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

Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Jun 18, 2018.

  1. MacRumors macrumors bot


    Apr 12, 2001

    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
  2. Baymowe335 macrumors 68000

    Oct 6, 2017
    This is not going to go anywhere because it's not a Monopoly.
  3. Blackstick macrumors 6502


    Aug 11, 2014
    Sunny South Florida
    This is no different than the fact you're limited to shopping at the onboard stores when you take a cruise.
  4. cube macrumors G5

    May 10, 2004
    It is a vertical monopoly.
  5. Gorms macrumors 6502


    Aug 30, 2012
    Considering the protections the App Store provides, this is an instance where more choice probably won't be better for consumers.
  6. cube macrumors G5

    May 10, 2004
    There's very limited space in a cruise ship.
  7. nburwell, Jun 18, 2018
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2018

    nburwell macrumors 68040


    May 6, 2008
    If someone doesn't like being tied down to the App Store, then simply don't buy an iPhone. It's common sense.
  8. rlhamil macrumors member


    Feb 6, 2010
    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.
  9. neutralguy macrumors 6502a

    Jun 5, 2015
    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.
  10. Joe The Dragon macrumors 6502a

    Jul 26, 2006
    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.
  11. jecowa macrumors member

    Mar 15, 2006
    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.
  12. Baymowe335 macrumors 68000

    Oct 6, 2017
    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.
  13. cube macrumors G5

    May 10, 2004
    Even if you had the option of installing something else.
    --- Post Merged, Jun 18, 2018 ---
    Easy: you cannot install iOS apps from anywhere else.

    The question is whether it is legal.
  14. BootsWalking macrumors 6502a

    Feb 1, 2014
    Being a monopoly is not the legal test for monopolistic behavior.
  15. Baymowe335 macrumors 68000

    Oct 6, 2017
    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.
  16. cube macrumors G5

    May 10, 2004
    I said vertical.
  17. JRobinsonJr macrumors 6502

    Aug 20, 2015
    Arlington, Texas
    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.
  18. Baymowe335 macrumors 68000

    Oct 6, 2017
    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?
    --- Post Merged, Jun 18, 2018 ---
    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.
  19. cube macrumors G5

    May 10, 2004
    The market is iOS devices.

    You can replace the stereo in the car.
  20. Baymowe335 macrumors 68000

    Oct 6, 2017
    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.
  21. zweigand macrumors 6502a


    Oct 19, 2003
    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.
  22. lunarworks macrumors 65816

    Jun 17, 2003
    Toronto, Canada
    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.
  23. gotluck macrumors 603


    Dec 8, 2011
    East Central Florida
    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
  24. cube macrumors G5

    May 10, 2004
    Or maybe Apple will reduce their fee to 5%.
  25. BootsWalking macrumors 6502a

    Feb 1, 2014
    Gillette doesn't prevent companies from selling their own blades to customers. Apple does.

Share This Page