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

[gsurf123]

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)

Locked in is such a weak argument. Most users play games and use free apps and listen to music. No problem switching to another phone if you are willing to spend some time. The difference with Apple is that there is no friction experienced by staying within the ecosystem.

If someone does not the terms of the store then don't use it or buy a different phone. This "problem" is self-inflicted.

 

[AustinIllini]

Apple does not need the cut they get from subscriptions. I agree with the Supreme Court in principle even though i understand part of iOS security is the App Store.

 

[Knight3]

This is about iOS app distribution monopoly not smartphone/mobile device monopoly.

If I wanted to get apps for my iOS device, where do I go?

If you want the experience of iOS and enjoy the app you go to the App Store. But if you just want the services provided by the app, you sell your iPhone and buy a Samsung and even get a free cracked version from a thousand websites out there.

Just don't call it a monopoly cuz Apple chose to put the user experience over convenience.

 

[nexusrule]

Could Apple fans get any more ridiculous than that? Are you suggesting that unlocked iPhone can harm App Store by downloading stuff from it? If that were the case they could also harm all other web sites on the Internet. So these iPhones (as well as all Android phones and all laptops and desktops) should be banned from the Internet.

Unfortunately, we have too many AAPL investors on this site masquerading as Apple fans (well, they are Apple fans, just a different kind of fans) who react extremely negatively to any idea that may lower Apple profits. AAPL being down 5% today is bringing a lot of this sort of "fans" to this thread.

Not at an Apple’s investor. Prefer their approach to opening the market. This suit won’t go anywhere anyway. Enjoy hoping for the opposite for the next year or two.

 

[isotropic]

APP store is not a monopoly as Apple's market share is far from being a monopoly.
APPs are inexpensive to the point that it is hard to make a development business case. What do we want to achieve? 50 cents APPs? Who is going to build them?
We want iOS devices to be convenient and secure (Touch ID, Face ID, Apple Pay, iMessage). Will you trust them after installing 50c APPS from who knows where?

It's a tough call. Indeed I would like to install whatever APPs I want on my devices. I really, kind of, can through purchasing the 99 USD developer license.

Apple's 30% seems to hurt but you do get a lot from the 99 USD developer fee:

- Amazing developer tools;
- Worldwide APP distribution;
- They take care of all the credit card charging and related nuisances;
- APP store "censorship" gives me an extra peace of mind. I would hardly buy a 99 cent APP outside the APP store. We have Google Play as an example;
- Even more complex is the fact that we are moving to a lot of subscription based APPs. How do you feel about having 10 or 20 different entities handling your subscription instead of one?

As a consumer, I rather prefer to pay 30% to a sustainable business than 5% to an unsustainable business that is going to try to make a profit out of me without my consent.

Just recently, Netflix "got out of the APP Store payment process" and last time I checked my subscription remained unchanged

 

[Rogifan]

This is about iOS app distribution monopoly not smartphone/mobile device monopoly.

If I wanted to get apps for my iOS device, where do I go?

If you don’t like the iOS App Store model you can go elsewhere. No one is forced to use Apple hardware.

 

[8012R3]

Microsoft got done for this in the late 90’s. It’s no surprise Apple is now being focused on in this way.

 

[laz232]

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.

You obviously did not read the ruling....
"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"

This is a question of whether the plaintiffs can sue or whether Apple can prevent them suing by saying they are not purchasing from Apple. It explicitly says it doesn't assess the merits of whether Apple App store is a monopoly.

The USA would be doing a lot better if the people actually read the source information rather than the headlines served to them by the media...

 

[gotluck]

here is hoping we can get some more rights here... as said before, sideloading apps every week with xcode is not good enough!

 

[jagolden]

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.

Yes, I know why, and I don’t care. Spotify is making a money grab here, more so than Apple.
If the ONLY way to get music was through the App Store, then I’d agree. But it’s not.
I’m well aware Spotify can’t do it through a web page.
But this isn’t just about Spotify, it will apply to all publishers so I stand by my original post. Spotify included, publishers wil not be lowering their prices, at all, or by a significant amount.

