SCOTUS is not asking for a legal opinion on whether Apple is right or wrong but instead whether there are broader unresolved issues involved that deserve the court's attention. They may not hear it at all without good reason that goes beyond Apple and the App Store. This is not really about Apple per-se, but whether there is some reason for SCOTUS to hear the case at all. They have not accepted it yet and might not. IMO it's going to be a "not".
Utter nonsense. The Supreme Court shows yet again that it needs to be almost entirely impeached and replaced with actual Americans. The Executive branch does not rule on the nature of the enforcement of law; it enforces law. The Supreme Court does not create law; it rules on the nature of law. If the SCOTUS is incapable of doing its job, it needs to be erased and rebuilt.
The Justice Department has broad discretion under Federal antitrust law. Makes perfect sense for the SCOTUS to seek the opinion of the executive branch before hearing this case. There's nothing controversial about this move.
The case itself could turn out to be very controversial with serious implications, but this request by the Court is SOP.
No, the SC is supposed to apply existing law, which they can look up themselves (they have a large staff of law clerks at their disposal). If Justice wants to submit a brief they are free to do so. The court is not supposed to see which way the winds blows first.
Utter nonsense. The Supreme Court shows yet again that it needs to be almost entirely impeached and replaced with actual Americans. The Executive branch does not rule on the nature of the enforcement of law; it enforces law. The Supreme Court does not create law; it rules on the nature of law. If the SCOTUS is incapable of doing its job, it needs to be erased and rebuilt.
Yeah, except that's not what's involved here.
SCOTUS is asking the Justice Department whether there are issues beyond Apple that require clarification in their opinion. If not I personally think they will decline to hear it and let the previous ruling allowing the lawsuit to go forward stand. They might decline even if the Justice Dept can come up with broader reasons to look at it, if those aren't relatively strong ones.
The Justice Department has broad discretion under Federal antitrust law. Makes perfect sense for the SCOTUS to seek the opinion of the executive branch before hearing this case. There's nothing controversial about this move.
The case itself could turn out to be very controversial with serious implications, but this request by the Court is SOP.
No, the SC is supposed to apply existing law, which they can look up themselves (they have a large staff of law clerks at their disposal). If Justice wants to submit a brief they are free to do so. The court is not supposed to see which way the winds blows first.
See my post which followed yours. I think a few posters are skimming and commenting rather than reading for understanding before doing so.
Wait, isn't Amazon and Google both charging 30%? Apple created the product and the market in which 3rd party company's can make their own apps to sell.
If you don't like it, don't create iOS app's!! I just spend about $45 for Unlimited service for Motorcycle Navigation software as I didn't want to pay the $7 a month. I'd rather flat out pay for software. Really 99 cents or $1.99 or even $5.99 or something doesn't bother me if the app is really good. But it's been getting harder and harder with all these FREEMIUM app's. Apple gets nothing from FREE. 30% of $0 equals $0 for Apple.
If you don't want Apple to get the monthly service cost of your app, do what Amazon does. make people buy their books at their site, not directly from the app where Apple is going to want their cut. Apple is already cut the price on some of these subscriptions to 15% after a year I believe.
Apple's polices towards app developers could be considered anti-competitive especially in demanding exclusivity of those apps. If I develop a mobile phone app and want to sell it on two platforms one customer (Apple) should not prohibit me from selling it elsewhere. Microsoft, Adobe, etc... all sell software on more than one platform. Apples App store is already jam packed with apps and I wonder what percentage of developers actually make a profit there, I am talking about good software not the shoddy stuff.
People have become blind of the dangers of monopolies in this hyper capitalist society. How many of you forgot that Microsoft was found guilty or running a monopoly 20 years ago. If our government (at that time) had not stepped in it is unlikely Apple would exist today.
First of all, monopolies are not illegal.
Second, there has never been a case where Apple told a developer if they wanted to develop for iOS they couldn’t develop for any other platform.
