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

[Michael Goff]

Monopoly on what? There are alternatives!

I'm just telling you what the EU says.

You’re missing the point. McDonald’s sell their own products in their own stores. Apple sells other people’s products in the AppStore. If you’re an app developer you have no option but to sell/distribute your iOS app through Apple and give them 30% of your revenue.

And? I still don't see how this makes the App Store a monopoly. It's really stretching logic to say that you can have a monopoly over a brand of device. According to everyone on here, Android doesn't have a monopoly through the existence of another option. The solution here is simple: Buy the product that 85% of the people in the world are buying.

Now, if you want to argue anti-trust? Have at it, but I still don't think you have a case any more than I have a case that my local Walmart should be forced to let me have a store in their parking lot.

 

[jimothyGator]

Legal terms often have a different definition than their vulgar English counterparts. To me, the legal definition of monopoly comes from Black's Law Dictionary:

There it is again, that key term: exclusive.

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

Steve Jobs once said that the iPhone didn't need apps - you could do everything in the web browser. From there Apple's now taking a multi-billion dollar 30% cut of App Store sales from developers.

Anyhow, I'd really like to see the iPhone opened up to allow for sideloading apps, and I'd like to see both sides argue the merits of the case.

Of course you don't think about the fact that the App Store had the effect of "concentrating" an App's Sales, so, instead of, for the most part, making 100% (minus hosting, credit card processing, license management, web development, piracy, etc.) of a piddling amount of sales from people who stumble on your product, and in the end, just giving-up because it just isn't worth it, those Developers make 70% from the many more eyeballs that see their App in the App Store.

Most independent App Devs. see the iOS App Store model as VERY advantageous to their Products' success, and find the juice is well-worth the squeeze...

 

[PowerGala]

Game stores are open on ps4. Bestbuy has a store that sells ps4 games. Anyone can start a store to sell ps4 games. No one can start a store to sell iOS apps.

They still have to pay Sony to sell physical games and download codes. They cannot make their own Best Buy Game Store App on the PS4 and sell games to avoid paying royalties.

With the way things are going, there is no guarantee that the PS5 or the 4th Xbox will have a disc drive. It's not really a question of if consoles will go digital only, but when they will go digital only.

I personally prefer physical media, but there's no denying where it's all heading. Even with collecting classic games, I'm seeing game stores close because people are getting out.

 

[shareef777]

You’re missing the point. McDonald’s sell their own products in their own stores. Apple sells other people’s products in the AppStore. If you’re an app developer you have no option but to sell/distribute your iOS app through Apple and give them 30% of your revenue.

McDonalds sells Coke. They can tell them to take a hike whenever they want.
[doublepost=1529439847][/doublepost]

Game stores are open on ps4. Bestbuy has a store that sells ps4 games. Anyone can start a store to sell ps4 games. No one can start a store to sell iOS apps.

Can I tell Lego to sell my cheap plastic blocks?

At the end of the day EVERY developer knew the costs of iOS development. 15% for the overhead of the app store and it's maintenance.

Besides, you can side load apps long as developer provides cert and file location. Guess what, they don't want to go through that. They want the ease of the app store, but at no cost. SMH.

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

Absolutely true. That's why I was argueing about the way Apple treats the App-Store. If Apple had only 5% market share it would be almost irrelevant for app-revenue, but still exercising a monopoly like control. However, with a 50% market share (don't know the exact number) you have a certain control over the market (or in other words you can hold app developers hostage). Abusing this control can be anti-competitive in many ways.
With less market share it would sill be anti-competitive, but the effects on the market would be less relevant to a point where Apple wouldn't be as overconfident as it is now.

They are under no obligation to support third party code. Damn right. But if you do, you must give everyone the same chance.
A further issue is the fact, that Apple, if locking out a developer, will eliminate approx. 50% of his revenue. That's not free will... He can't just go elsewhere to reach those users, while his competition still on the App-Store will happily takeover those customers, probably reaching a critical mass which will also affect other plattformsm, probably further harming the dev that Apple kicked out. If Apple had only 5% market share, this would be almost irrelevant, but at approx 50% things are different.

