US Top Court Leans Toward Allowing Apple App Store Antitrust Suit (reuters.com) 163
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 Single Console (Score:5, Insightful)
Every video game console maker has a monopoly on their own game stores. How is this different? Are they being investigated, too?
Re: (Score:2)
This is not an investigation. This is a class action lawsuit. I am sure that if Apple loses, all these video game consoles will get class action lawsuits against them too.
Also, the way you write it make it sound like a defense of Apple. You can not use the fact that someone else jay walks to get out of a fine for jay walking. Similar thing here.
Re: (Score:1)
Video games can still be purchased from retailers while apps cannot.
Smaller scope games are download-only (Score:2)
Video games can still be purchased from retailers
Only the larger games get a physical release. Any console game whose scope is not big enough for a physical release is stuck on the console maker's paid download store.
Re: (Score:3)
That's besides the point. Whether you buy a PS4 game physically from a retailer or digitally via PSN, Sony gets a cut thanks to the licensing fees they charge for the privilege of publishing an officially licensed game for their platform. Likewise with Nintendo and Microsoft. The fact that you can buy a game from a different source doesn't change anything, other than obscuring the fact that the platform creator still gets their cut.
You can but PlayStation games at Walmart, EA.com (Score:2)
You can buy PlayStation 4 games at Walmart, on Amazon, GameStop, EA.com etc. Sony does not have a monopoly on PS4 games.
Re: (Score:2)
How does one manufacture a working PlayStation 4 game disc to sell "at Walmart, on Amazon, GameStop" without going through Sony?
Here are the docs (Score:2)
The relevant docs can be found here:
https://partners.playstation.n... [playstation.net]
They do not have a 30% royalty like Apple does.
If the case against Apple is won by the plaintiffs, someone could try to file suit against Sony, though they'd have a weaker case.
Comparative overhead: PlayStation vs. iOS (Score:2)
without going through Sony?
The relevant docs can be found here: [Sony Interactive Entertainment's website]
They do not have a 30% royalty like Apple does.
That's still going through Sony. According to help [service-now.com] linked from the question mark in the top right corner of the page you linked, this appears to incur more overhead than Apple, even if the overhead is payable to third parties as opposed to Sony or Apple.
1. Unlike on Apple's platform, you need a corporation or LLC to get started: "(please be aware that we do not license sole proprietorships in the US, Japan, Asia Area)"
2. Unlike on Apple's platform, you need mail hosting on your own domain, not iCloud or any
Yes, any company, which is more than one company (Score:2)
Yes, to get Sony's help, to have them believe you're actually a game company and not a crakz haxor, you need to have a company. That will cost about $250, you're right.
Compare with Apple, where you can only buy from Apple's store. With Apple, ONE company can sell apps, Apple. With Sony, ANY company can sell games.
"Any" is slightly more than "one".
Re: (Score:2)
With Sony, ANY company can sell games.
Are you referring to discs or to downloads? I was under the impression that 1. only PlayStation Store could sell downloads, and 2. Sony stopped manufacturing cartridges for its handheld [kotaku.com], leaving downloads as the only way to get new games onto PlayStation Vita.
Vita? (Score:2)
I wouldn't know about who all makes / made cards for the Vita, but I know the major game companies ditched it a while back because few people use it.
In any event, the Vita hardly has a monopoly on handheld gaming, with the Nintendo 3DS series being far more popular, and phone / tablet Gam even more so. If Sony becomes the only company still trying to sell games for their failing handheld, who cares.
Re: (Score:2)
In any event, the Vita hardly has a monopoly on handheld gaming, with the Nintendo 3DS series being far more popular, and phone / tablet Gam even more so.
Only Apple can sell games for iOS. Only Nintendo can sell games in Nintendo 3DS eShop, and only Nintendo can manufacture Nintendo 3DS Game Cards on publishers' behalf for "Walmart, on Amazon, GameStop, EA.com" to sell.
Re: (Score:2)
> only Nintendo can sell games in Nintendo 3DS eShop
And only you can sell stuff in Tepples' shop. So what?
You can sell Nintendo 3DS games in your store. Nintnedo can sell them in their store, and I can sell them in mine. Contrast Apple - ONLY Apple can sell iOS applications. Walmart cannot sell them.
> only Nintendo can manufacture Nintendo 3DS Game Cards on publishers' behalf for "Walmart, on Amazon, GameStop, EA.com" to sell.
