Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses The Courts United States Apple

Supreme Court Says Apple Will Have To Face App Store Monopoly Lawsuit (theverge.com) 147

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
A group of iPhone owners accusing Apple of violating US antitrust rules because of its App Store monopoly can sue the company, the Supreme Court ruled Monday. From a report: The Supreme Court upheld the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in Apple v. Pepper, agreeing in a 5-4 decision that Apple app buyers could sue the company for allegedly driving up prices. "Apple's line-drawing does not make a lot of sense, other than as a way to gerrymander Apple out of this and similar lawsuits," wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Apple had claimed that iOS users were technically buying apps from developers, while developers themselves were Apple's App Store customers. According to an earlier legal doctrine known as Illinois Brick, "indirect purchasers" of a product don't have the standing to file antitrust cases. But in today's decision, the Supreme Court determined that this logic doesn't apply to Apple.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Supreme Court Says Apple Will Have To Face App Store Monopoly Lawsuit More

Supreme Court Says Apple Will Have To Face App Store Monopoly Lawsuit

Comments Filter:

  • Too bad (Score:1, Troll)

    by doubledown00 ( 2767069 )
    Well, Apple *had* the more the secure app system. Once the Plaintiffs prevail and Apple has to allow third party app installation, Iphones will be virus filled diseased retches of technology.........much like Androids are now.

    Iphone, we hardly knew ye.

    • All that this decision ruled on was whether or not the plaintiffs had standing, but having standing does not mean that your suit necessarily has any merit. More or less, they're allowed to sue, but it'll still be years before a settlement or ruling comes down, and even if it looks like it's set to go against Apple, it's likely that they'd settle, rather than allow that precedent to get set.

      • And yet, rejection of standing has facilitated the state murder of individuals who were denied modern forensics.
        If that isn't legal standing, why is this?

        • Courts can make up what they want when it's convenient. I've seen judge's knowingly accept bad information from police because without it there is no case.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Agripa ( 139780 )

        More or less, they're allowed to sue, but it'll still be years before a settlement or ruling comes down, and even if it looks like it's set to go against Apple, it's likely that they'd settle, rather than allow that precedent to get set.

        The results of civil law does not create precedent [wikipedia.org].

    • Well, Apple *had* the more the secure app system. Once the Plaintiffs prevail and Apple has to allow third party app installation, Iphones will be virus filled diseased retches of technology.........much like Androids are now.

      Apple's walled-garden monoculture has been far more harm to the iPhone ecosystem than help. You know, Apple and Android today reminds me of Texas Instruments and Apple in the 80's. TI sued anyone who produced 3rd party anything for their computers, while Apple (at the time) embraced 3rd party and an open environment. Now the tables are reversed. Android is more or less an open platform and Apple is doing everything they can to stifle 3rd party almost anything.

      The consequence of choice is that some peopl

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by doubledown00 ( 2767069 )
        Oh yea? I'll offer to you the same challenge I posted earlier: Do a search in the Google store for a simple calculator app. You'll gets hundreds of results. Then, using the information presented, find one that isn't adware or spyware and won't otherwise harm your phone. Or heaven forbid you search for "Google Voice". Good luck finding the official app......it's not even the first one on the list.

        Do you have your nose so far up some libertarian utopia's ass that you cannot see what a clusterfuck the

        • Oh yea?

          Good one!

          I'll offer to you the same challenge I posted earlier: Do a search in the Google store for a simple calculator app......blah....blah.....spyware.....blah....blah...official......blah....blah

          I have no idea what you're actually going on about. Are you trying to suggest I find the "official" calculator app in the Google Play Store? Whyever would I want to do that? I'm not sure it's there - it's built into every Android phone. That's like saying "go find where you can download notepad for windows". It's nonsensical.

          If you're saying find a good calculator app that's not spyware, then sure. For something like that, I'd personally go to f-droid [f-droid.org]. A beautiful repository of great open so

          • And choice for the consumer is just always, always better.