Microsoft was not found guilty of running a monopoly, it was guilty of abusing its monopoly position in the desktop operating systems market. It used that leverage to push out competing 3rd party software, coerced OEMs into anti-competitive terms (mainly prohibiting from offering a PC with an alternative OS) and forcing corporate licensees to pay per “seat” even if that “seat” contained a Mac or some other desktop system.
The main issue here is access and availability. If you want an app for your iOS device there is one and only one location you can get it, The App Store. The short-sidedness of this lawsuit is that the developers are setting the price, not Apple. Apple is taking a cut from the developer, they are not charging the customer more. If the developer could sell his app somewhere else don’t think for a moment that the developer is not going to charge the same thing. Of course they will, and take in more.
As a consumer I didn't know I had any "legal standing" with regards to prices set freely by app developers. If they choose to raise prices 30% over non-App Store pricing (to support the operations of the App Store ), I didn't realize I was entitled to a legal remedy. I have an iPhone by choice. Developers sell iOS apps by choice. Developers choose their pricing. Why are the courts involved in a free market transaction?
Was I entitled to something? Was I entitled to side-loading apps? Do PlayStation and Xbox owners have legal rights to side load games into their locked down, walled garden platforms? Or do publishers have to go through an approval process?
I only wished the article delved further into the legal analysis of this ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. I am genuinely confused by my legal standing as a consumer.
As a consumer I didn't know I had any "legal standing" with regards to prices set freely by app developers. If they choose to raise prices 30% over non-App Store pricing (to support the operations of the App Store ), I didn't realize I was entitled to a legal remedy. I have an iPhone by choice. Developers sell iOS apps by choice. Developers choose their pricing. Why are the courts involved in a free market transaction?
Was I entitled to something? Was I entitled to side-loading apps? Do PlayStation and Xbox owners have legal rights to side load games into their locked down, walled garden platforms? Or do publishers have to go through an approval process?
I only wished the article delved further into the legal analysis of this ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. I am genuinely confused by my legal standing as a consumer.
The ruling so far only concerns whether Apple users have the right to sue Apple. Nothing has been heard regarding the legitimacy of the claims in the case. If the Supreme Court agrees to cert even they will only be hearing the arguments regarding standing, and not whether the claims the plaintiffs made have legal merit.
So, Apple should offer developers the most lucrative digital marketplace on the planet, while taking care of all the hosting, maintenance, marketing, and infrastructure...for free? Yeah, that makes a lot of fucking sense.
Also, the idea that there's no "competition" before Apple doesn't allow alternative appstores is absolutely ludicrous. Yeah, having multiple appstores each of which can run wild with their own (non-existent) security polities etc sounds like a FANTASTIC experience for customers.
Well, to be honest, I hate that Apple charges a lot for developers to distribute on App Store but it is a benefit to consumers. Consumers benefit from going to one service and they don't have to worry about malware and viruses.
While not commenting on the merits of the lawsuit and a very happy iPhone owner that likes the App Store without having to worry about malware, I ask the following. Why is iOS treated differently that macOS? Both are exclusively Apple software and run on hardware. Both have an App Store yet one is open and the other not. I get the greater need in macOS but the dichotomy is still interesting to me.
While not commenting on the merits of the lawsuit and a very happy iPhone owner that likes the App Store without having to worry about malware, I ask the following. Why is iOS treated differently that macOS? Both are exclusively Apple software and run on hardware. Both have an App Store yet one is open and the other not. I get the greater need in macOS but the dichotomy is still interesting to me.
Because macOS devices and iOS devices are different products. Apple might choose to make iOS applications "open" in the Mac style, but to ensure Mac level security and robustness iOS architecture would need significant changes that would end up with making those devices pretty useless. iOS is still "open" in the Mac sense in that you can upload your own app without going through the AppStore. So the user still has an ultimate control on her/his iOS device. Xcode is free, programming knowledge is free, just write your iOS app and enjoy it. Or hire a programmer...
So, the supreme court not doing its job and punting it...
So, I'm guessing this applies to all retail too hmmm, seems like that's the logical extension too.
