Slashdot Mirror
US Top Court Leans Toward Allowing Apple App Store Antitrust Suit (reuters.com)
U.S. Supreme Court justices on Monday appeared open to letting a lawsuit proceed against Apple that accused it of breaking federal antitrust laws by monopolizing the market for iPhone software applications and causing consumers to overpay. From a report: The nine justices heard an hour of arguments in an appeal by the Cupertino, California-based technology company of a lower court's decision to revive the proposed class-action lawsuit filed in federal court in California in 2011 by a group of iPhone users seeking monetary damages. The lawsuit said Apple violated federal antitrust laws by requiring apps to be sold through the company's App Store and then taking a 30 percent commission from the purchases. The case may hinge on how the justices will apply one of its past decisions to the claims against Apple. That 1977 ruling limited damages for anti-competitive conduct to those directly overcharged rather than indirect victims who paid an overcharge passed on by others.
Every video game console maker has a monopoly on their own game stores. How is this different? Are they being investigated, too?
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
I agree that as long as there is another more open-ecosystem alternative that is a viable competitor, like Android, then people should be able to choose from between a more quality-controlled, uniformly designed, closed system (Apple), and the more open alternative.
It's not a monopoly. It's a duopoly. And it's fairly simple for customers to switch.
This does not need government interference in the market.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
The lawsuit said Apple violated federal antitrust laws by requiring apps to be sold through the company's App Store and then taking a 30 percent commission from the purchases.
I don't get how this is a monopoly without contorting the definition of the word into something utterly useless. If it was such a terrible deal for software vendors then why do they persist in using Apple's platform? There are alternatives which are actually considerably more popular by unit volume and more open to third parties. I don't see the public interest here.
And if the argument is that Apple is taking too big a cut then the argument is de-facto that the government should engage in price fixing which is almost always a terrible idea. What is the "right" amount? 5%? 20%? 50%? For any number greater than zero they are asking the government to determine a market price and the government is terrible at doing that especially when there is no compelling public interest in doing so.
This isn't just about Apple or video game consoles. Do you want a future where the only way to get software onto any device you buy is through the device manufacturer's store, where they charge a 30% tax^h^h^hfee? Or do you want a future where manufacturers only charge a token transaction fee to get software onto your device?
Google/Android has the right model IMHO. If you don't feel confident in your knowledge about tech to protect yourself, you can stick to the Google Play store and rely on Google to protect you. But if you want you can strike out on your own and get apps from different stores, or side-load them. It is, after all, your phone, not Apple's. When a company completely locks down access to devices like Apple does, they essentially create a monopoly for themselves. Not a monopoly to consumers, but a monopoly to software sellers. The only way to sell stuff to iOS devices owners is via Apple's store. They've set themselves up as an unavoidable middleman, which is something that should never be allowed.
Because the U.S. legal system operates based on case law, they don't have to go after video game consoles. If the lawsuit against Apple succeeds (and it holds up through appeals), then that sets a binding precedent. Any video game console maker attempting to fight off similar lawsuits would thereafter immediately lose in the first round of court because of the precedent. Or chipped printer ink cartridge manufacturers. Or manufacturers bricking devices repaired with third party screens.
But calling Apple a monopoly simply for providing the protected app store and mandating that for warranty service is like calling GM a monopoly because they put tires on the cars at the factory and recommend safe sizes.
First, "safe sizes" still allow buying third-party tires meeting GM's spec. Second, in the case of cars, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act applies.
MS got blasted in the 90's for trying to force people to use IE.
That's because Microsoft WAS a monopoly. They had over 90% market share in desktop operating systems. There literally weren't any viable alternatives. Apple has something like 30% market share in smartphones. In what universe is that a monopoly.?
Apple has no right to dictate how I use my hardware- they represent a majority share of the mobile market.
Entitled much? First off Apple does NOT have a majority share of the mobile market. Second, Apple isn't telling you how to use your hardware. You can do whatever you want with it and they cannot say shit about it. But the flipside is that Apple isn't under any obligation to cooperate with you regarding the software or services or what hardware they sell you if it isn't in their interest. What benefit does Apple get from allowing sideloading and other hacks? It's not going to make them one additional penny. You want to connect to Apple's ecosystem then you'll play by Apple's rules. If you don't, that's fine - go buy something else. You seem to be under the delusion that Apple should have to cater to your particular interests and that's not how it works nor should it be.
The ability to sideload and have additional app stores is one of the reasons why I left Apple.
Which is how it is supposed to work. If Apple doesn't offer you what you want you go elsewhere. If Apple had 90% market share then maybe there is an argument against them as a monopoly but the fact is they don't and probably never will.
