Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

Post by HeWhoLurksLate » Mon, May 13, 2019, 3:29 PM UTC

akhilcacharya wrote: post #53

davidu wrote: post #21

Earlier 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 No he wasn’t. He was considered a partisan hack at best and was less popular than most previously confirmed justices. He did get approval from the Amy Chuas and Neal Katyals and Akhil Amars but that says more about elite Ivy League in-groups than anything else.

Post by danesparza » Mon, May 13, 2019, 3:32 PM UTC

cullenking wrote: post #58

cwoolfe wrote: post #44

As 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.

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…

Post by yxhuvud » Mon, May 13, 2019, 3:35 PM UTC

DannyBee wrote: post #10

I 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…

Post by lallysingh » Mon, May 13, 2019, 3:36 PM UTC

kevin_b_er wrote: post #32

cabaalis wrote: post #5

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

Yes. The entire crux of Apple's argument is that you aren't Apple's customer. The true motives of a corporation often come out in court.

Post by gwright » Mon, May 13, 2019, 3:38 PM UTC

analognoise wrote: post #46

criddell wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.