This decision makes a bit of a mess of anti-trust law. Proximate cause is such an important concept when it comes to legal actions alledging injuries resulting from plaintiffs' actions. Unfortunately, this decision doesn't seem to appreciate the importance of that concept.
Depending on subsequent Supreme Court decisions which may come, this decision may have significant effects on anti-trust law in general. But I don't think it will be too problematic for Apple. Because this decision venerates form over substance, and as Justice Gorsuch points out in his dissent, Apple has a fairly straightforward work around available to it. It only needs to change contract terms such that payment flows technically go a different way. Then, iPhone users wouldn't technically be buying apps from Apple (as an agent), they'd be buying apps from developers.
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.
This decision makes a bit of a mess of anti-trust law. Proximate cause is such an important concept when it comes to legal actions alledging injuries resulting from plaintiffs' actions. Unfortunately, this decision doesn't seem to appreciate the importance of that concept.
Depending on subsequent Supreme Court decisions which may come, this decision may have significant effects on anti-trust law in general. But I don't think it will be too problematic for Apple. Because this decision venerates form over substance, and as Justice Gorsuch points out in his dissent, Apple has a fairly straightforward work around available to it. It only needs to change contract terms such that payment flows technically go a different way. Then, iPhone users wouldn't technically be buying apps from Apple (as an agent), they'd be buying apps from developers.
It is not going to be any more problematic than it is to have apps from multiple sources, including the App store on macOS.
Apple has a fairly straightforward work around available to it. It only needs to change contract terms such that payment flows technically go a different way. Then, iPhone users wouldn't technically be buying apps from Apple (as an agent), they'd be buying apps from developers.
That's a fair point but then are you saying developers would still have to pay Apple for the vetting and digital signature processes? Or are you saying Apple could no longer charge for these services?
Which Apple dismissed early on in the life of the original iPhone, so no, that is no argument.
Well, they actually have been supported in iOS for a while now…
They have been supported since day one. The dismissal was over the limited functionality that can be provided by a web app vs a native development kit. – Which also make it infinitely easier to provide rich applications that works in disconnected mode (such on an airplane for example).
Great news for users, developers and even Apple. Most of Apples app restrictions and fees are aimed at their users rather than developers. The Supreme Court saw through Apple's flimsy deception that somehow their fees only fell on app developers. The solution for Apple is to keep the current App Store exactly as it is but to allow users to opt into third party app stores and/or side loading of apps. Give them lots of clear warnings of the danger to their security and then let them do it if they want. This will allow a small percentage of users to find out what it is like to use apps without restrictions, perhaps on an older device they were no longer using. This in turn will reveal what everyone else is missing and drive Apple to expand the limits of what apps are allowed to do. In the long run this will help Apple as well as its users and developers.
I don’t want my kids to be downloading some apps from some shady 3D party stores. Even if it be possible to load from other stores (if Apple loses this case) I want it to be as an option and it would be needed to be explicitly switched on.
I spend about 90% of my time in native (Apple-written) apps on the iPhone. Most of the other 10% have web-based alternatives, such as the AppleInsider app. Even without an app store there's a 0.0% chance that I would switch to Android. Look at CarPlay... you can't install any apps there, and Apple is still doing fine in that segment.
This decision makes a bit of a mess of anti-trust law. Proximate cause is such an important concept when it comes to legal actions alledging injuries resulting from plaintiffs' actions. Unfortunately, this decision doesn't seem to appreciate the importance of that concept.
Depending on subsequent Supreme Court decisions which may come, this decision may have significant effects on anti-trust law in general. But I don't think it will be too problematic for Apple. Because this decision venerates form over substance, and as Justice Gorsuch points out in his dissent, Apple has a fairly straightforward work around available to it. It only needs to change contract terms such that payment flows technically go a different way. Then, iPhone users wouldn't technically be buying apps from Apple (as an agent), they'd be buying apps from developers.
It is not going to be any more problematic than it is to have apps from multiple sources, including the App store on macOS.
That may be where this leads.
But Apple wouldn't even have to allow that in order to avoid these kinds of suits, brought by app buyers, going forward. Justice Gorsuch is right. This decision replaces a substantive rule (which may not be perfect) with a formalistic one which will, in many circumstances, be very easy to work around.
Clear waste of taxpayer dollars letting this proceed. There are alternatives to iPhones and the App Store. Ridiculous.
I don't agree. There are alternatives to the iPhone, but not the App store if you're an iPhone user. I'm not saying I agree it's an illegal monopoly (I lean towards thinking its not), but there is at least an argument there. It's not ridiculous at all, or SCOTUS wouldn't have allowed it. It means there is at least some substantial chance the plaintiffs will prevail.
