US Appeals Court Revives Antitrust Lawsuit Against Apple (reuters.com) 121
iPhone app purchasers may sue Apple over allegations that the company monopolized the market for iPhone apps by not allowing users to purchase them outside the App Store, leading to higher prices, a U.S. appeals court ruled. From a report on Reuters: The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling revives a long-simmering legal challenge originally filed in 2012 taking aim at Apple's practice of only allowing iPhones to run apps purchased from its own App Store. A group of iPhone users sued saying the Cupertino, California, company's practice was anticompetitive. Apple had argued that users did not have standing to sue it because they purchased apps from developers, with Apple simply renting out space to those developers. Developers pay a cut of their revenues to Apple in exchange for the right to sell in the App Store.
It might be something but it isn't anti-trust? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's anti-trust because Apple can restrict what is allowed to be sold.
Re: It might be something but it isn't anti-trust? (Score:1)
It's also good because their store isn't a complete wreck. It's great that android has multiple marketplaces, but I doubt that has influenced prices much. I can get Amazon Video from one store. I can get gear VR apps from another. My watch uses an app store I downloaded from another app store. Garbage. App stores are the android equivelant of iPhone fart apps.
Re: It might be something but it isn't anti-trust (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is known to block apps that might in any way compete with its business model. For example, Apple blocked a developer from publishing an app that allowed wireless iTunes sync before later adding it as a feature exclusive to newer iPhones. Apple also blocks any apps that might compete with their NFC payments, they block voice assistants from having any meaningful functionality, and they block web browsers from having their own rendering engine.
At any rate, if you don't want to use third party app stores on Android, you don't have to. I have an Android watch made by Sony, and I don't use anything other than Google Play, so I'm not sure what crack you're smoking.
Re: (Score:1)
That's only true if app stores could select what apps they sell. Since you can't download Amazon Video anywhere but Amazon Underground, and you can't download Samsung Gear apps anywhere but the Samsung store. Sure, you can say that the Gear isn't an android watch, but most consumers can't tell the difference since it requires an android phone. A lot of apps are exclusive to one app store. So unless you are willing to only use a fraction of the quality apps you can't limiot yourself to one app store.
Why do y
Re: (Score:2)
That log
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, that's not entirely true. To some extent, the need to break even sets the price. Because Apple controls the only access to the platform, Apple takes a cut of revenue. If the app developer wants to turn a profit, they must charge a high enough price on iOS to make up for the money that they give to Apple
Re: (Score:2)
All the things you say are correct except for where you conclude that this means the behavior isn't anticompetitive. What makes something anticompetitive is the result in practice, not whether or not it is technically possible for a company to avoid it. In reality, a number of companies tacked on a 30% markup for their subscriptions so that they could sell them in the app, because a sizable percentage of users primarily used the service through their app rather than through the website. The result was t
Re: (Score:2)
All the things you say are correct except for where you conclude that this means the behavior isn't anticompetitive.
All the things you say are correct except for where you conclude that this means the behavior is anticompetitive.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is known to block apps that might in any way compete with its business model. For example, Apple blocked a developer from publishing an app that allowed wireless iTunes sync before later adding it as a feature exclusive to newer iPhones. Apple also blocks any apps that might compete with their NFC payments, they block voice assistants from having any meaningful functionality, and they block web browsers from having their own rendering engine.
None of these cases "lead to higher prices" as claimed - quite the opposite, because Apple's offerings are free.
Re: (Score:2)
no it's not. if they set up a bunch of companies and relationships between companies to get control of every part of the smartphone market and actually sold the most smartphones it would be anti trust.
maybe you should go back to school and learn about the original trusts like the Rockefeller oil trust and how they operated
Re: (Score:2)
It's anti-trust because Apple can restrict what is allowed to be sold.
So my neghborhood supermarket is anti-trust because it chooses to sell Coca Cola but not RC Cola?
Re: (Score:1)
If it was the only grocery store you could visit then yes it would be anti competitive.
Re:It might be something but it isn't anti-trust? (Score:4)
you mean like Apple is the only phone you can buy?
