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.
Supreme Court Allows App Store Monopoly Lawsuit Against Apple to Proceed [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You can go direct to spotify to subscribe which is what I do. You don't need to go through the app. Nor do you you need spotify to link it for you.
It's not a monopoly, since Apple has less than 50% of the mobile phone and app markets. Anyone can trade-in their iPhone for a Samsung (et.al.) mobile, and then download Android apps.
And any iOS developer can bypass the App store by posting their source code on GitHub, where anyone with an Apple ID and access to a Mac with Xcode can download, build and install the app on their iPhone.
Apple only locks app downloading to the App store for developers who wish to lock up their source code.
And any iOS developer can bypass the App store by posting their source code on GitHub, where anyone with an Apple ID and access to a Mac with Xcode can download, build and install the app on their iPhone.
Apple only locks app downloading to the App store for developers who wish to lock up their source code.
That would be contempt of court, they did that in the UK, that didn't go well.
I think people are forgetting the whole point of the store was to help developers reach consumers via Apple's network while also protecting consumers from fraudulent apps\developers from stealing all of your info.
Obviously, it's grown and needs some rethinks but it's not like Apple was out to shut people out.
Obviously, it's grown and needs some rethinks but it's not like Apple was out to shut people out.
If it was just a matter of "getting" apps then I would agree. But I'm willing to go with the current system because of the service that Apple provides by checking the apps for malware, et al. I think you'll admit that you may be up to the task of curating your own apps for safety but the vast majority of users aren't. The choice is still to live with Apple's restrictions or buy Android.
Correct me if I'm wrong... The Xcode program can be distributed for free on GitHub. The End User would need to compile and could install onto their own iPhone.
Hmm - I paid $2,500 for a MBP and let "Rogue Apps" control it on MAC OS - Example - About Rogue Amoeba
Great Apps - and a good model for iOS
Developers could charge much more if they could sell their apps freely and let customers decide if the apps are worth the price. They could also focus on developing apps for their "user base" not for Apple's marketing purposes.
Interested to see what is decided in the end, but ultimately it makes no difference to me. I have always felt that developers should pay to play in the lucrative Apple base of users, but I think 30% is likely too high. In terms of competition among other apps, I see it as no differently than a retail store putting their own products at eye level in an aisle. I am sure there are situations out there that could make it seem anti-competitive, but I just don't see it myself. Customers decide which apps get their money.
I'm not saying this will or wont go anywhere. but i have a choice as to where I buy apps for my console, pc etc. I can by a discounted disk for my console, or a used game from anywhere i want. same with my pc. With apple, you can only by from them period. Your not comparing apples to apples, excuse the pun.
This is such a dumb lawsuit. Apple is a company that built an app store ecosystem for their devices. If you want to build an app for their device, you use their toolkit, review process, and app store. I see nothing wrong with this. Just because another company came along and developed a free-range ecosystem where users can install any app they want does not mean that the first company is doing something wrong. If I don't like the Apple App Store, then I should not buy an iPhone. IMO, this is not even remotely worth being considered under a lawsuit monopoly. This is silly nonsense...
If this was an actual monopoly it would probably be broken up by now, but it hasn't, and thats not what this court decision does. A previous lower court decision said you had to go after the app developer and not Apple. But since Apple has deeper pockets....
So you want Apple to make it convenient to get third party parts, stock (host) them in Apple's warehouses (servers), and do the payment for free? Can I get you do work for me for free?
edit: I know the analogy is outlandish but we need to be reasonable and don't think what the plaintiffs are asking for is reasonable.
I can sort of understand this decision because once you choose a platform we are locked into Apple's will but I don't ultimately agree. Apple's platform isn't a monopoly, you can choose other platforms and you can also change platforms therefore Apple doesn't has a monopoly to abuse.
They do abuse their position but they aren't a monopoly and while they aren't (something that will probably never happen) a monopoly they should be allowed to design their platform however they see fit (although security and whatever is a false argument, the Mac has always had plenty openness to no real detrimental effect of its security)
They do abuse their position but they aren't a monopoly and while they aren't (something that will probably never happen) a monopoly they should be allowed to design their platform however they see fit (although security and whatever is a false argument, the Mac has always had plenty openness to no real detrimental effect of its security)
"iPhone apps are too expensive"
Seriously? Thanks to the "race to the bottom," iPhone app prices are insanely INEXPENSIVE. For a couple bucks, most of these apps provide a vastly superior feature set to apps that used to cost HUNDREDS of dollars on a desktop.
