Supreme Court questions Apple's arguments over App Store antitrust suit

Posted:
in iOS edited November 27
The U.S. Supreme Court challenged about Apple's oral arguments concerning accusations the App Store is a monopoly during oral arguments on Monday, with the iPhone producer insisting the antitrust suit should be brought by app developers, rather than consumers.

U.S. Supreme Court Building
U.S. Supreme Court Building


The hour-long session for the case known as Apple vs. Pepper is about whether or not Apple deliberately created a monopoly with the App Store, which Apple used to increase the prices of apps. The Supreme Court is not settling the issue itself, but is determining whether the case should continue.

According to the suit, it is acknowledged that Apple applies a 30-percent commission on App Store purchases, but in doing so, this forces app developers to increase prices, and in turn forces consumers to pay more for the app or in-app purchase. As Apple is the only provider of an app marketplace that officially works for iOS devices, this allegedly means Apple has a monopoly over app sales, and is able to charge what is perceived to be a high commission that would be lower if there was more competition.

Apple's claims

Apple's oral argument from Daniel Wall effectively relied on the Illinois Brick doctrine, referring to a 1977 legal case that determined only the direct purchaser can levy antitrust accusations in court, with indirect purchasers unable to do so. In that particular ruling, the court feared there would be far-reaching and complex circumstances with a "serious risk of multiple liability for defendants," namely that both Apple and app developers could be sued by a class over the same purchases.

According to Wall, the app developers are Apple's direct customer, as they are "buying a package of services which include distribution and software and intellectual property and testing," with the 30-percent commission. As the commission is agreed beforehand, and developers can set the pricing with knowledge of the fee in mind, Apple argues this sets the pricing with the fee built-in with the developer's wishes, rather than separately.

Ultimately, it is developers who pay the fee, not consumers.

Judicial doubts

Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor questioned the logic behind the order of purchasing, with Kagan noting that every stage of a consumer's purchase goes though Apple's App Store. "From my perspective, I've just engaged in a one-step transaction with Apple," Kagan suggests.

In other cases where Illinois Brick came into play, it involved a vertical supply chain or concerned whether plaintiffs could request damages for any costs applied in their direction. In this instance, Kagan suggests there may not even be a vertical supply chain at all, which could mean Illinois Brick does not apply.

Sotomayor suggested the situation was different from that of Illinois Brick, which involved a concrete block producer selling goods to contractors that were used in construction for their own customers, with the judge calling the end user "first purchasers."

Justice Breyer posited that Illinois Brick did not impact the case in terms of antitrust, though Wall countered by saying the alleged monopolization over distribution "allegedly first manifests in a 30-percent commission" that the developers pay, and not consumers.

For Justice Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, the two seemed to suggest a reexamination of Illinois Brick may be in order, with Alito noting the "tens of thousands" of app developers who have not filed similar lawsuits against Apple. Gorsuch suggested the possibility of overruling Illinois Brick, citing the fact that some states allow for indirect purchaser lawsuits to proceed without worry of the issues that the doctrine addresses, such as multiple recoveries.

Gorsuch also highlighted that "direct purchasers don't always sue" due to the power of monopolists and the likelihood of profit sharing.

Triple damages?

Arguing on behalf of class suit consumers, lawyer David Frederick insisted there be no need to overrule Illinois Brick, as that case enables direct purchasers to instigate antitrust suits. In this case, Frederick argues users pay Apple, making them direct purchasers, and that "there's no middleman here."

It is also suggested by Frederick that consumers would have different claims against Apple from app developers as while customers would want to recover the difference in price compared with what they would have paid if a competing app market was available, developers would be trying to recover profits.

Alito also queried with Frederick if it was the case consumers would be able to demand damages three times that of the 30-percent commission or if the level would vary between apps. In response, Frederick suggested the tripling of damages is "designed to deter actions just like this," while also suggesting Apple could not accuse another app marketplace of acting in a similar fashion. Frederick's arguments ignored Amazon's Android app store for Kindle devices, however, which functions in a similar manner to Apple's with Amazon's own vendor-locked hardware.

Questions posed by Justices during arguments don't always parallel rulings, however. The questions are generally intended to delve into the truth of the matter, and refine judicial thoughts on what are often arguments with a wide varieties of interpretation.

