The Walmart analogies are missing the point. If Walmart sold a vacuum but the bags for that vacuum were only available at Walmart and possibly at a premium price I would be forced to buy through Walmart. Sure I could shop at Target but I’d have to buy a new vacuum. Similar to ink cartridges for printers. They are proprietary but courts have upheld the right for third parties to sell recycled or compatible cartridges. I suppose Apple has the right to build a proprietary walled garden ecosystem. Most consumers probably don’t know exactly what they are buying into and probably don’t care. We have a lot of opinions here but none from lawyers. I have no idea what the legal grounds are that drove the judge’s decision. Ultimately that’s what counts. And once again the Apple Insider fan boy bias drives the content of this article. These are more like opinion pieces/editorials than journalistic news stories.
How MacRumors of you, denigrate your opponent with the juvenile "you're a fanboy" tactic, like monkeys flinging faeces or sticking your gum in their hair.
I believe this can be appealed, no? We may not have heard the end of this. But it's a good ruling that at least shuts down the ridiculous 'monopoly' argument. For now...
I don't see how claims of the App Store being a monopoly are ridiculous. If I own an iPhone, I have one place and one place only to buy the apps for my phone: the App Store. Can I buy a phone from a different manufacturer? Sure. But that was the case years ago as well when Microsoft was forced to remove Internet Explorer from Windows because their position in the market essentially gave them an unfair advantage in the browser wars. People had the opportunity to buy Linux and Apple machines. There were alternative operating systems for those who didn't want Internet Explorer, but EU regulators still made MS remove IE from Windows.
If you shop at Walmart - do you not buy what Walmart stocks? If you shop at Target, do you have a choice to buy what Walmart stocks if Target doesn't stock it? If you buy an X-box, do you install Playstation games? If you buy an X-box, where do you download games from? If you have a Ford do you take it to a BMW dealer to repair? Do you buy Ford parts? I think it's more complicated than you make it out to be. And at the root of this is- buy a different device. Buy a windows PC or an Android or any of the knock-offs from Android. I buy the iPhone exactly for the reason you seem to be mad about. I think the Mac is a similar thing. If you want total control to add RGB lights to your desktop, don't buy a Mac. So I can't really agree with the 'Monopoly' stance, and the judge didn't either BTW. The digital world is different. Crypto currencies don't act like paper money either. People have the right to buy a different device and MOST DO. iPhones are far, far, far down the list of most used mobile devices and the platform has nowhere near the numbers of Android. Also, our phones are HUGE security risks now. It's not comparable to almost any digital device in history. Security has to drive a huge part of how we use it and how it functions. I have 80 year old parents who use iPhones, I don't want more avenues for the BS methods used to get info and gain access from their devices. Anyway, I get your instinct to say 'I buy it and I can't do exactly what I want. And that's not fair.' But I think it's not as binary as that. It's a weird mix of older consumer experiences and an entirely new type of platform with risks and particular issues.
It's not complicated in the least. I can CHOOSE where I shop. I can shop at Walmart and buy good from Walmart. I can shop at Target and buy goods at Target. I can even buy stuff from Amazon, if I don't mind waiting a few days.
Where can I go to buy apps for my iPhone if not the App Store?
Think about it this way: if Walmart builds a brick-and-mortar store, do you have the option to shop at Target when you're within the walls of Walmart's store? You only have the option to travel Target's brick-and-mortar store to do it. The same way you have the option to buy an Android phone to buy apps from a different store.
The Walmart analogies are missing the point. If Walmart sold a vacuum but the bags for that vacuum were only available at Walmart and possibly at a premium price I would be forced to buy through Walmart. Sure I could shop at Target but I’d have to buy a new vacuum. Similar to ink cartridges for printers. They are proprietary but courts have upheld the right for third parties to sell recycled or compatible cartridges. I suppose Apple has the right to build a proprietary walled garden ecosystem. Most consumers probably don’t know exactly what they are buying into and probably don’t care. We have a lot of opinions here but none from lawyers. I have no idea what the legal grounds are that drove the judge’s decision. Ultimately that’s what counts. And once again the Apple Insider fan boy bias drives the content of this article. These are more like opinion pieces/editorials than journalistic news stories.
