Slashdot Mirror
The Supreme Court Will Decide If Apple's App Store Is a Monopoly (wired.com)
The Supreme Court will review a 2011 class-action lawsuit against Apple, accusing the company of operating an illegal monopoly by not allowing iPhone users to download mobile apps outside of its own App Store, reducing consumer choice. The case, being referred to as Apple Inc. v. Pepper., could have wide-reaching implications for consumers as well as other companies like Amazon. Wired reports: The dispute is over whether Apple, by charging app developers a 30 percent commission fee and only allowing iOS apps to be sold through its own store, has inflated the price of iPhone apps. Apple, supported by the Trump administration, argues that the plaintiffs in the case -- iPhone consumers -- don't have the right to sue under current antitrust laws in the U.S.
The case marks a rare instance in which the court has agreed not only to hear an antitrust case, but also one where no current disagreement exists in the circuit courts. The outcome could change decades of antitrust legal precedent -- either strengthening or weakening consumer protections against monopolistic power. The case also represents a huge source of revenue for Apple; the company raked in an estimated $11 billion last year in App Store commissions alone. The lawsuit centers around another Supreme Court case from 1977, Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, "which established what is known as the Illinois Brick Doctrine," reports Wired. "That rule says you can't sue for antitrust damages if you're not the direct purchaser of a good or service."
The case marks a rare instance in which the court has agreed not only to hear an antitrust case, but also one where no current disagreement exists in the circuit courts. The outcome could change decades of antitrust legal precedent -- either strengthening or weakening consumer protections against monopolistic power. The case also represents a huge source of revenue for Apple; the company raked in an estimated $11 billion last year in App Store commissions alone. The lawsuit centers around another Supreme Court case from 1977, Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, "which established what is known as the Illinois Brick Doctrine," reports Wired. "That rule says you can't sue for antitrust damages if you're not the direct purchaser of a good or service."
I wonder why? And I wonder if they know what a monopoly is..because it's pretty clear Apple's app store isn't.
In 2013, a district court in California initially sided with Apple, agreeing that the tech giant was shielded by the Illinois Brick Doctrine. But the plaintiffs appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the lower court's opinion last year.
If only Apple had allowed side-loading apps a long time ago, I might have bought an iPhone.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Which is a false claim anyway:
siding against Apple on this one. Not after Gorsuch got appointed. He's got a long history of siding with corporations over consumers. The argument will be that you can just get an Android and side load so no monopoly here. Heck, that might even be a valid legal argument.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
IOS is an operating system. So is Android. You don't really care which one you use, as the user experience is similar.
Step 1.
Buy Android Phone:
Step 2. Go to one of:
Play Store
Aptoide.
ApkMirror.
Amazon Appstore.
GetJar.
SlideMe.
AppBrain.
F-Droid.
Mobogenie.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Apple and their donations will decide.
From what I'm reading, they are merely deciding on whether the class actually has standing to sue.
Oh, wait, /. editors don't actually do any real editing.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
If you're going to be upset about trivial shit like that while Trump commits ongoing treason, you really have your outrage priorities in order.
Step 1.
Buy Android Phone:
...
Step 3: Install an antivirus on your Android phone. Run it before every use.
If Apple loses this, then maybe they'll be forced to provide options for allowing side-loading apps with the general populace. This would allow GPL licensed libraries and applications to become available on iOS devices. The GPL requires that code licensed under it be redistributal and usable anywhere; however, there is a license agreement when you make and publish apps on the App Store that limits the code reuse capabilities. Some relevant links, 1 2.
...so this means I should be 100% against Apple and there's no need to read further right?
NES cartridges were a design patented by Nintendo. It has been reported that premium games ($50) had a $15 fee paid to Nintendo for the use of the patented cartridge. How is that any different?
Yes, Tengen existed and worked around the patent, just as jailbreakers can work around the iPhone lock down.
If you make something and I buy it you are doing evil by still trying to keep control of it as a way of making more money. I don't know if it is illegal but it should be.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
Suppose I owe PhantomFive $100.
