I guess the issue is that side loading apps or an alternative App Store is not supported. That and disallowing purchases or rentals on amazon video or kindle apps for iOS.
U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute
31–40 of 258 posts
Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute
#32Here’s what I don’t get: in what sense is this a monopoly? Consumers have knowledge that the App Store is the only game in town on an iPhone, and they have the option to buy a different phone if they don’t want to use the App Store. That’s like saying that the manufacturer of my vacuum has a monopoly on vacuum bags.
The article explicitly says “accusing it of breaking federal antitrust laws by monopolizing the market for iPhone apps “ I’ve never heard of a market being divided up like that legally. But it’s in the Supreme Court so it can’t be completely without legal merit.
[deleted]
Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute
#33Here’s what I don’t get: in what sense is this a monopoly? Consumers have knowledge that the App Store is the only game in town on an iPhone, and they have the option to buy a different phone if they don’t want to use the App Store. That’s like saying that the manufacturer of my vacuum has a monopoly on vacuum bags.
Read it again - it's about the monopoly on App Store. It's like buying a car and only able to use gas sold by that company.
Similar to ink cartridges for inkjet printers
Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute
#34Here’s what I don’t get: in what sense is this a monopoly? Consumers have knowledge that the App Store is the only game in town on an iPhone, and they have the option to buy a different phone if they don’t want to use the App Store. That’s like saying that the manufacturer of my vacuum has a monopoly on vacuum bags.
The article explicitly says “accusing it of breaking federal antitrust laws by monopolizing the market for iPhone apps “ I’ve never heard of a market being divided up like that legally. But it’s in the Supreme Court so it can’t be completely without legal merit.
> But it’s in the Supreme Court so it can’t be completely without legal merit.
From my understanding, the lower courts haven't looked at that argument yet, since the question "do these people even have standing to sue" comes before any arguments.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute
#3530% is a lot to take away from the developers. It's good to have some pressure on Apple to lower their percentage.
Yeah? Have you ever tried pushing your software during Windows Mobile era?
Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is that more apt? Why shouldn’t I expect it? Apple didn’t even invent the walled-garden digital software store; Microsoft was using it on the X-Box in 2005. If you go back to before digital distribution, Sony and Nintendo had total authority over third-party software releases for their platforms since the 90s and 80s respectively. I understand the free-software arguments for why I should be able to run arbitrary…
> Why shouldn’t I expect it? Why should I, as a consumer? I don't understand this argument from Apple apologists. > Apple didn’t even invent the walled-garden digital software store; Microsoft was using it on the X-Box in 2005. So if it wasn't called out then, it should never be called out ever?
“Called out”? Sure. It was called out when Microsoft rolled it out and it’s been called out persistently for ten years, to the point that I’m used to being called an “apologist”. But public criticism is orders of magnitude different from a legal injunction. I simply don’t see how the definitions and aims of a theory of monopoly can be usefully applied to this case.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute
#37Not being American, this is the one thing I wish Trump/GOP/conservatives did in the US: bust the tech trusts. They're taking the courts, they can surely find state or federal attorneys to bring the cases, and the executive would provide them with cover and enforcement. I'm surprised they haven't done it already. It would make sense for purely partisan reasons because tech companies are very liberal and extremely host…
You're being downvoted but I agree with you even if it's slightly hypocritical coming from the Trump administration
It wouldn't be hypocritical for Trump since IIRC he bashed Amazon during the campaign. Probably a little more difficult for the Chamber of Commerce republicans.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute
#38Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're being downvoted but I agree with you even if it's slightly hypocritical coming from the Trump administration
It wouldn't be hypocritical for Trump since IIRC he bashed Amazon during the campaign. Probably a little more difficult for the Chamber of Commerce republicans.
He bashes Amazon because Bezos owns a newspaper he doesn't like.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
It wouldn't be hypocritical for Trump since IIRC he bashed Amazon during the campaign. Probably a little more difficult for the Chamber of Commerce republicans.
He bashes Amazon because Bezos owns a newspaper he doesn't like.
Perhaps it's a proxy attack but he criticized Amazon's tax practices for putting smaller shops out of business and the supposed preferential treatment by the USPS.
Anyway, my point was that it doesn't matter. His administration could do good here for purely partisan reasons.