Supreme Court will hear Apple's appeal about iPhone App Store antitrust suit
The Supreme Court has decided that it will hear Apple's appeal regarding a contentious judgement allowing a seven-year-old antitrust case about the iOS App Store to continue.
In the suit, originally filed in late 2011, a group of consumers accused Apple of monopolizing the market for iPhone apps by not allowing any other way of purchasing such apps, and therefore engaging in anti-competitive practices. The suit alleges that since the App Store's launch, Apple "illegally monopolized the distribution of iPhone apps, and that the commissions charged to app developers inflate the prices consumers ultimately pay for apps."
According to attorneys attached to the matter, the suit could result in Apple being forced to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars to consumers, should Apple be found guilty of antitrust behavior in what it charges developers.
The US Supreme Court will hear arguments on the matter at some point in October.
The original suit also accused Apple and AT&T of conspiring to monopolize the "voice and data services" market for iPhones, although this argument was later dropped from the case.
In January of 2017, the Ninth Circuit reversed a lower court's ruling which found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, because they had purchased the apps directly from Apple, and not from third party app developers. The court did not award a specific damage award to the plaintiffs.
Throughout the case Apple sought repeatedly, and unsuccessfully, to dismiss the suit.
The Department of Justice has sided with Apple in the matter. In a filing in May, the DOJ argued that the appeals court misapplied previous case law on the matter, and the refusal of Apple's appeal should either be returned for reconsideration, or tossed entirely.
In the suit, originally filed in late 2011, a group of consumers accused Apple of monopolizing the market for iPhone apps by not allowing any other way of purchasing such apps, and therefore engaging in anti-competitive practices. The suit alleges that since the App Store's launch, Apple "illegally monopolized the distribution of iPhone apps, and that the commissions charged to app developers inflate the prices consumers ultimately pay for apps."
According to attorneys attached to the matter, the suit could result in Apple being forced to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars to consumers, should Apple be found guilty of antitrust behavior in what it charges developers.
The US Supreme Court will hear arguments on the matter at some point in October.
BREAKING: Supreme Court will consider Apple's bid to end an antitrust suit over the market for iPhone apps. Suit accuses Apple of monopolizing app market so it can charge excessive commissions.
-- Greg Stohr (@GregStohr)
The original suit also accused Apple and AT&T of conspiring to monopolize the "voice and data services" market for iPhones, although this argument was later dropped from the case.
In January of 2017, the Ninth Circuit reversed a lower court's ruling which found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, because they had purchased the apps directly from Apple, and not from third party app developers. The court did not award a specific damage award to the plaintiffs.
Throughout the case Apple sought repeatedly, and unsuccessfully, to dismiss the suit.
The Department of Justice has sided with Apple in the matter. In a filing in May, the DOJ argued that the appeals court misapplied previous case law on the matter, and the refusal of Apple's appeal should either be returned for reconsideration, or tossed entirely.
Comments
to open ios to others stores (to the user's discretion) would be good for consumers.
essentially, like the Mac.
The people who filed this suit have no real understanding of business. In the hardware world, whereas back in the 1970's, wholesale prices were generally around 50% of list price, today hardware wholesale prices are more like 90% of list price. Manufacturers have left less and less for retailers. Sell software through a physical distribution channel (like Ingram Micro-D) and you'll wind up with about 45% of retail in most cases. The developers should be thrilled with 70%.
Apple's 30% commission is quite fair. Without the AppStore, I'd say at least 90% of the developers wouldn't have a market and wouldn't exist. If Apple did give up exclusivity, do they really think they'd do any better on Amazon? Amazon would take a bigger cut AND their titles would be buried and few would ever see them.
There are plenty of companies that only sell their products through their own channels and it's not considered anti-competitive. Anyone is free to buy an Android phone and use those apps instead.
It's ridiculous obligating a company to install software from other companies on their product.
The costumer would only suffer and iOS would become the crap Android is today!
BTW...I can see the Mac going more and more toward iOS down the road as far as how apps are installed. It's kinda already starting with macOS Mojave.
Better fire up another lawsuit!
Apple as an OS platform is not a monopoly but the company can be monopolistic in creating the hardware platform that the OS runs on from a supply chain perspective.
The root issue here, however, is if users should be allowed to opt out of the Apple App Store.
These issues would appear to be independent of each other but when you reach a certain size and someone lodges a complaint about your business practices, everything can get sucked into one giant ruling.
Orange is currently installing Fibre in my street but will have to open it up to its competitors. State bodies along with the carriers themselves negotiate the terms but they have no option but to accept the situation.
But anyway, in this specific instance the lawsuit isn't claiming Apple is a monopoly but instead that Apple monopolizes the availability of iOS apps, and therefore is acting in an anti-competitive manner. They may have a perfect right to as well, but now SCOTUS will be weighing in.
Magnuson Moss.
That would be the more proper comparison IMHO. No one is arguing that you should be able to buy the entire iPhone from anyone but Apple.
Actually, the key reason for upholding Apple’s model is, choice. If Apple are forced to open iOS to other App stores they follow the fragmented model of the other platforms leaving us no integrated option for a mainstream mobile platform. Apple’s closed system currently gives us that option.