The Supreme Court may take months to issue a ruling as to whether the suit can continue or end, but the former is likely to be more damaging to both Apple and the rest of the tech industry. Continuing with the suit and losing could open up Apple to further litigation from consumers unhappy with app prices and other elements of the App Store, as well as for other companies like Google and Amazon, who operate their own app markets.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 55
    To me, this whole case involving the App Store is based on a lack of understanding:
    -- If you look at the App Store as simply and strictly and only a market place then, YES! It is a monopoly.
    -- If you realize that the App Store provides numerous services critical to well being of Apple, its products and its reputation, then you realize it is NOT a marketplace.

    Allowing anybody to install anything on Apple products would make those products no more stable, reliable and secure than a Windows machine.   Apple's reputation for reliability, security and privacy depend on the App Store and, without it, both Apple and its developers will suffer immeasurable economic harm.  And, we the users will be deprived of a lone island of safety in sea of Googles and Microsofts.
    rob53kozchrisn2itivguycyberzombiesailorpauljony0
  • Reply 2 of 55
    payecopayeco Posts: 205member
    To me, this whole case involving the App Store is based on a lack of understanding:
    -- If you look at the App Store as simply and strictly and only a market place then, YES! It is a monopoly.
    -- If you realize that the App Store provides numerous services critical to well being of Apple, its products and its reputation, then you realize it is NOT a marketplace.

    Allowing anybody to install anything on Apple products would make those products no more stable, reliable and secure than a Windows machine.   Apple's reputation for reliability, security and privacy depend on the App Store and, without it, both Apple and its developers will suffer immeasurable economic harm.  And, we the users will be deprived of a lone island of safety in sea of Googles and Microsofts.
    That issue is irrelevant here. The law is designed to protect consumers and limit monopoly power, not protect a company’s reputation and/or business model.

    On a personal level I agree with you. I think the exclusivity of the App Store protects the security and stability of the platform. On a broader level I can see the plantiff’s point as well. 
    80s_Apple_Guybala1234
  • Reply 3 of 55
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,356member
    AI's digest is quite good and for another excellent summation from an expert court-watcher:
    http://amylhowe.com/2018/11/26/argument-analysis-justices-poised-to-allow-antitrust-dispute-against-apple-over-apps-to-go-forward/
    edited November 27
  • Reply 4 of 55
    This lawsuit is beyond stupid...

    Did the plaintiffs ever buy software before the App Store? Where could they buy an app for $0.99? Prior to the App Store I can’t even remember a commercially available app for a computer for less than $15 not including discounts (even for a less capable one than what can be bought for $0.99 now). Apps nowadays are incredibly cheap, and that’s because of the App Store. The Mac App Store has also made macOS apps cheaper—Apple even reduced the cost of their pro apps significantly.

    The idea that Apple has a monopoly on apps in order to raise prices is beyond stupid.
    edited November 27 randominternetpersonn2itivguybshankmagman1979jbdragonSpamSandwichsailorpaul
  • Reply 5 of 55
    My "favorite" part about the oral arguments was the obsession (primarily by Justice Kagan) on the fact that Apple requires all US App Store prices to end in $.99.  

    Kagen: "But, in fact, these are all low-cost products for the most part. So saying a price has to end with the -- you know, the -- the number 99 is saying a lot about the fact that you can't charge 77 cents or 55 cents or 32 cents."

    Or this nugget by the opposing council:  "But, secondly, it's just wrong because if you're constraining what 99 percent of the pricing options are, you know, that -- that's -- it is what it is. But it also has the effect economically of raising the prices."

    Really?  Before the App Store when was any software sold for $1, let alone 32 cents?  The idea that the App Store raised prices, and that making the prices end in .99 made it worse, is absurd.  Where are the hoards of developers up at arms about the fact that they can't charge $1.97 or $0.01 or $12.23 for their apps (examples of the "99% of price options" that unavailable)?
    n2itivguybshankmagman1979jbdragonSpamSandwich
  • Reply 6 of 55
    I am on Apple's side on this one:
    1- The App Store is part of the product, the same way iOS is part of the product.
    2- App Store competes with Google Play. If Google Play decides not to charge their developers a free, Android apps could cost 30% less than iOS apps.
    sailorpaul
  • Reply 7 of 55
    To me, this whole case involving the App Store is based on a lack of understanding:
    -- If you look at the App Store as simply and strictly and only a market place then, YES! It is a monopoly.
    -- If you realize that the App Store provides numerous services critical to well being of Apple, its products and its reputation, then you realize it is NOT a marketplace.

