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

[Mousse]

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?

I'd say Apple is partially culpable, since the did approve those apps for their appstore. The main fault lies with the developers. Apple should take swift action to pull those apps and warn any future attempts at gathering customer data without consent would result in permanent ban from the Appstore. One of the iPhone's major selling point is security and privacy it affords. A few severe examples should get the rabbles in line.

Anyhow, y'all should be glad at least someone is watching your back. In the Android wild west, it's every man for himself. Because I can't trust anyone to protect my data, my phone is rooted, custom ROM and firewalled*. I not gonna kid myself and think my data is secured. That's why my phone only contains enough stuff to do its job, ie make phone calls and play games.

*IMO, a firewall is an absolute must for a cell phone. I can't believe Apple won't implement that feature in iOS. I understand why Google doesn't because...duh. Being able control data access not only saves on my data plan, it keeps misbehaving apps in check.

 

[gnipgnop]

Gaming systems: The software can be purchased through multiple outlets. The software purchase isn't restricted to a single app store.

Yeah...you can pay $60 for a new release as a digital download (which includes a markup not unlike Apple's commission) or you can buy a physical copy for $60 (which includes a markup not unlike Apple's commission). Meanwhile, you're not going to see any $60 games on iOS because the platform doesn't support prices that high. $9.99 is considered to be a high price on iOS for a game. When you view it in those terms, it seems silly that the App Store is being targeted for having a commission that raises prices. Markups like that are standard regardless of whether there's only one place to go for the purchase or multiple places. They all use the same system. Guaranteed, if this suit proceeded and Apple lost, all you would see happen is companies like Amazon creating clones of the App Store with the same kinds of markups etc. That's exactly what exists everywhere else. They're not going to end markups that the consumer has to pay. They're just going to expand the number of people that charge those same markups.

 

[dk001]

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

++Security?

Yes and no.
I have an Android (Razer). Very secure. Never had a "hack" issue or app issue. It is encrypted and is secure.
I have an iOS (iPhoe 8+). Very secure. Never had a "hack" issue or app issue. It is encrypted and is secure.

It is a requirement when I buy a device. Doesn't have to be an iDevice.
[doublepost=1543335643][/doublepost]

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

Very doubtful. You are assuming an end state for which you have no factual basis.
If what you assume is true, my Mac would be riddled.

 

[Alan Wynn]

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.

Yes, but one can not make a PS4 game without paying a royalty to Sony for every copy made.

 

[truthertech]

"30% is too much." LOL

Apple spent billions and continues to spend hundreds of millions and many years creating a store and ecosystem with nearing a billion world wide customers that are pre-screened with credit cards, etc., and that developers can access essentially for free and only pay Apple a commission when a sale takes place. 99.9% of developers wouldn't exist without it and couldn't exist without it, but 30% (15% for ongoing ones) is too high? Tell that to Amazon, or Walmart or any other store where 50 to 100% of the money goes to the retailer who provided the store for you to sell your product.

 

[Alan Wynn]

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

I find this argument either disingenuous or uninformed. Your Mac is rarely targeted by malware because it is such a small part of the market. That would not be true for iOS, which while holding a smaller share than Android, is still on a much larger number of devices and would be worth targeting.

 

[dcorban]

“Inflated prices”? Have they browsed the store, ever? Bottomed out pricing has been a complain for years.

Do they really believe developers would suddenly offer apps for 70 cents instead of a dollar?

 

[haydn!]

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).

3% yes, but you chose to ignore the transaction fee. PayPal is 20p plus 3.4% so 23.4% on a 99p app.

Considering you decided people commenting don’t have a expletive clue, then fail to take into account all the facts yourself, I’ll ignore the rest of comment because it’s probably as equally flawed.

 

[chabig]

But i agree that 30% is too much.

You must not buy clothing at retail stores.

 

[T-R-S]

this lawsuit is BS Apple does NOT have a monopoly on smart phones

 

[an-other]

Whilst not an attorney, I do find this to be an interesting Legal case. It is a fair statement technology has outpaced our Legal system, especially patents. A lot of discussion in this thread is "what I'd like to see" or "is it reasonable." The old quote of "it's not a court of justice, it's a court of law" applies.

