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.
U.S. Supreme Court Appears 'Open' to Allowing App Store Monopoly Lawsuit vs. Apple to Proceed
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple has a monopoly on app sales. They are large enough to use their power in an anticompetitive way.
They don't need to run ads for Netflix to be seen supporting the marketing of Netflix, they feature Netflix on Apps pages and marketing material for Apple TV.
[doublepost=1543374653][/doublepost]
That's not, as you know, the point of this particular hearing. It's a hearing about the plaintiffs 'standing' to being charges. I'm not sure why you think, or what evidence you have that Apple in anti-competitive and a monopoly in overseeing a service for their devices. If you extrapolate your logic out we begin to run into some weird cases and the digital differences between an app store and a brick and mortar commodities store becomes interesting. Let's say Walmart doesn't want to carry your product in their 'stores'. Is that illegal? Let's say they carry your product but demand a much lower wholesale price than you originally offered them - (they do this, I've worked with companies in this situation). Now you can sell in other stores, but is it anti-competitive for Walmart to in anyway control acmes to their customers of your products? Anyway, in the digital world it will be interesting if a court ended up saying a device maker can't control what methods are used to install onto that device. Would a ruling like this affect X-box and Playstation? Cable boxes? Smart TV's?
I do believe that the iOS App Store constitutes a monopoly. One that Apple has (to date) been allowed to get away with because their iOS market share pales in comparison to Android.
That said, I do believe that the current setup allows for the greatest amount of good to the greatest number of users. One just needs to look at the myriad of issues plaguing the Google Play Store as a corollary.
1) Because users can't side load apps, they have to purchase their apps the old-fashioned way. This significantly cuts down on the incidence of software piracy. Why do you think many apps continue to be released for iOS first or exclusively? Or why iOS continues to be so much more profitable than Android?
2) Having a central distribution model is more convenient to me as the user. Just look at Epic, who forced users to compromise the security of their devices just to install Fortnite. How is this supposed to be beneficial to the consumer?
3) By inserting itself in the middle, Apple handles the credit card payments, meaning the developers never get my details.
Apple isn't perfect and sometimes makes the wrong judgement call when it comes to vetting apps, but I find that overall, the good still outweighs the bad.
That said, I do believe that the current setup allows for the greatest amount of good to the greatest number of users. One just needs to look at the myriad of issues plaguing the Google Play Store as a corollary.
1) Because users can't side load apps, they have to purchase their apps the old-fashioned way. This significantly cuts down on the incidence of software piracy. Why do you think many apps continue to be released for iOS first or exclusively? Or why iOS continues to be so much more profitable than Android?
2) Having a central distribution model is more convenient to me as the user. Just look at Epic, who forced users to compromise the security of their devices just to install Fortnite. How is this supposed to be beneficial to the consumer?
3) By inserting itself in the middle, Apple handles the credit card payments, meaning the developers never get my details.
Apple isn't perfect and sometimes makes the wrong judgement call when it comes to vetting apps, but I find that overall, the good still outweighs the bad.
SCOTUS may find differently than your opinion. And even if this proceeds to trial there is no guarantee plaintiffs case will prevail. It will either be over next June or in 10 years.
I think I'd agree
If you were able to purchase apps from a developers website, nothing would probably change for those who continue to buy in Apples App Store.
Because you can't side load apps, one is limited to what Apple allows. Some of us would like more from our apps given the choice.
One could come up with lots of reasons as to why it is beneficial to the consumer.
What you have shown is that if you stick with Apple, it gives you greater protections.
One could also show that sometimes things get past Apple too, but the number of times this happens at Apple is low.
Flip side of that is that you will never get important communications or offers from the developer.
If you want to keep that, you just keep purchasing from the Apple App Store.
That is fine for most people. But I would rather have the choice. I would probably mostly still shop at the App Store, but there may be some Apps that I want that are not on the App Store
People will turn it off and then WILL blame Apple anyway when things go bad. Apple is pretty damn set on avoiding the reputational problem of Microsoft, who while do have genuine problems of their own, repeatedly get blamed for things they have 0 responcibility for, like crashes of 3rd party software or some obscure printer drivers.
As a developer if it was opened up to other to sell apps threw I would not support them, I would stick with AppStore.