If you're a McDonald's customer, there is no Whopper alternative to the Big Mac! McDonald's has a monopoly!
Which Apple dismissed early on in the life of the original iPhone, so no, that is no argument.
Actually they've made 180. Google and Microsoft are heavily invested in them too, and they're all around us Instagram, Google Photos, Uber, Lyft, Tinder, Pintrest, Twitter, Starbucks, and the list goes on. Just look up Progressive Web App (PWA).
Apple has a fairly straightforward work around available to it. It only needs to change contract terms such that payment flows technically go a different way. Then, iPhone users wouldn't technically be buying apps from Apple (as an agent), they'd be buying apps from developers.
That's a fair point but then are you saying developers would still have to pay Apple for the vetting and digital signature processes? Or are you saying Apple could no longer charge for these services?
App developers could still pay Apple for everything they currently pay Apple for. The difference would be that, technically, app buyers would be paying app developers and those app developers would then by paying Apple 30% (or whatever). Apple could, I think, also handle payment collection and distribution for app developers such that the funds, for practical purposes, flowed very much as they do now. Not much would need to change beyond the terms in contracts. That's one of the flaws with the rule which this decision effectively adopts.
The solution for Apple is to keep the current App Store exactly as it is but to allow users to opt into third party app stores and/or side loading of apps.
Do you want third party apps to be able to replace parts or all of iOS itself? Do you want third party apps to be able to replace parts or all of the Apple Secure Enclave?
Which Apple dismissed early on in the life of the original iPhone, so no, that is no argument.
Actually they've made 180. Google and Microsoft are heavily invested in them too, and they're all around us Instagram, Google Photos, Uber, Lyft, Tinder, Pintrest, Twitter, Starbucks, and the list goes on. Just look up Progressive Web App (PWA).
Bringing Microsoft's web apps into the discussion is a moot point given they have just about 0% market share in the mobile space.
Twitter's macOS Tweetdeck, which is a web app essentially running in a browser window, is a usability disaster compared to a properly coded Mac app. I am not going to even comment on Google. – Nobody use Google unless you want to pilfered for every scrap of information about yourself to be sold to the highest bidder.
Apple has a fairly straightforward work around available to it. It only needs to change contract terms such that payment flows technically go a different way. Then, iPhone users wouldn't technically be buying apps from Apple (as an agent), they'd be buying apps from developers.
That's a fair point but then are you saying developers would still have to pay Apple for the vetting and digital signature processes? Or are you saying Apple could no longer charge for these services?
App developers could still pay Apple for everything they currently pay Apple for. The difference would be that, technically, app buyers would be paying app developers and those app developers would then by paying Apple 30% (or whatever). Apple could, I think, also handle payment collection and distribution for app developers such that the funds, for practical purposes, flowed very much as they do now. Not much would need to change beyond the terms in contracts. That's one of the flaws with the rule which this decision effectively adopts.
I see. So the only difference in your proposal is in name only. No functional changes. Just a terminology change. Understood.
Comments
Depending on subsequent Supreme Court decisions which may come, this decision may have significant effects on anti-trust law in general. But I don't think it will be too problematic for Apple. Because this decision venerates form over substance, and as Justice Gorsuch points out in his dissent, Apple has a fairly straightforward work around available to it. It only needs to change contract terms such that payment flows technically go a different way. Then, iPhone users wouldn't technically be buying apps from Apple (as an agent), they'd be buying apps from developers.
If you intend to load app on an iPhone from sources other than the App Store, then iPhone is not your thing.
Even if it be possible to load from other stores (if Apple loses this case) I want it to be as an option and it would be needed to be explicitly switched on.
But Apple wouldn't even have to allow that in order to avoid these kinds of suits, brought by app buyers, going forward. Justice Gorsuch is right. This decision replaces a substantive rule (which may not be perfect) with a formalistic one which will, in many circumstances, be very easy to work around.
Just look up Progressive Web App (PWA).
App developers could still pay Apple for everything they currently pay Apple for. The difference would be that, technically, app buyers would be paying app developers and those app developers would then by paying Apple 30% (or whatever). Apple could, I think, also handle payment collection and distribution for app developers such that the funds, for practical purposes, flowed very much as they do now. Not much would need to change beyond the terms in contracts. That's one of the flaws with the rule which this decision effectively adopts.
I just bought a new BMW, but hate iDrive & that they charge to use CarPlay. Would really like to install Daihatsu system.
Twitter's macOS Tweetdeck, which is a web app essentially running in a browser window, is a usability disaster compared to a properly coded Mac app.
I am not going to even comment on Google. – Nobody use Google unless you want to pilfered for every scrap of information about yourself to be sold to the highest bidder.