Reading the article on the site before you talk shit might be a good idea.
And as a reminder, "Fanboy" and similar statements are against the forum rules. Knock it off. No more warnings will be given.
Apple should change their store policy; add a hosting fee, the fee is waived if they use Apple's payment system. Also if a vendor wants to use their own payment system, all they get is a URL link, nothing integrated directly in the App Store UI, if they want it integrated, there's a per click fee for that too.
very creative way of making money. Apple should also consider offer paid version of iOS, only paid version of iOS can use other payments.
Since Apple likes to use the "PRO" moniker whenever they can associate premium features that are monetized at premium prices, why not Apple create the iOS "PRO", iPadOS "PRO" and giving different levels of "permission" such as mentioned by @mubaili above.
I believe this can be appealed, no? We may not have heard the end of this. But it's a good ruling that at least shuts down the ridiculous 'monopoly' argument. For now...
I don't see how claims of the App Store being a monopoly are ridiculous. If I own an iPhone, I have one place and one place only to buy the apps for my phone: the App Store. Can I buy a phone from a different manufacturer? Sure. But that was the case years ago as well when Microsoft was forced to remove Internet Explorer from Windows because their position in the market essentially gave them an unfair advantage in the browser wars. People had the opportunity to buy Linux and Apple machines. There were alternative operating systems for those who didn't want Internet Explorer, but EU regulators still made MS remove IE from Windows.
If you shop at Walmart - do you not buy what Walmart stocks? If you shop at Target, do you have a choice to buy what Walmart stocks if Target doesn't stock it? If you buy an X-box, do you install Playstation games? If you buy an X-box, where do you download games from? If you have a Ford do you take it to a BMW dealer to repair? Do you buy Ford parts? I think it's more complicated than you make it out to be. And at the root of this is- buy a different device. Buy a windows PC or an Android or any of the knock-offs from Android. I buy the iPhone exactly for the reason you seem to be mad about. I think the Mac is a similar thing. If you want total control to add RGB lights to your desktop, don't buy a Mac. So I can't really agree with the 'Monopoly' stance, and the judge didn't either BTW. The digital world is different. Crypto currencies don't act like paper money either. People have the right to buy a different device and MOST DO. iPhones are far, far, far down the list of most used mobile devices and the platform has nowhere near the numbers of Android. Also, our phones are HUGE security risks now. It's not comparable to almost any digital device in history. Security has to drive a huge part of how we use it and how it functions. I have 80 year old parents who use iPhones, I don't want more avenues for the BS methods used to get info and gain access from their devices. Anyway, I get your instinct to say 'I buy it and I can't do exactly what I want. And that's not fair.' But I think it's not as binary as that. It's a weird mix of older consumer experiences and an entirely new type of platform with risks and particular issues.
It's not complicated in the least. I can CHOOSE where I shop. I can shop at Walmart and buy good from Walmart. I can shop at Target and buy goods at Target. I can even buy stuff from Amazon, if I don't mind waiting a few days.
Where can I go to buy apps for my iPhone if not the App Store?
yes but you know that before buying the iPhone, no? then buy an Android phone instead of an iPhone. If Apple is not an monopoly then Apple can decide however they want to run their business and consumers will vote with their wallet whether they can survive or not. That sounds fair, no?
What I want to know is if Apple can still require a developer to offer Apple’s in-app payment system in addition to the links to an outside payment system. If that’s the case, I think many people will still use Apple’s payment system. Where it breaks down is if developers can use the outside system exclusively. Also, what happens if a developer has many complaints, for example, children running up a big bill or other errors but the developer refuses to refund the user. Can Apple ban that developer from using an external payment system or ban the app completely?
I believe this can be appealed, no? We may not have heard the end of this. But it's a good ruling that at least shuts down the ridiculous 'monopoly' argument. For now...