It is OBVIOUS from the FACTS that people do NOT buy Apps directly from Apple; but rather THROUGH Apple.
The simplest fact which proves this is: App Developers (Publishers) are free to set the PRICE of the App (including FREE). Obviously, if the Publisher of the App is setting the Selling Price, AND the Publisher of the App is writing the "Ad Copy" for the App's Listing in the App Store, AND the Publisher of the App is deciding on the Category(ies) that the App is Listed-Under, then it is the Publisher that is simply listing his wares in Apple's Store Catalog, for which Apple charges a 30% commission for hosting, payment processing, indexing, etc.
Since Users purchase their Apple mobile products with the understanding that the main source (but not the ONLY Source! *) of Apps is the Apple App Store, and since Apple certainly doesn't hold a "monopoly" position in ANY market, there simply is no question of anti-trust here.
* Since iOS 8, Apple has allowed Users to install Apps from Source Code Projects using XCode, and from .ipa files using Cydia Impactor (which runs on MacOs, Windows and Linux).
mobile smartphones with apps is a market.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
That being the " Service " department at your local car dealership.
If I'm not mistaken, the courts basically told dealerships to f*** right off when they demanded folks bring their cars into a " certified $brand_name dealer " or use only " certified $brand_name parts " for all service and warranty related issues lest you void your warranty. All at a considerable markup on parts of course. . . . . .
I would suspect the end ruling on this will flow along similar lines.
It's about time. Apple has been allowed to use government agencies to steal legitimate parts at the border, relentlessly stolen software innovations for years, locked vendors and users into an ecosystem where they must play by Apple's rules. It's about time we do something about it.
That's ALL total horseshit.
1. Apple can't "use government agencies" any more than any other entity can.
2. Apple hasn't stolen anything any more than any other company. That is the essence of innovation and progress.
3. NO ONE is "locked in". Don't like Apple? DON'T BUY IT! See? Wasn't that easy?
"This is legal because they are not a monopoly."
Likewise, Apple is not a monopoly either, with 43.5% of US smartphone owners running some form of iOS.
a) Monopoly does not require a sole vendor; you can have monopoly power and abuse it without being the only game in town. (See Microsoft's antitrust suit) 43% is huge; especially when the other smartphone OS is basically controlled by another single vendor. So we have a duopoly at best.
b) No one said they have have monopoly on smartphones. They have a monopoly on iphone apps.
Monopolies aren't inherently illegal. But they are subject to review and regulation in the public interest. In a case like this one element that strengthens the case against apple is that the consumer is tied to apple with an expensive phone. For a consumer to change what apps they buy they have to abandon a *separate* expensive product in the phone itself.
If I get pissed at chevron, i can just start buying gas somewhere else. I don't have to get a whole different car. I can get replacement parts from 3rd parties, I can get service from 3rd parties, i can install a stereo made by a 3rd party. etc etc. I can exercise my freedom to buy goods and services from whoever i want, without having to get a new car first.
Likewise, if get pissed at google play, i can get apps somewhere else. And in fact I do generally get my android apps from f-droid, and most of my games are from the humblebundle store for android. If I get pissed at steam there are some games i won't be able to buy, but there are plenty of other stores willing to provide me with PC software. I don't have to buy a new computer.
See the difference?
Now you can argue (rightfully) that consumers (should) know the deal with apple going in so caveat emptor; and that's a fair argument. But that doesn't automatically make it legal beyond reproach; the court should hear it.
You can also argue (rightfully) that its similar too or even exactly the same thing console makers do; and that's a good argument too. I do think there is a qualitative difference between a toy and an almost essential tool though; such that consumers don't necessarily need the same protection from Nintendo with respect to the availability of DS software as they do for their smartphones. Again that's a determination for the court.
Personally, I think Apple's store monopoly should be broken for the good of the market as a whole. There is a LOT of stuff that should be available that isn't or that is more of pain than it should be because of Apple's store monopoly. It's *the* primary reason I don't use an Apple phone myself.
No, it's not. You can buy a BMW, and you can buy a Toyota engine from lots of people, and you can fit the two together if you like. Apple wants it so that you can only buy engines from them - no one else. And then make it impossible for you to install any engine without their express permission.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
antitrust laws exist to prevent the monopoly abuses of the past, but they affect companies regardless of whether the company is a monopoly
Right. Let's go straight to the source. The Sherman defines "every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations" as a criminal needing punishment. In fact, that's almost the entire thing. Very short, very broad. (Of course it's backed up by a huge body of case law.)
Nothing about monopolies there, it's about monopolists and what they do or attempt to do. The usual mob of deniers ought to keep that in mind, instead of wanking on about what is and is not a monopoly.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.