What a mess that would turn out to be.
Government dictating margins, and markups for products that are put in a store; truly "capitalism" at work.
The "small government" (sic) republicans will undoubtedly put their heavy hand in there, seems like a natural to them.
Or maybe just blackmail Apple into complying on some other random area that will line his pockets or those of his chums.
Considering currently government is understaffed by close to a thousand high level employees (that have not been replaced by well, you know who),
this is recipie for the bad and the arbitrary.
The Justice Department has broad discretion under Federal antitrust law. Makes perfect sense for the SCOTUS to seek the opinion of the executive branch before hearing this case. There's nothing controversial about this move.
The case itself could turn out to be very controversial with serious implications, but this request by the Court is SOP.
But isn’t the court’s job to judge the case? If they ask for DOJ for opinion, either way it is a political decision based on who/which party is ruling. After all, all top DOJ personnel are political appointees, thus biased. Isn’t a better idea to kick the ball to congress and ask them to better define the law? I know it will never happen. Just saying.
While not commenting on the merits of the lawsuit and a very happy iPhone owner that likes the App Store without having to worry about malware, I ask the following. Why is iOS treated differently that macOS? Both are exclusively Apple software and run on hardware. Both have an App Store yet one is open and the other not. I get the greater need in macOS but the dichotomy is still interesting to me.
Because macOS devices and iOS devices are different products. Apple might choose to make iOS applications "open" in the Mac style, but to ensure Mac level security and robustness iOS architecture would need significant changes that would end up with making those devices pretty useless. iOS is still "open" in the Mac sense in that you can upload your own app without going through the AppStore. So the user still has an ultimate control on her/his iOS device. Xcode is free, programming knowledge is free, just write your iOS app and enjoy it. Or hire a programmer...
Thanks. Good point about the architecture differences.
You own the hardware, whether iPhone or iPad in this case. So you should be allowed, and are allowed, to do with it what you want. Want to break it open and figure out how to run Windows or Android or Linux on it? Go for it. It’s yours, do as you like. But don’t expect Apple to assist in that effort.
However, you license the OS, which remains the property of Apple, and Apple has a right to control what happens with its property, much the way a movie theater has the right to prohibit patrons bringing in their own food. If a movie theater wants to sell popcorn at a 1000% markup, then you have the choice of watching the movie without popcorn, or going somewhere else to watch the movie. If Apple, which spent untold billions of dollars building, testing, marketing and supporting iOS wants to create a store within that property where they are the only seller of goods that can be consumed within that property, then I don’t see this as different from a movie theater deciding who can sell snacks to its patrons and collecting a percentage of the take.
Sorry you analogy doesn't work for me. A software developer is not a customer of Apple but a vendor which Apple accepts into it's App Store. When Apple tells those developers that is has an exclusive on that developer's software it is using the power of its monopoly to prevent that developer (or vendor) for earning profits on software that Apple had not part in developing. I have a friend who had a design company and sometime competing stores would threaten to cancel their orders if he sold the same styles to someone that they saw as a direct competitor. In my example it was not a problem since the clothing market did not consist of two giants as the mobile phone industry does now.
I thought the US had separation of powers such that Law and Executive were independent of each other. If so why is the Supreme Court asking the opinion of the President as to whether it should hear a case? Surely it either should or shouldn't based on a matter of law?
Viewed from this side of the pond it looks a little odd.
I thought the US had separation of powers such that Law and Executive were independent of each other. If so why is the Supreme Court asking the opinion of the President as to whether it should hear a case? Surely it either should or shouldn't based on a matter of law?
Viewed from this side of the pond it looks a little odd.
It looks pretty darn odd over here too.
It wouldn't if you understood what this was about. I tried explaining a couple of times.
You own the hardware, whether iPhone or iPad in this case. So you should be allowed, and are allowed, to do with it what you want. Want to break it open and figure out how to run Windows or Android or Linux on it? Go for it. It’s yours, do as you like. But don’t expect Apple to assist in that effort.
