How the fuck would multiple appstores on iOS even work? My head hurts about thinking about all the security, privacy, stability implications. It's gross. How absurd.
Don’t worry about it. There are those who are willing to sacrifice a little bit for the sake of some freedom. A boring bloke such as yourself wouldn’t understand.
Apple could brand all third-party apps for the iPhone as Apple products. All software developers would be considered subcontractors for the Apple brand. That way there is no app store for third parties any more. It's all Apple's software.
I think that would make it easier for iPhone users to (successfully) bring anti-trust actions against Apple. It would, for one thing, make it easier for them to make the case that Apple monopolizes apps.
By that logic the very first iPhone, which had no app store, was an egregious monopoly. I don't buy that logic. At all. Nobody can force any company to install other people's software on their hardware if there is no third party software available at all.
A situation where there is no market at all for app sales would be different from a situation where there is such a market but only one party can participate in that market. If Apple chose to have an App Store which sold only Apple apps, and that was the only realistic way that most people could buy apps for their iPhones, Apple may well be susceptible to allegations that it has (and uses) monopoly power in violation of anti-trust laws.
I don't agree with how U.S. law works when it comes to determining what is a relevant market for purposes of monopoly considerations. But the reality is that, based on how relevant markets are identified, Apple could - according to our laws - be considered to have monopoly power in a market that consisted only of iOS apps.
Apple could brand all third-party apps for the iPhone as Apple products. All software developers would be considered subcontractors for the Apple brand. That way there is no app store for third parties any more. It's all Apple's software.
I think that would make it easier for iPhone users to (successfully) bring anti-trust actions against Apple. It would, for one thing, make it easier for them to make the case that Apple monopolizes apps.
By that logic the very first iPhone, which had no app store, was an egregious monopoly. I don't buy that logic. At all. Nobody can force any company to install other people's software on their hardware if there is no third party software available at all.
A situation where there is no market at all for app sales would be different from a situation where there is such a market but only one party can participate in that market. If Apple chose to have an App Store which sold only Apple apps, and that was the only realistic way that most people could buy apps for their iPhones, Apple may well be susceptible to allegations that it has (and uses) monopoly power in violation of anti-trust laws.
I don't agree with how U.S. law works when it comes to determining what is a relevant market for purposes of monopoly considerations. But the reality is that, based on how relevant markets are identified, Apple could - according to our laws - be considered to have monopoly power in a market that consisted only of iOS apps.
I'm going to work backwards in your quote. Yes, Apple does have a monopoly in the iOS apps market. No question. Having a monopoly isn't the issue. Whether or not that monopoly is illegal is this issue. A monopoly, in and of itself isn't illegal. It's illegal if the monopoly is determined to be anti-competitive based on the actions of the company in the monopoly position... which is the claim of the lawsuit.
You have market scenario a bit wrong. A hypothetical Apple app store with only Apple apps would not be an illegal monopoly. There's no rule or law that says Apple has to offer a 3rd party market for apps. Now, that hypothetical is unrealistic because Apple would never have an Apple only app store. It would be empty unless they hired thousands of devs---gaaaahh that's an unnecessary rabbit hole. Point being, that hypothetical would not be a monopoly. It could only be a monopoly if it's the only place to get Apple and 3rd party iOS apps... it is. It could only be an illegal monopoly if Apple disadvantages 3rd party apps and makes the marketplace anti-competitive. Yet to be determined by the courts.
SpamSandwich has it right -- if mall A has a Hot Topic, and mall B doesn't does that mean mall B is censoring Hot Topic? Should it be forced to pay Hot Topic to come there? Should every mall offer every possible store?
As with a mall, Apple charges a fee (rent) to access their infrastructure (which is so extension only one or two other megacorps have anything like it -- and they too charge fees!). The developers are the stores.
This isn't difficult, and I don't expect the case will ultimately fail. The justices just want to examine the precedents and whether Apple is violating any of them.
SpamSandwich has it right -- if mall A has a Hot Topic, and mall B doesn't does that mean mall B is censoring Hot Topic? Should it be forced to pay Hot Topic to come there? Should every mall offer every possible store?
As with a mall, Apple charges a fee (rent) to access their infrastructure (which is so extension only one or two other megacorps have anything like it -- and they too charge fees!). The developers are the stores.
This isn't difficult, and I don't expect the case will ultimately fail. The justices just want to examine the precedents and whether Apple is violating any of them.
I don't think that example has any relationship to either the lawsuit that prompted the SCOTUS review nor on the ruling the high court made allowing it to proceed.
The problem is not with just Apple Store, but censorship. It is not Appe's business what applications should be allowed to run on device (except those that violate some local laws). We purchase that device to own it - not to lease it under strict contract. They can restrict apps on Apple Store, but then do not restrict people from haveing alternative stores. Disclaimers can be in place. I think this backfire of foolish concept of holding manufacturer liable for actions and abuse of others. So California uses that wicked logic and needs to continue along this narrative while it should verify it's foundations in the first place. Any tool in wrong hands could be misused, abused and used for illegal intent as well. No manufacturer should be liable in those cases.
You may own the device, but you do not own the software on that device.
Apple's stake is the operating system on the device and the few apps that are installed by default. The rest does not belong to Apple, and it is not up to them to censor what the user can have on their device.
You're using their software to load and consume content on the device in the first place.
Comments
I don't agree with how U.S. law works when it comes to determining what is a relevant market for purposes of monopoly considerations. But the reality is that, based on how relevant markets are identified, Apple could - according to our laws - be considered to have monopoly power in a market that consisted only of iOS apps.
You have market scenario a bit wrong. A hypothetical Apple app store with only Apple apps would not be an illegal monopoly. There's no rule or law that says Apple has to offer a 3rd party market for apps. Now, that hypothetical is unrealistic because Apple would never have an Apple only app store. It would be empty unless they hired thousands of devs---gaaaahh that's an unnecessary rabbit hole. Point being, that hypothetical would not be a monopoly. It could only be a monopoly if it's the only place to get Apple and 3rd party iOS apps... it is. It could only be an illegal monopoly if Apple disadvantages 3rd party apps and makes the marketplace anti-competitive. Yet to be determined by the courts.
As with a mall, Apple charges a fee (rent) to access their infrastructure (which is so extension only one or two other megacorps have anything like it -- and they too charge fees!). The developers are the stores.
This isn't difficult, and I don't expect the case will ultimately fail. The justices just want to examine the precedents and whether Apple is violating any of them.