Slashdot Mirror
US Appeals Court Revives Antitrust Lawsuit Against Apple (reuters.com)
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.
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.
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
...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.
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?"
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
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.
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)
I'm not sure if the issue is the price of apps or which apps are available.
The App store is in the customer's interest when it ensures that the apps are safe.
Also when it provides an efficient, common market.
A problem is when Apple prevents apps from being sold for reasons not in the customer's interest.
Side-loading seems to be the issue. Not easily allowing it makes the iPhone less prone to malware infestations. I turned off the ability to side-load on my Android phones. It's too risky to not get everything you need from the appropriate app store.
apple censorship issues can be fixed with an adults only store.
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.
I never understood why there's such a thing as standing, and why you have to have it to sue someone. If someone is hurting a psychologically, physically or financially weak individual, then the victim will probably not sue, and the aggressor will probably get away with it. Also, if the district attorney is too busy or biased against the victim, then a bunch of crime will just be ignored, since nobody else has standing.
A lot of the anger behind the BLM movement was because of this. The district attorney was basically in bed with the cops, and since he's the only one with standing to sue, he could give the cop a free pass.
More theoretically, if there's a clearly unconstitutional federal law being passed, nobody can overturn it because nobody has violated it or be sued under it, so nobody has standing to sue. To get it overturned, you have to intentionally violate it, be sued for a felony, and appeal to the supreme court. In other words, you'll be taking a huge risk on a court that doesn't hear most of the cases they get. So the more likely scenario is that someone will eventually unintentionally violate it, but that could be a very long period of time, and the unconstitutional law will be limiting all sorts of legal behavior until then.
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 you think its OK for a app developer to have choice over where their app is sold but the store doesn't? Nevermind, don't answer that, because iPhone has Cydia. Let me guess, you want to complain about how users shouldn't have to work to install apps the main store doesn't want to sell.
Using the logic of this lawsuit that Apple has a monopoly, McDonalds should be sued for not allowing other restaurants to sell Big Mac, etc.
No that makes no sense. Just like McDonalds, Apple should not be sued for having their own eco system.
Wrong. You can run MacOS in a VM and there are documents on the Apple web site that shows you how to do it.
VMWare Fusion and other tools support MacOS VM's. I think Apple allowed this from Mavericks (AFAIK).
That logic is irrelevant. You have the choice to only use "a fraction of the quality apps". Nobody is forcing you to use Amazon Video if they don't want to make it available in the Play store, and if most of the potential user base said, "Screw you" to Amazon and then refused to install a separate app store just to use their app, they would be forced to either make their products available through more than one store or fail, replaced by some other company that does. The reality is that most of the apps that most people use are available fairly broadly, so as the GP said, nobody is forcing you to use another app store. You're choosing to do so because it gives you an advantage.
The problem here is that Apple isn't letting the market decide whether those other app stores matter; instead, it is interfering with the free market in a way that actively harms consumers and developers in a number of ways. More on this in a moment.
No, it has nothing to do with work. It has to do with Apple deliberately making it harder and harder for Cydia to even be possible, in ways that directly harm consumers.
Either one of those by itself should be enough to get a judgment against Apple in any sane universe. There is no valid technical reason why Apple could not trivially allow a configuration profile payload to add support for a third-party app store in a manner that fully maintains security (assuming that the third-party app store prevents malicious apps, anyway). Apart from a few extra lines of code to allow multiple app store root certificates, it should literally be a matter of installing a certificate in the right place. The only plausible reasons are either anticompetitive or are bizarre control-freak reasons.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
I can either have a safer but less flexible phone, or a mouth-breathing malware box?
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--return us to the days when non-technical people were scared to use anything with technology--because it gives you some bizarre feeling of superiority over them. But I, for one, have no interest in going back to that world.
I like the world the way it is. People have a choice when they purchase the phone on the flexibility vs. safety tradeoff, thus creating two separately thriving ecosystems.