However, you license the OS, which remains the property of Apple, and Apple has a right to control what happens with its property, much the way a movie theater has the right to prohibit patrons bringing in their own food. If a movie theater wants to sell popcorn at a 1000% markup, then you have the choice of watching the movie without popcorn, or going somewhere else to watch the movie. If Apple, which spent untold billions of dollars building, testing, marketing and supporting iOS wants to create a store within that property where they are the only seller of goods that can be consumed within that property, then I don’t see this as different from a movie theater deciding who can sell snacks to its patrons and collecting a percentage of the take.
Sorry you analogy doesn't work for me. A software developer is not a customer of Apple but a vendor which Apple accepts into it's App Store. When Apple tells those developers that is has an exclusive on that developer's software it is using the power of its monopoly to prevent that developer (or vendor) for earning profits on software that Apple had not part in developing.
But those developers still earn profits on Apple's operating systems they had not part in developing. Developers still use APIs and object codes developed by Apple yet Apple does not charge them for the use of those APIs and object codes. It just rents its marketing and sales services to developers and takes part of the income in exchange of these services.
Keeping the platform closed to developers was the original vision of Steve Jobs and he was not wrong with that considering the quality of the J2ME crap invading mobile platforms at that time. Thanks to the extraordinary efforts of Scott Forstall Apple has came with tools enabling developers to produce quality software for iOS leading to today's AppStore. Apple instead might ultimately develop all the utility and productivity software to substitute a significant portion of today's iOS AppStore. They might just hire or outsource developers to produce software under the Apple brand and still they would lose nothing. Today's model is better for everyone and it works. There's no point in trying to "fix" something working pretty good.
Comments
SCOTUS is asking the Justice Department whether there are issues beyond Apple that require clarification in their opinion. If not I personally think they will decline to hear it and let the previous ruling allowing the lawsuit to go forward stand. They might decline even if the Justice Dept can come up with broader reasons to look at it, if those aren't relatively strong ones.
First of all, monopolies are not illegal.
Second, there has never been a case where Apple told a developer if they wanted to develop for iOS they couldn’t develop for any other platform.
Microsoft was not found guilty of running a monopoly, it was guilty of abusing its monopoly position in the desktop operating systems market. It used that leverage to push out competing 3rd party software, coerced OEMs into anti-competitive terms (mainly prohibiting from offering a PC with an alternative OS) and forcing corporate licensees to pay per “seat” even if that “seat” contained a Mac or some other desktop system.
The main issue here is access and availability. If you want an app for your iOS device there is one and only one location you can get it, The App Store. The short-sidedness of this lawsuit is that the developers are setting the price, not Apple. Apple is taking a cut from the developer, they are not charging the customer more. If the developer could sell his app somewhere else don’t think for a moment that the developer is not going to charge the same thing. Of course they will, and take in more.
Was I entitled to something? Was I entitled to side-loading apps? Do PlayStation and Xbox owners have legal rights to side load games into their locked down, walled garden platforms? Or do publishers have to go through an approval process?
I only wished the article delved further into the legal analysis of this ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. I am genuinely confused by my legal standing as a consumer.
Also, the idea that there's no "competition" before Apple doesn't allow alternative appstores is absolutely ludicrous. Yeah, having multiple appstores each of which can run wild with their own (non-existent) security polities etc sounds like a FANTASTIC experience for customers.
It looks pretty darn odd over here too.
Keeping the platform closed to developers was the original vision of Steve Jobs and he was not wrong with that considering the quality of the J2ME crap invading mobile platforms at that time. Thanks to the extraordinary efforts of Scott Forstall Apple has came with tools enabling developers to produce quality software for iOS leading to today's AppStore. Apple instead might ultimately develop all the utility and productivity software to substitute a significant portion of today's iOS AppStore. They might just hire or outsource developers to produce software under the Apple brand and still they would lose nothing. Today's model is better for everyone and it works. There's no point in trying to "fix" something working pretty good.