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

Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 357 posts

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#91

Post by bluGill »

Gene_Parmesan wrote: post #85
bluGill wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not surprising. The supreme court typically takes a long time to get involved with anything. They are the final word, so they must get it right. Thus they want lots of other lawyers and judges to spend time coming up with all arguments and working out all angles. The worst possible thing would be for them to issue a final ruling, only to realize they are wrong because of some line of reasoning nobody had thought of.…

That's not why they took 8 years at all. You just pulled this out of your ass? Or...? It took 8 years because of the long, complicated procedural history -- complaints filed, motions to dismiss, appeals to decisions re: motions to dismiss, re-filed complaints, re-filed motions to dismiss, re-filed appeals to decisions re: motions to dismiss, and you get the point. The Supreme Court can't hear a case until they have j…

The entire process you outlined is there for the reasons I stated.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#92

Post by [deleted] »

briandear wrote: post #79
ltbarcly3 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To my understanding, anti-trust laws are generally designed to discourage the ability of companies to use success in one area to capture customers and thus have monopolistic pricing ability in another area. In this case I think it is going to be a hard sell to demonstrate an anti-trust issue, but "A vertical arrangement may violate the antitrust laws, however, if it reduces competition among firms at the same level (…

iOS is about 53% of the US market in the US, Android being about 47%.

[deleted]

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#93

Post by 8347mr »

The dissent's opinion is very weird. All of the justices agree that developers are suppliers, Apple is the seller, and the consumers are the buyers.

They all implicitly agree that buyers have standing to sue sellers who illegally use a monopoly to overcharge the buyer.

But - somehow - that is no longer true if the seller also overcharges their supplier. Then the dissent says that any harm is "passed-through" the supplier.

Huh? The buyer isn't buying from the supplier, they're buying from the seller. If any harm passes from the seller to a supplier, then the only way for it to get back to the buyer is for it to then flow back through the seller to the buyer. AKA the overcharge is still coming from the seller.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#94

Post by m-p-3 »

0_gravitas wrote: post #55

Now I'm not in the apple ecosystem personally so I don't know, but are there other "store fronts" that serve the apple ecosystem, or is Apple store the only one?

Since nobody answered and downvoted, all apps needs to be submitted to the App Store and be downloaded from there exclusively, and all payments, even subscriptions that are made through the app, needs to go through Apple.

Some providers like Netflix and Spotify are deliberately not offering the option to subscribe through the iOS app to avoid paying the Apple tax currently at 30%, and for subscriptions I believe the cut is reduced if the user is subscribed for a certain period of time.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#95

Post by parthdesai »

lallysingh wrote: post #67
kevin_b_er wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's not fair. Your lawyer should make any arguments they need to defend you, even if they're not what you believe. As long as they're not false or misleading, it's good practice. Nobody's claimed that Apple believes that people buying their phones aren't their customers. Apple claimed (IIUC) that in this scenario, it's the app store vendors that are the customer of the app store. Which is a reasonably valid way to…

>As long as they're not false or misleading

So either Apple is misleading us when they say we are their customers or they are flat out lying to get out of a lawsuit. Can't have your cake and eat it too, mate.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#97

Post by m-p-3 »

briandear wrote: post #81
yxhuvud wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple was basically playing the "whoa, we don't sell apps, we just make an app store. They buy apps from the developers" card. Well, one thing is certain, and that is that Spotify will be happy with this as it may end up making their competition against Apple Music a bit easier.

Now all Spotify needs to do is pay artists as much as Apple does. Perhaps an antitrust case might be launched by artists against Spotify?

Probably, but that's their own fight. Spotify will do whatever is best for it, and the artists will do the same.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#98

Post by Spivak »

holy_city wrote: post #78
derefr wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see what you’re implying, but tweak one little thing and the answer seems vastly different: Instead of an Apple device, say you’re using a Google-manufactured Android device (something-or-other), and have installed a third-party App Store on it. But that third-party App Store turns around and uses Google Pay as its payment processor. All the same qualifications still apply: you essentially used a “Google POS device…

>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 selection together and you have a digital app store. Apple doesn't even pretend to be open -- they're a product with licensed 3rd party integrations.

On what grounds should they be compelled to be anything else?

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#99

Post by chadash »

simonh wrote: post #51
ilarum wrote: post #6

Essentially, the Supreme Court is letting an antitrust lawsuit against Apple proceed — and it has rejected Apple’s argument that iOS App Store users aren’t really its customers.

Not really, no. Apple has two customers in this respect - 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 of the specific harm in question. Under US law the answer cannot be both.

> Under US law the answer cannot be both.

Do you have a source for this? Reading the decision here it seems like both the developers and the consumers have standing to sue, although for slightly different reasons [0].

[0] from the decision: "Here, some downstream iPhone consumers have sued Apple on a monopoly theory. And it could be that some upstream app developers will also sue Apple on a monopsony theory. In this instance, the two suits would rely on fundamentally different theories of harm and would not assert dueling claims to a “common fund,” as that term was used in Illinois Brick. The consumers seek damages based on the difference between the price they paid and the competitive price. The app developers would seek lost profits that they could have earned in a competitive retail market. Illinois Brick does not bar either category of suit."

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#100

Post by jimktrains2 »

oflannabhra wrote: post #77
chirau wrote: post #41

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?

It is similar, but not identical. A department store buys physical goods from a vendor, and then sells them to consumers. An App Store provides distribution and payment services to vendors and consumers. For a department store, it is very clear that you are buying from the department store. They own the physical goods at the time of sale. For an App Store, most people would agree that the Store does not own the digit…

> For a department store, it is very clear that you are buying from the department store. They own the physical goods at the time of sale.

Just to bit pick and it doesn't really change your point, but I thought a lot of places basically do consignment now for their vendors and don't own much of their stock?

Post reply on HN