            Before the iShill pipes up again, I'll clarify: Yes, that includes the choice of the iPhone. It ain't for me, but I'll be damned if I don't support your ability to choose to give up your choice.

    • I would expect after these lawsuits, Apple will probably need to have better transparency on their decision making process, as well allow for some of the more questionable software to be released. Being the power in today's mobile devices, and how they are just going to get more powerful. I can see more App's that can drain the batteries, because Apple had to release an App, that uses a lot of processing power. Or worse having a poorly made port that drains the battery, but doesn't do so on the Android be

    • Re: Too bad (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Allowing 3rd party iOS app stores does not imply iOS devs can skip Apple's app aproval process nor does it imply iOS devs can skip any of Apple's licensing fees.

      Please stop with the FUD

      • Allowing 3rd party iOS app stores does not imply iOS devs can skip Apple's app aproval process nor does it imply iOS devs can skip any of Apple's licensing fees.

        Please stop with the FUD

        See, in an antitrust context it very well could. The gyst of their argument will be that Apple is anti-competitive because forces Iphones to only use the App store thus creating a monopoly on unrelated products. The remedy to this would be exactly what happens on Android: Allowing app sources that Apple does not control.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Apple does decide the commission (Score:4, Informative)

      by DRJlaw ( 946416 ) on Monday May 13, 2019 @01:47PM (#58584946)

      Any vendor on the store can set their price to whatever they want.

      So long as they follow Apple's rules for listing on the store, surrender 30% of the price as a commission, and surrender 30% of all purchased made through their own app as commission.

      And if they don't like it, they can go to... nobody else. It's the iTunes store or nothing for the iPhone/iPad market.

      Hint: antitrust violations are not limited to entities having gross price-setting power.

      • It's the iTunes store or nothing for the iPhone/iPad market.

        Um, isn't there a market beyond iPhones and iPads?

      • Lets not forget stories of if you had an app on their store for a year or even years, then Apple releases their own app that does same thing. Guess what happens to your app? It gets removed from the store in favor of apples. Not sure if they been doing that as of late but it used to be a thing for apple to do.

      • Heck, you can't even side-load an app without paying the Apple Tax (developer fee, $99/year). I can at least download to my PC an app for Android, Bluetooth it to the phone, then load it - no store needed.

        If Apple just allowed side-loading for free (which would cost effectively zero to implement), it would probably make this entire question irrelevant.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by dgatwood ( 11270 )

      That's not the issue here. The issue is that Apple, by requiring all payments go through them, and by charging an exorbitant fee for those payments (an entire order of magnitude higher than traditional credit card processors charge), effectively drives up the cost of services bought through iOS apps, including both the apps themselves and goods/services bought through the app.

      The canonical example is Netflix. They eventually concluded that Apple's tax was too high to pay, and stopped making subscriptions

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dgatwood ( 11270 )

          Bullshit. I remember what we used to pay software distributors to get disks in boxes into retail stores before the app store came along. Apple's hosting all of the distribution infrastructure, collecting the payments, etc. 30% is entirely reasonable.

          You're comparing apples and oranges. 30% was reasonable for a brick-and-mortar store, because the costs of selling products in a brick-and-mortar store are relatively high. Each product takes up shelf space that can't be used for another product, each product

          • Comment removed based on user account deletion

            • Re:Apple doesn't decide the prices. (Score:5, Insightful)

              by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Monday May 13, 2019 @03:36PM (#58585758) Homepage Journal

              But if you want to compare costs, Apple's also providing the OS and frameworks that make these apps possible in the first place, and providing a securable platform, which is something that Android will never deliver.

              The cost of the platform is built into the price of the hardware. The cost of purchases should reflect the cost of selling software, which is mostly disconnected from what you're talking about. At best, you could say that the app review process makes the platform safer, and justifies the cost, but either way, the problem with that argument is that developers don't have the option of deciding for themselves whether the cost is justified or not. They are simply forced to pay that cost if they want to reach customers on the iOS platform, which is what makes it likely to be an illegal tying agreement.

