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

[iReality85]

These 5-4 decisions set precedent. We really need the Supreme Court to only set precedent unanimously. Having set precedent on a simple majority is too close and becomes too political.

Blame "court packing". The SCOTUS used to be 6 justices. That means you needed a 2/3rds majority, which is how it should be. I'm getting really tired of simply majority rule these days, which basically leads to "me vs you" angry mob-rule style democracy. It's not good for society to play ideological tug-of-war.

Just read the opinion. Not as scary as the headlines sound.
It says:
"At this early pleadings stage of the litigation, we do not assess the merits of the plaintiffs’ antitrust claims against Apple, nor do we consider any other defenses Apple might have. We merely hold that the Illinois Brick direct-purchaser rule does not bar these plaintiffs from suing Apple under the antitrust laws."

Aka - they are legally allowed to sue, but who knows how the litigation will do.
[doublepost=1557757480][/doublepost]
Yes. Kavanaugh plus liberals made this ruling.

Right. Most people will blow past this paragraph. This case merely decided on the merits of the lawsuit based on prior precedent, and SCOTUS upheld it.

 

[TheDauterive]

It wont. This will go nowhere, platform holders take cuts everywhere (console stores, Steam, Epic Store, literally any marketplace on earth does so to finance the delivery of said content).
30% is the average fee, it‘s ugly but everyone does it.

I, for one, am against having other places than the App Store for app distribution. One unified place to get your apps (securely and up-to-date) from beats out the mess you find on Android.

You know that if there were other places to buy apps, you wouldn’t have to patronize them, right? I’m not really interested in listening to music I don’t like, but that doesn’t mean I should be against other kinds of music. In like manner, you may be comfortable having Apple unilaterally tell you what apps you may or may not buy and where you must buy them, but if other consumers and developers feel differently, how does that harm you?

 

[Fender2112]

In my opinion, the Apple eco system is a closed, integrated system, not a monopoly. Within the system, a user can obtain software from various developers. The App Store is a means to make sure the software is as safe and secure as possible. That comes at a cost.

If that isn't suitable to you, don't buy Apple products.

 

[thadoggfather]

Great graphic for the subject!

 

[chaicka]

I bet there ain't many or any programmers or even folks who knows what it needs to allow apps to install and what that means to the underlying platform. This is as good as asking Apple to open up a door to its encrypted platform/kernel where everything can be installed. Welcome to the "iWinOS" (iOS+Windows) days if this goes through.

A decade of clean and safe mobile platform, gone..... Go Android for those of you who love freedom to root and install whatever apps you want. Isn't there a competitive hardware maker called Samsung who makes smartphones pretty close to iPhone?

Everyone had a choice to buy whatever phone on whichever platform and the rules that platform comes with. Simple as that.

 

[NetMage]

No, the delusion is that you think the shopping mall owner should be able to tell all the kiosk and retail spaces "You can't move to another mall down the street or go buy your own store somewhere else in town, you're only allowed to sell here, forever."

We're criticizing Apple here because Apple is wrong.

It's like a car manufacturer saying "you can only buy gas from our gas stations, and we've developed a special fuel port so that no other gas station's nozzle will fit in your car, and if we detect that you've somehow managed to bypass that we're going to turn off your car in a week and you'll have to go through a bunch of annoying steps to turn it back on." It's not reasonable, and it would actually be illegal for a car manufacturer to do that.

I didn't know Apple ever told a developer "no, you can't sell on the Play Store". I thought developers chose to do so.

So you've never heard of Tesla, I guess. No, it isn't illegal for a car manufacturer to do that, simply unwise. No one is making you buy their car, and no one is making you buy Apple products - in fact, most people don't.

 

[Intellectua1]

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.

Amen Brother!!!!! I'm not paying $1000+ for a phone to have Apple control it. This is a case Apple needs to lose!

 

[sw1tcher]

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

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

I know of sideloading. But you cannot download and install an app directly from the source onto your iPhone like you can through the App store. You need to do it via a computer. You need to jump through a few small hoops to do so.

It's like a car manufacturer being the only destination for parts. However, you can get parts on the side (load). You just need to find out from where and who first. It won't be easy and convenient, just like with sideloading iOS apps.

 

[DotCom2]

Amen Brother!!!!! I'm not paying $1000+ for a phone to have Apple control it. This is a case Apple needs to lose!

Would you pay $1000+ for a phone and let rogue apps control it?

 

[Compile 'em all]

So silly. Apps are generally so inexpensive what’s the point?
As others note, the app maker will not lower the price but keep it the same and simply keep more product.
It may be onerous at times, but I’d rather trust an app from the App Store than ones downloaded from any old site/publisher. Sure, let’s just load up everything we find, end up in the toilet, and then blame Apple when your phone/pad/computer goes bonkers!
Geesh!

Do you have any idea why Spotify is doing this? Because Apple, who controls the App Store, allows them to offer a competing product (Apple Music), at a cheaper price by forcing spotify to use In-App Purchases and forking 30% of sales. This means spotify can't offer a €10/month to compete with Apple Music, they have to charge more. This makes their streaming service less attractive to App Store customers (because it is more expensive). This is by definition anti-competitve.

