U.S. Supreme Court Appears 'Open' to Allowing App Store Monopoly Lawsuit vs. Apple to Proceed

[mdriftmeyer]

I guess that's true, but realistically in this example Apple would be Walmart and the developer would be Proctor & Gamble. P&G can sell their products direct to consumer, just like the developer could release an web based version, but that doesn't mean you reach the most customers right?

Procter & Gamble ships to retailers who carry the cost and burden of storage and more. If they thought is would be more cost effective to be the direct supplier to every consumer they would have done that already.

For instance, you can buy cologne on-line, but you won't get a ``test it and return it'' trial period.

Back in the early 2000s dating a Nordstrom Cosmetics department manager showed me the cost of third parties to Nordstrom.

A single line in a cabinet cost $500k, per quarter. Then of course you provided your own employees to sell your product in-house.

Nordstrom provided the Point of Presence around the country.

If it didn't these brands would have been bankrupt long ago.

Exclusive brands don't sell to WalMart like they do Nordstrom, Saks, etc.

We could go on and on about the scourge of WalMart, and that their routinely claim to have product locally only to show up and find you must order it online which is really just a go-between to the Manufacturer. Electronics are notoriously bad at WalMart doing this practice.

This case doesn't benefit the consumer or the developer. But it sure seems to benefit lawyers.

 

[PlayUltimate]

If this goes through, I wonder how many exclusive distribution deals get scrutinized. There are many foreign products that are wholesaled through these arrangements. How is that any different to the iOS situation? If this gets approved, there will be many business organizations that may have issues. (network marketing? Kirkland products at Costco?)
The more I think about this, the more of a fuster cluck this appears to be.

 

[neutralguy]

Alternate headline:

People with Little or No Understanding of Technology Demonstrate Little or No Understanding of Technology

I wish this quote was mentioned when MS was dragged into court for monopoly.

 

[carpleror]

Only if you also understand that by doing so you don't get to come back and whine that your processor is overtaxed, your phone overheats, runs slow, etc. because of the crap apps you put on it.

I can hear it now: "Oh Apple, you should replace my phone free of charge since it runs slower due to the crappliy coded and compiled freemium porn app I purchased and installed outside of the App Store (which also stole my identity and spied on me)."

I read this in a whiny voice and it made the experience that much better

 

[Rob_2811]

Conversely, I can install MacOS apps directly from developers on my Macs without significant security risks. So it's not like there isn't already a precedent to allowing developers to deliver directly to customers.

For now

 

[WankerWeasel]

The App Store provides a lot to developers. They'd really be hurting without it. Few would ever get their apps discovered. That 30% Apple takes gives them a LOT in return and is well worth it.

 

[0924487]

That 30% commission is pretty hefty but allowing apps to be sold outside the appstore and installed on iPhones without being jailbroken would pretty much ruin the edge Apple has on security and privacy it would seem.

What can be done is allow apps to be sold outside of App Store but fulfilled/delivered/signed by App Store just like “Fulfiled by Amazon” by 3ed party sellers would be ideal. Apple can charge 3ed party stores storage fees, bandwidth fees, API call fees, profile signature fees, updating fees, app review fees, annual licensing fees, etc. I think by all this is included, that would turn out to be about 30%, so people can stop whining.

 

[jlseattle]

So I'll make this argument.... The mac never had an app store until Apple seen the success of the iOS app store. AND the mac was fine. The mac app store isn't that great and I don't think it's been the success Apple was hoping for. I have purchased from the app store and directly from developers I trust. I've personally never liked being locked to just the Apple app store. Maybe they will now get rid of this stupid business model. Just put in warnings about unknown apps when we try to install. Basically install at your own risk...

*sorry rant on free apps* AND then the stupid users will get their free apps that will scrap every bit of information from their activities on the phone out of it.. AND I say hap at it. Why? Because those stupid users don't care..

 

[sunseeker]

Conversely, I can install MacOS apps directly from developers on my Macs without significant security risks. So it's not like there isn't already a precedent to allowing developers to deliver directly to customers.

