut of sales, as well as the company thet distributed the software. In the end, developers got a lot less tahn the 70/85% split they get now.

Developers don't need an App Store.

 

[Scubaman]

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled 5-4 against Apple in an anticompetitive case involving the App Store, allowing iPhone users to move forward with their class action lawsuit against the company, as first reported by CNBC.

From the Supreme Court's ruling:The lawsuit was filed in 2011 by a group of iPhone users who believe Apple violates federal antitrust laws by requiring apps to be sold through its App Store, where it collects a 30 percent commission from all purchases, leading to inflated prices as developers pass on the cost of the commission to customers.

In other words, the iPhone users believe that apps would be priced lower outside of the App Store, as Apple's 30 percent cut would not be baked in to prices.

The lawsuit was initially dismissed in 2013 by a California district court due to errors in the complaint, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit revived the case in 2017. Apple then appealed with the Supreme Court.

From the start, Apple has argued that it doesn't set prices for paid apps, and that charging a 30 percent commission on the distribution of paid apps and in-app purchases does not violate antitrust laws in the United States. In 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an amicus brief in support of Apple.

Update: Apple has issued a statement (via John Packzowski) regarding the decision:The Supreme Court's full ruling is embedded ahead.

Click here to read rest of article...

Article Link: Supreme Court Allows App Store Monopoly Lawsuit Against Apple to Proceed [Updated]

Only in America! The land of the spurious litigation!!

So if Apple looses it’ll be the Android situation - a hackers paradise. Beware unintended consequences...

 

[jlc1978]

Developers don't need an App Store.

They do if they want to sell to iOS users; otherwise they can develop for a different platform. Just becasue Apple controls their app store that does not mean they are a monopoly.

Maybe developers would prefer to pay for storage and bandwidth use as well as a paymjent system; I bet most would be much happier on the app store as well as pay less.

 

[cube]

They do if they want to sell to iOS users; otherwise they can develop for a different platform. Just becasue Apple controls their app store that does not mean they are a monopoly.

Yes they are. On iOS. A monopoly can be localized. It is not necessarily illegal.

 

[Rogifan]

Most apps on the App Store are free or very cheap. How do the plaintiffs prove Apple not allowing other app stores is hurting consumers?
[doublepost=1557780067][/doublepost]

Except this is why Microsoft had to un-bundle IE from Windows; which Apple fanboys were applauding back in the day.

Apple doesn’t have anywhere close to the market share Microsoft did.

 

[AdonisSMU]

Selling app and selling source code are two very different things. It's like if Ford would sell you the parts for a car and let you assemble it. Besides, one would need to buy a Mac and a license from Apple to do this. Don't be ridiculous.
[doublepost=1557778243][/doublepost]
I am fairly sure that Google or Microsoft owned store would be just as good (or better, especially in terms of search). As a user of Android and Windows based systems I have never had any issues with security and quality. You are just spreading FUD.

I've watched people have security issues with apps from both MSFT and GOOGLE right before my very eyes. The security issue is real.

 

[cube]

Most apps on the App Store are free or very cheap. How do the plaintiffs prove Apple not allowing other app stores is hurting consumers?

If the apps have to be very cheap, it means less developers can make a profit, so there would be fewer apps.

 

[Rogifan]

I don't agree with Apple having the right to restrict software. As I said, when you buy a device, you are doing two essential things.

1 Purchase of the physical device. This is now your device. it's not a license, it's not a lease, you own it. Thus, property ownership tends to come with it certain rights for what you can do with the physical device itself.

2. Purchase / lease of the software on that physical device. This being the limited license.

in my opinion, the 2nd part of the transaction should not override the first part. if I chose to open myself up to malware, security risks, etc, on the physical device I own, than that should be entirely my right. Risks of that also my own should something happen (if I brick my phone installing a 3rd party OS for example, I believe Apple should have the ability to deny warranty repair)

In addition, Malware doesn't just "spread". these aren't the viruses of the 80s/90s, where just inserting a disk will infect a computeres MBR. Malware today still generally requires user interaction in order to install their payloads. Me installing malware on my computer will not infect my neighbour or vice versa. Same with phones. Should you install Malware on your phone, you might have security risks yourself, But your friends and families phones don't suddenly become infected either.

In the case of iOS restrictions, I would like to see device manufacturers be forced to allow for the replacement of the OS with a 3rd party OS if the default OS does not meet the requirements of the purchaser. Don't like being restricted to the App store only? Install a 3rd party OS that has the opening you require.

