I presume lawyers on both sides of this case will be reading what people are saying here in this thread. They are probably more interested in facts than opinions.
First his shill Kavanaugh claims that Apple "Gerrymandered" the case -- Frat Boy apparently doesn't even know what gerrymandering is... He was probably drunk while they talked about that in law school.
Then Trump puts a tax on Apple products coming from China.
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.
There would probably need to be some functional changes, but I suspect they could be fairly minor. The significant change would be that, technically, iOS users would be buying from app developers rather than from Apple, though they'd do so through Apple's App Store.
The key consideration in this case should have been: Who makes the pricing decision (with regard to app sales to iOS users)? That's what's relevant when it comes to the proximate cause consideration which necessarily underlies the alleged injuries. Instead, according to the Court, the key consideration is something like: Who are the apps being bought from (regardless of whether they're acting as a primary or as an agent)? The answer to that question can, often enough, be manipulated (by the alleged monopolist and to whichever effect is preferable to them) through contract terms.
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.
Apple does not own 3rd party apps. They own the store and set up the guidelines. You want to sell in my store then you follow the rules, otherwise go somewhere else to peddle your goods.
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.
There would probably need to be some functional changes, but I suspect they could be fairly minor. The significant change would be that, technically, iOS users would be buying from app developers rather than from Apple, though they'd do so through Apple's App Store.
The key consideration in this case should have been: Who makes the pricing decision (with regard to app sales to iOS users)? That's what's relevant when it comes to the proximate cause consideration which necessarily underlies the alleged injuries. Instead, according to the Court, the key consideration is something like: Who are the apps being bought from (regardless of whether they're acting as a primary or as an agent)? The answer to that question can, often enough, be manipulated (by the alleged monopolist and to whichever effect is preferable to them) through contract terms.
The arguments before SCOTUS were very limited and didn't weigh in on the legality of Apple's App Store design. This was about whether the plaintiffs had standing to sue Apple and the issues involved in making that determination. Some in this thread are assuming it was more than that. TBH this was exactly the outcome I had expected.
As for the original suit I don't think it will be as successful if it is actually tried to completion in a courtroom, but I'm not convinced Apple will allow it to go that far.
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!
That is not a valid comparison at all. McDonald's did not allow third party vendors to sell burgers or food on each it's stores and then restrict ingredients and price etc.
Not saying I agree with this latest lawsuit but the comparison is not good.
Also with the way Europe is going Apple needs to have grasp the reality that at some point in the not to distant future one of the major regulatory bodies is going to rule against them as the "big bad evil greedy corporation" that provides tens of thousands of jobs, innovations tech and huge amounts of taxes to the world. They will need to deal with the outcome
I'm trying to come up with ideas for Apple if this case should be ruled against them. So here's another idea. 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. The App Store would be renamed The Apple Software Store. To go one step further, Apple seems to be switching from a software purchasing model to a monthly rental model (eg, Apple Arcade). [So is Microsoft (eg, Office 365).] I doubt that any court would tell Apple that they can't sell their own software or hire subcontractors to create software for them under their name. For all I know, some of Apple's existing software products may already be created by contractors.
I just bought a new BMW, but hate iDrive & that they charge to use CarPlay. Would really like to install Daihatsu system.
I used to work at a BMW plant and saw everyday how they are built. I feel sorry for those paying such high prices for cars that are rushed out the line and built with cheap parts.
This really seems like a dumb case. While I'm against Apple's Censorship. I think that's completely WRONG. On the other hand it's their App store. A store they created and opened up to allow 3rd party's into. Just like Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony have their own store on their console systems. It's no different.
Do these developers remember the days of having to put your software on a disc and into a Box and sell it in the store? All that was a bigger cut than Apple's 30%. The same 30% that Google and Amazon charge in their own App stores.
Apple only has about 20% of the Global Market anyway. They are far from some Monopoly.
The evidence you're using to defend Apple's position is bad. In fact, it's actually evidence that would sink Apple's position if it were presented in an actual court. So that I'm clear, I'm not saying Apple's position is bad. Your evidence is. You claim Nintendo, MS, and Sony have their own stores on their systems. True. Apple has it's store on it's system. Also true. Here's where your evidence fails. 3 of the 4 companies allow you to buy software for their systems in their stores, but more importantly -and key to refuting your argument- from multiple other sources on the web and brick and mortar stores. Only 1 of the 4 stores -Apple- require you to purchase in their store only. It's completely different.
You can't use the Google and Amazon argument because both ecosystems allow customers to load apps from other stores with a simple tap.
Apple's global market share is immaterial to topic. No one is claiming they have an app monopoly in general. The claim is a monopoly over iOS apps via the App Store. There's effectively one place to get iOS apps. As I said earlier, that doesn't apply to Nintendo, MS, or Sony. Again, I'm not arguing the merits of the actual case. I'm arguing that you're inadvertently providing an argument against Apple instead of for Apple.