Actually there are significant security risks. I see people downloading and installing fake apps very often.

Something which can’t happen on iOS.

 

[jlseattle]

Actually there are significant security risks. I see people downloading and installing fake apps very often.

Something which can’t happen on iOS.

People that are stupid enough to do that (wanting that free app) get what they deserve in my book. You can't protect people from idiocy.

I just ranted about free apps in my above post. haha
[doublepost=1543271429][/doublepost]

The App Store provides a lot to developers. They'd really be hurting without it. Few would ever get their apps discovered. That 30% Apple takes gives them a LOT in return and is well worth it.

I actually disagree. I use a ton of apps on my mac that I found via google (trying to solve some problem) and purchased the app. Didn't need the Mac app store.We'll survive. I actually think it gives developers more incentive to create apps for the iPhone if there isn't a cut by Apple. I'll argue that having your app in the app store gives is more "creditability" but that's about it.

 

[nt5672]

That 30% commission is pretty hefty but allowing apps to be sold outside the appstore and installed on iPhones without being jailbroken would pretty much ruin the edge Apple has on security and privacy it would seem.

Nope, it would mean that Apple would have to really perform on the security and privacy front. It would also mean that Apple would have to be fair in App evaluations instead of the self serving absolute dictatorial position they currently take.

In my opinion, Apple has a choice, they allow all Apps unless there is a demonstrated danger to the device or user. That includes allowing Apps that do the same thing as Apple Apps and includes allowing all apps that do not violate the law in the country of release. Or they have to open the iPhone to third party apps that can be loaded outside of the Apple App Store.

With the size of Apple App Store, I do not think a monopoly is fair to anyone. It hurts competition and fuels Apple's arrogance, which needs to be taken down a notch or two.

For me, I would still use the App Store even with the 30%, but Apple App Store guidelines and arrogance in enforcing them is the real problem.

 

[samh004]

I can see where they are coming from. I’m not so much of a fanboy that I am blind to that. Yet at the same time I know the result of a ruling saying Apple must allow apps to be sold through other stores will just lead to increased piracy and the big losers will actually be developers.

 

[topmounter]

If 30% is too much, what is the 'right' markup? 30% is certainly less than traditional retail 'keystone'. The Play Store takes the same, but of course you can side-load apps on Android (e.g. Fortnite on Android). And neither dictates pricing.

I'm all for being able to side-load apps on IOS without having to jail-break (which doesn't seem to be nearly as popular nowadays), but what IOS doesn't need is a free-for-all turning IOS into a repeat of the mess that was Windows 9x.

Hopefully El Supremo Courto can come to a rational decision one way or the other.

 

[Mrblazed]

Trying to be educational but it's going to sound like I'm being an ass. Everything here is false information. You can 100% install apps without the Appstore. I mostly encounter it with trading app's that have not been approved by Apple. Binance has an iOS beta app that is installed directly from Safari. You're required to download and trust a certificate, but after that it runs as a normal app would. I'm probably missing information on what dev's need to do in order to provide those certificates, but the statements that iOS is a walled garden, fake apps can't be install on non-jailbroken iOS devices, and developers are limited to the App Store is all completely false in my experience.

 

[macfacts]

That 30% commission is pretty hefty but allowing apps to be sold outside the appstore and installed on iPhones without being jailbroken would pretty much ruin the edge Apple has on security and privacy it would seem.

Allowing alternative app stores does not mean apps can skip the approval process nor does it imply devs don't have to get a dev license.

Stop with your false info.

PS4 games are sold in multiple stores but still need Sony's approval before being sold.

 

[I7guy]

cue the thread full of people who think less freedom is a good thing

Cue the thread full of people who think less control is good thing.

 

[Tech198]

I like Monopoly.. If there's one thing better, its winning at it

 

[randian]

The bottom line is that the iPhone users, led by Chicago resident Robert Pepper, 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.

