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.
The walled garden is a pro or a con, depending on your perspective.
There is no perspective from which disallowing side-loading is a pro. The "walled garden" doesn't keep malware out. It's a nice convenience, just like Debian's package management system is a nice convenience.
Sideloading disallows you freedoms you could have. If you don't want those freedoms, then disallowing it is neutral for you: it's not a pro.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Which is a false claim anyway:
Even if this is true, this is only for free open source apps. Besides the fact that this is a ridiculous amount of steps to go thru to get an app, this still doesn't give someone the ability to sell an app. Inflated prices and/or monopoly generally refers to apps that you pay money for not open source apps.
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.
According to the article, the appellate court ruled against Apple:
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.
Sure - but how much do you think they care about you? There are a number of people that like the iPhone because of it's usability. There are some who know what they are doing, but look at their phone as something really important that they must have total control over. And there are some like me, who know what they are doing, and who look at a phone the same way they look at a refrigerator. I want to turn it on, and I want it to work. And if I want to write apps for it, I will. It isn't terribly difficult.
But for me, at it's tippy top best, any and all smartphones are pretty much crippled toy computers.
And a technically adroit person who won't buy one for whatever reason, be it the expense, or the mythical closed garden, just tells us that that particula phone isn't for you.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
The problem arises when idiots^H^H^H^H^H^H users install some trojan and then expect Apple to fix it and then bad mouth the company when they refuse to deal with it or for having bad security.
Nothing is stopping you from buying something at Home Depot which ends up burning down your house and/or sending you to the E.R. Somehow, they still manage to stay in business.
Apple locks down their devices because you're not really buying a piece of hardware. You're paying for the transferable rights to use iOS and its associated services, which just happens to include the requisite hardware as part of your purchase. It's like buying a Magic Band with admission rights to Disney World, but with better hardware specs.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
iOS has always required explicit permission for apps to access the contact list
So has Android.
and you would be here complaining about that
Hey now, that's a hefty assumption based on... what, exactly? It's not like I was complaining in the first place, merely stating a fact. I use both Android and iOS, I'm intimately familiar with both platforms, and I don't pick favorites as they both have their place; I also have no illusions that one is better, overall, than the other. Again, they both have their place.
I hope all these high horses trample you.
You're such a nice guy, I wish you nothing but the best in life.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
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