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."
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."
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 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.
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.
A monopoly isn't about how much market share a company has
Actually, that is precisely what a monopoly is about. Meaning literally, single seller. A monopoly isn't illegal. There are lots of monopolies.
Where you as a monopoly need to be careful, is running afoul of the antitrust laws meant to protect us from corporations turning evil once they lack real competition in a market.
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.
They don't let you install anything not from their app store.
... and before anyone provides links to the iOS versions of Chrome, Firefox, et al. Keep in mind, they must use the same Webkit rendering engine built in to iOS, so they are effectively just skins of Safari.