U.S. Supreme Court to Review Whether Lawsuit Accusing Apple of App Store Monopoly Should Proceed

[MacRumors]

In 2011, a class action lawsuit filed against Apple accused the company of operating an illegal monopoly by not allowing iPhone users to download mobile apps outside of its own App Store, reducing consumer choice.

The antitrust case was eventually dismissed in 2013 by a U.S. district court in Northern California, due to errors in the complaint, leading to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit allowing it to proceed in 2017.

That decision led to Apple's petition for a writ of certiorari, which was granted today, meaning that the U.S. Supreme Court will now review the appeals court's decision to reinstate the case last year, according to Reuters.

Last month, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an amicus brief in support of Apple, urging the Supreme Court to reverse the Ninth Circuit's decision, arguing that it misapplied precedent from Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois.

From the start, Apple has argued that it doesn't set prices for paid apps, and that charging a 30 percent commission on the distribution of paid apps and in-app purchases does not violate antitrust laws in the United States.

Apple will now hope the Supreme Court agrees that the case should be dismissed again. No date has been disclosed for the hearing.

Article Link: U.S. Supreme Court to Review Whether Lawsuit Accusing Apple of App Store Monopoly Should Proceed

 

[Baymowe335]

This is not going to go anywhere because it's not a Monopoly.

 

[Blackstick]

This is no different than the fact you're limited to shopping at the onboard stores when you take a cruise.

 

[cube]

This is not going to go anywhere because it's not a Monopoly.

It is a vertical monopoly.

 

[Gorms]

Considering the protections the App Store provides, this is an instance where more choice probably won't be better for consumers.

 

[cube]

This is no different than the fact you're limited to shopping at the onboard stores when you take a cruise.

There's very limited space in a cruise ship.

 

[nburwell]

If someone doesn't like being tied down to the App Store, then simply don't buy an iPhone. It's common sense.

 

[rlhamil]

30% isn't that much as retail markups go. And anyone can distribute source code and instructions for how to build an app out of it and install it, although that would require having a Mac. If they can't bypass Apple's commission on a proprietary app, neither can they bypass Apple's curating, which, given the examples of problems Android has had with apps, is probably a good thing, even if Apple's curating isn't entirely free of self-interest beyond protecting the value of the platform.

 

[neutralguy]

If someone doesn't like being tied down to the App Store then simply don't buy an iPhone. It's common sense.

Somehow that argument didn't work in favor of Microsoft..if you didn't like internet explorer, you didn't have to buy a Windows desktop.

 

[Joe The Dragon]

Apple has argued that it doesn't set prices for paid apps
But they control what prices you can change
make dev's pay fees to be in the store even for free apps
controls what goes into the store with content censorship.

All app needs to do is enable side loading or add Cydia.

 

[jecowa]

Do you think Apple is more likely to allow third-party app stores than to not allow any?

I'd kind of like the court to rule against Apple and allow third-party appstore to be allowed to stop Apple from bringing this Appstore monopoly from coming to the Mac. I want to be able to run apps from the Internet.

 

[Baymowe335]

It is a vertical monopoly.

Prove it. You didn't have to buy an Apple product.

This kind of nonsense is a waste of time because people have choices. Once you're an Apple customer, they can do whatever they want and if you don't like it, leave. No Monopoly. It's Apple's prerogative if they want to be as vertically integrated as possible.

 

[cube]

Somehow that argument didn't work in favor of Microsoft..if you didn't like internet explorer, you didn't have to buy a Windows desktop.

Even if you had the option of installing something else.
[doublepost=1529333571][/doublepost]

Prove it. You didn't have to buy an Apple product.

This kind of nonsense is a waste of time because people have choices. Once you're an Apple customer, they can do whatever they want and if you don't like it, leave. No Monopoly. It's Apple's prerogative if they want to be as vertically integrated as possible.

Easy: you cannot install iOS apps from anywhere else.

The question is whether it is legal.

 

[BootsWalking]

This is not going to go anywhere because it's not a Monopoly.

Being a monopoly is not the legal test for monopolistic behavior.

 

[Baymowe335]

Even if you had the option of installing something else.
[doublepost=1529333571][/doublepost]
Easy: you cannot install iOS apps from anywhere else.

