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

[Defthand]

...would pretty much ruin the edge Apple has on security and privacy it would seem.

You’re naive to believe that Apple is concerned about your security and privacy. They’re simply doubling down on locks to their walled garden so they can charge admission and tolls to those you want to engage beyond the wall.

I have been quite secure on MacOS for over three decades. I use a firewall and virus/malware detection as a first defense. I’ve used a utility to monitor the Internet/server transactions of apps but never observed anything suspicious. I don’t install “free” apps. I purchase reputable software directly from established brands, much of it outside of Apple’s App Store.

Remember, a wall works both ways. It keeps others out, but it also keeps you in.

 

[charlituna]

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.

See but you can jailbreak your phone and install whatever you want. Apple isn’t stopping you. Sure they won’t service your hardware if the phone is jail broken but all you have to do is back it up, restore it back to the pure software, show them there’s a legit hardware issue and then after they resolve it you redo the jail break etc
[doublepost=1543291967][/doublepost]This suit will never work. Anti trust is about crossing lines to gain an unfair advantage in a market. There is no iPhone or iOS market. They are just part of smart phones etc. which was established when folks tried to sue to force Apple to sell iPhones with Android and even Windows on them.

 

[69Mustang]

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?

For the love of Mike, please let this gaming analogy die the death it deserves. It's not comparable in any way. No one is asking Apple to allow different OS'd apps (such as Android) to run on its hardware. They are asking for iOS apps to be available through 3rd party sources. The concept isn't that hard to understand since we have that exact concept with MacOS. Mac apps are available in the MAS and they are available through 3rd party sources. That in a nutshell is what people are asking for from Apple.

 

[StyxMaker]

30% is way to high. It should be 10% maximum.

On what do you base your statement? Have you done a study of the costs to run the servers on which the apps reside? The costs of maintaining international sales tax data? In California, every county can have a different sales tax rate, even some cities have a different rate.

What is your evidence that all that, and all the costs I haven’t mentioned, can be covered for 10%?

 

[SoyCapitanSoyCapitan]

Dumb lawsuit. Apps need to be signed and vetted for malware and spyware. Especially in today's world.

 

[Whathappened]

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

Like freedom from security?

 

[sir1963nz]

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.

30% Hefty, compared to what ? Lots of retail items, the retailer has 300-500% markups.
And Apple supplies the same level of service for FREE apps. Let me know when Walmart offers lots of shelf space for free items.

I'd follow the money, probably all the way back to Google.
Microsoft , Nintendo, and Sony won't be in on this because it could set a dangerous precedent for their games boxes.

 

[dilbert99]

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.

People who buy through the App store will see no difference.

 

[sir1963nz]

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.

Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft all have closed ecosystems for their respective gaming platforms.

But another issue may be music/tv/movies, could those media be forced to also allow the customer buy the product through their retailer of choice. Netflix would love this option, no longer would consumers be forced to buy multiple subscriptions to get the media they want to watch. Disney may be forced to allow Netflix to show their entire catalog, as would HBO, etc etc etc.

 

[dilbert99]

30% Hefty, compared to what ?

It is hefty in terms of things that are sold on the App store and not. Take for instance subscription services such as Netflix and Spotify. There is no reason for Apple to be taking such a large cut. (I think Apple is seeing sense in this area.

Apple is monopoly and I welcome this court case and the choice it would give people.

Having said that I would probably still buy from the App store unless prices off it were massively different.

There are lots of reason for Apples grip to be loosened on the App store monopoly.

As for the 30% on most Apps, I don't think that is too bad for the services that most small developers get. But for larger apps that cost a lot more I think the percentage is too high. One size doesn't fit all.

The 30% charged won't impact the price of most apps, because most apps are sold at such a low price. Less that what a traditional app would cost.

 

[jdmachogg]

Isn't that like, one of the reasons you buy an iPhone?

++Security?

 

[sir1963nz]

As a developer, I hope these guys win. App review is no longer working as a way to keep users safe, so there's not much point to it anymore. Allowing developers to distribute outside of the App Store will revive innovation. Too many apps are rejected just because Apple doesn't like it, (competes with them for example).

I hope that basing their argument on price doesn't kill the thing, since obviously the prices of apps have gone to 0 since the App Store started.

The IOS App store is a damn sight safer than the Google store.
Apple also supplies the exact same service for free Apps.

