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

[pmjoe]

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.

 

[Michael Goff]

Not the same license concurrently. Different licenses.

...

Then I'm confused. Are you trying to say you should be able to play the same game at two places at once or two games at a single place?

 

[Ethosik]

So you're arguing with the Supreme Court about the legal definition of monopoly. Have fun with that.

Well that was a decision I never agreed with. Sometimes decisions in politics/law/court/etc are wrong to some or most people. The fact is that I have a choice when I get a computer. Therefore not a monopoly. I have no choice for ISP, therefore that is a monopoly. Market share should not dictate what a monopoly is. What is the threshold? 51% and you are suddenly a monopoly? As long as you can go out and have a choice, it is not a monopoly.

I am not trying to change your mind and I hope you aren't trying to change mine. It would be boring if everyone on the planet thinks the same way!

Yes lets get on Apple for this while ignoring the real issues in this country regarding monopoly behavior - ISPs and Cable providers. It is ridiculous that I need to get a different job, house, etc to get a better service than Spectrum which is just absolutely horrible. Our bill keeps going up and our service keeps declining.

 

[Cosmosent]

It is a Monopoly & it needs to be Broken Up !

AAPL should NOT be allowed to develop any iOS apps that are NOT integrated into iOS, & especially NOT showcase them in the iOS App Store ! ... their crap app xxxxx comes to mind !

AAPL has a complete & total "Stranglehold on App Discovery" (of third-party apps) in their iOS App Store.

APPL wants to "Control the Narrative," & to me, that precisely defines them & their actions, in everything that they do ... a BIG part of the reason behind that is that Tim Cook has been, & continues to be, "In Over His Head" ... witness the Risk Adverse situation the iOS App Store has been in since he took over !

Many Adults gave up on the iOS App Store around 2011 ... so now it's mostly the Young & the Dumb.

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).

I have NO problems with AAPL getting their 30% cut ... there is plenty of Coin out there to share, but NOT INSIDE the iOS App Store ... there, ONLY Games & streaming media content apps do well !!!

 

[cube]

...

Then I'm confused. Are you trying to say you should be able to play the same game at two places at once or two games at a single place?

No, I am saying that while Steam allows you to share your library with your family, it allows only one user to access it at the same time.

So having multiple consoles and discs is better for this.

 

[lederermc]

There's very limited space in a cruise ship.

So why do they not allow passengers to bring their own booze into their own cabin?

 

[Iconoclysm]

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.

Somehow? There's a lot of backstory you aren't unpacking there, you may want to look into it. Not to mention marketshare, Apple is in no position to be a monopoly with only 11% of the world's devices using its platforms.

 

[Michael Goff]

Well that was a decision I never agreed with. Sometimes decisions in politics/law/court/etc are wrong to some or most people. The fact is that I have a choice when I get a computer. Therefore not a monopoly. I have no choice for ISP, therefore that is a monopoly. Market share should not dictate what a monopoly is. What is the threshold? 51% and you are suddenly a monopoly? As long as you can go out and have a choice, it is not a monopoly.

I am not trying to change your mind and I hope you aren't trying to change mine. It would be boring if everyone on the planet thinks the same way!

Yes lets get on Apple for this while ignoring the real issues in this country regarding monopoly behavior - ISPs and Cable providers. It is ridiculous that I need to get a different job, house, etc to get a better service than Spectrum which is just absolutely horrible. Our bill keeps going up and our service keeps declining.

Oh, I fully agree that ISP are dangerous monopolies. And I also agree this case is bollocks.

No, I am saying that while Steam allows you to share your library with your family, it allows only one user to access it at the same time.

So having multiple consoles and discs is better for this.

It being the library? That's weird. I never noticed that.

 

[cube]

So why do they not allow passengers to bring their own booze into their own cabin?

Maybe there's a safety narrative.

 

[69650]

Hopefully the courts will find against Apple so that we can have more choice from alternative app stores.

 

[cube]

It being the library? That's weird. I never noticed that.

If a game can be played offline, another user can access the same library at the same time.

Maybe you're sharing the user?

 

[[AUT] Thomas]

Market share does not determine an illegal monopoly. [...]

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.

Here's the thing: Apple created this shiny little phone. They're under no obligation to support third party code on their devices. But they decided to give everyone the privilege to create third party code to run on their plattform. It's not your right and you're not forced to participate, and as such, you're subject to whatever conditions you're required to comply in order to have your code on their property. Don't agree with them? go elsewhere, free will.

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.

 

[Cosmosent]

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 !

 

[linuxcooldude]

The court was wrong then (Microsoft never had a monopoly in operating systems nor web browsers). Hopefully, they won't be wrong this time.

(Not to mention that if you didn't like Internet Explorer, you could buy a Windows machine and not use Internet Explorer, a choice millions of people made).

At one time, I don't think you could uninstall Explorer as it was so ingrained into the OS. That was one big issue that didn't fair well in saying it was not a monopoly.