I don't see how claims of the App Store being a monopoly are ridiculous. If I own an iPhone, I have one place and one place only to buy the apps for my phone: the App Store. Can I buy a phone from a different manufacturer? Sure. But that was the case years ago as well when Microsoft was forced to remove Internet Explorer from Windows because their position in the market essentially gave them an unfair advantage in the browser wars. People had the opportunity to buy Linux and Apple machines. There were alternative operating systems for those who didn't want Internet Explorer, but EU regulators still made MS remove IE from Windows.
If you shop at Walmart - do you not buy what Walmart stocks? If you shop at Target, do you have a choice to buy what Walmart stocks if Target doesn't stock it? If you buy an X-box, do you install Playstation games? If you buy an X-box, where do you download games from? If you have a Ford do you take it to a BMW dealer to repair? Do you buy Ford parts? I think it's more complicated than you make it out to be. And at the root of this is- buy a different device. Buy a windows PC or an Android or any of the knock-offs from Android. I buy the iPhone exactly for the reason you seem to be mad about. I think the Mac is a similar thing. If you want total control to add RGB lights to your desktop, don't buy a Mac. So I can't really agree with the 'Monopoly' stance, and the judge didn't either BTW. The digital world is different. Crypto currencies don't act like paper money either. People have the right to buy a different device and MOST DO. iPhones are far, far, far down the list of most used mobile devices and the platform has nowhere near the numbers of Android. Also, our phones are HUGE security risks now. It's not comparable to almost any digital device in history. Security has to drive a huge part of how we use it and how it functions. I have 80 year old parents who use iPhones, I don't want more avenues for the BS methods used to get info and gain access from their devices. Anyway, I get your instinct to say 'I buy it and I can't do exactly what I want. And that's not fair.' But I think it's not as binary as that. It's a weird mix of older consumer experiences and an entirely new type of platform with risks and particular issues.
It's not complicated in the least. I can CHOOSE where I shop. I can shop at Walmart and buy good from Walmart. I can shop at Target and buy goods at Target. I can even buy stuff from Amazon, if I don't mind waiting a few days.
Where can I go to buy apps for my iPhone if not the App Store?
For you iPhone, the App Store. For your android, anywhere you like (With the risk it entails)
What will probably happen is that companies will sprout up that handle all of the accounting issues for developers and take a smaller cut than Apple does. Probably just a few percent.
I believe this can be appealed, no? We may not have heard the end of this. But it's a good ruling that at least shuts down the ridiculous 'monopoly' argument. For now...
I don't see how claims of the App Store being a monopoly are ridiculous.
A federal judge just explained in 180 pages how those claims are ridiculous.
I believe this can be appealed, no? We may not have heard the end of this. But it's a good ruling that at least shuts down the ridiculous 'monopoly' argument. For now...
The funny thing is that everyone is going to appeal this decision - but Apple will do so half-heartedly since they really got most of what they wanted.
Meanwhile, if you have your own payment processing website you can link to it from your app which would satisfy Epic if their stated objective were true - which it obviously was not.
Sweeney is such such a scumbag - he ought to be replaced by Epic's board for needlessly cutting the company off from so much of its revenue.
What will probably happen is that companies will sprout up that handle all of the accounting issues for developers and take a smaller cut than Apple does. Probably just a few percent.
As you have stated those others won’t be doing it for free, Epic got nothing, the ultimate losers will be the small to mid sized developers, I trust Apple because the most important share of their profit/revenue comes from hardware always has, not because they are good or perfect they are just better than the other silicon giants at this time.
Well this does help Apple defend itself against congress. They can't say Apple is a monopoly or go after them about the 30% now.
It doesn't help Epic since their Developer Account is still banned and now they owe Apple $12 Million plus interest for breaking Apple's rules initially. Talk about an LOL
A single ruling does not prevent Congress from calling Apple a monopoly. Only when the matter is completely settled (all parties agree to cease further legal action) can we decide what impact this ruling will have on Apple's future with Congress.
The current congress can’t find it’s A—, there will be nothing coherent coming out of it.
What will probably happen is that companies will sprout up that handle all of the accounting issues for developers and take a smaller cut than Apple does. Probably just a few percent.