False. You can even easily buy individual blank cards at retail and put you
Re: (Score:2)
Context for those following along: You are recommending developing and selling homebrew games for Nintendo 3DS as an alternative to developing for Apple iOS or PlayStation Vita.
You can even easily buy individual blank [Nintendo 3DS-compatible Game Cards] at retail and put your own game on them. Two popular brands are Gateway 3DS and Sky3DS.
I thought Nintendo was having the US International Trade Commission block imports of these adapters and/or issuing Nintendo 3DS system software updates that cause the system not to recognize them.
That's really the question you need to ask yoursel (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Or the biggest fish of them all - cable service monopolies. They argue they're not a monopoly because they don't own 100% of the customer market. But they do own 100% of the market to access the customers they have. Which is why they're able to pull off things like extort money from Netflix for access to those customers.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
It's not Apple's job to create a better product than Apple, that's what competition is for. Has Apple interfered with the manufacture, distribution or sale of alternative smartphones? Has Apple refused or punished apps for being interoperable with alternatives? Has Apple abused their control over the platform to push out third party software in favor of their own products? If no, then I really don't see the problem because they've not interfered in the creation of a device that "only charge a token transact
Re: (Score:2)
Apple interfered with the manufacture, distribution or sale of alternative smartphones?
This lawsuit is about "breaking federal antitrust laws by monopolizing the market for iPhone software applications." So, exactly which alternative I-phone did you have in mind?
Re: (Score:2)
you can stick to the Google Play store and rely on Google to protect you.
But Google don't protect you at all here - there's no review process, and anybody can upload any app to the store and have it globally available in minutes. If you want a store that does actively vet what's available, then you have no choice but to use Apple devices. Added to which, the ecosystem that Apple have created has no competitor. Apple Photos syncs all your edits, across all your (apple) devices, in a non-destructive way. This alone is worth the price of admission.
Plus, you can install non-apple-ve
Re: (Score:2)
Precedent is only binding in the circuit court in which the precedent was set.
Even so, the line of reasoning underlying a particular decision can prove persuasive in other circuits, if only because a court of appeals doesn't want to have egg on face from its decisions getting overturned.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. Nintendo in fact got sued by American Video Entertainment [wikipedia.org] over Nintendo's use of lockout on the Nintendo Entertainment System.
Re: (Score:2)
Every video game console maker has a monopoly on their own game stores. How is this different? Are they being investigated, too?
Good Point!
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. As a minority platform, this behavior isn't any more concerning than that of virtually any other closed platform. We see this or similar behavior all the time (e.g. video game handheld and console manufacturers exact license fees from game publishers, retail stores commonly take a 30% cut on all physical goods, white label goods are sold exclusively at particular retailers for prices of their own choosing). It only becomes something worthy of regulatory consideration when consumers can't reasonably
Gallon a gas (Score:2)
if Sony charged a high licensing fee, that'd be reflected in the price of their games, which would drive people to buy Xbox Ones.
Sony can get away with it for current PS4 owners by setting its fee just high enough that the difference in fees over the course of owning a PlayStation 4 is less than the cost of the Xbox One hardware.
When grocery stores take higher cuts, that's reflected in the prices of the items sold in their store, which drives people to competing grocery stores.
In John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath, suggestions to shop at other than the company's convenience store are routinely shot down with "Gallon a gas."
Likewise, if Apple is taking too large of a cut with iOS apps, there's really nothing substantiative stopping consumers from jumping ship to its thriving competitor: Android.
There's a bit of a difference here. It's common to own and regularly use more than one competing console but not more than one competing smartphone. Switching
Re: (Score:2)
Market share and ubiquity are different, and that does matter when determining if a company is a monopoly. I really wish game consoles were being investigated: lock-in is bad for business and consumers. It has pissed me off for 30 years that it is so hard to write code for consoles. I was part of the DS hacking community and it was awesome. Back when most people had flip phones, my modded DS was $50 PDA with a web browser, dictionary, organizer, MP3 player, ... Technology was set back years by locking
Re: (Score:2)
Every video game console maker has a monopoly on their own game stores.
Whataboutism is not a defence.