Re: (Score:2)
It's more like the App Store being the only store I'm allowed to visit.
Re: (Score:1)
There are other apps stores. The Apple App store requires a club membership to shop there. Your proof that you are a member is your iOS device. Joining the club doesn't stop you from joining another App store that requires an Android device to get in. It also doesn't stop you from buying goods from someone who doesn't care what club you belong to. Start paying for web apps. Those are still options you know. I have more than one club card, and I have more than one mobile device. If you want variety than pay
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Because if my HP laptop breaks, I can totally take it to Dell to get it fixed. Free market in action, or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nor do you have to buy "just Apple parts". They use the same USB/SATA/SSD/RAM standards as the rest of the industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But, as this is about software - you can only buy iOS apps from Apple's store. Right?
It stopped being about software when you suddenly talked about cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Can I buy Suburban parts at the GM store?
Re: (Score:2)
I mean...
Can I buy toyota parts at the GM store?
That is what this argument is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The argument is that you have the choice to go to another store that sells RC. This is not the case among iPhone users.
Yes, this is a stupid argument, because iPhone users choose to be iPhone users, and have every opportunity to inform themselves about what that choice entails. It's not like the iPhone is the only phone available for purchase, or even the only smartphone available.
This isn't Standard Oil. This isn't AT&T.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's antitrust [ftc.gov] because while you can go to a different supermarket to buy your RC Cola, Apple maintains a monopoly on storefronts for app purchases. Contrast that with their major competitor, Google/Andoid, where one can get apps from Amazon and many others [joyofandroid.com]. It's antitrust because there is no competitive market available to developers - they're forced to pay whatever fees Apple dictates in order to sell thei
Re: (Score:2)
IE in Microsoft Windows was found anti-competitive for less than that.
No they were not.
Re: (Score:2)
No, Apple can't. There are ways of loading apps that aren't on the App Store. You can link your phone to an MDM which could then act as a store for all sorts of unsigned apps. Whether or not it's secure and worth the hassle is another thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple should simply pull the exact same scam Google does. Force end users to hack their phones, to install from other locations. Basically provide risky tools, to https://www.xda-developers.com... [xda-developers.com] and voila the majority of end users will never ever do it and only buy from the Google store 'er' Apples store but they can buy from other sources if they want to, done and finished.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Anti trust implies controlling prices to the detriment of the consumer. Apple in no way sets or controls the pricing. An app developer is free to charge whatever they want or make it free.
IANAL, but I believe where antitrust charge comes into play is not in the control of pricing, but the control of access to the market. They have created a monopoly where they can dictate terms, fees, and other aspects of the market because the only path to that market is via their storefront.
M-W [merriam-webster.com] has nothing specifically about price control in their definition.
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL either, but antitrust is related to unfair business practices in general, so it applies to a lot more than merely controlling access to the market.
The assertion being made by the plaintiffs is that Apple engaged in unfair business practices by abusing a monopoly position to maintain high prices. Apple's original argument didn't address either of those claims. Instead, they said that the plaintiffs had no standing because Apple was just renting the store space to the app developers, which is clearly no
Re: (Score:2)
I reject that assertion from a legal perspective. An app for Android is not fungible with an app for iOS. It requires spending many hundreds of dollars for a consumer to switch from one platform to the other, which would be required if you want to run apps from the other store. Thus, there is a huge barrier to switching platforms, even if you ignore the loss of data that can't easily b
Re: (Score:2)
That's only partially true. In that specific case, things only work because somebody else rewrote 99% of the code in your app on the other platform. What you're doing at that point is basically using somebody else's app, and writing small bits of code to control limited aspects of its behavior.