Only on apple hardware to be Legal
What an exciting way for the government to attempt to get a back door into our communications. Pitiful
Read the license. Apple's Hackintosh clause prevents running the OS on non-Apple hardware.
How about this reason: If it's possible to do it intentionally then it is also possible to do it unintentionally.
How is this for an option: buy an android phone and get whatever apps you want. Let the rest of us have a secure platform that doesn't crash because of a font conflict built for an old version of the OS can access location permissions.
It's all about making the process easier for the general consumer not the /. crowd. The only reason Amazon Video isn't in the play store is because they have the option to run their own store. Take that away and it will end up in the google play store. Instead the good apps are spread everywhere instead of being in one central place.
"No, it has nothing to do with work. It has to do with Apple deliberately making it harder and harder for Cydia to even be possible, in ways that directly harm consumers." How does it harm consumers? Because consumers want conflicts, and multiple companies having access to credit card info, or having to remember what store they bought something from, or more distance between the manufacturer of their device and task they are trying to complete? You can already install Cydia so what if you have to wait for someone to hack the OS. Apple doesn't have to make sure their competitors plow their parking lot, and they don't have to do the same thing for their stores. It isn't Apple's fault that you want to buy apps without paying them. Besides installing android apps can already make your phone part of a botnet, so I am not sure how allowing easier install of 3rd party garbage will help with that.
You already have a platform that lets you do all these things you want. The people willing to spend money for quality have voted with their wallet. They don't want multiple apps stores. They already complain about the android features apple has added to iOS.
I was suckered into buying an S7 edge this upgrade on the promise that every iOS app I want is available on Android, and if it isn't something else is similar to it. What a crock. The apps that are cross platform suck on android. They suck battery, their UI is terrible, and they lag like hell. The apps that are iOS exclusives rarely have an android equivalent that doesn't shove ads into the platform - even after you pay. I can have app that syncs my weight from my scale, and another that syncs with my fitbit, and another that tracks my biking, but they can't sync with each other or the devices built in software. So no - they aren't the same as the iOS version that works as soon as you install the app and set up your device.
But hey - I can install widgets that drain my battery, keyboards that nag the crap out of me, and ad free apps that still contain ads.
So here is valid technical reason: Apple wants to make a GOOD product.
The sooner OEMs develop their own OS and get out of this compost the better.
But NONE of that is whats being argued and is therefore irrelevant.
They are arguing that App prices are higher and therefore the consumer is harmed because of Apples restrictions.
THAT is patently false because it is the developer who sets the price, not Apple. And if Apple was manipulating the store in such a way there would be no free Apps because Apples cut of $0 is $0 even though they host, pay for traffic, etc etc for the free Apps. And Apple makes it easy to find free Apps, most of the Apps on my IOS devices are free.
Now, go find a bricks and mortar store where even 10% of their inventory is free.
Now, go and look at the old T&C etc for software you bought from bricks and mortar stores, most say you can install on ONE machine, sure most people if they owned 2 computers installed it on both, but technically that was illegal. On the App store you can legally put it on 5 machines you own. And the cost for Apps has been falling (like they do for all products as they mature, my first Microwave cost me $1000, now I can get one for $80).
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. This is particularly problematic when it comes to subscription revenue, where they have to pay Apple on an ongoing basis. That does, in fact, raise prices for consumers, as has been demonstrated repeatedly.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
1. Google takes the same 30% cut for software sold on the Google Store
2. Subscriptions only count when you use the App to take out a subscription, if you take out a subscription directly with the company (i.e. you did not use the App to make the subscription), then Apple gets nothing. So you can have subscription based service, you just can not advertise, subscribe to it via the App if you don't want Apple to take a cut.
So, for example, my Netflix subscription was taken out directly with Netflix, Apple gets a whole $0.
So, again, no anti-competitive behaviour.
Isn't the average price of an iphone app like a few bucks?
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 that iOS users paid a lot more than Android users, who were offered the option to pay the cheaper amount with a credit card using the companies' normal merchant account systems. Q.E.D.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
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.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.