Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Appeals Court Revives Antitrust Lawsuit Against Apple (reuters.com)

Posted by msmash on from the opening-pandora-box dept.

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.

15 of 121 comments (clear)

  1. It might be something but it isn't anti-trust? by Tangential · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:It might be something but it isn't anti-trust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's anti-trust because Apple can restrict what is allowed to be sold.

    2. Re:It might be something but it isn't anti-trust? by PetiePooo · · 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 has nothing specifically about price control in their definition.

    3. Re:It might be something but it isn't anti-trust? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      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.

    4. Re:It might be something but it isn't anti-trust? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    5. Re:It might be something but it isn't anti-trust? by NatasRevol · · Score: 3

      you mean like Apple is the only phone you can buy?

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    6. Re:It might be something but it isn't anti-trust? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      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.

  2. Nice try Apple by bogaboga · · Score: 2

    ...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.

    1. Re:Nice try Apple by bluefoxlucid · · 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.

      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 system software available on the phone and supplying Apple services, it isn't abusing a device monopoly to gain a software monopoly. Further, Apple allows various software in its store, such as Spotify and Google Maps, which competes with Apple's own software and thus precludes the leveraging of a device monopoly to expand a monopoly of a particular bundled software or service.

      Because Android phones are available, Apple is not locking consumers into its platform by controlling the market: software developers can produce equivalent software for Android, iOS, Windows Mobile, or any combination thereof, and sell in one, several, or all of the available markets for all devices.

      There's no case here.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    2. Re:Nice try Apple by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      ...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".

    3. Re:Nice try Apple by phantomfive · · 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.

      They might still argue that. This was only a ruling that allowed the lawsuit to move forward.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  3. Walled Garden under fire? by v1 · · 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. 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.
    1. Re:Walled Garden under fire? by thegarbz · · Score: 4, 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.

  4. also go after the hardware lock in and VM lock in by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    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)

  5. Re: It might be something but it isn't anti-trust by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 4, 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.