Apple seeks dismissal of iPhone App Store monopoly lawsuit

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 38

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    Can Apple lower the price? In turn would Rovio then have to lower the price on other platforms?


     


     


    Apple doesn't set the prices. The people selling the goods do. Unlike Amazon, who can force a sale on apps or music.  Amazon pay the record industry the full price for the music, but it does not with apps.

  • Reply 22 of 38
    bleh1234bleh1234 Posts: 146member
    @Frood ... actually, you can buy vintage ron jons on ebay and other online stores. Can you get any ios app anywhere else besides iTunes?
  • Reply 23 of 38
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    spacepower wrote: »

    Apple doesn't set the prices. The people selling the goods do. Unlike Amazon, who can force a sale on apps or music.  Amazon pay the record industry the full price for the music, but it does not with apps.

    Question was can they? They obviously didn't let the music industry charge what they wanted so what's to stop them from doing it with apps?
  • Reply 24 of 38
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,789member


    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post



    An attorney representing the plaintiffs argued against the case being dismissed, noting that iPhone users cannot go anywhere but Apple's App Store to buy Angry Birds for their device.


     


    I wonder if that same attorney has noted that fast food diners cannot go anywhere but McDonald's to buy Big Macs for their fat kids' cakeholes.  S/he just might get the idea that "consumer" plaintiffs could sue McDonald's for having a monopoly on Big Macs.

  • Reply 25 of 38
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,789member


    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    Question was can they? They obviously didn't let the music industry charge what they wanted so what's to stop them from doing it with apps?


     


    Moot point.  Having the ability to set app prices isn't the same as actually setting app prices.


    You can easily kill someone with a pencil.  But carrying a pencil around doesn't make you a murderer.

  • Reply 26 of 38
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    sockrolid wrote: »
    Moot point.  Having the ability to set app prices isn't the same as actually setting app prices.
    You can easily kill someone with a pencil.  But carrying a pencil around doesn't make you a murderer.

    Actually it is not a moot point. Can they use their monopolistic power to change prices as they see fit? Many here will tell you that a monopoly will always abuse it's power and raise prices.
  • Reply 27 of 38
    pk22901pk22901 Posts: 153member
    (It's higher, because carriers allowed smartphones to download apps and media from any store, not just theirs.)

    This has got to be false or my memory fails me.

    Or are we talking about 10 or so apps per device?
  • Reply 28 of 38

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post



    Moot point.  Having the ability to set app prices isn't the same as actually setting app prices.

    You can easily kill someone with a pencil.  But carrying a pencil around doesn't make you a murderer.




    Actually it is not a moot point. Can they use their monopolistic power to change prices as they see fit? Many here will tell you that a monopoly will always abuse it's power and raise prices.


     


    Apple doesn't set the prices of apps, the developers do. Apple stipulates what can be the reasonable increments for simpler pricing (e.g. $0.99, $1.99, $2.99). Apple also states what percentage of the sale goes to them as part of a distribution/maintenance/SDK maker fee. This is all in the contract the developer signs to agree to become a 3rd party developer for Apple's proprietary mobile OS. Apple doesn't have to give any licenses to 3rd party devs if it didn't want to! It's their OS, it's their rules.


     


    The only difference would be if Apple used their developer contractual agreements to prevent 3rd party developers from developing for other mobile OSes. To date, I have not seen Apple demand that. Case dismissed.


     


    Edit: To further illustrate my point, 3rd party devs regularly have the same app on iOS and Android, and that same app on Android is cheaper! No monopoly here, sir.

  • Reply 29 of 38
    Yes, you are slow. The point here, is monopoly!
  • Reply 30 of 38
    elrothelroth Posts: 1,201member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by gcguy View Post



    Kill the lawyers first.


    Maybe you could come up with something original, or useful.


     


    If a manufacturer discharged chemicals into your yard, you'd be the first to run to a lawyer. Are you 14 years old?

  • Reply 31 of 38
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pk22901 View Post




    Quote:


    (It's higher, because carriers allowed smartphones to download apps and media from any store, not just theirs.)



     

    This has got to be false or my memory fails me.

    Or are we talking about 10 or so apps per device?


     


    Featurephones could usually only download from the carrier's store.  E.g. a Verizon flip phone could only download from its built-in Verizon store menu.  What was that called?  Oh yeah, VCast.


     


    That seems like it would set a precedent for Apple's store.


     


    Smartphones (Blackberry, Windows Mobile) could download apps from anywhere.  They were not restricted to just using the carrier's store.   Some even came with a Handango store client, IIRC. (I had a Handango account and used it fairly often to get WinMo apps.)  You could also download a J2ME runtime and use those apps as well.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by silverpraxis View Post


    Edit: To further illustrate my point, 3rd party devs regularly have the same app on iOS and Android, and that same app on Android is cheaper! No monopoly here, sir.



     


    Right, although I recall iOS developers saying that they could not mention their Android version in their Apple app.