The 30% could be reduced it would help and open it up to others would undermine security and open the flood gates to malware, if it’s not broken don’t fix it.
Developers are not passing on cost to customers I don’t most of my apps are priced rock bottom as quantity is more than higher price
Also they is all ready a problem with piracy with more and more users including apps from third party sites , and onto devices that are not even jailbroken, what needs to happen is tighter control by Apple.
Users can no longer easily extract the ipa files they download from the AppStore by using iTunes and welcome that change what we actually need is even tighter control by Apple that apps
The 30% could be reduced it would help and open it up to others would undermine security and open the flood gates to malware, if it’s not broken don’t fix it.
Developers are not passing on cost to customers I don’t most of my apps are priced rock bottom as quantity is more than higher price
Also they is all ready a problem with piracy with more and more users including apps from third party sites , and onto devices that are not even jailbroken, what needs to happen is tighter control by Apple.
Users can no longer easily extract the ipa files they download from the AppStore by using iTunes and welcome that change what we actually need is even tighter control by Apple that apps
Last edited:
I get so tired of comments like this. Retail is completely different. First of all were talking about physical products that are purchased from manufacturers or possibly jobbers (3rd party resellers). Secondly all those manufacturers can sell their products to hundreds of different stores. That creates competition among the retailers.
Thirdly when a store buys merchandise they pay for hundreds or thousands of pieces. That means that they pay for all those products when they buy them and not as they are sold. That also means that the manufacturers are paid before a single piece gets sold. The manufacturers don’t give a hoot how much those products are sold for. It doesn’t matter to them because they have already been paid.
So please for the love of God stop trying to compare the App Store to retail of any kind.
IMO the analogy still can apply. Apple is a distributor for a third party. There are numbers of a exclusive distribution models that exist in this country where the manufacturer is not allowed to sell that product to anyone else. For example alcohol from foreign countries. Costco also has exclusive distribution deals; try buying a Kirkland brand somewhere else. Many SKUs at home improvement stores may be exclusive to them.
Further, due to lag on payment and the ability to return unsold products, manufacturers may not get paid before they are sold.
Finally, manufacturers may care very much how much each piece is sold. Apple et al. put restrictions on the retail price of their products.
Well said.
But.
I do everything else the standard way and have little to no issues.
Apple is protecting me from something I don't need protection from and charging me for the service. A forced service.
I never thought you had been against the idea. I meant that initially I was against the idea but after considering your comments I am no longer opposed to the idea. I'm not a doom and gloomer either, I am just abundantly cautious about where I download apps / programs. I am happy to keep buying apps from the Apple app store where there is at least some level of vetting to protect against malware. However, I have downloaded programs for my MBP from well known, trusted sources. I just meant that if Apple were to open the ecosystem to a 3rd party app store, each user would have to make their own decisions and take their own risks.
I respectfully say most conversations on this thread are missing the point. The question is how far can "terms of service" of a Product be extended. Apple requires the app store (which they have some financial interest.)
Apple does not have a monopoly on the mobile phone business. (Just go to any electronics' store and see the options for sale.) There are no monopolies with applications . You as a consumer have numerous alternatives. If you use an iPhone, you're subject to the terms of service. How far can that terms of service reach?
I get it. We all own Products and are frustrated with some of the manufacturer's restrictions. That may or may not make things ethically challenged to our view. It's a big leap to say it's illegal.
The implications of this are incredibly far reaching beyond the iPhone. For example, does this open the door for me to demand a different privacy setting on a Product than a company offers if I can show the selling company profits from this? This could also obsolete the need for "right to repair laws." I can't begin to imagine the overall implications outside of computers/technology.
Apple does not have a monopoly on the mobile phone business. (Just go to any electronics' store and see the options for sale.) There are no monopolies with applications . You as a consumer have numerous alternatives. If you use an iPhone, you're subject to the terms of service. How far can that terms of service reach?
I get it. We all own Products and are frustrated with some of the manufacturer's restrictions. That may or may not make things ethically challenged to our view. It's a big leap to say it's illegal.