Physical release less common for low-budget games (Score:2)
Only Sony can manufacture discs for PlayStation consoles. Only Microsoft can manufacture discs for Xbox consoles. Only Nintendo can manufacture cartridges for Nintendo Switch consoles and Nintendo 3DS handhelds. The console maker can choose to approve each title for a physical release or not and for a paid download release or not. And based on console makers' behavior over the past two and a half console generations, I'm under the impression that console makers are more likely to approve a lower-budget game
Re: (Score:2)
Non-free software should be banned. Copyright needs to die.
Spoken like someone who has never written a single byte of code.
Exchange rate (Score:2)
The annual developer fee is very very very low
Except for developers who happen to have been born in a country whose currency won't buy a lot of United States dollars.
I welcome this important step forward (Score:2)
As part of my campaign to federally regulate the number of fart and note taking apps, I feel it's important to set a precedent that the government has utter control over the composition and the workings of the entire App market across all devices until the (also federally regulated) heat death of the universe.
In fact in the end they will even oversee the exact number of times that Slashdot guy who goes "appity app app" can (or cannot) post.
Re: (Score:2)
You can either have the government set the rules, or corporations. There will be no rule-less world.
So, which would you rather set the rules: a government that may or may not be compelled to do what is best for society at large,
or,
a corporation who is only compelled to make itself richer, consequences be damned?
I'm not a fan of either, but I know which one I'd pick if there was a metaphorical gun to my head...
Not a monopoly (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Dude,
MS got blasted in the 90's for trying to force people to use IE. Thanks to that suit I can actually disable IE on my domain for all my systems. Apple has no right to dictate how I use my hardware- they represent a majority share of the mobile market. And they then isolate software use on their devices to their own pet list.... that they take a cut of... how could this be any more clear.
The ability to sideload and have additional app stores is one of the reasons why I left Apple. Amazons app store is a
Apple is not a smartphone monopoly (Score:3)
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 [techspot.com] 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 a
Re: (Score:2)
Apple has something like 30% market share in smartphones. In what universe is that a monopoly.?
Wrong question. The correct question is, did Apple break federal antitrust laws by monopolizing the market for iPhone software applications and causing consumers to overpay.
Well, did they?
Re: (Score:1)
MS got blasted in the 90's for trying to force people to use IE. Thanks to that suit I can actually disable IE on my domain for all my systems. Apple has no right to dictate how I use my hardware- they represent a majority share of the mobile market. And they then isolate software use on their devices to their own pet list.... that they take a cut of... how could this be any more clear.
False equivalence, MS used hooks from the OS to force users to use IE as their browser yet apple allows you to use any software from their app store. You would need to prove that it is prohibitively difficult/expensive to get legitimate software onto their store. Yes they curate their store but unless you can prove that you as a developer were unable to get legitimate software onto their store then you have no case, whining because the app prices are too high is a bullshit reason for a class action lawsuit
Re: (Score:2)
The ability to sideload and have additional app stores is one of the reasons why I left Apple. Amazons app store is a good example- there is no reason for apple to prevent users from clicking "I agree this can break my phone" and loading whatever they want on their device.
1. You can "side load" Apps from Source since iOS 8 (over five years now).
2. You can "side load" Apps from .ipa files using Cydia Impactor (and a NON-Jailbroken iOS device!) since iOS 8 (over five years now).
3. If a popular sideloaded App turned out to be a Trojan, ALL the Public would understand was that "iPhone Apps No Longer Safe!", and that perception could NEVER be overcome in the public's mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation?
1. You can "side load" Apps from Source since iOS 8 (over five years now).
Using xcode, you can build any source, and install it on your device without technical knowledge. Yes you have to download xcode, and yes you need an apple ID (which is free, and if you're going to use apple products without one, you might as well not bother, because you miss out on most of the useful features that iOS has over the competition).
On the down side, these apps will expire in something like three months, unless you have a paid apple developer account, which costs $99/year or so. This, in my view
Re: (Score:2)
The lawsuit said Apple violated federal antitrust laws by requiring apps to be sold through the company's App Store
Even this is not correct: Distribute in-house apps from a web server [apple.com]
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Abuse of monopoly position doesn't require a specific percentage of some market (who would get to define the boundaries of a given market?), it simply requires the ability to use the position in one market to restrict competition in another market. The argument is that Apple uses its position as the hardware manufacturer to eliminate competition in the software sales/distribution (i.e. retail store) market and, to a lesser extent, the software creation market (since it's unreasonably difficult to sell any s
Still not a monopoly (Score:2)
Abuse of monopoly position doesn't require a specific percentage of some market (who would get to define the boundaries of a given market?), it simply requires the ability to use the position in one market to restrict competition in another market.