 

[gotluck]

Imagine Apple loosing this and being forced to allow side loading of apps. There goes any claim of a security advantage over Android.

no apple is still leaps and bounds above typical android devices because apple regularly patches their devices over a much longer term

you can already sideload on apple as it stands now, the process just sucks

 

[Rogifan]

Apple does not need the cut they get from subscriptions. I agree with the Supreme Court in principle even though i understand part of iOS security is the App Store.

All the Supreme Court did was say the lawsuit can proceed. Mostly because Apple’s argument that they don’t have a direct relationship with the customer is bogus. But they didn’t rule on the case itself. I still think the plaintiffs will have a hard time proving Apple is a monopoly,

 

[Knight3]

Apple does not need the cut they get from subscriptions. I agree with the Supreme Court in principle even though i understand part of iOS security is the App Store.

The day a business believes it doesn't need that particular fraction of revenue is the day they stop thriving.

 

[Ruggy]

So what happens next? Surely, they just say either you pay us the commission or you don't use the store. Sign this piece of paper that you are happy with that or go away.
It's a bit like this law about cookies we have now where every website makes you agree to them first.
You agree or you don't get on the site so nothing has changed.
What is actually going to change here if they lose and is it something we will actually want?
One of the things I've always really liked about Apple is the programming is quite strict.
I mean, you don't get a lot of choice but what you get works pretty well as opposed to programs on Windows for example where you get loads of programs but when you buy them you find they are full of bugs and don't work very well.
And they reckon 40% of apps on the Google Play store have malware.
I don't imagine I'd use an alternative to the App store even if it existed.

 

[Piporuno]

If you want the experience of iOS and enjoy the app you go to the App Store. But if you just want the services provided by the app, you sell your iPhone and buy a Samsung and even get a free cracked version from a thousand websites out there.

You still don’t get it, do you?
As I explained before, Apple does not have a monopoly on smartphones/mobile devices. As you pointed out I can buy a Samsung phone or whatever else is available.
This is not what they’re arguing.

Forget about all other mobile device/smartphone vendors.

This is about app distribution for iOS devices. I can only get apps from the Apple App Store.

See the difference?

I’ll ask again. I I want to get apps for my iOS device where do I go?

Just keep the answer simple and name a place. Don’t tell me about what I want to experience or sell. Just name the place I can get apps from

You see it now?

I like the App Store and would rather get apps from it than from unsecured places but I see the argument. Do you?

 

[Mikey44]

This is about iOS app distribution monopoly not smartphone/mobile device monopoly.

If I wanted to get apps for my iOS device, where do I go?

The web, and add the web app to your home screen. Done.

 

[AustinIllini]

All the Supreme Court did was say the lawsuit can proceed. Mostly because Apple’s argument that they don’t have a direct relationship with the customer is bogus. But they didn’t rule on the case itself. I still think the plaintiffs will have a hard time proving Apple is a monopoly,

Got it. Thanks for clarifying. I think at the end of this they settle and figure out a more favorable subscription model.

The day a business believes it doesn't need that particular fraction of revenue is the day they stop thriving.

There should be a six month 15-30% fee on downloads and then it should end.

 

[Gasu E.]

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.

You should be able to do this. That said, if you do, Apple should not be responsible for any software-related problems on your device, including bugs that don't impact protected users, security, malware, etc. In other words, there should be an official jailbreak option that Apple does not try to screw with; but if you choose it, all bets are off, unless you reset to factory conditions.

 

[jagolden]

If that is what you want buy an Android phone.

Exactly. Then when the apps start causing problems, they’ll blame the hardware.
May not be a perfect solution, but I prefer the security and oversight of the App Store.