This really seems like a dumb case. While I'm against Apple's Censorship. I think that's completely WRONG. On the other hand it's their App store. A store they created and opened up to allow 3rd party's into. Just like Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony have their own store on their console systems. It's no different.
Do these developers remember the days of having to put your software on a disc and into a Box and sell it in the store? All that was a bigger cut than Apple's 30%. The same 30% that Google and Amazon charge in their own App stores.
Apple only has about 20% of the Global Market anyway. They are far from some Monopoly.
The evidence you're using to defend Apple's position is bad. In fact, it's actually evidence that would sink Apple's position if it were presented in an actual court. So that I'm clear, I'm not saying Apple's position is bad. Your evidence is. You claim Nintendo, MS, and Sony have their own stores on their systems. True. Apple has it's store on it's system. Also true. Here's where your evidence fails. 3 of the 4 companies allow you to buy software for their systems in their stores, but more importantly -and key to refuting your argument- from multiple other sources on the web and brick and mortar stores. Only 1 of the 4 stores -Apple- require you to purchase in their store only. It's completely different.
You can't use the Google and Amazon argument because both ecosystems allow customers to load apps from other stores with a simple tap.
Apple's global market share is immaterial to topic. No one is claiming they have an app monopoly in general. The claim is a monopoly over iOS apps via the App Store. There's effectively one place to get iOS apps. As I said earlier, that doesn't apply to Nintendo, MS, or Sony. Again, I'm not arguing the merits of the actual case. I'm arguing that you're inadvertently providing an argument against Apple instead of for Apple.
Very lucid and logical points. Can you explain if any of the other three stores mentioned above provide vetting and digital signature services like Apple does? If these are distinct services provided by Apple that could be a reason why Apple can't allow third party stores.
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.
Apple does not own 3rd party apps. They own the store and set up the guidelines. You want to sell in my store then you follow the rules, otherwise go somewhere else to peddle your goods.
Clear waste of taxpayer dollars letting this proceed. There are alternatives to iPhones and the App Store. Ridiculous.
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.
SCOTUS is hardly the wisest court in the land, simply the highest and a 5-4 indicates this wasn't clear cut in either direction. Also, the ruling is clear that they are saying nothing about the actual merits of the case, just that the dismissal wasn't upheld.
I agree. I'm just stating calling it "ridiculous" is a bit much. It's clearly not ridiculous.
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.
Ever heard of web apps?
That's a good point. It adds further weight to Apple not having an illegal monopoly. It doesn't affect this ruling very much.
I'm trying to come up with ideas for Apple if this case should be ruled against them. So here's another idea. 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. The App Store would be renamed The Apple Software Store. To go one step further, Apple seems to be switching from a software purchasing model to a monthly rental model (eg, Apple Arcade). [So is Microsoft (eg, Office 365).] I doubt that any court would tell Apple that they can't sell their own software or hire subcontractors to create software for them under their name. For all I know, some of Apple's existing software products may already be created by contractors.
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.
As it is, the plaintiffs in this case are really alleging that Apple monopolizes app distribution services - not apps. If this case were really based on Apple supposedly monopolizing iOS apps, then it would be very tough to win. Apple doesn't have anything close to a monopoly when it comes to iOS apps, lots of developers sell lots of iOS apps - through the App Store.
Rather, what's supposedly monopolized is app distribution services. The problem with that claim is that, under Illinois Brick, iPhone users shouldn't have been able to bring the case because they aren't the direct purchasers - they are indirect purchasers. If that which is supposedly being monopolized is app distribution services (rather than apps), then the direct purchasers who should be able to bring an anti-trust action are the developers. Those services are sold to developers. Apple sells distribution services to developers and Apple (as an agent) sells apps to iPhone users.
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.
There would probably need to be some functional changes, but I suspect they could be fairly minor. The significant change would be that, technically, iOS users would be buying from app developers rather than from Apple, though they'd do so through Apple's App Store.
The key consideration in this case should have been: Who makes the pricing decision (with regard to app sales to iOS users)? That's what's relevant when it comes to the proximate cause consideration which necessarily underlies the alleged injuries. Instead, according to the Court, the key consideration is something like: Who are the apps being bought from (regardless of whether they're acting as a primary or as an agent)? The answer to that question can, often enough, be manipulated (by the alleged monopolist and to whichever effect is preferable to them) through contract terms.
The arguments before SCOTUS were very limited and didn't weigh in on the legality of Apple's App Store design. This was about whether the plaintiffs had standing to sue Apple and the issues involved in making that determination. Some in this thread are assuming it was more than that. TBH this was exactly the outcome I had expected.
As for the original suit I don't think it will be as successful if it is actually tried to completion in a courtroom, but I'm not convinced Apple will allow it to go that far.
Certainly. Everything I had said related to the Illinois Brick question, which is what the case (as it has been before the Supreme Court) has been about. I hadn't commented about the various merits issues.
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.