It's hard for me to see how the "historic" term monopoly applies. There's just too many alternatives to phones/apps that you really can't say Apple wields a control of say mapping software. The question really is: does a manufacturer have the right to exert control over the technology they build? The ramifications, especially to warranty repairs, extrapolate to be far reaching. Well beyond mobile phones.

My objective isn't to offer any specific opinion. Just trying to highlight what I think the court case is about. (I would request any attorneys that think I've made a bullo_ of this be kind.)

 

[T-R-S]

This is a hard one to judge. I can see very good arguments for both sides.

But i agree that 30% is too much.

I buy software and resell it at 800% profit margin to my clients.
30% is kind of low

 

[Rogifan]

I buy software and resell it at 800% profit margin to my clients.
30% is kind of low

Except Apple is NOT arguing that they’re a re-seller.

Ben Thompson has a good piece up. I especially agree with this part:

https://stratechery.com/2018/antitrust-the-app-store-and-apple/

That gets at the crux of the issue: Apple has every right to the outsized profits it makes on the iPhone. Consumers could buy cheaper Android devices but they don’t because they value Apple’s hardware, or iOS, or the integration between the two. I have a hard time believing, though, that anyone buys iOS because that makes it harder to buy ebooks!

To put it another way, Apple profits handsomely from having a monopoly on iOS: if you want the Apple software experience, you have no choice but to buy Apple hardware. That is perfectly legitimate. The company, though, is leveraging that monopoly into an adjacent market — the digital content market — and rent-seeking. Apple does nothing to increase the value of Netflix shows or Spotify music or Amazon books or any number of digital services from any number of app providers; they simply skim off 30% because they can.

When people talk up the services narrative what they’re talking up is Apple skimming 30% of someone else’s creation. If you’re an Apple fan what’s exciting about revenues increasing because more people are making in app purchases?

 

[PlayUltimate]

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]

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]

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.

Agree. I watch Netflix on my IPad all the time. None of my money goes to Apple for that. However for those that discover Netflix via the App Store, Apple should get a cut. And people can end their subscription with Apple and go directly through Netflix.

 

[rhett7660]

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).

12% (plus or minus) is big enough to abuse its position? Maybe if it was over the 50%, I could see this, but not 12%. And there is plenty of alternatives, especially given we are only talking about 12% market share. I agree with what you are saying for the fees. Since Apple doesn't break down, or at least I haven't seen it, the break down of what the 30% goes towards, we don't know, there is a lot of speculation on everyone's part. Do you have the break down?

 

[PlayUltimate]

Except Apple is NOT arguing that they’re a re-seller.

Ben Thompson has a good piece up. I especially agree with this part:

https://stratechery.com/2018/antitrust-the-app-store-and-apple/



When people talk up the services narrative what they’re talking up is Apple skimming 30% of someone else’s creation. If you’re an Apple fan what’s exciting about revenues increasing because more people are making in app purchases?

Apple is skimming because they have provided a marketing and distribution platform for those creations. How is that any different than many other marketing organizations/storefronts?

 

[I7guy]

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).

This might not even move forward. Won’t know until next year. Even if it does move forward it will take 5 to 10 years to sort out.

 

[69Mustang]

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.

I've never been against the idea of an alternative app store. I am, and have always been 100% in favor of the idea. Not really sure what lead you to believe I was against the idea. I'm just not a doom and gloomer "the world is such a scary place" type of person. People have been downloading and using 3rd party software for ages. Yeah, it can lead to trouble for some, but in far, far more instances it just leads to people getting their software. Common sense goes a long way.

 

[dk001]

I find this argument either disingenuous or uninformed. Your Mac is rarely targeted by malware because it is such a small part of the market. That would not be true for iOS, which while holding a smaller share than Android, is still on a much larger number of devices and would be worth targeting.