    Allowing anybody to install anything on Apple products would make those products no more stable, reliable and secure than a Windows machine.   Apple's reputation for reliability, security and privacy depend on the App Store and, without it, both Apple and its developers will suffer immeasurable economic harm.  And, we the users will be deprived of a lone island of safety in sea of Googles and Microsofts.
    "Frederick's arguments ignored Amazon's Android app store for Kindle devices, however, which functions in a similar manner to Apple's with Amazon's own vendor-locked hardware."

    The biggest difference between iPhone and Kindle is that, unless something has changed recently, I can easily side-load apps onto my Kindle.  Sure, I have to click through the legal disclaimer screen to enable it, but it is allowed.  Unless you jailbreak iOS similar opportunities are not available on an Apple device.

    Users would not be deprived of the "lone island of safety" as anyone wishing to remain in Apple's closed, sandboxed ecosystem would be free to do so.  If Apple's marketplace provides enough tangible benefit to justify the 30% commission then it will continue to thrive based on the individual merits.

    The one thing I do like about Apple's app store is that I generally trust their review process to ensure malicious apps are weeded out.  However, I also believe the end user should have the ultimate decision if they want to install something that Apple hasn't given their blessing for.  If a developer wants to take responsibility for developing and distributing their apps and handling all the payment processes in order to bypass Apple's store then I think that should be an option.
    gatorguy
  • Reply 8 of 55
    payeco said:
    To me, this whole case involving the App Store is based on a lack of understanding:
    -- If you look at the App Store as simply and strictly and only a market place then, YES! It is a monopoly.
    -- If you realize that the App Store provides numerous services critical to well being of Apple, its products and its reputation, then you realize it is NOT a marketplace.

    Allowing anybody to install anything on Apple products would make those products no more stable, reliable and secure than a Windows machine.   Apple's reputation for reliability, security and privacy depend on the App Store and, without it, both Apple and its developers will suffer immeasurable economic harm.  And, we the users will be deprived of a lone island of safety in sea of Googles and Microsofts.
    That issue is irrelevant here. The law is designed to protect consumers and limit monopoly power, not protect a company’s reputation and/or business model.

    On a personal level I agree with you. I think the exclusivity of the App Store protects the security and stability of the platform. On a broader level I can see the plantiff’s point as well. 

  • Reply 9 of 55
    If Apple is the only company doing it then yes...but theres Google & Amazon. 
    Hardware?? There are 3 choices here..
  • Reply 10 of 55
    payeco said:
    To me, this whole case involving the App Store is based on a lack of understanding:
    -- If you look at the App Store as simply and strictly and only a market place then, YES! It is a monopoly.
    -- If you realize that the App Store provides numerous services critical to well being of Apple, its products and its reputation, then you realize it is NOT a marketplace.

    Allowing anybody to install anything on Apple products would make those products no more stable, reliable and secure than a Windows machine.   Apple's reputation for reliability, security and privacy depend on the App Store and, without it, both Apple and its developers will suffer immeasurable economic harm.  And, we the users will be deprived of a lone island of safety in sea of Googles and Microsofts.
    That issue is irrelevant here. The law is designed to protect consumers and limit monopoly power, not protect a company’s reputation and/or business model.

    On a personal level I agree with you. I think the exclusivity of the App Store protects the security and stability of the platform. On a broader level I can see the plantiff’s point as well. 
    It's not irrelevant.  Courts can and do look at why companies do what they do.  A compelling business justification is a valid defense in an antitrust case.

    Per https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined

    Finally, the monopolist may have a legitimate business justification for behaving in a way that prevents other firms from succeeding in the marketplace. For instance, the monopolist may be competing on the merits in a way that benefits consumers through greater efficiency or a unique set of products or services. In the end, courts will decide whether the monopolist's success is due to "the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident."