That is true but the fact remains that Apple does NOT have a monopoly under any reasonable definition of the term. Android smartphones collectively sell more units than Apple does by a pretty substantial margin. The market is for smartphones, not for products made by Apple.
The argument is that Apple uses its position as the hardware manufacturer to eliminate competition in the software sales/distribution (i.e. retail store) market and, to a lesser extent, the software creation market (since it's unreasonably difficult to sell any software that Apple doesn't approve of).
Several flaws in that argument. A) Apple is not just a hardware manufacturer and they don't have a monopoly on smartphone hardware. Saying they have a monopoly on Apple products is an idiotic argument. B) Nobody is compelled to sell
Re: (Score:2)
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. This. A THOUSAND TIMES THIS!!!
Re: (Score:3)
You answered your own question:
I don't get how this is a monopoly...If it was such a terrible deal for software vendors then why do they persist in using Apple's platform?
They are a monopoly because software vendors persist in using the platform even if they don't want to. They feel they have no choice. If an entire industry (software development) surrenders to one company's absurd demands, then that company is holding a loooot of power. Enough to be considered a monopoly. That's how Microsoft was branded a monopoly in the 90's: Clearly there were dozens of other options. It's just that Microsoft had so much dominance they were effectively
iPhones aren't a market they're a product (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
It is a monopoly of where you can get software. name a single other place you can buy programs/apps that will install and operate on an ios device/ that is where the term monopoly fits.
https://iosninja.io/ipa-librar... [iosninja.io]
Next?
Apple will win (Score:1)
This is a suit by the customers, not the developers. The apple users claim that by not allowing them to install apps from anywhere else is a monopoly. They are too dumb to see that this is part of the superior quality and security that they are constantly praising apple for and removing that walled garden will just reduce the reputation of their beloved products. They also don't seem to realize that they could always just use android phones if they want those features, you cannot keep your cake and eat it t
Apple is Just a Distributor (Score:3)
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).
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure you can only install XCode projects if you have a registered developer account that can sign the code. For which, Apple also extracts an annual fee.
Wrong.
You only need that Paid developer Account to Publish Apps to the Apple App Store. The Free Dev. Account works fine for publishing Freeware Apps, AFAIK.
Sounds a lot like another market (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Then you suspect wrongly.
Re: (Score:3)
That's because there was a law that specifically forbade the companies from doing this. There is no law requiring side-loading of applications. And of course, the car manufacturers still keep information secret to make repairs difficult.
Apple has a monopoly (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple has a monopoly
As others have pointed out, saying that "Apple has a monopoly on selling iOS software" is like saying that "Sony has a monopoly on selling PlayStation software". It's very unclear that there's anything monopolistic (in the legal sense) going on here. I personally don't love the direction that this kind of thing is moving, but that doesn't automatically make it illegal.
There is no doubt they are overcharging by huge factor.
I don't really agree. Sure, 30% seems like a big number - but then you need to consider what you get for that 30%:
* QA resources. This isn't
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
BR legally speaking i lean more towards your line of thinking people can choose to be protected from themselves or they can use android
Re: (Score:2)
i think they should just add a "do you trust this source" feature like android so you can install from anywhere rather than just the app store
BR legally speaking i lean more towards your line of thinking people can choose to be protected from themselves or they can use android
They DO do EXACTLY that when you are installing Open Source from another Publisher, and possibly when you install .ipa files directly from another Publisher.
Re: (Score:2)
The big difference is that Apple's SDK terms and conditions make it nearly impossible (and maybe actually impossible) to legally distribute app binaries outside of the App Store. If Apple runs into trouble legally, it will probably stem from that limitation.
Re: (Score:2)
The big difference is that Apple's SDK terms and conditions make it nearly impossible (and maybe actually impossible) to legally distribute app binaries outside of the App Store. If Apple runs into trouble legally, it will probably stem from that limitation.
Again, this was changed five or more years ago, with iOS 8.
How else would there be repositories of .ipa files (compiled iOS App Binaries), the files therefrom being LEGALLY installable on NON-JAILBROKEN iOS devices, using Cydia Impactor?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it wasn't changed, or at least not according to my reading of the terms and conditions. It still contains a clause saying that if you want to distribute binaries to end users, you must create an account with the App Store and comply with the policies thereof.
