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.
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.