  • Reply 11 of 55
    jdgazjdgaz Posts: 320member
    That 30% does quite a bit for the developer. They need not maintain their own storefront, They need not attract potential buyers to their own storefront, they need not develop a money collection mechanism that operates around the globe, they need not develop their own customer feedback mechanism, they also get the benefit of having their product reviewed for potential security issues. Not bad for 30% since it comes with over a billion potential customers.
    randominternetpersonkozchrisfotoformatn2itivguypalominebshankjcs2305jbdragonbloggerblog
  • Reply 12 of 55
    jdgaz said:
    That 30% does quite a bit for the developer. They need not maintain their own storefront, They need not attract potential buyers to their own storefront, they need not develop a money collection mechanism that operates around the globe, they need not develop their own customer feedback mechanism, they also get the benefit of having their product reviewed for potential security issues. Not bad for 30% since it comes with over a billion potential customers.
    +1
    n2itivguybshank
  • Reply 13 of 55
    rob53rob53 Posts: 1,937member
    My "favorite" part about the oral arguments was the obsession (primarily by Justice Kagan) on the fact that Apple requires all US App Store prices to end in $.99.  

    Kagen: "But, in fact, these are all low-cost products for the most part. So saying a price has to end with the -- you know, the -- the number 99 is saying a lot about the fact that you can't charge 77 cents or 55 cents or 32 cents."

    Or this nugget by the opposing council:  "But, secondly, it's just wrong because if you're constraining what 99 percent of the pricing options are, you know, that -- that's -- it is what it is. But it also has the effect economically of raising the prices."

    Really?  Before the App Store when was any software sold for $1, let alone 32 cents?  The idea that the App Store raised prices, and that making the prices end in .99 made it worse, is absurd.  Where are the hoards of developers up at arms about the fact that they can't charge $1.97 or $0.01 or $12.23 for their apps (examples of the "99% of price options" that unavailable)?
    Kagan must have forgotten the last time he had to buy gas or shop at a store. Gas is always priced with -.99 at the end. I worked at a gas station in the early 70's and I don't remember it being priced any other way back then. Look at retail stores. They have a code when pricing. If the price ends with -.99 then it's a current product. Once the price goes to -.97 or some other non-99 price, that product is being removed from the store. This doesn't happen at every store but I've seen it at more than one. 

    Apple using a bottom price of 99-cents keeps things simple for the customer. I believe Canada no longer accepts a penny, rounding prices up to the nickel, so they already understand that penny-pinching is no longer worth the time. With overall prices for goods, who even worries about small change anymore? If the developer believes their app is only worth 32 cents instead of 99-cents, then I'd probably not even look at it. Free apps usually have some kind of advertising, which is how they get their money. 

    AI needs to add a poll on topics like this so readers can still voice their feelings. When AI simply doesn't allow comments, it makes me feel like they've gone the way of MacWorld by not allowing freedom of speech. Of course we know the reason is because of Google analytics but that's another story to argue about.
    randominternetperson
  • Reply 14 of 55
    it’s very simple and I don’t see why the Supreme Court didn’t refuse to hear it. 

    Apple is a privately owned business and is making sure the quality stays as high as it can. Yes I’m an Apple consumer and I’m happy to for the service provides me, that is why I pay thousands of dollars for my phone.

     If you as a consumer don’t like the business practices that Apple does you are free to buy an other brand product. 

    Im a firm believer that you get what you pay for, as I am a Mechanic I will spend over a $100 for a single ratchet where I can spend $10 at Walmart or Home Depot for a similar tool. I want the Reliability and quality over just price. 

    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 15 of 55
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,356member
    payeco said:
    To me, this whole case involving the App Store is based on a lack of understanding:
    -- If you look at the App Store as simply and strictly and only a market place then, YES! It is a monopoly.
    -- If you realize that the App Store provides numerous services critical to well being of Apple, its products and its reputation, then you realize it is NOT a marketplace.