AND -- let's not forget the superior SECURITY the app store gives us all. You really want to expose users to the dangers of side loading their apps from unreputable sites?
Apple's 30% cut, while that might SEEM steep, is totally in-line with the distribution and retail costs of the long-forgotten software developers like CompUSA, Best Buy, Walmart, Egghead, MacMall -- etc. Try paying 50% and then being forced into cooperative marketing deals just to get your software on the shelf. Even APPLE STORES were not inexpensive for developers like myself to get software on the shelf -- as we did before the era of the iPhone and the App Store.
Apple has created an excellent ecosystem for developers. If you want free, insecure, dangerous apps that can be obtained from any site, head on over to Android.
Seriously? Thanks to the "race to the bottom," iPhone app prices are insanely INEXPENSIVE. For a couple bucks, most of these apps provide a vastly superior feature set to apps that used to cost HUNDREDS of dollars on a desktop.
AND -- let's not forget the superior SECURITY the app store gives us all. You really want to expose users to the dangers of side loading their apps from unreputable sites?
Apple's 30% cut, while that might SEEM steep, is totally in-line with the distribution and retail costs of the long-forgotten software developers like CompUSA, Best Buy, Walmart, Egghead, MacMall -- etc. Try paying 50% and then being forced into cooperative marketing deals just to get your software on the shelf. Even APPLE STORES were not inexpensive for developers like myself to get software on the shelf -- as we did before the era of the iPhone and the App Store.
Apple has created an excellent ecosystem for developers. If you want free, insecure, dangerous apps that can be obtained from any site, head on over to Android.
Ehm... that's exactly the point. Apple is just taking 30% of margins, which is absurdly high.
Not necessarily, look at many apps on Android that have lower prices and additional features outside the official app store than the exact same app from the app store.
Just installing those apps doesn't invade your privacy. Signing in does and Apple has no control over it.
And I'm pretty sure you'd be pissed out of your mind if you found out some side-loaded app outside the AppStore is mining Bitcoin on your iPhone than Facebook gathering your data. The former you DON'T have any control over.
[doublepost=1557762125][/doublepost]
I think you meant Android OS!
Last edited:
Consumers choose Apple devices because they like/want them. Developers want to build apps in an ecosystem that benefits them with the most users. It's still free will and free choice. Nobody is forced to use Apple. It's not a monopoly.
I see the App Store monopoly as a good thing since Apple scans for malware and doesn't allow privacy violations. If Apple is required to open the iPhone to 3rd party App Stores I hope they require a wipe before "unlock" and then disallow Apple App Store access thereafter until another wipe is performed. Unlocked iPhones should be quarantined from locked iPhones.
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.
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
As others are pointing out, this merely means the lawsuit can proceed and nothing about the merits of the plaintiffs' case. Thus, I will weigh in on the merits of the case: it's meritless!
Good luck making a case that consumers have been harmed by an alleged monopoly. Since the advent of the App store consumer prices for software have plummeted. It will be interesting to see if the plaintiffs' lawyer can keep a straight face when arguing that a store where consumers now pay NOTHING for 85% of the apps and most of the rest are 99 cents, is evidence of consumer harm. LOL.
It will also be a comedic moment when the plaintiffs' attorney argues that but for the App store commission of 30%, developers would only charge 66 cents instead of 99 cents! LOL.
In summary, this case is a farce, and the App store, as Apple did with iTunes and the cost of music for consumers, has been the best friend of consumers in driving down the price consumers have to pay. The most likely outcome is a jury announcing at the end of trial their verdict unanimously:
"All hail the App store!"
Last edited:
Absurdly low, compared to the typical margins on soda at your typical fast food joint, beer at most bars, wine at most restaurants, perhaps most of your grocery basket as well.
So being able to load apps from anywhere equals rogue apps lol. That's funny. So buying apps straight from the developer is rogue and dangerous. You're just the type that Apple needs on the jury