I'm so confused how this is a monopoly. Buy an Android device.
Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed
121–130 of 357 posts
Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
You can count on anything about Apple to be considered controversial, especially if it's not a blanket and unconditional bashing of Apple, even if what you say isn't even positive towards Apple.
Hardly, Apple is held as a bastion of privacy and freedom of speech, even if that isn't really necessarily true.
Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed
#123How 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-$10 app on iOS these days. That’s not even taking into account the fact that paying for a…
Nobody has ruled on whether the practices are actually monopolistic or not - this ruling just allows a suit against Apple to proceed, which will then make that determination about their business practices. The debate in this case was all about whether the end user was Apple's customer (thus able to sue Apple directly) or the developer's customer.
I think this debate is interesting, but I don't expect Apple to be happy about the final outcome. A developer publishing solely on Apple's App Store (and relying solely on Apple features to provide functionality) has no direct access to the customer* - Apple prevents that fairly well. In this case, I feel like, as a consumer, I'm Apple's customer. I think courts, and especially juries, would agree.
That said, I don't see how the App Store is a monopoly. How would "monopoly" be defined to even formulate a case against Apple?
* - notwithstanding that many apps want you to create an account on their systems - Apple does indeed allow this.
Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed
#124If Apple were to be required to allow third party App Stores or side loading apps, could it legally deny interoperability with Apple services as a “security measure,” like a sandbox? For example, you can download a game, but it won’t hook into their gaming social network. No ability to share in iMessage, or sync data to iCloud. Basically cripple the apps so that for the end user it isn’t worth saving the money on the…
In my experience, if there's an option to ask same price everywhere, sellers will do that. So on app store it will cost (for example) 4.99$, and on third party app store without 30% cut, the developers will still set the price of 4.99$.
The only kind of place I've seen prices less than MSRP is discount stores like cdkeys. For example, try to find microsoft windows that costs less than MSRP -- on all stores, first party and third party, the price will be the same.
So, lack of 30% markup is very unlikely to reduce the final asking price by 30%.
Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed
#125I 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?
Those two stores are not the exclusive avenue for customers to play games. Developers may choose to bypass those stores altogether and release their games on disc if they choose.
Aren't all PS4 discs AES signed?
I believe that (barring a hacked system) there is no side loading of games that aren't Sony-blessed.
Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed
#126For 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...
It shouldn't be surprising. Nothing about his testimony or judicial history indicated he would be particularly conservative on women's rights.
Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed
#127Earlier 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…
> You can only buy the new Jordan's from X stores, only available on PS4, exclusively at Target, etc.
When this matters is when you have a dominant market position. Target doesn't have to sell Nike because you can reasonably buy them at Walmart. Nike doesn't have to sell to Target because Target can reasonably buy from Reebok, which is a reasonable substitute.
The issue here is that there is no reasonable substitute for Apple's App Store, because they have made it that way on purpose. You can't sell your iOS app through Walmart or Google Play or Amazon. You can't download it from the developer's website. And you can't run Android apps on iOS devices. So Apple has a dominant position in iOS app distribution, and with that comes the antitrust restrictions that don't apply to competitive markets.
Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
You cannot do this. I run a website and mobile app ecosystem, which started as a website with standard credit card billing. If you want to mention that you have a website, or link to the website, you must provide every option the website has for purchasing, in your app, using apple's payment system. There is one exception, which is for physical goods/services, see Lyft and the like. Sorry, but you have to take the 30…
Interesting. I suppose the distinguishing factor with apps like Amazon or Home Depot is they deal in physical goods?
Yes. If you buy in the app and consume in the app, Apple wants their 30%.
That's why you can watch videos in the amazon prime video app, but you can't rent or buy movies there. You need to rent or buy the video on Amazon.com, then you can watch on the amazon video app.
Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed
#129For 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 this proves that Supreme court justices are not aligned with any political parties. They take their roles very seriously. Kavanaugh looks to be very much a worthy Supreme Court Justice, same as Roberts who was elected by Bush (whom I hate more than Trump). I'm glad he was able to survive the ridiculous antics he went through and I think he will be a good justice regardless of what people think his allegiance…
Proves is a strong word... It's a data point to be sure, but it's not proof.
Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed
#130How 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…
> 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?
Because the issue is the price of app distribution, i.e. the part of the price Apple gets, not the part of the price the developer gets. The fact that the developers are getting squeezed is what you expect to happen when some other part of the supply chain is monopolized, because more of the revenue goes to the monopoly and less to the developer.
> 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.
The desktop and mobile markets are very different. For one thing, the people paying for desktop apps are primarily businesses whereas iOS apps are sold primarily to individuals. The mobile market is also bigger, which means more customers to amortize costs over which should result in lower prices.
Compare the price of iOS apps to Android apps. They're not lower and if anything are higher.