You owe me $100.
He emails me asking "hey, where's the $100 you owe me?"
I reply "I can't afford to pay you until rsilvergun pays me".
Then he sues you, and so do I.
He tells the court "I got shorted because rsilvergun didn't pay Ray. If rsilvergun had paid Ray, Ray would have paid me." At the time time, I'm suing you because you didn't pay me.
He would not prevail in his suit against you. First, you owe *me*, not him. You and I may have worked out a payment plan, or could have a lawsuit, or whatever that he does even know about. Secondly, his claim is based on the hypothetical "if rsilvergun paid Ray, Ray would have paid me". Maybe I would have, maybe not. Maybe I would have made a partial payment, maybe none at all.
That's the legal issue in this case. Apple charged PUBLISHERS 30% (vs 8%-18% other payment processors charge, and unknown marketing costs). Publishers could sue Apple for forcing them to pay that 30%. Here a third-party, some users, are saying "if Apple didn't charge publishers as much, publishers wouldn't charge me as much." Maybe so, maybe not. It's a hypothetical from a third party. Major publishers, such as Google and Steam could sue over the 30% they have to pay.
Intuitively, at a gut level, I'd like this particular case to go forward, but it's hard to formulate a rule that gives the result we want in this case without leading to ridiculous results. Suppose I don't pay my car payment and I tell the bank "I would have the money to pay my car note, if I hadn't spent so much on iPhone apps." Should the car company then sue Apple over my car loan? What if my bank owes somebody money? Should that other person sue me because the bank didn't pay them?
There are alternatives to Apple in your personal communication needs. In no way are they a monopoly, unless you can find a way they are keeping competitors off the market entirely.
I hope they lose. There's no legitimate reason why an iOS version of macOS's Gatekeeper doesn't exist. It can default to allowing only App Store apps and allowing managed devices to be further restricted, but if I want to install unapproved software on my entirely personal device, I should be able to do so at my own risk.
This is totally going off on a tangent, but it's kind of an interesting story, I think.
Many years ago, the porn industry went through a period of doing pretty much what I described above. For example, John owed Dave, Dave owed Mike, Mike owed Ray, and Ray owed John, but nobody had any money. So they resolved all the debts with phone calls, without any actual money changing hands, after realizing that the money John owed would eventually end up back with him. There was a lot of that going on for a couple weeks.
A major payment processor suddenly shut off all payments to and from anyone they suspected might be even indirectly involved with adult web sites. This created a cash crunch even for companies who didn't use that processor, because their customers couldn't pay them. In turn, they couldn't pay their vendors. The whole ecosystem of the industry was screwed. Porn sites couldn't pay the content providers (photographers), who therefore couldn't pay the hosting companies, who then couldn't pay their consulting server admin and security guy, who in turn couldn't pay for the content he used on his side-business site, etc.
I started a spreadsheet of who owed who and started making phone calls. "John owes you money and you owe Mike, and Mike owes me. John is going to hook me up with something I need, so all those accounts will be cleared up, okay?"
Next call "I owe you, but you owe John. I've talked to John and he says you are clear with him if I'm clear with you, okay?"
It was an interesting time. Thinking back on it, I might have been able to take a 5% cut of each transaction :)
And if you want to penalize Apple, don't give them your money. You knew what you were getting into when you bought the phone. The plaintiffs in this case are all a bunch of whiny entitled incompetents who can't make their own decisions and need government to bail them out when they do something stupid.
This is not a joke. Consider it a public health announcement; you need professional psychiatric help.
To me it doesn't matter whether the walled garden keeps malware out or not. I'd like to be allowed to determine for myself whether an app is trustworthy or not and not be coddled.
You're totally allowed to do this. You have the freedom not to purchase an iPhone, and instead get an Android phone. Nothing is stopping you. Have at it.
Exactly this.
And what's especially disingenuous about fluffernutter's screed is that he is an iOS Developer, according to him "Because [he] has to go where the money is" (paraphrasing).