We can look at the OSX App store and see how successful software developers who sell direct to the customer ALSO sell via the App store, because for customers it is safe, it is ONE place where you know your credit card will be safe, where your information will not be sold off, and you get notified of updates etc.
[doublepost=1543312059][/doublepost]

It is hefty in terms of things that are sold on the App store and not. Take for instance subscription services such as Netflix and Spotify. There is no reason for Apple to be taking such a large cut. (I think Apple is seeing sense in this area.

Apple is monopoly and I welcome this court case and the choice it would give people.

Having said that I would probably still buy from the App store unless prices off it were massively different.

There are lots of reason for Apples grip to be loosened on the App store monopoly.

As for the 30% on most Apps, I don't think that is too bad for the services that most small developers get. But for larger apps that cost a lot more I think the percentage is too high. One size doesn't fit all.

The 30% charged won't impact the price of most apps, because most apps are sold at such a low price. Less that what a traditional app would cost.

And yet Apple gives the same level of service for free Apps.
Would you prefer expensive Apps to pay a smaller cut and the minimum price for an App set to $1, no more free Apps ?
Perhaps Apple could charge a $500 "testing fee" to the developer, to check the App is not malware, and still allow the Apps to be free.
A 100MB free App costs the same storage costs, transmission costs, User accounting costs, etc etc as a 100MB App that costs $100. Apple is NOT a charity, it is a business .
[doublepost=1543312183][/doublepost]

It is hefty in terms of things that are sold on the App store and not. Take for instance subscription services such as Netflix and Spotify. There is no reason for Apple to be taking such a large cut. (I think Apple is seeing sense in this area.

Apple is monopoly and I welcome this court case and the choice it would give people.

Having said that I would probably still buy from the App store unless prices off it were massively different.

There are lots of reason for Apples grip to be loosened on the App store monopoly.

As for the 30% on most Apps, I don't think that is too bad for the services that most small developers get. But for larger apps that cost a lot more I think the percentage is too high. One size doesn't fit all.

The 30% charged won't impact the price of most apps, because most apps are sold at such a low price. Less that what a traditional app would cost.

I have a netflix subscription, watch it all the time on my ATV, but guess what Apple gets 0% of the sub because I did it directly with Netflix, no one is obligated to use the store for subscriptions.

 

[Michael Scrip]

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.

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.

There seems to be lots of talk about Apple's 30% cut causing high prices for consumers.

However... I'm not seeing how prices would be lower outside of the App Store.

We all know Apple takes their percentage for each app they sell. That's supposedly to cover payment processing, server bandwidth, update mechanisms, push notifications, etc.

Well guess what... any other store would do the same! Those services have costs!

I can't imagine a 99¢ app from Apple's app store could suddenly be sold for 69¢ in 3rd party app stores. Those stores would still need to make money to operate... so they'd end up having to charge a markup or take a percentage... thus raising the price for consumers. That's how retail works... there are various costs along the way and everyone in the chain gets their cut.

And I guess we're gonna ignore all the FREE apps Apple offers in their store. Those should be considered loss-leaders since Apple still has to provide all services except for payment processing. The only money Apple gets from free apps is the $100/year developer fee.

Free apps wouldn't suddenly be free-er in some other app store...

Look... I understand there is a discussion that Apple's 30% cut is too high. And that's fine if you believe that.

But I don't see how app prices are too high because of Apple's 30% cut.

Hell... the average price of an iOS app is around $1

Is that what this lawsuit is fighting against?

 

[Jakeycov]

I disagree. Just make it like macOS where you have to explicitly allow unsigned code to run on your computer. And leave it off by default.

Can you imagine the queues at the Genius Bar! (more than normal)

 

[dilbert99]

The IOS App store is a damn sight safer than the Google store.
Apple also supplies the exact same service for free Apps.

And you can keep on using the App store, no change there.

We can look at the OSX App store and see how successful software developers who sell direct to the customer ALSO sell via the App store,

Some big developers have to sell via their own sites because of Apples restrictions.

because for customers it is safe, it is ONE place where you know your credit card will be safe, where your information will not be sold off, and you get notified of updates etc.

And nothing is stopping you from enjoying all this

And yet Apple gives the same level of service for free Apps.

And Apple enjoys the stickiness that free apps brings to the ecosystem.

Would you prefer expensive Apps to pay a smaller cut and the minimum price for an App set to $1, no more free Apps ?