The result is almost invariably so horrible to use that nobody will do so, and the exceptions can usually be rewritten as a web app more easily. Worse, it usually ends up being easier to rewrite it from scratch wi
Re: (Score:2)
Additionally (and apologies for forgetting to add this yesterday), the real issue is not whether the author can deliberately write it in a portable way and reuse some of the code on another platform, but rather whether it is possible to write an app in such a way that the purchaser can then install that same app on the other platform without buying it again for the other platform. As long as that isn't possible, there's effectively no overlap between the iOS app market and the Android app market, making t
Re: (Score:2)
You make a lot of really good points (and I'm not just saying that to be nice), but they're missing the bigger picture: the monopoly topic only matters if Apple did the rest of what the plaintiffs claim, which they clearly didn't.
To break it down further, here's the chain of arguments the plaintiff is stringing together:
1) Apple never added support for other app stores
2) As a result, the App Store had a monopoly on app stores
3) As a result, there was less competition between apps
4) As a result, app prices w
Re: (Score:2)
The App Store doesn't just deal in apps. It also deals in in-app purchases, which includes
Re: (Score:2)
The App Store doesn't just deal in apps. It also deals in in-app purchases, which includes subscriptions. When you add those in, no link in your chain breaks down.
So Apple is a monopoly because only Netflix can sell Netflix subscriptions. Yeah, makes sense.
Re: (Score:2)
I reject that assertion from a legal perspective. An app for Android is not fungible with an app for iOS. It requires spending many hundreds of dollars for a consumer to switch from one platform to the other, which would be required if you want to run apps from the other store.
So your argument is that Apple has an monopoly because Android phones actually cost a lot of money.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the need to run a business and not a charity prevents other developers from doing that.
Your point? Just because it is theoretically possible to distribute an app for free doesn't mean the lack of competing app stores doesn't drive the price up.
Re: (Score:2)
That's completely and utterly irrelevant from a legal perspective. Yes, technically, you can create a bad user experience by refusing to allow your app to do anything until the user looks up your website in Google, goes to it, and buys a subscription. However, the app can't even link to your website to buy a subscription; Apple's rules deliberately ensure that the user experience for anyone who dares not give them their cut is as bad as
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
An app developer is free to charge whatever they want or make it free.
Also, customers are free to buy a non-Apple phone. Apple is not a monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
Attached is a small article on the US. vs. Microsoft. It's amazing the similarities. And we know how the court ruled.
http://www.nytimes.c [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:1)
You can also only develop apps for iOS on Apple machines (Hackintoshes aside), meaning you pay Apple for the hardware to develop on, pay again to be a developer of apps and give them a cut of any sales.
For Android, you can develop on any platform that you can run the SDK on and sign up for an account to sell it. Costs nothing.
Re: (Score:1)
Not including the initial outlay for a MacBook Pro, I assume.
Re: (Score:3)
It's amazing the similarities.
The dissimilarities are also amazing:
Microsoft once had over 95% of the desktop OS market.
Apple has 19% of the smartphone market.
Re: It might be something but it isn't anti-trust? (Score:1)
That is not the legal definition of a monopoly. By law, a monoply is a company that is large enough to either dominate or significantly influence a market. Since there is a large market for iPhones and Apple exerts complete control, a strong argument can be made that they exert monopoly power in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
I'm glad someone is finally making a case for this. I've long believed that Apple operates their store illegally.
Re: (Score:2)
Does it only run afoul of the law when it a detriment to the consumer? As in, if I control prices and nobody complains, is that still illegal?
Anyway, I am not saying that Apple controls prices. I don't know that they do... at least not directly. Though, an app developer does have to keep in mind the Apple tax in addition to whatever they need to charge.
Still, I think the system is a pretty good one as it satisfies capitalism and security at the same time. It just limits consumer choice a bit. Although, you
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anti trust implies controlling prices
No it doesn't. It implies controlling the market via anti-competitive practices. Kind of like when Microsoft bundled IE to kill Netscape. They didn't control a price.
Price discrimination is just a small chapter in a very large part of legislation that makes up antitrust law.
Re: (Score:2)
Anti trust implies controlling prices to the detriment of the consumer. Apple in no way sets or controls the pricing.
Except for the part where Apple extracts their cut.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple controls the store cut of the software developer's asking price (30%). There is no competitive store, therefore no competition in the store cut for the application price.