In other words, even Developers that NEVER miss an opportunity to bash Apple, on every possible point, STILL recognize that Apple's App Store model is the only one which is good for Developers, like him.
And we all know what happens to App ecosystems where Developers see no real advantage to them, right?
Ask Microsoft.
Better yet, ask any "mobile" Developer whether they'd rather Develop for iOS or Android.
Apple's model "just works".Notheing is perfect; but, in the. Vast majority of cases, Apple's way seems to be the best compromise for everyone involved
Just saying.
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
Then Comcast will be forced to enable cable tv subscribers to get content from other pay-per-view providers (like Netflix) through the cable box.
Please link me to the third party stores where I can buy iOS apps.
I'll wait.
Any organization that signed up with Apple as an enterprise developer can directly distribute to members of the organization.
Please link me to the third party stores where I can buy iOS apps.
I'll wait.
For open source apps I believe anyone can download Apple's free Xcode development environment, build the app and run it on their device
If your app is open source you are free to distribute the source code outside the App Store. Users can then download Apple's free Xcode development environment and build your app themselves and run it on their devices.
Without jail breaking, it's used by Enterprises to distribute "in house" software just for one example. I did it myself for a client. The app code is hosted on their web server, they send employees a link in email, tap the link, installs the software and all the user has to do is "trust' the certificate the app is signed with.
And this isn't some hacky work around. This is the official process that Apple recommends and clearly documents.
Before installing an third-party app you have to toggle a switch in the settings to confirm that you are aware that downloading third-party apps is unsecure so I don't really see that as an issue.
I keep thinking that part of the reason Apple has been such a closed garden and kept such a stranglehold on i-device hardware and software is that opening up the platform is a late-stage, slowing-growth expansion strategy they plan to unleash once they have significant declines in iPhone sales volumes.
I can't help but think there's a world of potential uses for iPhones that get stymied because of Apple's restrictions on software functionality, I/O devices etc. It's a small computer with built-in display and camera -- if you had PC-like wide-open software and hardware integration, I think new and novel uses would explode.
Stupid and wrong.
Since there is a "Google Play" store, then there is competition to the Apple Store.
Really? This requires a SCOTUS decision?!? If the iPhone were anywhere close to being the only choice, you might be able to make a case. But it's not, and Apple's not anywhere close to a monopoly.
Just another day in Paradise
The infection rate on Android is less than 0.1%, and even then, most of that comes from Asia where there are practically no vetted app stores in some countries, i.e. China. Asia also generally has lower standards when it comes to defining what is malware and what isn't. You can point out malware in somebody's phone and they often won't care.
Wow, you didn't know? Ok, you're the exception. I'll explain.
There isn't one! The problems with iOS are one of the main reasons (really, it's the #1, top reason) that you don't buy PCs that have iOS preinstalled on them. The widespread knowledge of this is what prevented Apple from being able to create a monopoly, because every single adult to whom their phone isn't their very first PC, knows better than to get into that situation.
If Gilette makes a razor handle that only works with Gilette blades, they will never be able to have a monopoly on the blades because there aren't enough people with IQs below 30 to go buy the handles. Word gets out, so the consumers' options don't become limited.
If you have a naive little brother or something like that where they own an iPhone, just get them a normal phone for their next birthday or something. Notice how his complaints about a "monopoly" will suddenly go away, because as it turns out, there isn't a monopoly. Every single iPhone user also has the option of getting their software Google Play, F-Droid, or even downloading packages with their web browser, but the first thing you have to do, is go upgrade your hardware and OS.
Funny...I've never needed antivirus on my phone in the nearly five years that I've been running Android phones. I don't even have antivirus on my Windows installs, and they've never been pwned either.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
And I decide to let some of the neighbors sell their stuff too at my lawn sale, by renting a table,
should I be able to decide which stuff they can sell there?
Like. You can't sell those bicycles because I'm trying to sell mine.
Or you can't sell edible, sharp-cornered kids toys.
Or coffee mugs with stupid logos on them, because, well just because.