Anyone using their store, be it electronic or brick-and-mortar, to sell someone else’s product, takes a cut/commission. Standard business practice.

Hood milk costs more than store brand milk at my supermarket, why do people think that is? Supermarkets are notorious for back-end fees, slotting fees, etc., etc. Not seeing lawsuits about those practices.

 

[Piporuno]

The web, and add the web app to your home screen. Done.

Does that run like a regular app?
Please correct me if I’m wrong, my understanding was that a web app runs on the web and not natively on the device. Is the optimization the same? Can it use the same iOS resource as a native app?

 

[timeconsumer]

Negative, its the only way to get it to Apple users. Other platforms exist to distribute their apps: Android, Roku, Mac Desktop, Android TV, Smart Cast, Web OS, MS Windows, Web Apps. Probably more.

Sorry I meant it’s the only way developers can get their apps to iOS users is through the App Store. Of course for other OS’s/platforms there are other ways but I was talking about iOS in my comment, apparently I should have clarified that.

 

[truthertech]

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.

You're confused, as are many on this forum today. This lawsuit has nothing to do with developers. It's solely about whether consumers are harmed and have to pay higher prices for apps as the plaintiffs laughably claim. (Prices have crashed since the App store began to the point that 85% are free and most of the rest at 99 cents- lots of consumer harm. )

Your analogy is also not apt. You can hack away at your iPhone all you want, but you do so at your own risk. Apple wisely, and to the benefit of the sane 99.9999% of its customers who want a secure App system, isn't going to support some on line group in China or Russia or anywhere access to load software on our phones. Amen to that.

This is no different than Tesla not allowing you to download your own software to run their cars. "But I bought the car, it's not fair that Tesla doesn't support other people/companies offering the ability to install software to run the self-driving mode!!" is just a silly argument. Go ahead an buy your Tesla, or your Xbox, etc., or whatever product you want and get ahold of your favorite dark web supplier to help you hack away at it, but don't expect these companies to facilitate your foolishness and endanger the rest of us.

 

[procksa49er1120]

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.

It is very very true that it is yours and everyone's iPhone, but it is not your iOS. You agree to the terms and conditions of use (EULA) for the operating system. Use your capitalistic rights and go buy one of the multitude of Android based OS Phones and side load to your heart's content!

 

[Carnegie]

This is about iOS app distribution monopoly not smartphone/mobile device monopoly.

If I wanted to get apps for my iOS device, where do I go?

That (i.e. what I bolded) is right, and it's why this decision is wrong.

Apple doesn't sell app distribution services to iPhone users, it sells those services to app developers. So, under Illinois Brick, iPhone users - as indirect purchasers - shouldn't be able to bring anti-trust claims against Apple. Instead, such claims - based on Apple's supposed monopolization of app distribution services - should need to be brought by the direct purchasers, i.e. app developers.

Apple does (as an agent) sell apps to iPhone users. So, in theory, iPhone users should be able to bring claims based on an alleged monopolization of apps. But that would be something different and present other hurdles which they might have a hard time getting over.

 

[jonnyb098]

You can choose to buy Android apps from the Google Play Store. Or you can choose to buy them someplace else. The choice is yours to make.

You can also buy Android apps from Amazon.

On a Samsung smartphone, you can buy apps from the Galaxy Store. Or you can buy apps from the Google Play Store. Or you can buy apps from Amazon. Or you can buy apps from someplace else.

On a Windows computer, you can buy software applications from Microsoft's own store. Or you can buy them from someplace else.

You see. You have choices on Android or Windows. On iOS, you do not.

I get what having choice means. Thats a very very old debate. Theres a reason why Apples platform is in general a more safe place for average users. Its less hard to screw up and cause issues with security. Android and windows can much more easily be hacked with garbage.

Not to mention less than 10 percent of Android phones are on the latest software version VS. around 80 percent of iPhones on the latest software version.

The debate is more about how Apple will proceed moving forward. Not Android VS iOS.