Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 258 posts

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute

#51

Post by nickspag »

aftbit wrote: post #4

I don't understand why Apple isn't getting slapped for only allowing Safari-based browsers in the App Store. I don't understand anti-trust laws that well, but didn't Microsoft settle out of a very similar case related to bundling Media Player and IE with Windows?

In addition to the argument others are suggesting, that their market share isn't high enough to qualify, I believe they have also made legal arguments in the past about the sandboxed nature of their platform. I imagine they could also make a convincing argument that it's a feature they sell their customer- one that is at the core of why this requirement exists. They could probably also point to macOS, where they do not have the requirements and the technical environment is different, as support that it's platform-specific related to the sandbox.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute

#52

Post by lighthazard »

threeseed wrote: post #45
lbacaj wrote: post #29

Unfortunately for Apple, I do think the App Store being an exclusive and default way to purchase and load apps on iOS is in fact causing prices of Apps, in many cases, to be higher than they should be. The perfect example of this is the subscription services, right now you can get a cheaper subscription to a service such as Spotify if you buy it off the App Store. That is a prime example of how much the 30% payment t…

Apple provides a service for that 30% though. They handle the payment processing, they build, moderate and curate the App Store apps and they provide a lucrative channel to market for app developers. So allowing Spotify et al to get all the benefits of the channel without paying for it is actually unfair to Apple.

This was true a few years ago but in 2018, it's not a curated place to get software. It's the only marketplace to get software for your device. 30% is disproportionate to what's being offered today.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute

#53

Post by delinka »

lbacaj wrote: post #29

Unfortunately for Apple, I do think the App Store being an exclusive and default way to purchase and load apps on iOS is in fact causing prices of Apps, in many cases, to be higher than they should be. The perfect example of this is the subscription services, right now you can get a cheaper subscription to a service such as Spotify if you buy it off the App Store. That is a prime example of how much the 30% payment t…

"...an exclusive and default way to purchase and load apps on iOS"

If the court allows the definition of 'trust' to include "a company gatekeeping developer access to their own operating system" when that operating system represents a much smaller share of the market than the next biggest competitor.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute

#54

Post by rickycook »

ethbro wrote: post #23
cabaalis wrote: post #2

> Developers “cannot risk the possibility of Apple removing them from the App Store if they bring suit,” the American Antitrust Institute advocacy group said in a brief. To my untrained IANAL eyes, this seems to be the meat of the argument. Apple is trying to say they are just an agent facilitating a sale, all the while jingling the kingdom keys in their back pocket by controlling who gets to sell. They are seeking t…

(Not a lawyer, so no idea if this is still controlling case law) The full reasoning chain seems to be that Hanover Shoe v United Shoe Machinery Corp (1968), in which the issue was USMC's leasing but refusal to sell machinery on which they had a monopoly, decided that being able to "pass along costs" was not a valid defense by a monopoly when sued by its direct customers. Consequently, in Illinois Brick v Illinois (19…

the important part against that line of reasoning though is at the very bottom of the article:

“The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year revived the lawsuit, deciding that Apple was a distributor that sold iPhone apps directly to consumers.”

if they decide that apple sells apps directly (after all, you go through apples distribution, payment, and “editorial” channels and have only a tenuous link to the developer i question) rather than the developers selling apps, then that could be an issue for them

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute

#55

Post by rickycook »

mitchty wrote: post #3
cabaalis wrote: post #2

> Developers “cannot risk the possibility of Apple removing them from the App Store if they bring suit,” the American Antitrust Institute advocacy group said in a brief. To my untrained IANAL eyes, this seems to be the meat of the argument. Apple is trying to say they are just an agent facilitating a sale, all the while jingling the kingdom keys in their back pocket by controlling who gets to sell. They are seeking t…

I think this is their argument ultimately: Apple has seized upon a 1977 Supreme Court ruling that limited damages for anti-competitive conduct to those directly overcharged instead of indirect victims who paid an overcharge passed on by others. Part of the concern, the court said in that case, was to free judges from having to make complex calculations of damages. I'm no lawyer either but that seems to generally be t…

mentioned and expanded on in a parent comment, but the important part of the article related to that is right at the bottom:

“The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year revived the lawsuit, deciding that Apple was a distributor that sold iPhone apps directly to consumers.”

the question is whether apple sells the apps, or the developer sells the apps.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute

#56

Post by rootusrootus »

EGreg wrote: post #44
rootusrootus wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I expect the substantial difference is that Microsoft's share of the PC market was far closer to a monopoly than Apple's share of the smartphone market is now (about 40% in the U.S.)

I never understood why 40% is too little to be considered free and clear from monopoly laws. Why not have a smooth gradient

I can't imagine how you would implement such a scheme. For example, forcing Apple to allow non-Safari browsers in the app store is a binary choice, not something you can implement on a gradient. On top of that, market share tends to move around, sometimes a lot, so you would be changing the rules of the game constantly.

40% definitely is low enough to escape scrutiny as a monopoly, in any case. More than half of everyone who buys a smartphone chooses something non-Apple.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute

#57

Post by GeekyBear »

delinka wrote: post #53
lbacaj wrote: post #29

Unfortunately for Apple, I do think the App Store being an exclusive and default way to purchase and load apps on iOS is in fact causing prices of Apps, in many cases, to be higher than they should be. The perfect example of this is the subscription services, right now you can get a cheaper subscription to a service such as Spotify if you buy it off the App Store. That is a prime example of how much the 30% payment t…

"...an exclusive and default way to purchase and load apps on iOS" If the court allows the definition of 'trust' to include "a company gatekeeping developer access to their own operating system" when that operating system represents a much smaller share of the market than the next biggest competitor.

Didn't we already go through this in the courts when game consoles like Nintendo, XBox, and PlayStation put the same restrictions on game developers?

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute

#58

Post by AnssiH »

nl wrote: post #30
BurritoAlPastor wrote: post #9

Here’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.

Sounds similar to what EU EC did with Google's anti-trust fine case, i.e. they considered Google to be dominant in the market of "app stores for the Android mobile operating system" (along with some other markets).

Source: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute

#59

Post by geitir »

dirkgently wrote: post #20
BurritoAlPastor wrote: post #9

Here’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.

That's the contingency: Where is the separation of product? Apple isn't strictly a hardware company more than it's strictly a software company. If you consider the iPhone a unified inseparable product, then the ability to install other apps is a privilege

Re: U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple App Store antitrust dispute

#60

Post by rixrax »

Answer is not to give choice in where to download apps. If you don't like Apple app store, then maybe switch to Android or BlackBerry. Or something else.

I like being able to go to just one store and get my Apps there. Imagine the horror of having to get the apps from AT&T or Vz store for iPhone, or having to choose if I need to get an app from official store or from another one run by some east European dude from his basement. I love that apple curates the apps and at least tries to get rid of worst offenders whether it's privacy violations or outright malware.

Post reply on HN