Future path of Apple's App Stores at stake in Monday's Supreme Court arguments

1246789

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 180
    Johan42 said:
    avon b7 said:
    I'm for choice in distribution models and less power for store controllers.

    I'd like to see developers have the option to opt out of the App Store if it suits their needs and for Apple to have less say on what is 'acceptable' or not. Likewise, choice would then extend to the end user.
    The open web exists for that. The App Store should be apple controlled.
    Apple wants to hoard as much money as possible, which is why they make it nearly impossible for the average user to side load apps. Controlling what I can or can’t do with my phone...pfft.
    It’s not your phone. You’re not buying hardware but a license to access iOS/App Store. If you don’t like Apple’s TOS you can buy something else.
    radarthekat
  • Reply 62 of 180
    Take the Alex Jones Info Wars app for instance. Apple doesn't want Info Wars in the app store for hate speech. This is an example of why Apple should allow developers to host their apps from their website. If I want to download Info Wars, I should be allowed to download it from infowars.com if App doesn't like the app. This is what I call a violation of the Antitrust Act.

    If you want to download Info Wars, you are FREE to purchase an Android phone and download Info Wars on that phone.  Apple is unable to STOP you from purchasing an Android phone and downloading Info Wars on the Android phone.  Apple is also unable to STOP the retailer from selling the Android phone to you and Apple is unable to STOP Info Wars from allowing you to download their app into the Android phone.

    Because Apple is UNABLE to STOP you or the retailer from taking actions that is harmful to Apple's market position and also because Apple's market share of all smartphone devices is minimal, there is no violation of the Antitrust Act.  
    edited November 2018 radarthekat
  • Reply 63 of 180
    maestro64 said:
    Overall this is a complicated matter and definitely beyond what current laws had in mind when written.

    First, if Apple is considers themselves a distributor that also means they are free to set the price of a product as they see fit. In a typical distributor model, a company who makes a product sells a product to a distributor, at that point they have no say so over the price a distributor sell the product to anyone else. This is also mostly true even in direct to consumer type of transactions. If you agree to have a store like Walmart carry and sell your product, you do not always have any say over the price Walmart will sell your product to the public.

    This also the reason Apple never really like the big box retail model, it did not allow them to control the selling price. Once Apple establish their market dominance they were able to set the selling price in all channels of sale. Retailer can not discount Apple products without getting Apple's approval.

    The other challenge with retail and distribution models is the fact that everyone who touches the product gets to make a profit off the product. This is the piece most consumers do not want to realize. In this case the people suing Apple is claiming since Apple controls the distribution they get to set the price, well that true anywhere in the world someone is always setting and controlling the price and someone is always making a profits. Apple 30% they make is not too unusual in the retail space. Retails and distributors target between a 25% to 35% markup on product they sell. Apple is not making any more than any other retailer.

    There is no rule that says that there has to be more than one App store for software that runs on apples product. Plus most apps can not be bough in android. The only issue if you have the App for ios you can not simply transfer it to an android phone and via verse and the Developer will make you buy it again. Add in the fact that you do not really own an application, its on loan to you until they decide they no longer want to license and support your app on your product.

    These folks are essentially arguing that there should be others stores like an Amazon who has proven they will give away products at loose to make a sale as competitor to Apple, and because this does not exist, apple is keeping pricing artificial high

    This is NOT a complicated matter.  It's very simple, really:  Apple controls its own ecosystem and can do whatever it wants to do within that ecosystem.  The Apple ecosystem in and of itself is not a monopoly and therefore, there are no antitrust issues.  Ergo, Apple is free to charge any price it wants for entry into its ecosystem and limit distribution into its ecosystem in any way it sees fit.  If consumers or developers don't like Apple's terms and conditions and pricing, they can always go to a competitor which, in this case, includes:  Nokia, Sony, Xiaomi, HTC, Google, and so on and so forth.  
    StrangeDaysbeowulfschmidt
  • Reply 64 of 180
    More dirtbags trying to get rich from suing... As an Apple customer I am perfectly happy with the App Store the way it is and the security it gives me!!
    spinnydradarthekat
  • Reply 65 of 180
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 2,066member
    Wait wait wait... software pricing on iOS has been consistently and considerably lower than on desktop machines BECAUSE that’s what Apple wanted.

    Korg Gadget on iOS: $39.99
    Korg Gadget on Mac: $299.99

    Gadget is a high-cost app compared to most other iOS apps and I’m still asking: What’s the high iOS app cost we are taking about?

    The computer industry is abusive. It has been one of the worst industries ever (aside from big tobacco and big pharma). There’s been zero regulation of it and the industry basically just gets excused from the most basic consumer protections. The implication that current pricing of iOS apps is a complaint is a red flag to me because, comparatively, there’s SO MUCH WORSE abuse going on elsewhere. Hell, iOS itself is loaded with bugs Apple refuse to fix. Why not a class-action lawsuit against Apple for that? Because it won’t make anyone money, that’s why. 