Every Developer has to follow the same rules. Do that, and you can sell your App in the App Store. Don't, and you can either Post the Source on GitHub as a F/OSS App, or sell the .ipa for installation with Cydia Impactor.

There. Non-Problem solved!
[doublepost=1529440145][/doublepost]

RE: "I have ZERO hope & faith in the iOS App Store, & wish AAPL would simply let Devs DE-list their Apps from their Store, & sell them ONLY off their websites (with the Financial Transaction & actual Download part of it being handled by AAPL)."

Forgot to mention, you'll see a Flood of VCs jump in if that happens !

To what end?
Devs are free to list the Source of their Apps on any one of several iOS F/OSS Repositories, or even their own website.

Devs are free to sell their Precompiled .ipa Files Directly on any one of several iOS .ipa Repositories, or even their own website. These can be Installed using Cydia Impactor onto any non-Jailbroken iOS Device.

Next problem?

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

Buy a bottle of liquor on the cruise ship duty free and try to take it on board another ship.

I can buy a pillow on one ship and take it on the other. I can buy pretty much any non-consumable, take it off one ship, and take it onto the other.

Are you arguing that apps are like consumables where you have to regularly pay for them to continue benefiting from them? Incidentally, most apps that you have to pay for repeatedly (IE, Netflix or Spotify) actually do transfer your ownership seamlessly from one platform to another.

 

[Wondercow]

There it is again, that key term: exclusive.

It helps if you keep reading: A monopoly consists in the ownership or control of so large a part of the market- supply or output of a given commodity as to stifle competition, restrict the freedom of commerce, and give the monopolist control over prices.

 

[cube]

Android: Invalid Example. Too much malware.
Sailfish: Invalid Example. What's a Sailfish?
BB10: Invalid Example. Dead company. No app selection.

At least I gave valid reasons for declaring your choices as "Invalid". That more than you did.

I already gave the valid reason:
The average user cannot install real apps properly from anything other than the Appstore.

If you're ignorant about Sailfish it's not my fault.

Blackberry is not dead, but they are misguidedly outsourcing Android phones and killing BB10.
BB10 does not lack apps. Besides the native ones, you can run many made for Android.

 

[laptech]

Giving app store access to 3rd party apps sellers is hugely dangerous in my opinion. Whilst the security of the app store is not perfect, it has stopped a lot of malicious apps. How is security of apps going to be managed on other IOS app stores, are they going to be vigilant in stopping malicious or offensive apps from appearing in their store?? Are they going to spend resources to keep their app store safe, no of course they are not because spending money on staff to check apps cost money so naturally these 3rd party app stores will sacrifice security over money.

 

[macfacts]

McDonalds sells Coke. They can tell them to take a hike whenever they want.
[doublepost=1529439847][/doublepost]

Can I tell Lego to sell my cheap plastic blocks?

At the end of the day EVERY developer knew the costs of iOS development. 15% for the overhead of the app store and it's maintenance.

Besides, you can side load apps long as developer provides cert and file location. Guess what, they don't want to go through that. They want the ease of the app store, but at no cost. SMH.

This isn't about the developer/license fee. The developer fee ($100/year) is seperate from the hosting/credit card processing fees of 30%. This lawsuit is not about devs suing Apple. This is a lawsuit about an iOS user being forced to only use Apple's iOS app store.

If Amazon was allowed to setup a iOS app store, I'm sure they wouldn't take 30%. That's called competition.

 

[borgranta]

It benefits consumer protection for an Apple user to be safe from unsecured 3rd party apps.

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.

There are many Androids in Walmart. In fact the iPhones could literally be buried under a mountain of Androids. If anything Android would seem to be more of a monopoly.

 

[stereonight]

You’re missing the point. McDonald’s sell their own products in their own stores. Apple sells other people’s products in the AppStore. If you’re an app developer you have no option but to sell/distribute your iOS app through Apple and give them 30% of your revenue.