The general point is you are perfectly free to set up your own lawn sale in your yard if you don't like the conditions,
and as a shopper, you can go to their yard, with all the sketchy stuff for sale, or my nice orderly yard.
You have free choice. You are not locked in to my yard.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
hah remember when Microsoft made IE the default browser? Such a big scandal. Nothing kept you from installing Netscape.
And yet, it was punished for abusing their monopoly.
Oh but not only Apple doesn't allow you to install other browsers in their iOS. They don't let you install anything not from their app store.
And yet, fanboys defend apple.
So the rules are changed if you have monopoly position. Microsoft at the time had a consent decree they had to abide by (which they ignored). Then they got convicted for doing what they weren't supposed to do.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
hah remember when Microsoft made IE the default browser? Such a big scandal. Nothing kept you from installing Netscape.
And yet, it was punished for abusing their monopoly.
Oh but not only Apple doesn't allow you to install other browsers in their iOS. They don't let you install anything not from their app store.
And yet, fanboys defend apple.
What monopoly does Apple have? There are more Android units (>80%) selling than iPhone units (~15%):
* https://www.idc.com/promo/smartphone-market-share/os
And iPads make up <30% of tablet market share:
* https://www.statista.com/statistics/276635/market-share-held-by-tablet-vendors/
You think they've never been pwned.
How do you know? Your PC could be used as a TOR node, email spammer, SSH relay, BOT-in-waiting, etc.. All low-traffic and low-CPU usage and you'd never detect it. All available personal information could have been scraped and sold and it's just waiting in a database to be reused or resold someday.
They will claim that if they allow other app stores to sell and install apps it will somehow make the phone less secure. .
Using Android doesn't cause viruses or malware. It's downloading android apps that cause malware. Run antivirus every time you download a new app. Infected android phones = 36,000,000+. Infected iPhones = 0 https://bgr.com/2017/05/29/jud...
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Funny...I've never needed antivirus on my phone in the nearly five years that I've been running Android phones. I don't even have antivirus on my Windows installs, and they've never been pwned either.
Just because you don't use protection does not mean you are clean. You need protection with android phones. 36,000,000+ infected in just 2017 https://bgr.com/2017/05/29/jud...
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
I'd argue that there's some distinctions you're failing to make here.
The iOS Dev that has to dev for iOS because "that's where the money is" is probably referring to the market penetration of iPhones and iPads, not the Apple App Store which comes along with the iPhone.
Second, why do developers prefer to develop for iOS over Android? It's most definitely not because of the App Store. It's because there is only one manufacturer for iOS devices and only two product lines they have to worry about, the iPhone and the iPad. Both of which run the same or exceedingly similar versions of iOS. It significantly reduces the amount of QA they need to (or at least should) do when testing their apps.
Given the opportunity, I'd wager that many iOS Devs would jump at the chance to use a different distribution platform for their iOS apps. And, you know it's not just apps. Apple forbids any kind of third party application that even remotely resembles a marketplace. You can't rent or buy movies via the Amazon Movies or Google Play Movies Apps on an iPhone - you have to instead purchase/rent the content via another device or PC before you can stream it to your iOS device. No such restriction for iTunes though.
Valve's Steam Link App was booted off the App Store because it dared to display a list of games that looked like a marketplace - even though the games were all PC games and not software for iOS (I don't even think that they were available for purchase either).
All that does show that Apple is using their position as a hardware manufacturer and operating system developer to advantage their own software and entertainment marketplaces over those of it's competitors, either by completely preventing outside marketplaces from operating or by hampering the usage there of.
Unlike Microsoft however in the days when it got smacked around, Apple doesn't have near as much of the smart phone market share as MS had of the PC OS market share back then (which I believe was close to or over 90%). So you're not wrong in saying that consumers have a choice whether or not to buy an iOS or an Android device. But, this question is more about the developers choice of how to distribute their application. On iOS it's the App Store or not at all. So one can argue that the App Store has a 100% monopoly on distribution of iOS software. In other words, a developer that runs afoul of Apple's censors could find their app and themselves permanently banned from the App Store, flushing untold man hours down the toilet and leaving that developer with no alternatives. You also can't have anyone else start a new marketplace and say "Hey, I can provide a secure marketplace for transactions and ensure applications are trustworthy more efficiently than Apple, so I'm only going to charge a 10% commission".