Now, That also doesn't mean Apple must support 3rd party OS's. That's sillyness. But they shouldn't be able to block it either. (This is also true for the rest of the computer industry that is doing it's best to follow Apple's lead and lock software to hardware)

Good thing there is hardware you can buy where you can install whatever software you want on it. No government should be deciding this though.
[doublepost=1557780292][/doublepost]

If the apps have to be very cheap, it means less developers can make a profit, so there would be fewer apps.

So the plaintiffs are arguing a single app store is keeping app prices artificially low?

 

[falainber]

I've watched people have security issues with apps from both MSFT and GOOGLE right before my very eyes. The security issue is real.

There are security issues with apps in App Store too. Neither company can verify what the app does without access to the source code (and they don't have it).

 

[TheRealTVGuy]

#1 An iPhone isn’t a utility. It isn’t even necessary for life (like food/clothing/shelter are).

#2 When can I sue WalMart for making a percentage off my purchases there?

 

[Rogifan]

Good news for consumers. Apple shouldn’t get to decide what apps I can install. That was the reason to jailbreak in the past.

Who says? If you don’t like Apple’s business model there are other options. I’m sure Dell will sell you a laptop where you can install any software you want on it. And you can get phones running Android that allow you to do what ever you want with them software wise.

 

[cube]

So the plaintiffs are arguing a single app store is keeping app prices artificially low?

No, they would be arguing that the fees reduce the number of apps available.

 

[realtuner]

Yes they are. On iOS. A monopoly can be localized. It is not necessarily illegal.

Only if you want to twist the definition of a monopoly to make Apple look wrong.

The EU has a better definition, which people here like to ignore. They call it "market dominant position". You can't limit the market to The App Store and claim Apple has a 100% monopoly. You have to compare iOS to Android and The App Store to Google Play. This is why Apple isn't a monopoly, because they have a much smaller market share than Android does.

It's hilarious how people like to claim Android has higher market share (the 85% vs 15% figure is popular) then turn around and claim iOS has a monopoly.

 

[JetTester]

I don't expect this lawsuit to get far. It seems their complaint boils down to Apple charging the 30% fee to sell products in their app store. Do you know any retailer that only marks up merchandise they are selling by 30%? I think most markups are probably 50-100%. Perhaps they can show that Apple has monopolistic control over distribution, but not pricing, which the seller sets. BTW, IANAL. But I am ANAL. So sue me. No, wait....

 

[Napalm Doctor]

So my problem here is simple. What is good for one company is good for all. I don’t think Apple should be allowed to block other App Stores on iOS, but at the same time it is not an open OS, so...

Edit: Typo

 

[cube]

Only if you want to twist the definition of a monopoly to make Apple look wrong.

The EU has a better definition, which people here like to ignore. They call it "market dominant position". You can't limit the market to The App Store and claim Apple has a 100% monopoly. You have to compare iOS to Android and The App Store to Google Play. This is why Apple isn't a monopoly, because they have a much smaller market share than Android does.

It's hilarious how people like to claim Android has higher market share (the 85% vs 15% figure is popular) then turn around and claim iOS has a monopoly.

It is a monopoly on the sale of iOS apps. Whether it is illegal is another question.

 

[jlc1978]

Yes they are. On iOS. A monopoly can be localized. It is not necessarily illegal.

Which means there is no compelling reason to break it up.

 

[cube]

Which means there is no compelling reason to break it up.

That is up to the courts to decide.

 

[Rogifan]

No, they would be arguing that the fees reduce the number of apps available.

Considering the number of apps in the App Store that argument seems ridiculous.

 

[cube]

Considering the number of apps in the App Store that argument seems ridiculous.

There might be solutions that don't exist because they cannot make a profit. Or better ones.

It also means the ones that do exist have less funds for development.

 

[Rogifan]

I don't expect this lawsuit to get far. It seems their complaint boils down to Apple charging the 30% fee to sell products in their app store. Do you know any retailer that only marks up merchandise they are selling by 30%? I think most markups are probably 50-100%. Perhaps they can show that Apple has monopolistic control over distribution, but not pricing, which the seller sets. BTW, IANAL. But I am ANAL. So sue me. No, wait....

Yet Apple claimed the consumers relationship was with the developers and not Apple (which the Supreme Court didn’t buy). It’s hard for Apple to claim consumers aren’t buying from them on the one hand and on the other compare themselves to B&M or other retailers. Also many apps in the App Store are free and what Apple charges a fee on is arbitrary. I can buy thousands of products directly from the Amazon app but if I want to buy a kindle e-book I can’t because it would require Amazon giving Apple 30% of the sale. And it also just happens to be an area where Apple directly competes.