Just because Apple hasn't sued anybody over third-party distribution doesn't mean Apple has decided to allow it. You can bet your backside that if, for example, Steam decided to distribute via Cydia Impactor instead of through the App Store,
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it wasn't changed, or at least not according to my reading of the terms and conditions. It still contains a clause saying that if you want to distribute binaries to end users, you must create an account with the App Store and comply with the policies thereof.
Just because Apple hasn't sued anybody over third-party distribution doesn't mean Apple has decided to allow it. You can bet your backside that if, for example, Steam decided to distribute via Cydia Impactor instead of through the App Store, there would be lawsuits flying.
So at this point the evidence is equivocal.
I haven't messed with this .ipa sideloading myself; but I would imagine they are bending the rules for Enterprise App Distribution, because I know it involves a User step of "Trusting" the Developer, like is shown in this tutorial:
https://www.goodbarber.com/blo... [goodbarber.com]
It looks like the main issue is that Developer Certs. expire after 3 years; but other than that, it does appear to be "legal", as far as Apple is concerned.
But you might be right that this requires a full
Switch and lose all non-music iTunes purchases (Score:2)
It's not a monopoly. It's a duopoly. And it's fairly simple for customers to switch.
When Android came out, the iTunes Store was still using single-vendor digital restrictions management (DRM) on purchased music. It didn't stop that practice until sometime in 2009, meaning users would lose their music when switching to early Android phones. Even in 2018, the iTunes Store and App Store uses single-vendor DRM on purchased movies, purchased books, and purchased apps. Switching would require purchasing access to the same works all over again, provided each work's publisher offers that work on G
Re: (Score:1)
When the DOJ ruled against Microsoft in 1999, Thomas Penfield Jackson said the existence of Apple didn't matter because Microsoft had monopoly on Windows. Ditto for Apple on iPhone.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Precisely!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a monopoly. It's a duopoly.
The Sherman act doesn't care. [cornell.edu] The question is whether Apple has monopolized, attempted to monopolize or conspired to monopolize any part of trade or commerce.
Case law goes on to define a coercive monopoly [wikipedia.org] as "a firm that is able to raise prices, and make production decisions, without risk of competition arising to draw away their customers." Sounds like Apple? You betcha.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you honestly say that shocked and pissed off iPhone customers have nothing to turn to from the competition? Ridiculous.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
O-AC here, how the fuck is that considered "flamebait" lol? The point stands for any company, I don't understand these phone twits and their gang warfare mindset.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple didn't promise an open ecosystem and then pull the rug out, you knew it when you bought it. There's no legal compelling reason for them to be forced to accept to undermine their system and run unapproved 3rd party junk.
If there were, their anti-jailbreaking stance would be illegal also. And it isn't.
Exactly!
Poly Ticks [Re:Going to fail] (Score:1)
It depends on the political environment. Anti-trust enforcement is heavily tied to prosecutors and judges selected and influenced by the political process.
I used to think Democrats were more likely to be for regulating monopolies and near-monopolies to encourage competition, but now it depends on more complex factors, such as whether the CEO favors the party in power, and how much the company gives in campaign donations. Apple has cranked up their lobbying. [9to5mac.com]
Re: (Score:2)
How is a phone different from a car?
I don't want to carpool with you this morning. Thanks all the same.
Re:Going to succeed (Score:5, Interesting)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
Likewise, if get pissed at google play, i can get apps somewhere else.
You kind of made one of the obvious counter arguments to your own post by leaving out a key word in this sentence. You really meant to say...
Likewise, if get pissed at google play, i can get *Android* apps somewhere else.
Because if you don't have the word Android in there, or "iPhone" in Apple's case, things fly completely out the window.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out because saying someone has a monopoly on "iPhone Apps" seems like a bit of a stretch to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Antitrust != monopoly.
Yes, antitrust laws exist to prevent the monopoly abuses of the past, but they affect companies regardless of whether the company is a monopoly. The closer you get
Re:Going to succeed (Score:4, Interesting)
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. [cornell.edu] 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.
Re: (Score:2)
And the Sherman Act is a tiny part of the body of law in question. In fact, I think it might be the only part that even uses the *word* "monopoly" in any form.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple does not control consumers
Antitrust law does not concern itself with whether consumers are controlled, but rather, markets.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
AAPL isn't private (Score:2)
Iphone app store (obviously!) cannot be a monopoly, because Iphone is not the only smartphone brand/device!