Of course then you would ask, "why can't spotify have a link to a webpage where users can subscribe and pay?". Guess what? Apple guideline for developers forbid this. You can't "link" to a subscription page.

 

[Mjearl]

Another waste of tax payers money to sooth the winers. Apple's App Store ensures iPhone users get secure and compatible Apps. The costs are so small I really don't understand the issue unless this is more a Google Play Store issue. Keep in mind, if ALL apps from any App Store were allowed, don't go blaming Apple for Apps that don't work, corrupt or damage your phone, etc. Also, why is not Google and Amazon listed in this suit as they have Monopolies too with their app stores, right?

 

[lenard]

Everyone needs to think twice....Ransom Ware... I would not load any app on my iPhone unless it comes
from the App Store....everyone else do what you want.....

 

[te5s3rakt]

Well that’s just stupid.

By that logic, might as well take the government to court for having a monopoly, and collecting taxes from businesses. Consumers would get charged less if businesses weren’t taxed by the government. Maybe businesses should be allowed to sell products in a country but not be apart of its tax system.

Some people are so dense.

 

[-Ray-]

Apple will circumvent any negative ruling from this case. All apple would have to do is block access to system level apis for apps not published on the App Store. Its too easy.

 

[Intellectua1]

I'm waiting on the outcome of the Spotify lawsuit, this lawsuit, and hopefully someone files a suit about not being able to set default apps, and not being able to replace Apple's services with the services of your choice on the $1000+ phone that you the consumer bought and paid for.

 

[-Ray-]

I know of sideloading. But you cannot download and install an app directly from the source onto your iPhone like you can through the App store. You need to do it via a computer. You need to jump through a few small hoops to do so.

It's like a car manufacturer being the only destination for parts. However, you can get parts on the side (load). You just need to find out from where and who first. It won't be easy and convenient, just like with sideloading iOS apps.

Not 100% true. Most apps can be side loaded without the use of a computer. Also, with test flight, apps can be loaded from the device itself.

 

[Victor Mortimer]

A computer has an inherent ability to load programs and execute them from any source. The iPhone does not have that ability. And apple will never code iOS to allow that ability.

An iPhone IS a computer. Ultimately that's all it is, a computer with a screen, a speaker, a microphone, some cameras, a battery, and a few radios. It's not something special or different, and it absolutely has the same inherent ability to load programs and execute them that any other computer has.

And don't hold your breath on "never". Apple coded iOS to break that functionality, they can fix it just as easily, and cases like this one may well one day force them to fix it or stop selling the iPhone.

I would far prefer they fix it. iOS is in many ways better than Android, this is the only way it isn't.

 

[TheDauterive]

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?

 

[LiveM]

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.

That’s like saying the chassis should be made of wood so you can change the colour any time you like.

 

[one more]

Those lawyers and their endless tricks to parasite on human mistrust and belief in scarcity. Does one require an iPhone or any paid App Store apps to carry out their life functions of exercise their constitutional rights and freedoms? There are tons of free apps, by the way.

 

[Fozziebear71]

The people who think that Apple shouldn't be able to keep them from downloading apps to their phone from any source they want to will be the same people who will blame Apple when the app they downloaded from another site broke their phone, etc.

 

[TheDauterive]

An iPhone IS a computer. Ultimately that's all it is, a computer with a screen, a speaker, a microphone, some cameras, a battery, and a few radios. It's not something special or different, and it absolutely has the same inherent ability to load programs and execute them that any other computer has.

And don't hold your breath on "never". Apple coded iOS to break that functionality, they can fix it just as easily, and cases like this one may well one day force them to fix it or stop selling the iPhone.

I would far prefer they fix it. iOS is in many ways better than Android, this is the only way it isn't.

This reminds me of the time Microsoft coded Windows so that Internet Explorer (supposedly) became a part of the operating system. “We would gladly ship Windows without IE and allow customers to download and use whatever browser they please, but Windows literally cannot run without it!” The only thing stopping the iPhone from downloading apps directly from a developer is Apple.
[doublepost=1557760827][/doublepost]

The people who think that Apple shouldn't be able to keep them from downloading apps to their phone from any source they want to will be the same people who will blame Apple when the app they downloaded from another site broke their phone, etc.

And they would be as wrong in their latter complaint as they are right in their original complaint.

One question Fozzie, do you believe Apple should also lock down Macs, so that people can only install software on their desktops that Apple pre-approves?

 

[Sedulous]

This case will be nothing more than a waste of time. As others have pointed out, Apple definitively does not have a monopoly with the App Store as there are alternatives and there is no evidence that supports the "inflated price" argument (most apps are free or $0.99).

 

[78Bandit]

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

Spotify for one. They would love for nothing more than to be allowed to use their own account management and payment processing system directly in the app just like Uber does. They have shown they would drop the price from $13 to $10 were the mandatory fee for selling digital goods to be removed.

 

[Knight3]

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.

And that's the primary reason the odds of your iPhone being infected with a malware is astronomically less compared to your friend's Android. Apps are the easiest way for your device to be infected.

People don't fully understand technology. And giving them too many choices in the same would not be wise.

Having said that the commission could be lower though I don't know the specifics of how much of it is actually going towards the hosting and processing fee etc.