McDonald’s doesn’t only sell their own drinks. Suppose I own a franchised store, they’re supposed to let me put any drinks I want on the menu? Or even let something like starbucks to open a store inside the restaurant.

 

[borgranta]

The 30% fee probably covers costs associated with ensuring that the apps are safe.
[doublepost=1529455582][/doublepost]

McDonalds sells Coke. They can tell them to take a hike whenever they want.

McDonald's is not limited to Coke products since their coffee is not a Coke products and neither is their fresh brewed teas.

 

[shareef777]

This isn't about the developer/license fee. The developer fee ($100/year) is seperate from the hosting/credit card processing fees of 30%. This lawsuit is not about devs suing Apple. This is a lawsuit about an iOS user being forced to only use Apple's iOS app store.

If Amazon was allowed to setup a iOS app store, I'm sure they wouldn't take 30%. That's called competition.

Amazon is more then welcome to setup their own phone and app store. Oh wait, they did and it ended miserably. Users are just as free to switch over to Android. A monopoly is when a user and developer have no options.

Comcast in my city has a monopoly. I have ZERO options but to pay Comcast. Yet the government allows them to acquire NBC (and now potentially FOX). So there are significantly bigger monopolies to deal with then this frivolous lawsuit.
[doublepost=1529457576][/doublepost]

The 30% fee probably covers costs associated with ensuring that the apps are safe.
[doublepost=1529455582][/doublepost]
McDonald's is not limited to Coke products since their coffee is not a Coke products and neither is their fresh brewed teas.

The point was that McDonalds buys and sells whatever products they want at whatever fees they want in their stores. If you sold your product exclusively at McD and don’t like your fees you simply sell a different product in another store. At the end of the day no one dictates to McD what happens in their own stores.

iPhones are sold with the App Store. It’s in the agreement that it’s the only method of installing apps. Same for when you sign up for a developer account. If you don’t like the terms you’re free to switch over to Android (both as a user and developer). At the end of the day there are plenty of alternative devices for users to buy (and likewise developers to sell to). Just because Apple is better doesn’t make it a monopoly.

 

[BoulderAdonis]

So the fact that every other manufacturer is willing to drive profits to ZERO to compete for market share makes Apple a monopoly?

You clearly don’t understand how anti-trust works.

 

[borgranta]

Amazon is more then welcome to setup their own phone and app store. Oh wait, they did and it ended miserably. Users are just as free to switch over to Android. A monopoly is when a user and developer have no options.

Comcast in my city has a monopoly. I have ZERO options but to pay Comcast. Yet the government allows them to acquire NBC (and now potentially FOX). So there are significantly bigger monopolies to deal with then this frivolous lawsuit.
[doublepost=1529457576][/doublepost]

The point was that McDonalds buys and sells whatever products they want at whatever fees they want in their stores. If you sold your product exclusively at McD and don’t like your fees you simply sell a different product in another store. At the end of the day no one dictates to McD what happens in their own stores.

iPhones are sold with the App Store. It’s in the agreement that it’s the only method of installing apps. Same for when you sign up for a developer account. If you don’t like the terms you’re free to switch over to Android (both as a user and developer). At the end of the day there are plenty of alternative devices for users to buy (and likewise developers to sell to). Just because Apple is better doesn’t make it a monopoly.

It is good that Apple takes app security seriously since an app could potentially be used as a tool for identity theft.
[doublepost=1529458402][/doublepost]

So the fact that every other manufacturer is willing to drive profits to ZERO to compete for market share makes Apple a monopoly?

You clearly don’t understand how anti-trust works.

Once they get market share high enough they can then adjust prices to benefit themselves.

 

[inscrewtable]

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

Apple do not stop you purchasing infinity blade for Android.

 

[shareef777]

Apple do not stop you purchasing infinity blade for Android.

Sigh, everyone argues about what happens IN the Apple store. It's not a monopoly if there are OTHER stores available.

 

[mkldev]

It's Apple product line and THEIR store. If someone doesn't like it, don't shop there! Easy peasy lemon squeezy. Pretty simply concept for some to grasp.

Thankfully, the law does not see things that way.