              If I ship an app on iOS, I'm starting with the benefit of tens of thousands of man-hours of work that I didn't have to fund up-front. 30% cut of whatever price I choose? That's a bargain.

              If you ship an app on any platform, you start with the benefit of tens of thousands of man-hours that you didn't have to fund up front. And other platforms don't demand 30%. So that's really not a bargain. It's an act of desperation by developers who have to be on iOS, and have no other option for avoiding the fees.

              • Comment removed based on user account deletion

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by dgatwood ( 11270 )

                  That's true for small companies, but I think the tipping point is a lot lower than you think, with the exception of developers who rely on micropayments (who benefit from aggregation fee-wise). I mean, even small nonprofit groups and companies with single-digit employees take credit card payments these days, using Square and other similar services, most of which charge considerably less than Apple.

                  More importantly, even if it truly is a bargain right now, the inability for anyone else to compete to drive

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dgatwood ( 11270 )

          The only problem is, that this isn't new. Apple didn't bait and switch you and change their policies after marketing it as some freedom platform.

          They're not asking for injunctive relief, so Laches doesn't apply. As a rule, you can sue anyone for damages at any time, whether you've owned the product for a week or twenty years.

          Arguing they have a monopoly in relation to the apple store, needs to come after you first prove they have a monopoly over mobile handsets and that people don't really have a choice in

          • Comment removed based on user account deletion

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by dgatwood ( 11270 )

              There are alternatives other than android actually. It's just one of the most well known.

              Good alternatives? :-)

              Your counter points are like arguing you chose to go to one grocery store chain and buy their apples, you already have seen the prices. Later you find out that the grocery store prices are because there is a 30% mark up on the apples. Now you're mad because it would be cheaper If you bought it straight from the farmer, or used a different grocery store that charges less. You accuse them of having

    • Uh...not exactly. You can charge up to $999.99. You can't charge $2.00--you can charge $1.99 or $2.99.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Sebby ( 238625 )

      Any vendor on the store can set their price to whatever they want.

      And add 30% to the price they'd otherwise sell at outside of the App Store to cover the Apple Tax taken when sold within the App Store.

  • Wait a minute here.... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Monday May 13, 2019 @01:10PM (#58584594)

    "Apple's line-drawing does not make a lot of sense, other than as a way to gerrymander Apple out of this and similar lawsuits," wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

    So does this mean we can mark Kavanaugh as publicly against gerrymandering? Just wondering it case it happens to come up again. Say, in the decision for the recently argued Rucho v. Common Cause

    • "Apple's line-drawing does not make a lot of sense, other than as a way to gerrymander Apple out of this and similar lawsuits," wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

      So does this mean we can mark Kavanaugh as publicly against gerrymandering? Just wondering it case it happens to come up again. Say, in the decision for the recently argued Rucho v. Common Cause

      Justice Kavanaugh is a lawyer. Lawyers excel at finding and making fine distinctions. The differences between this case and gerrymandering of voting districts are big enough to fly a 747 through, particularly since he's using "gerrymander" by analogy, not literally. So, no, I don't think this means you can pin him down. Not that Supreme Court Justices are in any way required to be consistent, anyway. They generally are, but if they decide to change their minds no one can tell them otherwise.

    • No the only thing we can mark Kavanaugh as is a fan of beer.

  • So what does Apple do now? (Score:3)

    by jader3rd ( 2222716 ) on Monday May 13, 2019 @01:11PM (#58584604)
    Apple should restrice the App Store to just Apple developed Apps, until the ruling is overridden. No one is forced to buy an iPhone, it has plenty of competitors, and it's not like the App developers didn't know what they were getting into when developing an iOS app.

    • I'd offer a variation on the theme...

      Suppose, for example, I want to develop a "Strip Poker" game. It will feature various people in varying states of undress. Now you can point out that Apple could accept this app but mark it as downloadable by adults only. Perfectly reasonable thing for Apple to do.

