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

[cube]

then you have to wait for it to update when you want to use it. along with 200 apps on your phone. imagine doing that on LTE.

You don't need to update another 200 applications.

 

[farewelwilliams]

You don't need to update another 200 applications.

you do when iOS 13 comes out.

 

[cube]

you do when iOS 13 comes out.

You don't use 200 applications at the same time.

 

[farewelwilliams]

You don't use 200 applications at the same time.

i didn't say at the same time.

 

[cube]

i didn't say at the same time.

Whatever. The application could always register with an update service in the OS, that is independent of a store.

 

[farewelwilliams]

Whatever. The application could always register with an update service in the OS, that is independent of a store.

Apple will never implement that service for apps distributed outside the App Store for consumers.

 

[cube]

Apple will never implement that service for apps distributed outside the App Store for consumers.

Then maybe they are abusing their position.

 

[StyxMaker]

I’m curious about the people defending Apple tooth and nail on this issue. Are you committed libertarians or free-market Republicans? And If not, can you given me an example of anything you would consider a monopolistic practice that warrants government intervention?

If Apple told the phone carriers that they could not sell iPones if they sold phones from any other company, that would be monopolistic.

 

[farewelwilliams]

Then maybe they are abusing their position.

Or Apple is just making it easier for consumers by using only one store, one place for everything.

 

[cube]

Or Apple is just making it easier for consumers by using only one store, one place for everything.

Well, the EU can just throw the book at them like they did with Internet Explorer.

 

[mjharwaz]

So... Is it a "monopoly" because iOS apps are only available through the App Store? Or is it a "monopoly" because Apple takes a cut of the sale as commission for handling the sale?

There's a lot of talk on here about the security Apple affords through the App Store, but that's not at all what this case is about... is it? Are the plaintiffs arguing that they can't install what they want the way they want? Or are they only complaining that they pay too much?

So... this isn't about vetted apps, it's not about whether you can side-load or flight test apps. It's strictly about pricing. Ergo, if something crazy happened where Apple stopped the "consignment" approach to the App Store and didn't charge developers to place apps on the App Store, would we still be having this discussion?

If the answer is no, then all the talk about whether or not apps should be available outside of the App Store, and all the talk about the security we get in the walled garden of Apple are pointless for this topic. Yes, we get it... some people want to take a chance and get their stuff on the wild web and others want to keep things secure as possible. But it has nothing to do with the point of this ruling or the case itself.

 

[farewelwilliams]

Well, the EU can just throw the book at them like they did with Internet Explorer.

except, iOS isn't a monopoly like Windows was.

 

[5hugknight]

This won't be good for Apple. Or the consumer. If it ends up against Apple down the road.

Yep, like most litigation these days... only the lawyers win.

 

[cube]

except, iOS isn't a monopoly like Windows was.

Nobody is saying that iOS is a monopoly.

 

[farewelwilliams]

Nobody is saying that iOS is a monopoly.

then EU can't "throw the book at them like they did with Internet Explorer" like you suggested.

 

[cube]

then EU can't "throw the book at them like they did with Internet Explorer" like you suggested.

Yes, because they have a monopoly on the sale of iOS apps.

 

[farewelwilliams]

Yes, because they have a monopoly on the sale of iOS apps.

doesn't make sense. that's like saying AMC movie theaters have a monopoly in selling AMC popcorn and EU should "throw the book at them".

 

[cube]

doesn't make sense. that's like saying AMC movie theaters have a monopoly in selling AMC popcorn and EU should "throw the book at them".

Analogies don't work.

 

[farewelwilliams]

Analogies don't work.

same with your analogy. IE was on Windows (monopoly). App store is on iOS (not a monopoly)

 

[cube]

same with your analogy. IE was on Windows (monopoly). App store is on iOS (not a monopoly)

IE was about browsers. AppStore is about app stores.

 

[farewelwilliams]

IE was about browsers. AppStore is about app stores.

then why did you say "like they did with Internet Explorer". now you're saying it's unlike the browser. you contradicted yourself.

 

[cube]

then why did you say "like they did with Internet Explorer". now you're saying it's unlike the app store. you contradicted yourself.

OK, maybe I should have said YOUR crap analogy does not work.

 

[farewelwilliams]

OK, maybe I should have said YOUR crap analogy does not work.

you said iOS selling iOS apps only
AMC selling AMC popcorn only

uhh, no, that analogy works.

but i'm glad you admitted you contradicted yourself. don't screw up next time. feel free to reply, but i won't be reading anymore from you.

 

[koruki]

lol so all the android users bragging how they have more market share and devices suddenly think iOS is a monopoly? lol do they know what mono means?

 

[pika2000]

The App Store is a monopoly as that’s the only way developers can get their apps out to people. The argument can be made that the cost covers the hosting/bandwidth and payment processing. But Apple doesn’t allow developers to host their own apps say on their websites to allow people to buy/install outside of the App Store.

Whether this will get anywhere, who knows.

Go back to what Steve Jobs said. Developers are free to create whatever web apps they want, including porn. Web apps were already there even before the App Store was a thing.