It's DeathCar's product line. If someone doesn't like their cars to explode in flames when you step too hard on the brakes, buy a different kind of car! Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.

I guess I'm not understanding this lawsuit in the first place. It *is* possible to download an app to an iPhone without using Apple's App Store. It's called "sideloading" and a few developers make use of the technique because Apple doesn't allow sales on apps, doesn't allow trial periods, etc. But the negative is, no updates via Apple's App Store, you've got to get them directly from the developer. OK, so I can live with that, we did it for years before the App Store and it's preferable to jailbreaking the phone for most people.

Possible, yes. Is the developer violating Apple's licensing terms for Xcode and the iOS SDK by distributing software in that way? Also yes. It is technically possible to avoid those issues, but only if you enjoy programmatic view construction and Makefiles.

Of course you don't think about the fact that the App Store had the effect of "concentrating" an App's Sales, so, instead of, for the most part, making 100% (minus hosting, credit card processing, license management, web development, piracy, etc.) of a piddling amount of sales from people who stumble on your product, and in the end, just giving-up because it just isn't worth it, those Developers make 70% from the many more eyeballs that see their App in the App Store.

Depends on the app. For an app from a company that nobody has heard of, yes. For Netflix, no. I guarantee you that Netflix subscriptions are not increased even slightly by the fact that Apple makes the Netflix app available via their app store, compared with, for example, Netflix having a "Download the iPhone app" button on their mobile website that starts an IPA download directly from Netflix. And this is likely equally true for any other company with a sufficient level of global name recognition (Amazon, Google, etc.).

The real problem is that third category — the companies that nobody has heard of right now, but that get popular, and suddenly want to cut out the middleman, knowing that Apple is no longer driving any sales their direction that they wouldn't otherwise get on their own. Apple really wants to avoid those folks being able to tell Apple where to shove their rules. And they've seen this happen en masse on the Mac App Store where developers are easily able to leave and distribute apps directly to consumers, so it isn't as though they don't have good reason to be worried if they are forced to open up iOS to non-App-Store installations.

But it is still the right thing to do.

 

[MacBH928]

I am someone who supports more competition instead of the choice between Android or iPhone, but in this case its just not Monopoly if no one else wants to enter the market. Apple is not forcing you to use their platform or hardware, plus I think they have the smaller market share compared to Android.

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.

I never understood how that worked given that Linux did exist, OS 9, and even Microsoft Windows did run Netscape and any other browser if you wanted.

 

[31 Flavas]

If iPhones were cars, you could buy apps from anyone without going through Apple, just as you can buy consumables like gasoline and oil, repair parts, accessories, tires, etc. without going through Ford.

There is quite the legal / judicial precedence for control of (video) electronic platforms. Atari vs Activision (back in the 1980's) established the legality of 3rd party developers - in the first place. And secondly, that anyone (i.e. Activision) could write software for the Atari VCS since there wasn't anything actually blocking it. That is if you 1) Either could figure out how it worked on your own or 2) Had previous knowledge of how to write software for it (e.g. were former Atari employees) - There was no action or legal recourse available for Atari to prevent anyone writing software for it. Henceforth, this is very specifically -*why*- every electronic platform since then has incorporated some form of lockout feature so that 3rd party development could be controlled. This lockout feature is the copyrightable portion of the system that has the legal protection from circumvention. 3rd party developers (e.g. Tengen) have tried to circumvent the lockout method in various ways but every successive and successful circumvention has been found illegal. Nintendo was sued and found guilty of being anti-competitive in their licensing requirements - but not that they couldn't set requirements (fees, restrictions, quality levels, etc).

As I understand this does not just apply to video game hardware. This is why cellphone and tablet hardware manufacturers are allowed to develop a method to "lock out" anyone from writing their own OS for said device - if manufacturer so desires. It seems to me like you might be ignorant of this history.

Neither Sony or Microsoft or Nintendo are required to allow "3rd party" e-shop game stores or "side loading" of independently developed video games for their respective video game hardware platforms. What makes Apple's "App Store" any different from PSN, Xbox Live, or Nintendo's e-shop.