Economic nonsense. Firms do not reduce prices just because their costs go down, nor are they able to raise prices at will should their prices rise.
[doublepost=1543282971][/doublepost]Apple has more points of control than the App Store. Third party apps cannot use the API that controls number blocking, for example. If you want to mass block spammers the only solution for third party apps is to redirect those calls to your voicemail, and even then the limit of numbers you can redirect is too low for truly comprehensive blocking.

 

[macfacts]

So if I understand this correctly ... the argument is that Apple is a monopoly on the App Store because developers can't sell the app directly to the consumer without Apple's 30% cut? Is that right?

If yes ... how is this different than Walmart marking up prices before selling it to the customer? Walmart marks up everything before selling it, Apple doesn't mark up the price (though it can be implied as part of the cost). If you don't like Walmart's prices, shop at Target. If you don't like Apple's prices, shop on Android or Windows Phone (what's left of it). Am I missing something?

Walmart has a markup on products like a PS4 game, but they are not the only store able to sell that particular PS4 game. Walmart does not have a monopoly on PS4 games. A PS4 dev can have their game sold in any store. Sony doesn't force them to sell in the Sony store.

 

[I7guy]

If 30% is too much, what is the 'right' markup? 30% is certainly less than traditional retail 'keystone'. The Play Store takes the same, but of course you can side-load apps on Android (e.g. Fortnite on Android). And neither dictates pricing.

I'm all for being able to side-load apps on IOS without having to jail-break (which doesn't seem to be nearly as popular nowadays), but what IOS doesn't need is a free-for-all turning IOS into a repeat of the mess that was Windows 9x.

Hopefully El Supremo Courto can come to a rational decision one way or the other.

Don't know what will happen, however, this has been going on since 2011. It's going to be another few years if the suits can proceed, and then the appeals process. Could take 10 or more years. Anybody who is looking for an instant win, will be disappointed.

 

[840quadra]

Allowing alternative app stores does not mean apps can skip the approval process nor does it imply devs don't have to get a dev license.

Stop with your false info.

PS4 games are sold in multiple stores but still need Sony's approval before being sold.

Same with MFI devices (they are sold at multiple vendors), yet apple still charges a fee for that certification. The same could be applied to 3rd party stores, even a 30% fee.

 

[Mcmeowmers]

That 30% commission is pretty hefty but allowing apps to be sold outside the appstore and installed on iPhones without being jailbroken would pretty much ruin the edge Apple has on security and privacy it would seem.

How so? Cause Apple can’t pull the app then? How would this lower security?

Security is not at the heart of the lawsuit.
[doublepost=1543285329][/doublepost]

I read this in a whiny voice and it made the experience that much better

Seriously lol. Many apps on the store run very poorly as it is. Allowing them outside isn’t going to change this.

 

[erniefairchild1]

cue the thread full of people who think less freedom is a good thing

People are free to buy a device other than an iPhone. Apple is very clear about what they offer to the customer.

This is not a good free market argument: “TOO MANY PEOPLE LIKE IPHONES AND THEREFORE CHOOSE APPLES APP STORE SCHEME. THEREFORE WE MUST DESTROY THE APPLE OPTION SO THE PEOPLE CAN BE FREE AND PAY A FEW DOLLARS LESS EVEN THOUGH THEY COULD JUST GO WITH A DIFFERENT COMPANY IF THEY WANT”

That’s not the free market. The free market is people be able to choose Apple, allegedly higher app prices and all, because they think it’s WORTH IT.
[doublepost=1543286640][/doublepost]

How is this meme logic so persistent? It should be patently obvious the desire is to have options and choice within iOS.
... and this is coming from an Android phone user.

Does PlayStation have to allow Xbox games to run on it, because to do so would allow more choice within the PlayStation ecosystem?

Is one store allowed to sell the same product for a higher price than another store?

Apple is not denying people choice. People are making their choice. Economic psychopaths don’t like that Apple provides this choice and makes lots of money. That’s the bottom line.
[doublepost=1543287911][/doublepost]

People are free to buy a device other than an iPhone. Apple is very clear about what they offer to the customer.