I think you are shading it.
One of the arguments that came and went was that iOS was more secure because of the ability to buy and install outside the store. Then we had the rash of "OMG it's a Mac Virus/Malware..". This never came to fruition. Based on this, I am not seeing how you can realistically say iOS is going to be different.
[doublepost=1543343102][/doublepost]

Apple is skimming because they have provided a marketing and distribution platform for those creations. How is that any different than many other marketing organizations/storefronts?

They are forcibly providing by not allowing anyone else to do this.
Restricting access to a single avenue.

 

[dwaite]

It's possible to sideload, *IF* you jailbreak your iPhone.

Yep, if any of:
- You build the app from source (builds from non-registered devs time out after 7 days)
- The app is specifically ad-hoc provisioned for your device
- The app is distributed through testflight
- The app is signed by an enterprise certificate
- Your phone is jailbroken

What Apple doesn't want is a system where an app which can't meet the store guidelines due to privacy, using private API, abusing background processing, using excessive CPU/battery (such as having a monetization strategy around crypto mining) - then have those app developers walk users through turning on "advanced user" security bypasses to side-load an app.

Since what apps are able to do to the system is based on entitlements (and limited by an audit by apple), a third-party distributed app could do pretty aggressive damage.

 

[69Mustang]

Yeah...you can pay $60 for a new release as a digital download (which includes a markup not unlike Apple's commission) or you can buy a physical copy for $60 (which includes a markup not unlike Apple's commission). Meanwhile, you're not going to see any $60 games on iOS because the platform doesn't support prices that high. $9.99 is considered to be a high price on iOS for a game. When you view it in those terms, it seems silly that the App Store is being targeted for having a commission that raises prices. Markups like that are standard regardless of whether there's only one place to go for the purchase or multiple places. They all use the same system. Guaranteed, if this suit proceeded and Apple lost, all you would see happen is companies like Amazon creating clones of the App Store with the same kinds of markups etc. That's exactly what exists everywhere else. They're not going to end markups that the consumer has to pay. They're just going to expand the number of people that charge those same markups.

Apologies but I have no idea the point you're making. Not sure how it relates to my quote either. I may need a Snickers. I have regerts.

 

[dk001]

Apologies but I have no idea the point you're making. Not sure how it relates to my quote either. I may need a Snickers. I have regerts.

Yep.
Have a box

 

[macfacts]

Yes, but one can not make a PS4 game without paying a royalty to Sony for every copy made.

No one has said that part is illegal and no one is suing Apple for doing that. Apple is allowed to charge devs fees and deny approval for the app/game.

 

[minivini]

I’m really interested to see how this unfolds. I fail to understand how this could qualify as a monopoly.

We buy an iPhone with the knowledge that any software we wish to optionally add must come through Apple’s App Store. The iPhone comes with all necessary software built in to enable all forms of communication any cell phone has. Everything else we add because we wish to enhance its capabilities, and not because they are required for functionality.

My understanding of an effective monopoly would, for historical example, be a steel company owning all available steel and the production facilities, thereby preventing any person or company from obtaining steel from a company that might offer a better price. Since steel is a product necessary for national growth, infrastructure development, commercial operations, national defense, et al, it must not be limited in availability by a single entity. Competitive advantage can be claimed and protected by patents (under specific circumstances). Apple is hardly doing that with the App Store. No one “needs” an iPhone. No one “needs” an Android device. They’re convenient, ubiquitous, sometimes productive, and sometimes fun - but they are not a necessity.

 

[341328]

Based on what? Typical retail markup is 50%. Apple is comparatively providing its service at a discount.

Software in the 1980s was 25% and that included physical space on a self.
[doublepost=1543356169][/doublepost]

Ignorance on display. Go set up your distribution digitally over 52 countries, and manage all the legalities involved. Then pay for the infrastructure for data to distribute the solution(s).

Then the added cost of testing and certification you get from Apple now on your shoulders.

And that's not everything.

Then see how financially solvent you are no longer visible to globe. Sorry, but Apple is under no obligation to broadcast your products.

This is the same crap that a monopoly holder on a trade route would have said back in the 1500s.