      On the other hand, since I'm not a big-shot media company and it's just a silly titillating game, Apple could decide that they don't want my product in their App Store. Which is arguably a legitimate thing-

      • They are the only app store for iPhones; and that's part of what customers are paying for. They are buying into a more limited but safer ecosystem. Allowing substantial distribution of SW outside of the App Store leads to a Windows-like world where customers are constantly encouraged via shady emails & web ads to switch to the super wonderful free store. That increases Apple's support burden and makes it more difficult [perhaps impossible] for them to make iPhones 'trusted devices'--which has substantia

      • To me, the solution is side-loading--let me download an app from wherever I want. Apple can still offer a switch, like in macOS, to say "Only allow apps from the App Store." Apple can still put up appropriate warnings saying, "Are you really really really sure you want to do this? It could be really bad."

        And of course, the scammers from the overseas call centers will tell their victims, "Ignore that warning. It's the malware on your iPhone trying to prevent you from getting rid of it. Once your install ou

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by MeNeXT ( 200840 )

      "No one is forced to buy an iPhone" I don't think you know what ownership is. If you bought a Ford and only limited to Ford gas stations would that be alright with you? I think this doesn't go far enough. The phones should be owner accessible if they were purchased. The fact that a company can lock the owner out of certain functionality should be made illegal. Let's take it a step further and when marketing uses a term such as buy it should be illegal for a contract to indicate licensed.

      • If you bought a Ford and only limited to Ford gas stations would that be alright with you?

        No, but his point was that, knowing in advance Ford did this, you would choose to vote with you wallet and buy something other than a Ford.

  • Developers have to pay fees even to put free apps into the store.

    • Re:Developers have to pay fees even to put free ap (Score:5, Insightful)

      by i.r.id10t ( 595143 ) on Monday May 13, 2019 @01:40PM (#58584886)

      Hell I'd have to pay the Big Apple Tax (new computer system) just to be able to *develop* an app, never mind get it into the store and sell or give it away.

    • You have to pay fees to be able to develop apps for iOS. You can put free apps into the store for free.

      Similarly, you have ot pay for a computer to compile Android apps. That they charge $99/year for the dev software makes it more expensive to become a developer, but doesn't change that people can produce as many free apps in that year as they like.

      • For $2/month, I can get a virtual server that runs Linux, and do my development on that. Free access to the server via the library or a host of other free-access places. $24/yr is a lot less than $99/yr.

        • You don't need to run Linux to develop for Android. You can run OSX or Windows. But, you still need to buy a computer.

          Yes, it's cheaper to buy a Windows/Linux machine than an OSX machine, and therefore it's cheaper to make Android apps than iOS ones (and Apple makes you rent the software fro $99/year). But that's not the point. The post claimed you had to pay to pubnlish free apps. You don't. You have to pay to develop apps. You can publish 10,000 apps/year if you want for the same price as someone w

          • No, I can rent a virtual computer for a few bucks an month, and use a free computer at the library to log into it. I do not have to buy anything. And if I did want to buy, the computer needed to build Android apps will be significantly lower cost than anything needed to build iOS apps. Heck, I could develop Android apps on Android; a free phone would be sufficient to build apps.

            And I won't have the additional $99/year cost, either.

            And the original post was correct; you have to pay to publish. Do I hav

            • Signing. But it's for a signing cert. If I were to say "it costs money to receive emails at addresses in my custom domain", sure that's true cause I have to pay for the domain. But I don't have to pay for each subdomain. I don't have to pay for each email account. And I certainly don't have to pay per email received.

              And, you can also rent OSX machines in the cloud you want.

              • So I can develop for free, but to install it on any device and run the app, I have to first pay $99 for a cert. So it's basically a payment to enable deployment. Write all the code you want, but you cannot deploy it until you pay Apple.

  • apple also bans developer from makeing app compete (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Joe_Dragon ( 2206452 ) on Monday May 13, 2019 @01:28PM (#58584746)

    apple also bans developer from making app compete with apples built in ones.

