Is this not similar to when you buy an item from a department store? When you buy a jacket from say, Tommy Hilfiger, in Macy's.. . who are you buying from?
Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed
41–50 of 357 posts
Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed
#42For 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.
Oh, wow, thanks for pointing this out, not at all clear from the summary of the parent.
Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed
#43Am 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
No, it's not at all about who you are buying from, that is simply not an issue in the case. It's about what is allegedly being monopolised and who is directly harmed.
Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed
#44As an app developer, I'm not a fan of apple taking a 30% or 15% cut. It's is possible to get around by offering the app for free and then using a third party payment processor to allow users to purchase or subscribe to a service your app provides. The way I see it, developers have that choice to charge the "expensive, easy way" using Apple's platform, or the "more profitable but harder way" using a third party.
Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
Prior to the confirmation insanity, Kavanaugh was viewed as one of the best supreme court justice nominations for all sides. All the confirmation hearings did was potentially radicalize him to the right. One of the best things about being a supreme court judge is that he no longer has to care about being reappointed or elected. He's not doing damage control, he's just being a supreme court judge.
> 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.
Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
There's nothing illegal about having a monopoly, is there? Don't you have to abuse that power before regulators step in?
Notably Walmart has been examined for as a monopoly but because in every case that was examined they decreased prices to consumers, no action was taken.
I hate that they use federal money to subsidize their workforce' paychecks (non-living wages, supplemented by food stamps), but...they're great for the consumer.
Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed
#47I wrote comments on this case here in the past, and not gonna rewrite them, so here is the TL;DR: This was not unexpected but precedent was on Apple's side. Apple was basically playing the "whoa, we don't sell apps, we just make an app store. They buy apps from the developers" card. This is technically true. In that situation, Illinois Brick/etc would normally say consumers cannot sue you, only app developers can. Mo…
> Apple was basically playing the "whoa, we don't sell apps, we just make an app store. They buy apps from the developers" card. This is technically true. How is it technically true? Apple collects the payment and takes a cut. Yes, the developer gets to set their prices, but I don't see this as any different to manufacturers of products setting their cost price for retailers, who then go and apply their markup to it.
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 price fixing and price maintenance were illegal on their face. YOu didn't have to prove it hurt anyone, only that it existed.
They are now subject to rule of reason analysis (basically, balancing of harms).
The reason such lawsuits are uncommon is not because the price fixing is okay, but because it is incredibly expensive and time consuming to litigate for a very uncertain outcome :)
Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed
#48Is this not similar to when you buy an item from a department store? When you buy a jacket from say, Tommy Hilfiger, in Macy's.. . who are you buying from?
But this isnt as easy as Steam vs Epic, Apple is the only "department store" on their platform, it's like if McDonalds took over every restaurant in the country- you can order whatever you want from the menu, but you're in their power.
Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed
#49Question: 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…
Lke Thiel says, if you have a monopoly you define yourself as "part of the industry software" to dilute the actual monopolistic position
Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed
#50For those downvoting bitwize, get a life. This is an accurate and impartial explanation of the arguments actually at stake in the legal case, clarifying an ambiguity in the post it's replying to. Apple has two possible customers in this issue - 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…
It looks like there is a tremendous amount of downvoting of simple factual info in this thread, unfortunately (the subjective opinions, sure, whatever)