    Apple’s heavy-handed approach to the computer industry (between 2007 and 2013) has pushed back against a lot of defacto standard computer industry consumer abuse, ever since the iPhone and iOS came along. Today’s Apple isn’t the same Apple as then (like invasion of the body snatchers, that Apple seems to have had its mind replaced by some parasitical capitalism creature, leading to things like 2013’s iOS 7), but the end user abuse is still somewhat less today overall than it was before iPhone opened computing to a vast majority of consumers.

    Is this lawsuit going to reverse that change and allow no-hold-barred marketing tactics from third-parties who think they’re not making enough bulk profit selling buggy garbage software? I’m not eager to see that change.

    Consumers benefitted from 2007-2013 Apple’s behavior. It introduced some actual competition and it won people over (Windows and PC voodoo pushed me away, but Apple, iOS, and Snow Leopard pulled me in). I suspect this lawsuit is not remotely in pursuit of consumer benefit and is, typical of most class-action lawsuits in our corrupt economic system, all about winning power and opening doors for greater consumer abuse for other computer industry entities that are sick of being restrained by Apple policies.

    Apple aren’t perfect as a huge corporation. Today’s Apple is even reprehensible, compared to the older Apple that won me over with superior products and business. That said, I suspect this lawsuit has very little to do with stopping any abuses by Apple.
    radarthekat
  • Reply 66 of 180
    jimh2jimh2 Posts: 129member
    Contrary to what those for forcing Apple to allow alternative stores believe it is the consumers will lose if Apple loses. Items will cost more and be harder to find. Developers will quickly find out that if you are not in the store you will be forgoing sales because 99.999999% will not buy from outside of the store. 

    The same people complaining about this are the ones who want to be able upgrade the components of their Macs. They represent infinitesimal number of consumers. The rest of us want our phones to work with as little friction as possible. 
    randominternetperson
  • Reply 67 of 180
    auxioauxio Posts: 1,980member
    Johan42 said:

    Johan42 said:
    avon b7 said:
    I'm for choice in distribution models and less power for store controllers.

    I'd like to see developers have the option to opt out of the App Store if it suits their needs and for Apple to have less say on what is 'acceptable' or not. Likewise, choice would then extend to the end user.
    The open web exists for that. The App Store should be apple controlled.
    Apple wants to hoard as much money as possible, which is why they make it nearly impossible for the average user to side load apps. Controlling what I can or can’t do with my phone...pfft.
    It’s not about hoarding money, it’s about user experience. Yes, Apple values simplicity and safety over DIY tinkering. Android is for tinkerers, iOS is for normals. 
    Simplicity and safety can be achieved just fine while giving the owner of the phone control of what he/she wants.
    Until they break something and bring it to the Apple Store and/or sue Apple over it.  The control is there, there's just a high technical bar to get at it.  For good reason, so that the people who are doing it know exactly what the risks are.  People who don't understand the risks shouldn't be doing it.

    For the discussion about using Xcode to side load, there's also TestFlight (which doesn't require buying a Mac).
    edited November 2018 radarthekat
  • Reply 68 of 180
    jimh2jimh2 Posts: 129member

    Take the Alex Jones Info Wars app for instance. Apple doesn't want Info Wars in the app store for hate speech. This is an example of why Apple should allow developers to host their apps from their website. If I want to download Info Wars, I should be allowed to download it from infowars.com if App doesn't like the app. This is what I call a violation of the Antitrust Act.
    Yeah, this isn't a violation of the Antitrust act. There are potentially other issues with this, but antitrust isn't one of them.
    This is no different Walmart not selling obscene shirts or pornography or simply a product that they don't think will sell. 
  • Reply 69 of 180
    crowley said:
    avon b7 said:
    I'm for choice in distribution models and less power for store controllers.

    I'd like to see developers have the option to opt out of the App Store if it suits their needs and for Apple to have less say on what is 'acceptable' or not. Likewise, choice would then extend to the end user.
    The open web exists for that. The App Store should be apple controlled.
    And why not allow third-party app stores at the user's risk?
    Apple's "Pro" products need a real pro mode that allows users to side load any app they want including a third party app store. That would actually help Apple in the long run as all of their iOS products are currently ham strung by the vast numbers of limitations Apple places on its developers and users currently that prevent them from being used for many legitimate purposes. Managing their home or business networks for example.
    edited November 2018
  • Reply 70 of 180
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,452member
    kharvel said:
    Take the Alex Jones Info Wars app for instance. Apple doesn't want Info Wars in the app store for hate speech. This is an example of why Apple should allow developers to host their apps from their website. If I want to download Info Wars, I should be allowed to download it from infowars.com if App doesn't like the app. This is what I call a violation of the Antitrust Act.

    If you want to download Info Wars, you are FREE to purchase an Android phone and download Info Wars on that phone.  Apple is unable to STOP you from purchasing an Android phone and downloading Info Wars on the Android phone...

    This is NOT a complicated matter.  It's very simple, really:  Apple controls its own ecosystem and can do whatever it wants to do within that ecosystem. If consumers or developers don't like Apple's terms and conditions and pricing, they can always go to a competitor.

