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.

2 of 121 comments (clear)

  1. 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.

  2. 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.