    • This is false on its face. Lots of people have Google Maps installed. I've tried about 10 different email apps. People make apps that compete with the built-in ones AL THE TIME.

      I did some quick searching, and I couldn't find any immediate evidence that this isn't purely fantasy. The ONLY thing I found was that developers aren't allowed to duplicate the functionality of the App Store, which is of course what this lawsuit is all about.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Developers duplicate the app store all the time. In China there are numerous alternative app stores, although when you click "install" it takes you to the Apple one for the actual download. They seem to like having different/better ways to discover apps over there.

        As for duplicate apps they certainly used to ban them, maybe that changed: https://arstechnica.com/gadget... [arstechnica.com]

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday May 13, 2019 @01:40PM (#58584880)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:I think apple is in the right (Score:5, Insightful)

      by timholman ( 71886 ) on Monday May 13, 2019 @02:09PM (#58585142)

      You knew going in, if you buy an iPhone, you have to use the apple app store. You bought one anyway, then want to sue them to change it to the way you like? There has always been alternative companies and phones with the same features, it just wasn't an iPhone. You could easily get the same features with another company.

      I consider the Apple walled garden a feature, not a bug. In fact, its existence is one of the reasons I bought an iPad for my mother, and got rid of her Windows PC. It is impossible for her to be tricked into downloading malware. That has saved me more hours of effort than I can guess at.

      Open to the door to sideloaded iOS apps, and you'll have criminals drooling the world over. Just wait until the "your PC is infected" scammers switch to "your iPad / iPhone is infected" phone calls. Whatever it takes to walk users through the sideloading process, they'll do it. The Apple ecosystem is too lucrative a target for it not to happen.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by poptix ( 78287 )

        That's a rather weak argument.

        You would use the built in security controls to disable installs from outside the app store.

        Done and done.

        • That's a rather weak argument.

          You would use the built in security controls to disable installs from outside the app store.

          Done and done.

          And if the user can access those security controls (which is the entire point), then the scammer on the phone will simply talk the user through the process of disabling them.

          Have you ever played along with a "your PC is infected" scammer, just for fun? They'll talk you through setting up a VNC session to get access to your desktop. It may take 15 or 20 minutes, but they'r

    • You knew going in, if you buy an iPhone, you have to use the apple app store. You bought one anyway, then want to sue them to change it to the way you like?

      Technically, the users are not the ones who should be complaining about a monopoly. As you said, it's self-selected (although not always). The app developers are the ones who should be filing a lawsuit about the App store. They're just afraid to because of possible retribution by Apple, who could lock them out of the App store as punishment. Which of

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by MeNeXT ( 200840 )

      It's your phone not theirs. Apple should have no right to "sell" the iPhone if they don't intend to sell the iPhone. If Apple wants to rent out iPhones then they should state that it's a rental. If we let marketing continue in this direction there will no longer be a term for ownership in the English language.

    • This is about companies that must compete against Apple in THEIR OWN STORE, not the users of the device.

  • The problem with Apple's behavior is (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thereddaikon ( 5795246 ) on Monday May 13, 2019 @01:45PM (#58584934)
    They don't allow for an alternative. Apple controlling the app store isn't unique or even the problem. Google and Microsoft both do the same for their marketplaces. The difference is, if I want to make a Windows application, I don't have to own a PC, I dont have to use VS, I don't have to use a specific compiler and I don't have to distribute through the microsoft store. Same with Android. I don't have to use Google's development path. I can develop and distribute code for these platforms however I want. With Apple, I have to buy an expensive Mac and use their latest OS which forces me at minimum to buy a new one every few years. I also have to use their SDK. Apps wont be accepted otherwise. Then I have to publish through their store, where they get to determine not only if my software is appropriate for their store but if its allowed on "their" device. A device that they no longer own by the way. Loading software is something that should be a discussion between the owner of the device and the developer. What Apple is doing is akin to a parent controlling who their adult offspring can and cant date.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Your argument presupposes that Apple has some right to control the device after it has been sold. In other industries we dont allow this. The phones and tablets belong to the people who bought them, not Apple. It has nothing to do with whether they have a monopoly over the smartphone market. It has everything to do with violating the concept of private property.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by MeNeXT ( 200840 )

        Yes they did. They sold the phone. They didn't rent it. It's not theirs and yet they kept the keys from the owners.