    Allowing anybody to install anything on Apple products would make those products no more stable, reliable and secure than a Windows machine.   Apple's reputation for reliability, security and privacy depend on the App Store and, without it, both Apple and its developers will suffer immeasurable economic harm.  And, we the users will be deprived of a lone island of safety in sea of Googles and Microsofts.
    That issue is irrelevant here. The law is designed to protect consumers and limit monopoly power, not protect a company’s reputation and/or business model.

    On a personal level I agree with you. I think the exclusivity of the App Store protects the security and stability of the platform. On a broader level I can see the plantiff’s point as well. 
    It's not irrelevant.  Courts can and do look at why companies do what they do.  A compelling business justification is a valid defense in an antitrust case.

    Per https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined

    Finally, the monopolist may have a legitimate business justification for behaving in a way that prevents other firms from succeeding in the marketplace. For instance, the monopolist may be competing on the merits in a way that benefits consumers through greater efficiency or a unique set of products or services. In the end, courts will decide whether the monopolist's success is due to "the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident."

    Here's Ben Thompson's take on the App store as having a monopoly position, take it or leave it. In a nutshell for those with zero interest in really reading about the why's:

    "To put it another way, Apple profits handsomely from having a monopoly on iOS: if you want the Apple software experience, you have no choice but to buy Apple hardware. That is perfectly legitimate. The company, though, is leveraging that monopoly into an adjacent market — the digital content market — and rent-seeking. Apple does nothing to increase the value of Netflix shows or Spotify music or Amazon books or any number of digital services from any number of app providers; they simply skim off 30% because they can.

    To be clear, Apple absolutely did create the modern app marketplace, and, as the company loves to brag, an entire new economy full of new types of jobs. That, though, is precisely the problem: the App Store is not a fun side diversion; it is one of the largest platforms we have ever seen, on which hundreds of thousands of people are seeking to build real businesses, and that carries different types of responsibilities — and legal limitations — than an OS feature. It is bad for society generally and, I strongly believe, illegal for Apple to have crafted App Store rules such that it can leverage its smartphone share into monopoly profits on digital goods and services that are on iOS not because iOS is anything special, but because that is the only possible way to reach nearly 50% of the U.S. population."

    https://stratechery.com/2018/antitrust-the-app-store-and-apple/

    I will disagree with Mr. Thompson about the chances of SCOTUS coming down on the side of Apple and dismissal, but on the larger case of Apple and monopoly he makes common sense arguments IMHO. 

    edited November 27 78Banditrandominternetpersonavon b7
  • Reply 16 of 55
    jdgaz said:
    That 30% does quite a bit for the developer. They need not maintain their own storefront, They need not attract potential buyers to their own storefront, they need not develop a money collection mechanism that operates around the globe, they need not develop their own customer feedback mechanism, they also get the benefit of having their product reviewed for potential security issues. Not bad for 30% since it comes with over a billion potential customers.
    I agree in principle, but what about the developers who don't need those services?  Apps like Netflix, Microsoft Office, or games from major developers who already have their own advertising, development, and payment departments in-house.  Should prices for those services be inflated to account for Apple's 30% vig solely because Apple refuses to allow side-loading of apps?
  • Reply 17 of 55
    bitmodbitmod Posts: 189member
    jdgaz said:
    That 30% does quite a bit for the developer. They need not maintain their own storefront, They need not attract potential buyers to their own storefront, they need not develop a money collection mechanism that operates around the globe, they need not develop their own customer feedback mechanism, they also get the benefit of having their product reviewed for potential security issues. Not bad for 30% since it comes with over a billion potential customers.
    And for other developers - it does absolutely nothing except raise prices for apple device owners and cut into their own profits. 
  • Reply 18 of 55
    gatorguy said:
    payeco said:
    To me, this whole case involving the App Store is based on a lack of understanding:
    -- If you look at the App Store as simply and strictly and only a market place then, YES! It is a monopoly.
    -- If you realize that the App Store provides numerous services critical to well being of Apple, its products and its reputation, then you realize it is NOT a marketplace.

    Allowing anybody to install anything on Apple products would make those products no more stable, reliable and secure than a Windows machine.   Apple's reputation for reliability, security and privacy depend on the App Store and, without it, both Apple and its developers will suffer immeasurable economic harm.  And, we the users will be deprived of a lone island of safety in sea of Googles and Microsofts.
    That issue is irrelevant here. The law is designed to protect consumers and limit monopoly power, not protect a company’s reputation and/or business model.