The question is whether it is legal.

But you don't have to buy an Apple product. This isn't like Telecom or Energy where you literally have no options and have to pay 1 company while needing the product.

 

[cube]

But you don't have to buy an Apple product. This isn't like Telecom or Energy where you literally have no options and have to pay 1 company while needing the product.

I said vertical.

 

[JRobinsonJr]

It is a vertical monopoly.

Not exactly. The notion of a monopoly is about consumer choice across a market... not within a single provider. Buy an Apple branded device and use the Apple App Store. By an Android device and use one of several app stores. By an Amazon-branded Android device and use the Amazon App Store. Nothing is forcing the consumer to choose one device over another. Part of electing to use an Apple device is *electing* to use the App Store.

This is no different than an auto maker 'forcing' customers to use connectivity and apps for their own brand of infotainment systems.

 

[Baymowe335]

Being a monopoly is not the legal test for monopolistic behavior.

I'll leave that to the lawyers. I suppose you don't have to be a company of 1 to be deemed a monopoly, but it's insane to me you can accuse a company whose customers choose to be there that they are engaging in anything monopolistic. Vertical Integration is a key business strategy.

Is Gillette engaging in monopolistic behavior because only their replacement blade fit the razors?
[doublepost=1529334107][/doublepost]

I said vertical.

Right, but my argument is that vertical integration is perfectly competitive because you have the option of leaving, just like in my razor example.

This is a slippery slope. Disney is also vertically integrated with the cycle of their IP.

 

[cube]

Not exactly. The notion of a monopoly is about consumer choice across a market... not within a single provider. Buy an Apple branded device and use the Apple App Store. By an Android device and use one of several app stores. By an Amazon-branded Android device and use the Amazon App Store. Nothing is forcing the consumer to choose one device over another. Part of electing to use an Apple device is *electing* to use the App Store.

This is no different than an auto maker 'forcing' customers to use connectivity and apps for their own brand of infotainment systems.

The market is iOS devices.

You can replace the stereo in the car.

 

[Baymowe335]

Not exactly. The notion of a monopoly is about consumer choice across a market... not within a single provider. Buy an Apple branded device and use the Apple App Store. By an Android device and use one of several app stores. By an Amazon-branded Android device and use the Amazon App Store. Nothing is forcing the consumer to choose one device over another. Part of electing to use an Apple device is *electing* to use the App Store.

This is no different than an auto maker 'forcing' customers to use connectivity and apps for their own brand of infotainment systems.

Exactly. This is why I said it's a slippery slope.

If you see a Disney movie and want to ride the attraction, you can only go to Disney World to do so.

 

[zweigand]

What happens if you allow sideloading? You'll get an Amazon iPhone app store that will only charge 5% (instead of 30%) to host your app and get you into the "Largest and most respectable third-party app store". Fewer people will bother uploading to Apple's app store to avoid the costs/queue. The real app store will wither, while the crapp store will flourish. iOS will quickly be swarmed with sketchy/malicious apps and we'll be asking ourselves how we let this happen ...all because people suck and can't be trusted to build apps that don't exploit users.

 

[lunarworks]

This can't be compared to the Microsoft case because Microsoft controlled 95% of the desktop market. There's very healthy competition between iOS and Android.

 

[gotluck]

if we could sideload without the 7 day resign with no paid developer account, that would be a dream

it used to be far longer 30 - 60 days maybe?

I think a longer limit would keep app store replacements from flourishing while still allowing some freedom

now break down some of the restrictions with downgrading ios and we are in full pipedream mode

 

[cube]

What happens if you allow sideloading? You'll get an Amazon iPhone app store that will only charge 5% (instead of 30%) to host your app and get you into the "Largest and most respectable third-party app store". Fewer people will bother uploading to Apple's app store to avoid the costs/queue. The real app store will wither, while the crapp store will flourish. iOS will quickly be swarmed with sketchy/malicious apps and we'll be asking ourselves how we let this happen ...all because people suck and can't be trusted to build apps that don't exploit users.

Or maybe Apple will reduce their fee to 5%.

 

[BootsWalking]

Is Gillette engaging in monopolistic behavior because only their replacement blade fit the razors?

Gillette doesn't prevent companies from selling their own blades to customers. Apple does.