Do you have some facts supplied by Apple that we don't know?

I would prefer to have the choice of where I purchase my Apps, i am not a fan of monopolies.

Perhaps Apple could charge a $500 "testing fee" to the developer, to check the App is not malware, and still allow the Apps to be free.

What for apps that are not hosted on Apples servers? Why would Apple charge for that.

A 100MB free App costs the same storage costs, transmission costs, User accounting costs, etc etc as a 100MB App that costs $100. Apple is NOT a charity, it is a business .

What has that got to do with Apps not hosted by Apple?
[doublepost=1543317162][/doublepost]

There seems to be lots of talk about Apple's 30% cut causing high prices for consumers.

However... I'm not seeing how prices would be lower outside of the App Store.

Some Apps would, some wouldn't depends on the price of the App. But for some developers, I think the 30% cut is probably fair.

We all know Apple takes their percentage for each app they sell. That's supposedly to cover payment processing, server bandwidth, update mechanisms, push notifications, etc.

Apple makes massive profits on services including the App store.

Well guess what... any other store would do the same! Those services have costs!

It would be good to be able to buy an App straight from the developer. You wouldn't have the same restrictions that Apple applies.

I can't imagine a 99¢ app from Apple's app store could suddenly be sold for 69¢ in 3rd party app stores. Those stores would still need to make money to operate... so they'd end up having to charge a markup or take a percentage... thus raising the price for consumers. That's how retail works... everyone in the chain gets their cut and there are various costs along the way.

I'd agree, its not going to make lower priced apps any cheaper.

And I guess we're gonna ignore all the FREE apps Apple offers in their store. Those should be considered loss-leaders since Apple still has to provide all services except for payment processing. The only money Apple gets from free apps is the $100/year developer fee.

Apple gets massive benefits from free Apps - stickiness to ecosystem.

Look... I understand there is a discussion that Apple's 30% cut is too high. And that's fine if you believe that.

It probably is in higher priced apps.

But I don't see how app prices are too high because of Apple's 30% cut.

Hell... the average price of an iOS app is around $1

Is that what this lawsuit is fighting against?

I'd like to see the case fighting more on the fact that Apple is a monopoly in the only provider of apps which means I can't get certain types of apps or features.

 

[Winni]

Exactly. Most small developers could not fund this infrastructure and account management themselves with the cut Apple takes. Considering a huge number of Apps hover in the low £1-5 range, and a card transaction fee alone is probably the best part of 30-50p or 15-30%

The last time I looked, those credit card charges were below 3%. So I have absolutely no idea what makes you believe that it could be up to 30%. If it were that high, either nobody would accept credit cards anymore or product prices would have gone through the roof already.

You really believe the infrastructure costs would be astronomically high for a small development company? Well, here's the thing: A small company won't have hundreds of millions of customers -- if they had, they wouldn't be a small company. So you can rent a VIRTUAL SERVER for something far below a hundred bucks per month and take it from there.

Seriously -- most of the people who try to justify Apple's 30% tax have absolutely no ****ing clue what they are talking about. I spent the last ten years in the (satellite-based) ISP industry and have a relatively good understanding of what the actual costs are - and they are nowhere near the 30% tax that Apple takes.

Most developers just go with it because there is no alternative -- and THIS is what this lawsuit should be and actually is all about. Apple is abusing its position, plain and simple. And the market share of iOS products is big enough to make this a real problem for businesses, the economy AND freedom (of choice).

 

[Michael Scrip]

I'd agree, its not going to make lower priced apps any cheaper.

Exactly. That's why I quoted and underlined those parts of the article.

There are a couple claims made by the lawsuit:

1. Apple's App Store is a monopoly
2. The monopoly is the reason for high prices of apps

The overall message seems to be about app prices. But as you and I have discovered... I don't think prices would actually be lower anywhere else. There are costs to run an app store... accepting payments, providing bandwidth, updates, etc.

I do agree with you about getting apps from elsewhere that might have more freedom and capabilities that Apple doesn't allow.

But this lawsuit seems to be focused on app prices.

 

[69Mustang]

Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft all have closed ecosystems for their respective gaming platforms.

But another issue may be music/tv/movies, could those media be forced to also allow the customer buy the product through their retailer of choice. Netflix would love this option, no longer would consumers be forced to buy multiple subscriptions to get the media they want to watch. Disney may be forced to allow Netflix to show their entire catalog, as would HBO, etc etc etc.

