Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

wired.com

11–20 of 357 posts

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#11

delete

> I am surprised Kavanaugh joined the Liberal block on the vote.

I'm not. There is a pretty big cloud of illegitimacy over his head. He needs allies in case the next administration encourages some of the proposed inquiries to proceed.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#12
post #9

Question: How can Apple have a monopoly if a customer can decide to buy a competitor's phone to use as they please (Android, etc). That's where I get lost. The Windows/Netscape made sense since the claim was that Windows dominated the market almost completely (around 90% on those times?). Can I sue any other hardware device company (smart fridges, smart tvs, rokus) for monopoly since I can't load my own apps on them?…

This is specifically about the app store. Antitrust is all about defining markets (which lots of people at HN don't get).

How the court defines the market will decide whether you win or lose in almost all cases.

Here, this is a case about the app store. The market was defined as consumers of apple phones who use the app store.

In that market, apple is clearly a monopolist.

In some larger or smaller market, they may not be.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#14
post #9

Question: How can Apple have a monopoly if a customer can decide to buy a competitor's phone to use as they please (Android, etc). That's where I get lost. The Windows/Netscape made sense since the claim was that Windows dominated the market almost completely (around 90% on those times?). Can I sue any other hardware device company (smart fridges, smart tvs, rokus) for monopoly since I can't load my own apps on them?…

This is specifically about the app store. Antitrust is all about defining markets (which lots of people at HN don't get). How the court defines the market will decide whether you win or lose in almost all cases. Here, this is a case about the app store. The market was defined as consumers of apple phones who use the app store. In that market, apple is clearly a monopolist. In some larger or smaller market, they may n…

Thanks for that pointer, this seems to a good read for more info on defining markets. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/atr/legacy/2012/...

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#15
How can Apple’s App Store prices be monopolistic if the App Store has driven software prices so low that a lot of developers are having a hard time making money? Before the App Store, software licenses for Mac software could be priced in the $40-$70 range for software that might have had feature parity with what you get in a $3-$10 app on iOS these days. That’s not even taking into account the fact that paying for a new version of a piece of software used to be the norm, but on iOS, you buy the app once and expect updates for free forever.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#16
post #4

For those who don't want to read the opinion: SCOTUS holds that Apple can be sued for alleged monopoly of the Apple App Store. It does not decide whether or not this alleged monopoly exist. Interestingly, it's a 5-4 decision, with Kavanaugh writing the decision, joined by the 4 liberal justices. Probably the most unexpected alignment of the current term!

Edit: friends, apologies for upsetting... first, I find the accusations horrendous. I am more just amused that K chose to write the opinion. Politics is a funny game.

It’s hard to swallow, but we need a third constitutional convention because this stuff is wrecked in the us.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#17
post #4

For those who don't want to read the opinion: SCOTUS holds that Apple can be sued for alleged monopoly of the Apple App Store. It does not decide whether or not this alleged monopoly exist. Interestingly, it's a 5-4 decision, with Kavanaugh writing the decision, joined by the 4 liberal justices. Probably the most unexpected alignment of the current term!

It held that Apple could be sued by end users. Apple's argument was that only app developers had standing.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#18
post #5

Am I reading correctly that this argument has now been going on for 8 years, or at minimum nearly 6? [1] An argument about who I am buying from when I type my credit card into Apple's system, click a purchase button on an Apple device, and then use the results of that purchase solely on Apple devices? [1] https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-204

2/3 of those are true for every purchase you make on your phone.

3/3 of those are true for some digital products like amazon kindle books even where you buy from amazon, not apple.

Or put another way, those are therefor clearly not the correct questions to be asking.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#19
post #15

How can Apple’s App Store prices be monopolistic if the App Store has driven software prices so low that a lot of developers are having a hard time making money? Before the App Store, software licenses for Mac software could be priced in the $40-$70 range for software that might have had feature parity with what you get in a $3-$10 app on iOS these days. That’s not even taking into account the fact that paying for a…

Nobody has ruled on whether the practices are actually monopolistic or not - this ruling just allows a suit against Apple to proceed, which will then make that determination about their business practices.

The debate in this case was all about whether the end user was Apple's customer (thus able to sue Apple directly) or the developer's customer.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#20
post #17
post #4

For those who don't want to read the opinion: SCOTUS holds that Apple can be sued for alleged monopoly of the Apple App Store. It does not decide whether or not this alleged monopoly exist. Interestingly, it's a 5-4 decision, with Kavanaugh writing the decision, joined by the 4 liberal justices. Probably the most unexpected alignment of the current term!

It held that Apple could be sued by end users . Apple's argument was that only app developers had standing.

Apple's argument was that 3rd parties set the prices on their platform not them (app developers), so they shouldn't be held liable for the monopolistic effects this creates.
Post reply on HN