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

[DaveN]

Correct me if I'm wrong. The gaping problem in the case is that this only applies to payments made through the app store. If a developer has the app download for free but then requires payment via the developer's web site, the developer is getting Apple's service for free. Netflix and others do this.

 

[Rogifan]

This isn't really about the 30%. Apple can charge whatever they want at their store. But they should NOT be allowed to have the only store. If I want to write an app for the iPhone, I should have the choice to put it in Apple's store, some other store, or sell/give it away directly from my own web site.

So you want the government to say you have a right to develop on the iOS platform and sell your app wherever/however you chose? Having governments decide companies business models is a scary thing.

 

[sw1tcher]

That court seems to be ridiculous and unrealistic.

Let me guess...

Ruling against Apple = ridiculous and unrealstic

Ruling in favor of Apple = Great

 

[Rogifan]

No You can’t!
Because apple has a walled garden too. If You have a watch?

Again no one is personally forced to own any Apple product.

 

[dominiongamma]

Good. It IS a monopoly.

As I've said repeatedly, it's not Apple's iPhone, it's MY iPhone. I should have the choice to install apps from whatever source I desire, and I shouldn't have to go through ridiculous machinations with Xcode every week to do it.

Then go to android

 

[Morgenland]

Let me guess...

Ruling against Apple = ridiculous and unrealstic

Ruling in favor of Apple = Great

You won't deny that Apple's business model works great for us users.
Secure and clear. Just one Store makes all most comfortable.

 

[bytethese]

Good. It IS a monopoly.

As I've said repeatedly, it's not Apple's iPhone, it's MY iPhone. I should have the choice to install apps from whatever source I desire, and I shouldn't have to go through ridiculous machinations with Xcode every week to do it.

Yes, but you could have bought Android, or at the time of the lawsuit, Windows or Blackberry too. I much prefer Apple's tight control on the App Store to ensure the that the likelihood of malicious apps or usage of API's is kept at a minimum.

If I wanted otherwise, I am free to choose Android and their ecosystem.

 

[bjwhite3114]

I guess one thing to consider is whether alternate non-apple-store apps could affect security and privacy of those of us who might choose to stay exclusively within apple's ecosystem. I have a couple of apps on apple's app store and am fine with it. I understand, however, the desire to side load apps or get them from another source, but I just don't want that availability to create issues for my experience.

 

[BootsWalking]

How ridiculous. If they stopped charging the 30%, the companies would just keep the price the same and pocket the 30% Who wouldn't?

Arguing against antitrust enforcement because someone else might capture the profit that a monopolist is keeping for themselves is absurd.

The point is those companies would have that option in the absence of a monopoly. They could also choose to reduce their price by 30%. Or make their apps better by increasing their R&D by 30%.

 

[Classie]

Gut feeling: the App Store, app developer, Apple and the iPhone user is better off with status quo.
Everything is clean and tidy, free from spam and malware and updated.

The App Store also seem like a good place to make the most money, if your an app developer...

 

[Rogifan]

Correct me if I'm wrong. The gaping problem in the case is that this only applies to payments made through the app store. If a developer has the app download for free but then requires payment via the developer's web site, the developer is getting Apple's service for free. Netflix and others do this.

What service is Netflix getting for free? The hosting of the app? None of their content is hosted by Apple. If it’s the hosting of the app and placement in the App Store then why does Apple allow free apps at all? Why not make every app cost something that Apple would get a cut of? Also what is the $99/yr developer fee for?

 

[sw1tcher]

Good. It IS a monopoly.

As I've said repeatedly, it's not Apple's iPhone, it's MY iPhone. I should have the choice to install apps from whatever source I desire, and I shouldn't have to go through ridiculous machinations with Xcode every week to do it.

Exactly. And since it's MY iPhone, I should have the right to repair it however and wherever I want as well.

But Apple thinks we're too dumb to be able to do it ourselves.

 

[-Ray-]

This is a horrible idea that is being spun as a benefit to consumers. It's not. It opens up the opportunity for malious and privacy invading software to enter a users device. While this is possible through the App Store, apple does a good job of preventing it.

 

[sw1tcher]

It’s not though. You’re basically buying a license to software that comes with an end user license agreement (EULA) which dictates what can and can’t be done with the software. It’s not a monopoly because one can easily buy something else.