Apple also limits the phone to purchasing from its own store. Apple therefore controls access to the applications market, and sets itself up as a
Re: (Score:2)
Anti trust implies controlling prices to the detriment of the consumer.
Competition law (colloquially called anti-trust) covers a wide range of anticompetitive activities. Educate yourself. [wikipedia.org]
Nice try Apple (Score:3)
...users did not have standing to sue it because they purchased apps from developers, with Apple simply renting out space to those developers.
This may bite Apple.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer or historian.
Apple takes the legal position that best suits the (Score:2)
situation.
Because it wasn't that long ago that Apple was fending off a suit from a patent troll and was saying the opposite. That it was Apple who was selling through their app store and only they needed a licence (which they had) to do that, not the devs.
So call me a bit surprised that the original judge went along with this argument.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple should have used the argument that they sell devices which run controlled sets of software, with part of their product being a best-effort attempt at device security via application white listing managed remotely through the Apple store.
Because developers make "iPhone Apps", they have to sell onto the iPhone platform, the same as with Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony locking out their console platforms. This is not unusual in the device market.
Because Apple does not sell software outside the core sy
apple censorship issues can be fixed with an adult (Score:2)
apple censorship issues can be fixed with an adults only store.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple should have used the argument that they sell devices which run controlled sets of software, with part of their product being a best-effort attempt at device security via application white listing managed remotely through the Apple store.
They might still argue that. This was only a ruling that allowed the lawsuit to move forward.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple should have used the argument that they sell devices which run controlled sets of software, with part of their product being a best-effort attempt at device security via application white listing managed remotely through the Apple store.
The only question of merit with regards to device security is whether operating systems are able to prevent applications from escaping their sandbox. No other calculus is feasible.
Neither Apple or anyone else has the capability to offer any assurances with respect to activities both intended and unintended of software available on their stores. There have been thousands of examples of total failures on Apple's app store. The only possible defense is a defensible execution environment.
Because developers make "iPhone Apps", they have to sell onto the iPhone platform, the same as with Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony locking out their console platforms. This is not unusual in the device market.
Putting aside my opi
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that *Apple users* can't buy software from anywhere else.
One has a choice to be an Apple user or not.
If you bought a house in a certain neighborhood you wouldn't accept being limited to only purchasing physical goods from one specific store as a condition of living in that neighborhood.
One has a choice to live in a particular neighborhood or not.
How are the aforementioned choices impractical?
Re: (Score:2)
Putting aside my opinions about "platforms" I can go anywhere and purchase software for Wii, Xbox, PS4. Not sure what your trying to say
Actually, Wii, Xbox, and PS4 software has to be licensed and signed by the platform producer--that is: you can't buy Wii or PS4 software that Nintendo and Sony haven't allowed to be sold. In effect, Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft get paid to allow certain software on their platforms, giving you a curated catalog to purchase from; you can chose a delivery vendor--an ISP to download from or a store through which to ship the software on physical media--but you have to buy what's available from the Nintendo/S
Re: (Score:3)
...users did not have standing to sue it because they purchased apps from developers, with Apple simply renting out space to those developers.
This may bite Apple.
Indeed. Apple vets apps before allowing them in their app store. It may be reasonable for them to screen them for malware or bugs, but they also reject apps if they compete with Apple's own apps. That is hard to justify if they are just "renting out space".
Walled Garden under fire? (Score:3)
This appears to be an attack on the fundamental principle of the "walled garden". I don't think this is a good idea. You may not like it, but then fine don't buy it. Apple sells this as a feature, that benefits the users by improving quality control, a problem that non-walled appstores have to deal with more all the time. It's not bulletproof, nothing is, it just improves it quite a bit. I find it reassuring that I don't have to sweat it when browsing the app store, "I wonder if this app is legit?"
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to hope it does damage the walled garden.
Apple's app store is rife with crappy apps that don't work, are abandoned by their developers, or just provide a poor value. And hackish apps which can cause problems have slipped into the app store on more than one occasion. That being said, is it better than the Googe equivalent in terms of security, maybe, but I think this has less to do with Apple's screening than the built-in safeguards of the underlying operating system running on the phone.