    Google thought that too. Being able to buy an iPhone instead or even use an Android fork if you didn't like Google's terms didn't work as a defense against anti-competition claims from government regulators.
    edited November 2018
  • Reply 71 of 180
    Johan42 said:
    svanstrom said:
    Johan42 said:

    Johan42 said:
    avon b7 said:
    I'm for choice in distribution models and less power for store controllers.

    I'd like to see developers have the option to opt out of the App Store if it suits their needs and for Apple to have less say on what is 'acceptable' or not. Likewise, choice would then extend to the end user.
    The open web exists for that. The App Store should be apple controlled.
    Apple wants to hoard as much money as possible, which is why they make it nearly impossible for the average user to side load apps. Controlling what I can or can’t do with my phone...pfft.
    Xcode is free. Sideload all you want from there.
    One needs a developer account to download the “free” software, and registering such an account requires money. There’s also the fact that Xcode only runs on Mac OS X, and buying a Mac requires money. The average user has zero idea on how to virtualize Mac OS X in Windows or even use Xcode for that matter. So once again...nearly impossible for the average user to side load apps without having to pay for it.
    So what? I'm free to build my own house, that doesn't mean that it's some sort of evil oligarchy controlling the house building market just because I lack the skills to build houses myself… You either accept having to pay extra for it to be easy, or you put in the hard work to learn how to do it yourself.
    Nonsensical analogy. 
    No it isn’t it’s a great analogy. You’re free to build and side-load apps for iOS, just like you’re free to build a house. But that doesn’t mean it’s “free” to do so without costs. To build a house you must buy tools (wood, saws, etc). To build an iOS app you must als buy tools (a Mac).

    What part are you struggling with?
    You’re under the assumption that I want to build my own app. I mean, I never said anything about creating my own app, now did I?
  • Reply 72 of 180
    Johan42 said:
    avon b7 said:
    I'm for choice in distribution models and less power for store controllers.

    I'd like to see developers have the option to opt out of the App Store if it suits their needs and for Apple to have less say on what is 'acceptable' or not. Likewise, choice would then extend to the end user.
    The open web exists for that. The App Store should be apple controlled.
    Apple wants to hoard as much money as possible, which is why they make it nearly impossible for the average user to side load apps. Controlling what I can or can’t do with my phone...pfft.
    It’s not your phone. You’re not buying hardware but a license to access iOS/App Store. If you don’t like Apple’s TOS you can buy something else.
    That type of thinking will bring about the Great Depression again.
  • Reply 73 of 180
    Anybody who claims Apple's 30% cut is abusive has clearly never tried to sell software on the retail market. Between rebates, marketing costs, distributor and retailer margins, reseller incentives, and sometimes rebate costs, you were lucky to net 20% on a good day. Considering the size of the audience and the service provided, 30% is a massive bargain -- for most software.
    And as has been pointed out before, you can't accuse a company of monopoly abuse when they don't have a monopoly on the market, since Android is actually in a dominant position even on the US market.
    svanstromdewmeStrangeDaysrandominternetpersonradarthekat
  • Reply 74 of 180
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 388member
    carnegie said:
    crowley said:
    I don't understand the overcharging angle.  Can someone who does maybe break it down into who has been overcharged for what and why that would be illegal?
    The plaintiffs claim that they are paying an overcharge to Apple as a result of Apple's anticompetitive conduct, i.e. Apple not allowing developers to sell their apps in other ways. The plaintiffs' argument is that they are buying apps directly from Apple, not indirectly from app developers.

    Never mind the fact that you can buy quite sophisticated apps on the App Store at a fraction of the price you might pay for the same quality on a PC or a Mac.

    Having said that, a serious discussion/debate needs to be had about the future of the App Store and the implications for the future of software distribution.
  • Reply 75 of 180
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 388member
    cropr said:
    jdgaz said:
    I think the walled garden is a benefit.
    For Apple it is, for the user this is unclear, for the developer it is definitely not
    We have at least two comments from developers on this thread that strongly disagree with you.  You might consider elaborating furtheron why you believe otherwise.
    svanstrom
  • Reply 76 of 180
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 3,664member
    Rayz2016 said:
    avon b7 said:
    I'm for choice in distribution models and less power for store controllers.

    No, you're just against Apple.
    Erm, no. That applies to everyone in a similar situation, not just Apple.
  • Reply 77 of 180
    Here is the transcript of this morning's oral argument, in case some are interested in reading it.
    randominternetperson
  • Reply 78 of 180
    The Supreme Court is dealing with a threshold issue here, i.e. whether the plaintiffs have (statutory) standing to sue Apple.
    Yeah, the Illinois Brick case only applies to whether or not they have standing to sue. It doesn't actually apply to anything beyond that.
    randominternetperson
  • Reply 79 of 180
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,129member
    Can a market that was never open in the first place be monopolised?
    elijahgradarthekat
  • Reply 80 of 180
    jumejume Posts: 191member
    carnegie said:
    I would add that I would be surprised if the Supreme Court ruled against Apple in this case.
    It should rule against Apple in this case. It is going to be better for the consumer!
Sign In or Register to comment.