Moreover, as Apple creates non-cross-platform features that users grow dependent upon (e.g. FaceTime), it creates barriers to changing platforms that at some point will be so severe that they will effectively bifurcate the market for mobile software just as surely as a chain of mountains bifurcates a physical market. So arguments that "iOS apps are not a market" are misleading. What they are really claiming is that iOS apps are not an independent market yet.

I'm not sure why you chose FaceTime of all possible things as your "severe" lock-in example. FaceTime is terribly behind all other video chat software and services. Moreover, iTunes music purchases are DRM free - purchased songs can be transferred to any device and any system and even transcoded to MP3 (or any other audio format) should said device or system not be capable of playing AAC audio. Specifically, you have Apple of all businesses to thank for effectively killing off DRM on download music sales. iTunes Music, the streaming service, isn't Apple exclusive either. iTunes is available for Windows PC and and iTunes Music app is available for Android phones.

What I could possibly see ending up being costly or a burden down the road for someone looking to switch from iOS to Android would be the loss of (or repurchase cost on Android) of iPhone or iPad apps that have Android counter parts. But, App replacement cost is going to be bi-directional anyone moving Android to iOS is going to face that cost. So this leaves just movie purchases / movie redemptions. Which is going to be a hit or miss - as not everyone redeems dvd/blu-ray disk companion iTunes movie download codes or purchases movies directly from iTunes. Because there are so many competing ways to rent, stream, purchase, or watch movies besides iTunes. And push come to shove for someone who really wants to port their movies - the FairPlay DRM is crackable and losslessly removable.

I want to give you the benefit of the doubt here - But, I don't see it. FaceTime, iMessages, Siri, iCloud, iTunes, Continuity or Handoff, even AirPods - these are all nice things, but they are parlor tricks. I'm calling you crazy if you're saying that losing these would be "so severe" as too keep anyone anchored to iOS. What future are you seeing - and why isn't Androids far less restrictive and more open platform more desirable to both consumers and developers in this future?

The only reason Apple can get away with such restrictive policies across their entire platform, of course, is that developers have no choice in the matter, because there are no third-party app stores on iOS

Again this is entirely because of Atari v Activision from the 1980's. While 3rd party software development is inherently legal - hardware manufacturers are unquestionably allowed to manage 3rd parties through lockout methods. No, they can't be completely arbitrary about it or anti-competitive, but they absolutely get to lockout 3rd parties who don't agree to their terms. Google chooses to allow side loading and 3rd party App stores - but they don't have to. To that extent they can totally change their minds, too. Google just banned Chrome extensions being installed from 3rd Party sites.

the alternative is to cede half of all U.S. cell phone users to their competitors.

Uh... Android consistently holds around 80% of the total cellphone marketshare. Every Android fan will remind you of that. The smartphone market and premium smartphone market are just fractions off of the total cellphone market. I don't buy for a second that "half of all U.S. cell phone users" are iPhone or Android. I'd think Apple would want to put that into a pie chart just like they do when they announce iOS version adoption percentages. Rather, I'd say it's pretty damning if Apple has half of the US (let alone increasing that market share). I mea, Android is touted as having so many advantages particularly in the "most important" areas: such as user replaceable batteries, SD card support, UI customizations, a more advanced UI, and 3rd party app stores and app side loading - not least of which is not skimping on or being behind-the-times on hardware. If consumers are disregarding all those advantages for the restricted and dated hardware of iOS devices - I might suggest that these features aren't as important overall as android fans continually claim they are.

 

[dilbert99]

What choices do you have after seeing a Disney movie if you want the merchandise and you want to visit the park attraction?

That's a strange comparison.
But tell me if Apple is not a monopoly, how do I watch Amazon Prime movies on my Apple TVs?
[doublepost=1529491673][/doublepost]

On the contrary, I don’t think you know what it means. Look it up. The key term is exclusive. As any Mac user should know, Microsoft did not, and does not, have exclusive control over the operating system market, nor do they, or did they, have exclusive control over the web browser market. Microsoft was never a monopoly.

