Venmo, Cash App Users Sue Apple Over Peer-To-Peer Payment Fees (reuters.com) 24
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Apple has been sued by Venmo and Cash App customers in a proposed class action claiming the iPhone maker abused its market power to curb competition for mobile peer-to-peer payments, causing consumers to pay "rapidly inflating prices." Four consumers in New York, Hawaii, South Carolina and Georgia filed the lawsuit (PDF) on Friday in San Jose, California, federal court. They alleged Apple violated U.S. antitrust law through its agreements with PayPal's Venmo and Block's Cash App.
Apple's agreements limit "feature competition" within peer-to-peer payment apps, including prohibiting existing or new platforms from using "decentralized cryptocurrency technology," the complaint said. The lawsuit seeks an injunction that could force Apple to divest or segregate its Apple Cash business.
Apple's agreements limit "feature competition" within peer-to-peer payment apps, including prohibiting existing or new platforms from using "decentralized cryptocurrency technology," the complaint said. The lawsuit seeks an injunction that could force Apple to divest or segregate its Apple Cash business.
This should fail (Score:3, Insightful)
They're trying to sue Apple for not allowing apps that trade in funny money.
I'm an anti-Apple bigot, but they got this one right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because Apple is a giant bully of a company that never pays anything that it should be and get paid more than they should for no good reason. They will always bully other companies into giving them special treatment they have never deserved. I'm not even sure how or why, since Apple really isn't that powerful or influential.
Re: (Score:2)
Gargle Apple dick harder, AC bitch.
Re: (Score:2)
So if Apple is charging more than "Android or Samsung", then why do the companies pay for it on Apple? Can't they just not offer it on Apple, and then hope their customers jump ship?
Or are Apple customers more loyal than their customers, so those customers will switch to another bank (or whatever) before switching to Android?
If that's the case, then how is it "monopolistic"?
This is the same thing as for the other stores - if other companies really feel like they could make more money elsewhere, just stop pu
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, there is unlimited "shelf space" on a digital platform. At the grocery store, reality literally dictates that there is only so much space. Hence the limited real estate is up for the highest bidder.
That's what's so awesome about a digital space. It's essentially limitless. It can host as many items as there are in existence.
Please correct me if I am wrong on this, but can you use Samsung or Google digital wallets on an Iphone? If you can, then there is actual competition. If Apple is refusing to let Sa
Re: (Score:2)
The counter argument is it's not about "shelf space" at all: it's about "foot traffic." Google and Apple provide all the foot traffic by supplying the devices, why shouldn't they charge for the privilege?
Put another way - the valuable scarce resource isn't "digital shelf space" - it's the people using the devices. The device makers know this, and I think these companies screaming about "fees" also know it and are doing their best to try and get high-value access to customers for as little as they can get
Re: (Score:2)
Scratch out Apple or Google, and put in Microsoft with Windows. It's the same thing. It wasn't considered by anyone as "okay" when Microsoft abused it's monopoly position and it's not okay here.
At least it wasn't considered okay by Slashdot users. US government doesn't seem to mind in the least when power players abuse their market positions.
Microsoft, Apple and Google all run platforms and act as gatekeepers to millions of customers. Them providing their own solutions on those platforms while blocking the
Re: (Score:2)
I agree it's arguably price gouging. But I can't figure how it's due to a monopoly.
It's a highly academic complaint - I don't think this is monopoly abuse. Consider if, say, Coca Cola was complaining that Wal-Mart didn't let Coca Cola post ads in Wal-Mart's circulars that you could by Coke at a lower price at Target.
Coke is free to advertise that anywhere - but I doubt they have a legal standing to compel Wal-Mart to publish that.
Also, I'm pretty sure that if you sell things inside Wal-Mart, you use whateve
Re: (Score:2)
I think I see where you are coming from but feel your analogy is a bit off with your Walmart example. Walmart actually buys the product from the vendors. After that purchase, it's up to Walmart to sell through the amount of stock they bought. Coke doesn't really care because they literally already made their money. That's how brick and mortar retail works. I've worked for a grocery store for the past 24 years so I've first hand experience is the store/vendor relationship. They have sales reps that come into
Re: (Score:1)
No, it's still wrong because it's not Apple's place to tell unrelated parties what they can or can't do.
It's not Apple's decision. It's yours. What makes you so convinced that they know better than you do? What if they had decided otherwise, that you're required to "trade in funny money?"
And to think you call yourself a bigot. Disgraceful. If all bigots were like you, the resulting lovefest would be absolutely sickening.
Re: (Score:1)
it's not Apple's place to tell unrelated parties what they can or can't do.
It's Apple's place to say what the apps they sell are allowed to do.
I don't want to put up with a system like that, but Apple's customers do. They want to be protected from bullshit like cryptocurrency.
Re: (Score:2)
They're trying to sue Apple for not allowing apps that trade in funny money.
I'm an anti-Apple bigot, but they got this one right.
Surely this is more a failure of the US govt to provide a suitable framework for interbank transfers... like every other first world nation has done (and most of the developing ones as well). Facilitating trade is one of the key jobs of any government.
That way when Apple tries squeezing the banks for protection money the banks can just laugh and point them at the government because it's a service they are legally obliged to provide, free of charge.
Re: This should fail (Score:2)
Nobody provides any service for free. Banks exchange money all the time both nationally and internationally, they all charge fees that are much higher than what Apple levies.
About the crypto (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, delay until everyone does of old age?
apple needs to open up the app store or sideloadin (Score:2)
apple needs to open up the app store or sideloading
Re: (Score:2)
No it doesn't.
Re: apple needs to open up the app store or sidelo (Score:2)
You can already do that. The problem with that idea is that nobody trusts Venmo to run your phone.
Decentralized crypto plaintiffs, really? (Score:2)
I am a crypto skeptic. But even I know the "gas" fees paid on the decentralized crypto platforms are difficult to control and usurious.