Let's say
Or it may turn into a '90s Windows dumpster fire (Score:2)
The Apple ecosystem works in part because the only real way to get your App to iPhones is through the Apple vetting process. If a bunch more "App stores" popped up that charged a little less [or whatever] then well-meaning but non-tech savvy users would use them--and then iPhone would nolonger be the "safe smartphone" and instead would turn into the "little malware box that you have to be afraid of"; just like computers were in the 90s and Android phones are today.
Now that's probably exactly what you want--
Re: (Score:2)
How about I decide when I purchase my phone? (Score:2)
I can either have a safer but less flexible phone, or a mouth-breathing malware box?
Re:Walled Garden under fire? (Score:5, Insightful)
This appears to be an attack on the fundamental principle of the "walled garden". I don't think this is a good idea.
It's only an attack on the principle of the "compulsory walled garden". I personally think it's a great idea to break this down since this fundamental concept generally is anti-consumer and removes control from people who "bought" "their" devices.
Notice that Android never faced similar lawsuits? Click here to install an APK that can tell you why.
Re: (Score:2)
Also notice that no one cares about "walled gardens" on cars, Bluray players and game consoles. Like with don't hold it wrong [tumblr.com] and bendy phones [itechpost.com] and Foxxcon, [forbes.com] the problem isn't a problem unless Apple is involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Note that there is a big difference between the primary purpose of a device and the first few examples you posted.
Also note that there's a difference between real legitimate complaints and frivolous lawsuits like the last examples you posted. Maybe non apple customers are just not ambulance chasers?
If you want to vindicate a company posting links to completely unrelated topics doesn't help, especially when you can't seem to tell the difference between a hardware manufacturer and the company which pr
Re: (Score:2)
The only difference is that Apple isn't involved, as you either have a principle, or you don't. You have a 'walled garden' - an electronic platform where you many only run authorized non-web apps - or you don't. Walled gardens are perfectly acceptable when coming from Sony or Nintendo.
Completely relate
Re: (Score:2)
The only difference is that Apple isn't involved
Nothing says true believer more than someone who will ignore evidence and reason. Let me guess your bible says the world was created 9th January 2007.
as you either have a principle, or you don't.
What principle? No one cares about principles. Courts throw out cases based on principle. What people care about is affect on them. What courts rule on is damages incurred.
You have a 'walled garden' - an electronic platform where you many only run authorized non-web apps - or you don't.
Sure, but no one cares about a walled garden in a car. You can start comparing them when you spend more time clicking the screen then you do with your hands on the wheel. You can start compa
Re: (Score:2)
I see the shell fell off the nut.
I'll speak slowly and use small words. There are a variety of electronic platforms, most notably game consoles
Re: (Score:2)
This appears to be an attack on the fundamental principle of the "walled garden". I don't think this is a good idea.
I think it is an excellent idea. Walled gardens are inherently anti-competitive. If government is going to regulate at all taking actions to incite competition within a market is the best possible form of regulation one could hope for in my view.
You may not like it, but then fine don't buy it. Apple sells this as a feature, that benefits the users by improving quality control, a problem that non-walled appstores have to deal with more all the time.
Nothing prevents stores from deciding what products are in their best interests to carry.
A level of quality control is always demanded by stores of manufacturers due to fact dealing with high levels of defects and unhappy customers is bad for the stores bottom lin
also go after the hardware lock in and VM lock in (Score:3)
also go after the hardware lock in and VM lock in as well.
The VM one is a realy killer as apple does not have any rack-mount stuff and they don't let you run os-x in a VM on any hardware (it works but Legal says no)
Re: (Score:2)
Only on apple hardware to be Legal
Sideloading (Score:2)
Standing to sue (Score:2)
A lot of the anger behind the BLM movement was because of this. The district attorney w
Re: (Score:2)
Comey's revenge? (Score:1)
Higher prices? (Score:1)