  • Reply 32 of 38
    crossladcrosslad Posts: 526member
    If Apple prevent developers from selling cheaper on other platforms how come some apps I have paid for on iOS are free on android? Dead trigger is one example.
  • Reply 33 of 38
    curtis hannahcurtis hannah Posts: 1,806member
    Well at least apple dose not require it only on there store, just same price so why is this stress.
  • Reply 34 of 38
    nervusnervus Posts: 17member
    What I don't see is why people go after apple for this. Yes Apple has deep pockets. But so does Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo and on their consoles (which are just specialized computers anymore) you can only buy downloadable content (apps) from their built in store. Vertical integration and walled gardens are not at all limited to just Apple and iOS. It's been used for years.
  • Reply 35 of 38
    A lot of the commenters haven't put any thought into this, it seems. Imagine you had a car. Imagine anything you wanted to buy for that car, you could only get at one store. New tires, new decals, a battery, etc. Only one store was allowed to sell anything for that car. That store could charge whatever mark-up it wanted. While it might carry 2 different kinds of tires, it got the same cut of 30% from whatever you purchased. And, because it didn't like a certain kind of decal or product, it decides not to stock it. So, you're out of luck unless you go to a 'grey market' where before you can use your new tires or what have you, they need to void the warranty of your car.

    Would you put up with this? Or would you demand that you could buy parts for your car from any store that sold car parts?

    Most people would want to be able to make a choice.

    Apple has managed to capture the app market two ways - one, by being there first with an exceptional and innovative product. Two, by preventing any competition on the iOS platform for who can sell these products. While you might have chosen to purchase an Apple product, the locking in of where you can purchase native software for it after is anti-competitive. This reduces the choice available to the consumer whose purchased an Apple product. It reduces the choices for developers (in terms of what apps they can produce, and where they can sell them). It fixes prices against developers, rather than having competition driving prices down (why should 30% be the cut for selling a product? In many grocery store aisles, a store is lucky to make 2% on that item, as an example). It also limits innovation. Rather than having to constantly improve their App store, Apple can go at their own pace. If you're fine with having to wait 2 years before you can install an update without entering your password, then fine. For others, we're looking at what is beginning to happen (competition there is in its nascent stages) in the Android market place and we're getting jealous.

    --

    I saw a comment where someone was saying if someone opened another App store and charged developers 20% instead of 30% that would be unfair. I don't know what communist country you're from, but in a country where capitalism is only 20 years old, even I know that if someone introduces a competing product for a better price that's called competition, and it's hardly unfair. What's unfair to consumers and to developers alike is when the industry decides to charge a fixed price across the board, with no room for competition. I have a problem with a central authority dictating where and what software I can install, and having to pay a fixed 30% cut to that central authority. That being said - I have 5 Apple products right now, and I do like them - but my next smartphone purchase will be an Android.
  • Reply 36 of 38
    cyniccynic Posts: 124member


    I certainly do hope for this whole suit to get dismissed. Both form a user and developer perspective.


     


    My reasoning is simple:


     


    While I can understand that certain uses expect more freedom of choice and competition and also a loosening of iOS restrictions themselves, this is not what Apple does and it is not why Apple is so successful. Having a single App Store, a tightly monitored and curated one adds to the Apple experience. It is all about integration and the App Store plays a key role in that. Especially in the context of post-PC devices, where most people apparently prefer a curated but well working, high quality experience over the hassle and stress of maintaining a healthy system, which ends up feeling like work.


     


    There is exactly a single point for people to buy apps and for developers to sell them. Contracts are being made with one company, rules to be followed are Apple's and noone elses. Imagine we'd get multiple App Stores, some curated, some not, some with different rules, some allowing apps more access to the system than Apple does, etc. This would lead to a whole mess and an experience similar to Android. I believe most iOS users actually wouldn't like it. And developers wouldn't either.


     


    The integrated experience, one-click purchasing, trust and quality is what makes the App Store so successful. Taking this away by creating a clusterfuck of "choice" will only lead to a huge mess and yes, I believe ruing a one of the most important aspects of the seamless iOS experience.

  • Reply 37 of 38
    Maybe Apple has it right, though the whole non monopoly thing maybe relies too much on a very high priced iPhone to dampen demand.

    Otherwise Apple would have troubles like Microsoft had on the past?
    It maybe gets far more tricky as Apple competes on price.
  • Reply 38 of 38

    Quote:

    Quote:



    Originally Posted by silverpraxis View Post


    Edit: To further illustrate my point, 3rd party devs regularly have the same app on iOS and Android, and that same app on Android is cheaper! No monopoly here, sir.



     


    Right, although I recall iOS developers saying that they could not mention their Android version in their Apple app.



     


    Right, although I don't see products at Wal*Mart advertising cheaper versions of themselves at Target either. Stores, whether physical or virtual, usually don't advertise other stores and I would think if they are smart not allow products they carry to advertise other stores either. It's commonsense, not a monopolistic practice.

Sign In or Register to comment.