101–110 of 357 posts
I don’t think it’ll go anywhere. How is it any different from what Sony is doing with the PlayStation store or Microsoft with Xbox?
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
I see what you’re implying, but tweak one little thing and the answer seems vastly different: Instead of an Apple device, say you’re using a Google-manufactured Android device (something-or-other), and have installed a third-party App Store on it. But that third-party App Store turns around and uses Google Pay as its payment processor. All the same qualifications still apply: you essentially used a “Google POS device…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It looks like there is a tremendous amount of downvoting of simple factual info in this thread, unfortunately (the subjective opinions, sure, whatever)
I've noticed with my own posts that some people here tend to downvote purely factual information simply because they find it unpleasant. Although that usually happens on some of the more controversial topics (and much more frequently on weekends, IMO). This post isn't really controversial...
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!
I think the fact that he sided with the liberal justices in favor of Planned Parenthood was less expected [1]. Especially considering his hearings were plagued with disruptions and protests from pro-choice activists. [1] https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/10/supreme-court-plan...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Kavanaugh was viewed as one of the best supreme court justice nominations for all sides What is this based on? Everything I've read up to today, even ignoring the confirmation events, has indicated that Kavanaugh is not a desirable choice for those on the left side of the political spectrum.
My understanding is that when compared to alternative, qualified, right-leaning candidates, he was the most moderate. This is just based on people I know who have worked with him and tried cases in front of him.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-conservative-is-bre...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's technically true because there is no real intermediary in apple's case (the "retailer" in your example). It's illusory. (this is also what the court found) Also keep in mind that various kinds of price fixing by manufacturers (IE forcing retailers to sell at a certain price) are also subject to antitrust arguments. It's simply no longer "per-se" illegal. For a long time, the precedent was that various forms of p…
How is there no "real" intermediary? To purchase a product I go to an Apple owned-and-operated store, give Apple my credit card, and receive an item that's been packaged and signed by Apple tools from an Apple server.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really, no. Apple has two customers in this respect - the developers it provides distribution services to and the consumers that buy the apps. The point in question is which of these two customers has standing to sue on the basis of the specific harm in question. Under US law the answer cannot be both.
> Under US law the answer cannot be both. Do you have a source for this? Reading the decision here it seems like both the developers and the consumers have standing to sue, although for slightly different reasons [0]. [0] from the decision: " Here, some downstream iPhone consumers have sued Apple on a monopoly theory. And it could be that some upstream app developers will also sue Apple on a monopsony theory. In this…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>And if that’s true, then where’s the line between that and “each app you purchase is purchased from its own little stall in this digital mall, which is owned and operated by the software author”? Is there one? To use your analogy, the line is if someone can set up their own shop outside the mall. As a consumer, if I have no way to avoid purchasing from a store inside a single mall then I'm effectively purchasing fro…
How do you resolve this with the fact that exclusives exist and are tolerated in just about every industry. You can only buy the new Jordan's from X stores, only available on PS4, exclusively at Target, etc. And places that sell things are well within their right to choose their vendors unless you want to demand that the BMV dealership be leglly required to sell Ford trucks if Ford desired. Put exclusivity and vendor…
https://www.businessjustice.com/is-exclusive-dealing-illegal...
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
https://www.theantitrustattorney.com/exclusive-dealing-agree...
That's why this is going to the Supreme Court - we all recognize that the App Store uses exclusive dealing, but it's non-obvious whether or not it's lawful.
>And places that sell things are well within their right to choose their vendors unless you want to demand that the BMV dealership be leglly required to sell Ford trucks if Ford desired.
Not sure what that has to do with anything. Apple's point was that they aren't selling anything - therefore appstore customers wouldn't have standing to bring an antitrust against them.
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!
I think the fact that he sided with the liberal justices in favor of Planned Parenthood was less expected [1]. Especially considering his hearings were plagued with disruptions and protests from pro-choice activists. [1] https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/10/supreme-court-plan...