On Android, I can install an alternate App Store. In fact, I can install any app I want from anywhere. In fact, on almost any operating system, I can install any app for that OS that I want to install.
Can I install an alternate App Store on iOS? Can I install any app I want? No. As a consumer, I am forced to buy/install from iOS app store. As a developer, I am forced to publish on the App Store and forced to give up 30% of my charge to Apple.
I'd argue that there's some distinctions you're failing to make here.
The iOS Dev that has to dev for iOS because "that's where the money is" is probably referring to the market penetration of iPhones and iPads, not the Apple App Store which comes along with the iPhone.
Second, why do developers prefer to develop for iOS over Android? It's most definitely not because of the App Store. It's because there is only one manufacturer for iOS devices and only two product lines they have to worry about, the iPhone and the iPad. Both of which run the same or exceedingly similar versions of iOS. It significantly reduces the amount of QA they need to (or at least should) do when testing their apps.
Given the opportunity, I'd wager that many iOS Devs would jump at the chance to use a different distribution platform for their iOS apps. And, you know it's not just apps. Apple forbids any kind of third party application that even remotely resembles a marketplace. You can't rent or buy movies via the Amazon Movies or Google Play Movies Apps on an iPhone - you have to instead purchase/rent the content via another device or PC before you can stream it to your iOS device. No such restriction for iTunes though.
Valve's Steam Link App was booted off the App Store because it dared to display a list of games that looked like a marketplace - even though the games were all PC games and not software for iOS (I don't even think that they were available for purchase either).
All that does show that Apple is using their position as a hardware manufacturer and operating system developer to advantage their own software and entertainment marketplaces over those of it's competitors, either by completely preventing outside marketplaces from operating or by hampering the usage there of.
Unlike Microsoft however in the days when it got smacked around, Apple doesn't have near as much of the smart phone market share as MS had of the PC OS market share back then (which I believe was close to or over 90%). So you're not wrong in saying that consumers have a choice whether or not to buy an iOS or an Android device. But, this question is more about the developers choice of how to distribute their application. On iOS it's the App Store or not at all. So one can argue that the App Store has a 100% monopoly on distribution of iOS software. In other words, a developer that runs afoul of Apple's censors could find their app and themselves permanently banned from the App Store, flushing untold man hours down the toilet and leaving that developer with no alternatives. You also can't have anyone else start a new marketplace and say "Hey, I can provide a secure marketplace for transactions and ensure applications are trustworthy more efficiently than Apple, so I'm only going to charge a 10% commission".
First: Why not let fluffernutter speak for himself? I had seen his anti-Apple posts for quite some time, and believe me, he is not shy about posting his opinions. I don't think he needs his Mommy to fight his battles.
Having said that, I will go ahead and address your "argument".
According to everyone at Slashdot, Apple is just barely hanging-on with a miniscule market-share. So, why would Devs. be SO anxious to get their Apps placed in the iOS App Store, even though it may mean they have to invest in a Development Platform that they personally don't like to one degree or another?
I'll tell you why: Because, unlike the VAST majority of cheapskate Android owners (most of which are kids or poor adults) WON'T PAY for Apps, and only look to see what they can leech for Free, or PIRATE. Conversely, although iOS owners certainly enjoy a good, free App, they are MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more likely to reward Devs. that produce a useful App with their actual MONEY.