Apple's App Store is the only store that sells apps that play on the same device as movies and books purchased before Google Play Store existed. Or is it better to have to carry two devices: one for your old purchased movies, books, and apps, and one for your new purchased apps?
Apple (as a private company)
Since when? What sort of equity firms would even be capable of taking AAPL off Nasdaq?
Yeah we might want to remember (Score:2)
Originally, the mobile network providers had all the control, and Apple believed those network providers would be paranoid about allowing arbitrary bandwidth-guzzling and potentially dangerous apps onto their wireless networks.
As a next step, Apple opened up to risk-controlled, quality-controlled third-party apps, which also had to not take over the phone or compete directly with core Apple app functions, so ther
Re:It's about time... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
So if Tim Cook calls up his Congressman he'll get no more help from the government than would a small business owner with 5 employees?
Re: (Score:2)
Apple can't "use government agencies" any more than any other entity can.
So if Tim Cook calls up his Congressman he'll get no more help from the government than would a small business owner with 5 employees?
That's not "Using a government agency". Sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
Congress is not a government agency, nor has the power to influence other government agencies? Do tell.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not "Using a government agency". Sorry.
Congress is not a government agency, nor has the power to influence other government agencies? Do tell.
Ok, that's not what you meant by the term "using". You implied that Apple said "Jump", and unnamed "government agencies" said "How high?"
If so, you're gonna have to provide more than a tinfoil-hat-driven allegation.
Re: (Score:2)
So Tim Cook can get a US Congressman on the phone or likely in person any time he chooses but you don't think that ability offers him any more influence of our government than a small business or any of us?
Re: (Score:2)
If so, you're gonna have to provide more than a tinfoil-hat-driven allegation.
So Tim Cook can get a US Congressman on the phone or likely in person any time he chooses but you don't think that ability offers him any more influence of our government than a small business or any of us?
So, if you're right, the problem really comes down to how any potential "greater influence" is used.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
3. NO ONE is "locked in". Don't like Apple? DON'T BUY IT!
But why? I can vote for folks who will enshrine market/appstore competition into law, so that I could (in theory) buy an Apple device. They win.. I win. We all win. Why wouldn't I vote that way?
Sorry. The world doesn't work that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. Sure they can. One phone call to Customs is all it takes. You seriously think that major corporations don't have any pull with the government? With the US government being the poster child for corporate-influenced system?
Here's one man's story of how Apple caused his Mac-compatible batteries seized at the border. [youtube.com] It's not a joke or an exaggeration, this is really happening. For the entire story, see the sequel which goes into depth. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
1. Sure they can. One phone call to Customs is all it takes. You seriously think that major corporations don't have any pull with the government? With the US government being the poster child for corporate-influenced system?
Here's one man's story of how Apple caused his Mac-compatible batteries seized at the border. [youtube.com] It's not a joke or an exaggeration, this is really happening. For the entire story, see the sequel which goes into depth. [youtube.com]
How can I argue against a bald assertion like "One phone call to Customs is all it takes." It's a self-certifying statement. And with that, I am placed in the situation of attempting to prove a negative. IOW, you have employed an illegal debate tactic. Therefore, your argument is a non-sequitur.
Plus, why is it that the person CLAIMING that "Apple Stole my Batteries" JUST HAPPENS to be Louis Rossman , the "Repair Technician" who is well-known as having some kind of hard-on against Apple. His fraudulent clai
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you are on the side of the megacorps, and against the little guy? What went wrong with your life? Or are you just a paid shill?
Nice Try. No, Nothing, and No.
I am, however ALWAYS on the side of TRUTH, and the TRUTH is that Louis Rossman is a Fraudster, and ESPECIALLY SO, since he was OBVIOUSLY going to sell BOOTLEG BATTERIES as "Genuine Apple" parts.
Or, would you want your cellphone or laptop "repaired" with some Chinese sweatshop knockoff parts SOLD as gen-u-wine OEM replacements?
Didn't think so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So...you're on the side of the megacorps against the little guy. WTF is wrong with you? On one side, Apple, on the other side some random? Why are you not on our side?
Get real.
I LIKE not having to worry about some App stealing my identity, emptying my bank account, etc.
THAT's the "side" I am on. Apple provides that. NO ONE else does, and the proof is all around you.