It is a monopoly when the end user cannot get an app from another marketplace or directly from the person who created the app. Everything has to go through the App store first.

 

[MuckyDuck]

So did Kavanaugh side with the liberals on the court?

Yes, but this isn't a vote on abortion, Executive Privelisge, Progressive social and economic policies, or to abolish the Electoral College.

 

[Carnegie]

This decision substantively overrules Illinois Brick. It, of course, doesn't say that it does that. The Supreme Court sometimes likes to pretend that it isn't overruling precedent when it, for practical purposes, overrules precedent.

Illinois Brick, as reimagined by Apple v Pepper, is now about formalism - when it comes to transactional relationships - rather than substance. So while it's technically still controlling law, its teeth are now pretty dull. I think that's unfortunate.

 

[jonnyb098]

I understand how Apples tactics can be viewed this way but one thing it gives us is SECURITY. Do we really want rogue apps from some rando to be able to be loaded onto phones. Seems like a potential disaster from a safety and security perspective.

 

[DaveN]

What service is Netflix getting for free? The hosting of the app? None of their content is hosted by Apple. If it’s the hosting of the app and placement in the App Store then why does Apple allow free apps at all? Why not make every app cost something that Apple would get a cut of? Also what is the $99/yr developer fee for?

Netflix makes you pay for their service on their web site and not through the app thus avoiding Apple's payment cut. By Apple not requiring a set fee for a closed store, they are not a monopoly. As for the $99/yr fee, that is overhead for making developer tools and doing a background check to get a developer certificate. No certificate, no app on the app store. You can use the developer tools for free but you can't put your apps in the app store as they have no way to determine if you are a trustworthy developer.

 

[shaunp]

As much as I don't like the current Apple, I think this is stupid. You can more or less guarantee apps on the App store are of good quality and have passed the appropriate security checks. The Google store is a lot better than it used to be, but it's not as good as what Apple have - I'm currently running on Android so I'm not Google-bashing.

Whatever platform you are on I would always want the apps to come from a trusted source, and guess what you might have to pay for them. This is what is currently destroying the IT industry - the notion that apps are free and instantly available. This leads to the expectation that everything is free and instantly available and as a result many, many corners are been cut and we only have ourselves to blame for this.

If Apple lose this one they will effectively lose control of iOS. That will cost a lot more than 30% of any apps you buy when there is a load of malware on the loose.

 

[Rogifan]

It is a monopoly when the end user cannot get an app from another marketplace or directly from the person who created the app. Everything has to go through the App store first.

Except you’re not forced to use an iOS product. If you prefer to get your apps another way you can use an non-Apple product.

 

[DaveN]

It is a monopoly when the end user cannot get an app from another marketplace or directly from the person who created the app. Everything has to go through the App store first.

No it doesn't. You can side load apps.

 

[Rogifan]

Netflix makes you pay for their service on their web site and not through the app thus avoiding Apple's payment cut. By Apple not requiring a set fee for a closed store, they are not a monopoly. As for the $99/yr fee, that is overhead for making developer tools and doing a background check to get a developer certificate. No certificate, no app on the app store. You can use the developer tools for free but you can't put your apps in the app store as they have no way to determine if you are a trustworthy developer.

Again what is Netflix getting for free from Apple?

 

[-Ray-]

It is a monopoly when the end user cannot get an app from another marketplace or directly from the person who created the app. Everything has to go through the App store first.

You can get an app without it being on the App Store. Its called test flight or side loading.

 

[macduke]

People still pay for apps? I thought they just pay for rainbow coins.

 

[ugahairydawgs]

The majority opinion is completely non-sensical. Allowing the end user to sue Apple for price gouging is the rough equivalent of allowing shoppers to sue retailers for profit markups. Choice is not lost for the consumer by having the App Store be the sole location for iOS app purchases (and it's not even really accurate as all of the stories of side loading have shown us in the past year). At any point though a consumer is free to purchase an Android phone and get their software from whatever location they choose.

 

[VenusianSky]

How ridiculous. If they stopped charging the 30%, the companies would just keep the price the same and pocket the 30% Who wouldn't?

That would only work for so long because competitors could offer apps for 30% less, which will likely force those pocketing that 30% to eventually lower their prices. That is what I would do if I were a developer.