If apps from third party app stores fail, who get blamed? Apple. If these apps steal your data, who gets blamed? Apple. If these apps brick your iPhone, who gets blamed? Apple.
This really seems like a dumb case. While I'm against Apple's Censorship. I think that's completely WRONG. On the other hand it's their App store. A store they created and opened up to allow 3rd party's into. Just like Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony have their own store on their console systems. It's no different.
Do these developers remember the days of having to put your software on a disc and into a Box and sell it in the store? All that was a bigger cut than Apple's 30%. The same 30% that Google and Amazon charge in their own App stores.
Apple only has about 20% of the Global Market anyway. They are far from some Monopoly.
The evidence you're using to defend Apple's position is bad. In fact, it's actually evidence that would sink Apple's position if it were presented in an actual court. So that I'm clear, I'm not saying Apple's position is bad. Your evidence is. You claim Nintendo, MS, and Sony have their own stores on their systems. True. Apple has it's store on it's system. Also true. Here's where your evidence fails. 3 of the 4 companies allow you to buy software for their systems in their stores, but more importantly -and key to refuting your argument- from multiple other sources on the web and brick and mortar stores. Only 1 of the 4 stores -Apple- require you to purchase in their store only. It's completely different.
You can't use the Google and Amazon argument because both ecosystems allow customers to load apps from other stores with a simple tap.
Apple's global market share is immaterial to topic. No one is claiming they have an app monopoly in general. The claim is a monopoly over iOS apps via the App Store. There's effectively one place to get iOS apps. As I said earlier, that doesn't apply to Nintendo, MS, or Sony. Again, I'm not arguing the merits of the actual case. I'm arguing that you're inadvertently providing an argument against Apple instead of for Apple.
Very lucid and logical points. Can you explain if any of the other three stores mentioned above provide vetting and digital signature services like Apple does? If these are distinct services provided by Apple that could be a reason why Apple can't allow third party stores.
App signing is currently optional on Google Play, but I would certainly expect it to become required t some point. As for vetting yes, tho there are legitimate questions about how thorough and effective it is compared to Apple. I understand problems within apps are easier to find on Android due to it's open-source nature, and the anti-virus companies are certainly more vocal about Google Play compared to the App Store.
Comments
"...with the App Store being the only sanctioned place for iOS downloads, that's led to artificially inflated prices."
Then Trump puts a tax on Apple products coming from China.
We need to reign this in. It's out of control.
The key consideration in this case should have been: Who makes the pricing decision (with regard to app sales to iOS users)? That's what's relevant when it comes to the proximate cause consideration which necessarily underlies the alleged injuries. Instead, according to the Court, the key consideration is something like: Who are the apps being bought from (regardless of whether they're acting as a primary or as an agent)? The answer to that question can, often enough, be manipulated (by the alleged monopolist and to whichever effect is preferable to them) through contract terms.
As for the original suit I don't think it will be as successful if it is actually tried to completion in a courtroom, but I'm not convinced Apple will allow it to go that far.
Not saying I agree with this latest lawsuit but the comparison is not good.
Also with the way Europe is going Apple needs to have grasp the reality that at some point in the not to distant future one of the major regulatory bodies is going to rule against them as the "big bad evil greedy corporation" that provides tens of thousands of jobs, innovations tech and huge amounts of taxes to the world. They will need to deal with the outcome
You can't use the Google and Amazon argument because both ecosystems allow customers to load apps from other stores with a simple tap.
Apple's global market share is immaterial to topic. No one is claiming they have an app monopoly in general. The claim is a monopoly over iOS apps via the App Store. There's effectively one place to get iOS apps. As I said earlier, that doesn't apply to Nintendo, MS, or Sony. Again, I'm not arguing the merits of the actual case. I'm arguing that you're inadvertently providing an argument against Apple instead of for Apple.
I agree. I'm just stating calling it "ridiculous" is a bit much. It's clearly not ridiculous.
That's a good point. It adds further weight to Apple not having an illegal monopoly. It doesn't affect this ruling very much.
As it is, the plaintiffs in this case are really alleging that Apple monopolizes app distribution services - not apps. If this case were really based on Apple supposedly monopolizing iOS apps, then it would be very tough to win. Apple doesn't have anything close to a monopoly when it comes to iOS apps, lots of developers sell lots of iOS apps - through the App Store.
Rather, what's supposedly monopolized is app distribution services. The problem with that claim is that, under Illinois Brick, iPhone users shouldn't have been able to bring the case because they aren't the direct purchasers - they are indirect purchasers. If that which is supposedly being monopolized is app distribution services (rather than apps), then the direct purchasers who should be able to bring an anti-trust action are the developers. Those services are sold to developers. Apple sells distribution services to developers and Apple (as an agent) sells apps to iPhone users.
Certainly. Everything I had said related to the Illinois Brick question, which is what the case (as it has been before the Supreme Court) has been about. I hadn't commented about the various merits issues.