You will just argue that iOS owners are duped into purchasing Apps they don't like, because Apple doesn't have "Free Trials". Well, that argument ignores the fact that Apple has ALWAYS had a 14-day money-back for ALL p
No, I don't expect Apple to host a market place app on the App Store any more than I expect Google Play to make the Amazon App Store downloadable through their storefront. What I pointed out (or meant to point out) is that:
As for the "restricting content providers", Apple has many content-provider Apps on the iOS App Store. Netflix and Hulu immediately come to mind, as does HBO Go, Many Network and Cable-Channel Apps, DirecTV Now, and most Cable Providers' Apps. ALL of those Apps are FREE; plus, NONE of that content, most of which requires a subscription with the App Publisher of one sort or another, makes Apple ONE THIN DIME. But of course they make it easy for iTunes.
1) Apple uses their platform to advantage iTunes (as considered being a separate application compared to the App Store, whether they are integrated or not) over other entertainment applications by forbidding those applications from offering In-App rentals or purchases. This has nothing to do with subscription based entertainment applications (though there is some overlap when considering Amazon Prime & Amazon Movies). This appears to be potentially monopolistic, but, it is slightly off-topic (even though I brought it up first) since we're supposedly talking about developers and Apps here.
2) What you've pointed out is that Apple will allow a user to place the phone in developer mode and then compile source code or manually install a pre-compiled ipa using a PC based application. This is beyond most users and this is not true side-loading. What Android allows is turning off a simple setting in the security settings (Allow Installation from Unknown Sources) and then opening the apk on the phone/tablet or via a browser link - no PC or Developer mode required.
While I do see evidence of some third party App Stores for iOS (TUTUApp, TweakBox, FlekStore) the fact that they talk about downloading paid apps for free (something I would not condone) points out their illegitimacy/illegality. Others (Cydia, GetJar, Appland) apparently require jailbreaking the device in order to use. And again, since there is no side-loading in iOS, installing any of these is prohibitive or difficult beyond most users.
I wouldn't really say iOS is easier to develop for, I would say it's easier to QA for.
I'll tell you why: Because, unlike the VAST majority of cheapskate Android owners (most of which are kids or poor adults) WON'T PAY for Apps, and only look to see what they can leech for Free, or PIRATE. Conversely, although iOS owners certainly enjoy a good, free App, they are MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more likely to reward Devs. that produce a useful App with their actual MONEY.
There are many premium smartphones running Android that cost just as much if not more than iPhones, and they often have hardware that is arguably or just straight out superior to an equivalently priced iPhone.
There are plenty of paid apps on Android marketplaces and plenty of people that have no issues paying money for them. Using broad categorizations and name calling does not help your argument.
You will just argue that iOS owners are duped into purchasing Apps they don't like, because Apple doesn't have "Free Trials". Well, that argument ignores the fact that Apple has ALWAYS had a 14-day money-back for ALL purchases, INCLUDING iOS APPS. They don't make a big deal about it; but it is there, and you don't have to "be
From what I have heard, due to fragmentation and zillions of versions in the field at any one time, Android is significantly harder to both Develop AND QA-for than iOS. YOMV (Your Opinion May Vary)...
Apple has hands-down the most performant mobile hardware and OS. That's not fanboyism; that's been shown year-after-year in benchmark after benchmark. Sorry! But what I was referring to is the fact that, the only reason Android's marketshare beats Apple's AT ALL is the proliferation of low-end cheap/free phones, although Apple has made some serious inroads in the past few years on that score.
I'm almost positive my cable-provider's Spectrum TV App will let me Rent Pay-per-View movies/programs for viewing on my iPhone/iPad, but running it just now, I might have to retract that statement. Hmm. I will have to do some more research...
No, I wasn't talking about Pirate-ware sites. I am not condoning those, either.
Cydia Impactor does not require a jailbroken iOS device. In fact, I think it will only work with a non-jailbroken device (but don't quote me on that).
I agree it isn't as easy as flipping a switch in Android; but it isn't horrible, either. Keep in mind that a Developer ID from Apple is FREE, unless you plan on Publishing to the App Store (that's when it is $99/yr). But here are the steps to install an .ipa file on iOS without jailbreaking, using Impactor:
http://www.shoutpedia.com/use-...
Apparently, iOS 11 broke Impactor; but from what I read, it is all better now... ;-)