    On a personal level I agree with you. I think the exclusivity of the App Store protects the security and stability of the platform. On a broader level I can see the plantiff’s point as well. 
    It's not irrelevant.  Courts can and do look at why companies do what they do.  A compelling business justification is a valid defense in an antitrust case.

    Per https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined

    Finally, the monopolist may have a legitimate business justification for behaving in a way that prevents other firms from succeeding in the marketplace. For instance, the monopolist may be competing on the merits in a way that benefits consumers through greater efficiency or a unique set of products or services. In the end, courts will decide whether the monopolist's success is due to "the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident."

    Here's Ben Thompson's take on the App store as having a monopoly position, take it or leave it. In a nutshell for those with zero interest in really reading about the why's:

    "To put it another way, Apple profits handsomely from having a monopoly on iOS: if you want the Apple software experience, you have no choice but to buy Apple hardware. That is perfectly legitimate. The company, though, is leveraging that monopoly into an adjacent market — the digital content market — and rent-seeking. Apple does nothing to increase the value of Netflix shows or Spotify music or Amazon books or any number of digital services from any number of app providers; they simply skim off 30% because they can.

    To be clear, Apple absolutely did create the modern app marketplace, and, as the company loves to brag, an entire new economy full of new types of jobs. That, though, is precisely the problem: the App Store is not a fun side diversion; it is one of the largest platforms we have ever seen, on which hundreds of thousands of people are seeking to build real businesses, and that carries different types of responsibilities — and legal limitations — than an OS feature. It is bad for society generally and, I strongly believe, illegal for Apple to have crafted App Store rules such that it can leverage its smartphone share into monopoly profits on digital goods and services that are on iOS not because iOS is anything special, but because that is the only possible way to reach nearly 50% of the U.S. population."

    https://stratechery.com/2018/antitrust-the-app-store-and-apple/

    I will disagree with Mr. Thompson about the chances of SCOTUS coming down on the side of Apple and dismissal, but on the larger case of Apple and monopoly he makes common sense arguments IMHO. 

    Thanks for sharing that.  Is he right though?  I have a Netflix account (and others) and I watch lots of Netflix programming on my Apple devices.  And I've never paid Apple a dime for this digital content.  I subscribed through the Netflix website and Netflix gets 100% of their monthly fee.  If Apple is using it's market power in the device arena to gain market power in this other market, they aren't doing a very good job of it.  A better example would be if Apple didn't allow Netflix or Pandora on iOS in order to improve their market power in the media market.
    bshankmacplusplusbloggerblog
  • Reply 19 of 55
    croprcropr Posts: 863member
    jdgaz said:
    That 30% does quite a bit for the developer. They need not maintain their own storefront, They need not attract potential buyers to their own storefront, they need not develop a money collection mechanism that operates around the globe, they need not develop their own customer feedback mechanism, they also get the benefit of having their product reviewed for potential security issues. Not bad for 30% since it comes with over a billion potential customers.
    As a developer of apps (iOS, Android and web based) I must say that this statement is only true for standalone apps that don't communicate with an Internet cloud service. 

    For the cloud solutions I am developing and which have an iOS client among other clients, the App Store has very limited value.  I have my own internet servers, my own security infrastructure and 1 single payment API which cost me less than 3% of turn over of my apps.  

    Developing for one payment API on iOS, for another payment API on Android and for a 3rd one for web based clients, would only lead to additional costs.

    A survey among my customers revealed that exactly 0 customers found my app on the Apple App Store.  I won all customers because of the marketing actions I took (and paid for).  


    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 20 of 55
    To me there are two questions that I haven’t seen asked.

    Do application developers need to pass on the 30% cost to their consumers?(I don’t believe they do but I’m not all that knowledgeable in the subject)

    The second question is, out of all of the AppStore developers which ones are actually charging their customers the 30%?  

    Of course you have the Spotify’s that want to be vocal about it, however from what I’ve seen they don’t have to pass the 30% markup on to you.

    Just two questions I was wondering about, I won’t get into the “is the AppStore a monopoly or not a monopoly” argument.
Sign In or Register to comment.