The implications of this are incredibly far reaching beyond the iPhone. For example, does this open the door for me to demand a different privacy setting on a Product than a company offers if I can show the selling company profits from this? This could also obsolete the need for "right to repair laws." I can't begin to imagine the overall implications outside of computers/technology.
1. The lawsuit isnt about being able to sideload, it is about alternative app stores. No one is suing to be able to run unsigned code.
2. Having more than one store does not prevent you from continuing to use Apple's app store exclusively.
3. Having an alternative app stores does not mean devs will get your cc info.
True there are companies that want the retailer to sell at a preferred price but these are huge companies that are sought after and can try to get away with that but it’s quite rare in retail and even then the retailers still have some leeway. As far as having the ability to return unsold products, no that does not happen. The unsold products go on sale or are sold in lots to 3rd party resellers who then in turn sell it to retailers that cannot for one reason or another get the products direct from the manufacturers.
Regardless of payment terms the manufacturers consider shipped products as sold. Once the price is agreed on it doesn’t matter whether the terms are 30, 60, or 90 days. The manufacturers know they’re getting paid $xxx while developers don’t get a thing until their app sells enough to reach a threshold. It’s a completely different model of business.
Who is going to run this alternative App Store? Definitely not Apple. That’s the whole point.
The many benefits we have enjoyed from the App Store thus far is precisely because Apple enjoys a lot of leverage stemming from there only being one App Store which they control.
Take away this leverage (by offering more options) and you (very likely) lose the accompanying benefits as well.
To me, it’s one giant package deal (as are many of Apple’s products). The good and the bad are often inexorably intertwined and there really isn’t any way to realistically separate the two.
What I would like to see come out of this is the ability to watch our iTunes movie purchases on devices from other companies, including Android devices, and those from Amazon, Google, and others.
Apple has held us hostage because we can't use our media (other than iTunes+ songs) on other devices. I'm okay if I have to re-buy apps for another platform (same as buying an app for Win 10 and Mac OS X).
But the actual media content (iTunes) that we buy from Apple should be allowed to play on other devices - maybe with an authentication app that runs on Win 10 and Android.
Apple has held us hostage because we can't use our media (other than iTunes+ songs) on other devices. I'm okay if I have to re-buy apps for another platform (same as buying an app for Win 10 and Mac OS X).
But the actual media content (iTunes) that we buy from Apple should be allowed to play on other devices - maybe with an authentication app that runs on Win 10 and Android.
OMG I forgot all about that one! That would help with part of the problem. Unfortunately it still means having to stream and use our limited bandwidth (22GB mobile before throttling, and 1TB Comcast before extra fees).
We have 3 macs, 4 phones, 2 iPads, and 2 ATV in the house and are at 940 GB for Xfinity WiFi in November, with 2 days remaining to try to stay under 1TB or get charged $10/50GB after that.
PS: Just checked and I have 562 movies on Movies Anywhere (used to be just Disney).
Last edited:
So the argument is: apple should be able to force ios devs to sell their apps in Apple's app store because I don't think anyone wants to run an app store. .. ?
I can think of many companies that might want to run a iOS app store, Google, MS, steam, CNET, yahoo.
And look at what a fine job google is doing there...
No, my argument is that Apple has the right to run their App Store as they seem fit because it’s their platform. We can probably argue until the cows come home on the pros and cons of this, but I am not sure exactly what leg the customer has to stand on.
I do feel an exception can and should be made for digital goods such as ebooks though (amazon kindle comes to mind), but again, it comes down to what Apple “should” do vs what they “must” do.
Google is doing fine.
You're right. They can run the App Store how they want, but in the U.S. antitrust laws come into play here.
Three questions though for conversation that requires you to think more from legal perspective and less of who has rights or what not.
1) A possible problem with this is that developers do not see much data getting passed to them per transaction. So really how much of a relationship is it with the developer compared to the customer? Apple obviously gets way more of the customer data than the developer gets. Is it a relationship with the developer or the customer?
2) Some apps have stores and don't suffer the Apple tax. An example is the Amazon app. But why is it only digital goods are charged the mandatory 30% and not physical goods?
3) Why does Apple insist on disallowing other digital app stores to exist in their App Store? Although I understand Apple has the right to do this and this would enable other companies to side skirt around the 30% potentially, isn't this inherently by definition anti-competitive?