This is not a good free market argument: “TOO MANY PEOPLE LIKE IPHONES AND THEREFORE CHOOSE APPLES APP STORE SCHEME. THEREFORE WE MUST DESTROY THE APPLE OPTION SO THE PEOPLE CAN BE FREE AND PAY A FEW DOLLARS LESS EVEN THOUGH THEY COULD JUST GO WITH A DIFFERENT COMPANY IF THEY WANT”

That’s not the free market. The free market is people be able to choose Apple, allegedly higher app prices and all, because they think it’s WORTH IT.
[doublepost=1543286640][/doublepost]

Does PlayStation have to allow Xbox games to run on it, because to do so would allow more choice within the PlayStation ecosystem?

Is one store allowed to sell the same product for a higher price than another store?

Apple is not denying people choice. People are making their choice. Economic psychopaths don’t like that Apple provides this choice and makes lots of money. That’s the bottom line.

The problem is, people are thinking of Apple as an entire industry as opposed to one outlet or retailer within an industry, per se.

Think of Apple as Macy’s. Or maybe as an alternate universe consignment version of Macy’s. They sell products that are available elsewhere. However, in order to sell in Apples venue, they expect a 30% cut of the sales from each vendor (app developer). People don’t have to shop at Apple/Macy’s. But if they prefer the service, experience and security of transactions at Apple/Macy’s, they will pay/play by their rules.

Maybe you could even think of it in terms of a store credit card. The purchases made on that store card are limited to the items for sale, by the terms of the seller, at that store. Will the Supreme Court rule that distinct store cards, not usable at other retailers, are an example of monopoly power over the consumer, even if that store doesn’t control an oppressive majority of their industry?

Anti-social people are stretching the concept of monopoly to suit political ends. It’s transparent.

 

[dk001]

I’d rather have Apple curate the “wild west” of app writers. View Google/android for the ——-show of malware and infected applications.

I like my privacy/safety....a lot. This is not less freedom, this is security.

If this was just security, my Mac would be riddled.
Hint: it isn't.

 

[CanadianGuy]

I think Apple should be forced to allow apps from outside the store. I doubt i'd partake personally, but I definitely see the case and there's precedent.

Name a single one.

That would violate anti-trust law massively. Apple doesn't do that lol.

There are lots. I've developed apps that Apple will just not approve. I've given up on most of those.

Some publicly known examples:
• Steam Link
• AppShopper
• The South Park App
• Samsung Pay
• Any browser using it's own rendering engine
• Any app the reviewer just doesn't like, finds offensive etc
• Any app that provides a custom watch face for the Apple Watch
• Anything to do with porn
• CryptoCurrency Apps (they do allow some now, but it's highly restricted)
• Any app with real or simulated gambling (restricted to corporate developer accounts only)

Lesser known but still relevant rejections:
• Obama Trampoline
• MyShoe
• I Am Poor
• Pull My Finger

If I had more time, I could keep adding to this list.
[doublepost=1543291031][/doublepost]

You can download multiple different web browsers to compete with safari. You can download Google Maps and Waze to compete with Apple Maps. You can download the Gmail app, or protonmail, or any of another dozen email apps to compete with Mail. You can download Google Calendar, or any number of calendar apps to compete with Apples stock calendar. There seems to be more than ample evidence that Apple is NOT turning down apps because it competes with their stock apps.

Just because you can list some apps they have allowed, doesn't mean they're not rejecting others they just don't like. First off, they don't allow any browser that uses its own rendering engine, you must use the system renderer. Second, big companies like Google get some special treatment and can often get an app approved that a smaller company or individual couldn't.

When the App Store launched, it was even written into the guidelines that you could not make an app that duplicated functionality provided by the built in apps (ie, that compete with Apple). That was changed at some point (I don't recall when), but in some cases they still reject apps that compete with them. Alternate app stores (search interfaces) such as AppShopper for example.