Mono means one; in every market in which they operate, Microsoft is not the only one.

Likewise, Apple is not the only smart phone provider, and not the only store for smart phone apps. Buyers and developers have other choice. Not a monopoly.

If you disagree, I’d love to hear your definition of monopoly, though it’ll have to be one which disagrees with every dictionary and one where mono means something other than one. In the meantime, allow me to reflect on the irony of you claiming I don't know the meaning of the word monopoly when you apparently haven't taken the few seconds required to look it up.

Wider your reading to more financial/economic related sites. A monopoly is where one or more companies controls a given percentage of the market and abuses that control, that percentage varies from country to country,

A legal definition - https://definitions.uslegal.com/m/monopoly/

http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Business_economics/Monopoly.html

A pure monopoly is a single supplier in a market. For the purposes of regulation, monopoly power exists when a single firm controls 25% or more of a particular market.

Also take a look at a few references on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law#Monopoly_and_power

is microsoft a monopoly - http://www.thisnation.com/question/027.html

Microsoft suit - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.#Settlement

http://time.com/3553242/microsoft-monopoly/

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/monopoly

https://www.economicshelp.org/microessays/markets/monopoly/

• In the UK a firm is said to have monopoly power if it has more than 25% of the market share. For example, Tesco @30% market share or Google 90% of search engine traffic.

https://thelawdictionary.org/monopoly/

A monopoly consists in the ownership or control of so large a part of the market- supply or output of a given commodity as to stifle competition

 

[jimothyGator]

That's a strange comparison.
But tell me if Apple is not a monopoly, how do I watch Amazon Prime movies on my Apple TVs?
[doublepost=1529491673][/doublepost]

Wider your reading to more financial/economic related sites. A monopoly is where one or more companies controls a given percentage of the market and abuses that control, that percentage varies from country to country,

A legal definition - https://definitions.uslegal.com/m/monopoly/

http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Business_economics/Monopoly.html

Also take a look at a few references on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law#Monopoly_and_power

is microsoft a monopoly - http://www.thisnation.com/question/027.html

Microsoft suit - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.#Settlement

http://time.com/3553242/microsoft-monopoly/

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/monopoly

https://www.economicshelp.org/microessays/markets/monopoly/


https://thelawdictionary.org/monopoly/

All this is evidence of how the meaning of the term monopoly has been corrupted and, indeed, lost. Mono means one. A company with 25% market share is not a monopoly. Microsoft is not a monopoly. Apple is not a monopoly. The fact that politicians and judges speaking power and control have claimed otherwise doesn’t change this fact. The fact that companies—like Sun and Netscape—have leveraged these power hungry politicians to attack successful companies because they lack the ability to compete on their own merits doesn’t change this fact.

Now you may claim that legal precedent and legislation matter much more than the actual definition of monopoly, or the ideals of someone who still believes in that definition, and you would, unfortunately, be right. But just because generations of judges, lawyers, and politicians thrived by corrupting a word doesn’t make them right, or me wrong.

 

[Wondercow]

All this is evidence of how the meaning of the term monopoly has been corrupted and, indeed, lost. Mono means one. A company with 25% market share is not a monopoly. Microsoft is not a monopoly. Apple is not a monopoly. The fact that politicians and judges speaking power and control have claimed otherwise doesn’t change this fact. The fact that companies—like Sun and Netscape—have leveraged these power hungry politicians to attack successful companies because they lack the ability to compete on their own merits doesn’t change this fact.

Now you may claim that legal precedent and legislation matter much more than the actual definition of monopoly, or the ideals of someone who still believes in that definition, and you would, unfortunately, be right. But just because generations of judges, lawyers, and politicians thrived by corrupting a word doesn’t make them right, or me wrong.

And the word janitor means doorman, not someone who cleans up! Jan- as in January, means Janus, the Roman god of doorways and gates! And don’t get me started on taxis... taximeter cabriolet. The last one that picked me up didn’t even have a horse! Prestigious is actually derogatory, meaning conjuring tricks, deceptive, like prestidigitation.