Slow down bud. You're going off the rails. Nothing in this case is remotely related to anything in your comment.
The issue isn't that Apples ecosystem is closed (as in iOS only runs on Apple devices). The issue is apps for those Apple devices can only be purchased through one portal - the App Store.

Gaming systems: The software can be purchased through multiple outlets. The software purchase isn't restricted to a single app store.
Music/TV/Movies: You can already buy that content through multiple outlets. None of those entities are in danger of being considered a monopoly either. You've just taken every day non-monopolistic situations and dramatized them for effect. This case would not affect any of those things.

 

[I7guy]

And you can keep on using the App store, no change there.

Some big developers have to sell via their own sites because of Apples restrictions.

And nothing is stopping you from enjoying all this

And Apple enjoys the stickiness that free apps brings to the ecosystem.

Do you have some facts supplied by Apple that we don't know?

I would prefer to have the choice of where I purchase my Apps, i am not a fan of monopolies.

What for apps that are not hosted on Apples servers? Why would Apple charge for that.


What has that got to do with Apps not hosted by Apple?
[doublepost=1543317162][/doublepost]
Some Apps would, some wouldn't depends on the price of the App. But for some developers, I think the 30% cut is probably fair.

Apple makes massive profits on services including the App store.

It would be good to be able to buy an App straight from the developer. You wouldn't have the same restrictions that Apple applies.

I'd agree, its not going to make lower priced apps any cheaper.

Apple gets massive benefits from free Apps - stickiness to ecosystem.

It probably is in higher priced apps.


I'd like to see the case fighting more on the fact that Apple is a monopoly in the only provider of apps which means I can't get certain types of apps or features.

It's going to be 10 years before this case is decided. So those hoping for a win in 2019 will be disappointed.

 

[chucker23n1]

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.

This requires an enterprise certificate from Apple. It’s more expensive, they only give it out after more extensive validation, and it’s only intended for deployment of in-house apps within a corporation.

The usage you describe is a violation, so you run risk of Apple pulling the certificate any time.

So, it’s technically possible, but also not intended that way.

 

[Supermacguy]

By definition, I dont think an "anti trust" suit can win. Apple does NOT have a monopoly on the market. The market being defined as "apps for smartphones". Consumers do have choices - use Android, use a jitterbug phone, use a Microsoft surface, or maybe as broad as use a "laptop" for applications. Apple doesn't even have a majority of marketshare or installed users (worldwide).
I think when you buy your phone you realize the ecosystem you are getting into, or at least by now people should. And there is NO reason to HAVE to buy or download ANY apps onto the device.

 

[DoctorTech]

No comment on the intelligence of anyone. I do think an alternative app environment would be helpful... if nothing else it would give people a choice like MacOS does.

You moved me from being against the idea to being neutral. Initially I didn't want to see Apple open the system at all but you make a good point about the way MacOS operates. I have a couple programs on my MBP that I downloaded directly from well known, trusted companies.

While I personally wouldn't download iPhone apps from 3rd parties, if someone else decides to do so that is their decision and they are the ones who have to live with the consequences if they install any type of malware on their devices.

 

[mrex]

We can look at the OSX App store and see how successful software developers who sell direct to the customer ALSO sell via the App store, because for customers it is safe, it is ONE place where you know

actually, many developers dont even to bother putting their stuff to mac app store.

 

[mrex]

Should Apple be responsible for damages caused by side loaded apps? I say no. If they want the protection of a wall, they need to stay behind it, not in front of it.

The reason I use an Android phone is because I like my freedom. I am willing to give up the safety net. But are iPhone users willing to take a bloody nose now and again to roam outside their walled garden? If they side load, they should be willing to forgo the extra security and privacy afforded by Apple's closed system.

is apple now responsible when they have this ”protection wall” which didnt protect customers?

https://blog.malwarebytes.com/threat-analysis/2018/09/mac-app-store-apps-are-stealing-user-data/

http://www.applemust.com/how-to-stop-mac-and-ios-apps-stealing-your-data/

https://www.zdnet.com/article/tens-of-ios-apps-caught-collecting-and-selling-location-data/

did the wall prevent apps to steal data?

 

[Jamers99]

In this case I think it is a good thing to have a monopoly from a security perspective.