    • Re:The problem with Apple's behavior is (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Ceseuron ( 944486 ) on Monday May 13, 2019 @03:21PM (#58585634)

      I'm actually fine with Apple not allowing an alternative on iPhone and consider the "walled garden" everyone whines about a feature, not a problem. I switched back to iPhone 8 Plus after leaving Apple back when I had an iPhone 3GS. I stuck with Android for many years and several different phones and I experienced firsthand the dramatic drop in the quality of Android phones from Samsung, HTC, LG, and so forth. Phones went from being innovative and streamlined to overpricd bricks filled with preloaded crapware that would barely last a year before needing replacement and Google tracking every aspect of your phone usage along the way. I went from being able to take a brand new Android out of the box and using it to having to go through the process of rooting the phone just so I could uninstall worthless junk that was otherwise not removable. The Facebook app is not a "system app" and users should be able to completely remove it from an Android phone, not just "disable" it. I recall a similar app called Yahoo Yellow Pages and Gas Prices that was also not removable on my old Galaxy Note 4 without rooting the phone. I don't care what sort of contract an app developer entered into with the phone manufacturer, if I don't want the app on the phone I should be able to completely remove it. Offering up a paltry "disable" feature is not sufficient. I should not have to root a phone just to remove preloaded garbage.

      Another issue I had with Android phones was the excessive tracking and permissions needed by apps. Sure you got the "freedom" to install whatever you wanted, if you didn't mind that the app wanted access to your contacts, your location (Network and GPS), access to your phone's sensors, camera, and microphone, etc. Even Google's built-in apps demand permissions far in excess of what's necessary. On my last LG Android phone, I blocked access to location, phone sensors, camera, and microphone for the built-in Gmail app and from then on the app would pop up a dialog every few seconds insisting that an email app needed these types of permissions. An email app does not need access to the phone sensors, microphone, or location. Period. Full stop. This is another major issue I have that drove me back to Apple. Sure you get all this supposed freedom to install whatever you want, but there's very little policing of the Android app store and for every one honest Android developer who's just out to make something useful or entertaining, there's a dozen other developers shoveling ad infested, spying junkware onto the Android app store. If Google did a better job of policing the app store and removing apps/banning developers that demand permissions that aren't related to the app's core functionality or purpose, I'd consider going back to Android. Until Google cleans up their act and stops treating the user and their personal information as a commodity to be sold to the highest bidder and Android phones return to their former quality, I'm going to enjoy the view in Apple's walled garden.

    • I wonder how many people complain about Apple's 'walled garden' and then later in the day, fire up their game console to play the manufacturer-approved title of their choice.

  • Standing Only (Score:3)

    by jythie ( 914043 ) on Monday May 13, 2019 @02:12PM (#58585176)
    Before people get too excited or outraged, keep in mind that this decision was purely about Standing, meaning SCOTUS established that there was a direct enough relationship between Apple and the end consumers that the people going for a lawsuit CAN file it. Nothing more.
  • In the 80's, they rules that TV networks could not also sponsor products because they had too much leverage over the advertising stream and would give products with their interest more interest. This would in turn make an uneven playing field for other people with competing products. How is this any different?
  • Isn't it a little funny that Kavanaugh was the writer cited? I figured he was a pro-business thinker.
  • Apps from the app store are substantially safe, I will probably keep on using it instead of a 3rd party app store. It’s simply not worth the hassle for me.

Slashdot Top Deals

Any circuit design must contain at least one part which is obsolete, two parts which are unobtainable, and three parts which are still under development.

Close