 

[Michael Goff]

If a game can be played offline, another user can access the same library at the same time.

Maybe you're sharing the user?

Steam Sharing always ends up kicking my family off sharing eventually and I haven't added them back this time. I'm not sharing the user account, though. Not anymore.

 

[legacyb4]

The market is iOS devices.

You can replace the stereo in the car.

More akin to built-in head units that aren't readily replaceable; sure you can replace them with great pain & effort and almost get a matching fit.. just like jailbreaking?

 

[zweigand]

The consumer choice is to be able to buy an app once.

Apps can already do this. I pay for 1Password, Audible, and Spotify once. I can use them on across multiple OSs. As far as standalone apps go (apps with no internet activity) ...why should developers eat the cost? If I buy a PS4 game, why would I expect them to give me the Xbox version for free just because I don't want to use my PS4 anymore?

Seriously though, when most apps on smartphones already cost under $5 the whole "I deserve to only pay once" argument is kinda weak-sauce.

 

[69650]

This is so stupid. iOS is not a monopoly. No one had to use an iOS device. If you want Spotify without paying the Apple commission then subscribe over the web. And anyone who says it’s my hardware I can do what in want with it: No. You bought a license to use software that can only be run on a specific piece of hardware. Again not something you’re forced to do. There are other options.

Good thing is the Supreme Court will put an end to this nonsense.

I assume you’re a communist as you clearly don’t believe in freedom of choice. My iPhone = my choice what I do with it. Nobody has the right to tell me I can only put apps on it that Apple approve of.

 

[cube]

Seriously though, when most apps on smartphones already cost under $5 the whole "I deserve to only pay once" argument is kinda weak-sauce.

It is not weak sauce when you have hundreds of apps. Switching platforms can cost more than the price of a phone.

 

[Sweetcheetah]

I honestly rather keep this Apple's policy of the app store because I trust apple to do their absolute best to keeping us safe from those ill intended app developers. No one's perfect, I understand, but it's certainly a lot better this way. I feel safer just having it from one source, and besides as the article says, Apple pays out so to those app developers anyway, so that's great.

 

[bsolar]

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

I don't think this case will go anywhere either, but Apple not having a monopoly is not enough to exclude the possibility. Antitrust regulations don't apply only to monopolies: merely holding sufficient market power is in some cases enough to make anti-competitive practices illegal.

 

[Michael Goff]

I assume you’re a communist as you clearly don’t believe in freedom of choice. My iPhone = my choice what I do with the ****ing thing. Nobody has the right to tell me I can only put apps on it that Apple approve of.

Your iPhone, their OS. They have 100% right to do what they're doing. You have Freedom of Choice, most people exercise it by not buying the iPhone.
[doublepost=1529345011][/doublepost]

I don't think this case will go anywhere either, but Apple not having a monopoly is not enough to exclude the possibility. Antitrust regulations don't apply only to monopolies: merely holding sufficient market power is in some cases enough to make anti-competitive practices illegal.

True, but the argument being presented IS that Apple has a monopoly. And that argument falls flat in the face of logic.

 

[linuxcooldude]

If you buy an app on the iOS Appstore, you can only install it in iOS.

If you buy an app on a Amazon appstore, you can install it on any Android fork, so you would likely not have to repurchase your apps if it was also available for iOS, opening up the smartphone market.

Thats up to the developer to make apps available on multiple platforms, which they often do. I don't complain if I buy a windows application that I can't run on Mac or Linux.

 

[Sweetcheetah]

I assume you’re a communist as you clearly don’t believe in freedom of choice. My iPhone = my choice what I do with the ****ing thing. Nobody has the right to tell me I can only put apps on it that Apple approve of.

Perhaps go with Android? More open ended choices in the app world? I mean who says one needs to keep iOS as the main choice? I've seen people go from iOS to Android and vise versa. If you feel that is a communistic comment, which I don't feel it is, no one said one needs to keep using Apple product or iOS for this matter. There are so far 2 major and most popular operating systems of choice, Android with 100's of different Android powered software cell phone devices, and there's iOS with very limited choice of devices and sizes to choose from. I of course LOVE the eco system of Apple, I don't feel trapped, I enjoy the operating system and it's services, etc. But we have the freedom of choice none the less. If you can get used to or adapt to Android, so be it. No one's stopping you. No one's stopping me to decide to use iOS. I'm productive, I enjoy the experience, and I'm happy. So as long as you're happy, then no problem.

 

[cube]

True, but the argument being presented IS that Apple has a monopoly. And that argument falls flat in the face of logic.

As I said, they do have a vertical monopoly. The question is whether it is illegal.
[doublepost=1529345167][/doublepost]

Thats up to the developer to make apps available on multiple platforms, which they often do. I don't complain if I buy a windows application that I can't run on Mac or Linux.

Exactly, and now they don't have the option of license sharing with regard to iOS.