This continues to be a problem because these middle-jerks aren't going to pay for Apple to host the apps, which the developers will get for free. This is the part the stupid judge doesn't understand. Apple provides everything for the developer including the easiest and only secure way to load the app onto the iPhone or iPad yet Epic, and others, feel they have a right to use Apple's software, servers, and App Store to distribute their apps for free. Only in American can you find an idiot judge who just doesn't get it.
I feel Apple needs to start charging developers a separate fee for hosting if they aren't using the Apple payment system. Let's hear what the judge says about that. There's nothing illegal about charging hosting fees.
Might be good for Apple to be ween themselves off that sugar... I mean now game developers can get direct credit card transaction to a bunch of kids they are susceptible to problem gambling mechanics it can't be long before other eyes are on them. For a cut or to curb them or both.
Now the Cat is out of the bag I'd hope Apple might there to improve the situation as far as professional software goes. Let those developers delivery, update and version via the app-store mechanics and finally add Trials. Many of these apps are smaller bundles than many games and deliver updates less often.
There seem to be ways Apple could get some revenue out of this:- - Apple Pay interface for low friction transactions - ICloud storage integration so users move up a tier. - Adhoc subscriptions so people can buy a week or month here and there . - Or TImelimit subscription (say 4hrs a week for 2.99/m)
People do not read. Despite lazy or biased media reports claiming 'the court ruled that Apple is not a monopoly', this ruling rightfully and specifically does not in any way shut down the "monopoly" argument. She said: "The Court does [NOT] find that it is impossible; [ONLY] that Epic Games failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal monopolist." Even this decision was restricted by the ruling to specific relevance only to the "digital mobile gaming transactions" market, "not gaming generally and not Apple’s own internal operating systems related to the App Store." In other words, the App Store model was not on trial, only Apple's policies relevant to digital mobile gaming transactions within its ecosystem.
It in fact is only holding a high standard for that charge, which is generally a good thing. We don't want a low standard for government intervention on markets. But, the ruling merely leaves the App Store monopoly question unanswered for now, and invites a stronger case to be made to put it to rest. She actually spelled out specific evidence that needs to be brought in such an argument.
Some of the analogies presented in this forum are strange. There is a simple case which most Americans can relate to: Your car. If tomorrow, all car makers were allowed to prevent any parts, accessories, or upgrades for your vehicle from being purchased through any other company, or maintenance being serviced by anyone other than their own authorized dealerships or service centers, everyone would rightfully be up in arms. Instead there are many OEM replacement parts manufacturers, aftermarket accessory makers, and independent service shops. Yet, many customers still choose to deal only with the manufacturer of their vehicles for parts and service. Fine for those who choose. But, no one is physically prevented from utilizing their own property (the car) just because the manufacturer doesn't think it's the best user experience of the hardware that we now own.
Do you own the physical device, or are you merely renting it until the manufacturer decides to prevent you from using your own property as it was intended to work? iOS devices cease to function not because of a lack of market demand or third-party will to develop for the hardware, or consumer safety, but because the manufacturer Apple maintains the monopolistic physical ability to disable reasonable modification to the software. This is merely the proprietary business strategy of the original hardware manufacturer governing perpetual future use.
This is why everyone was so angry that Apple was deliberately slowing the CPUs down as batteries degraded over time. Did it make sense for user experience? Maybe. But, people were upset because how dare they make that choice of how we can use our own hardware?
Imagine if we had to "jailbreak" (take unreasonable steps to enable modification or repair) our own cars.
This is why there are laws being passed for the "right to repair". Hardware manufacturers can not prevent you from being able to maintain or repair your own physical property.
"The final trial record did not include evidence of other critical factors, such as [barriers to entry] and conduct [decreasing output] or [decreasing innovation] in the relevant market." If the relevant market on trial was iOS and iPadOS software distribution itself. These factors are readily apparent. Apple has created direct barriers to enter that market by policy and OS-level software restrictions. This decreases output and innovation by preventing any competition in the relevant market. The Apple App Store serves 100% of the market by force. This stands in contrast to many other computing devices whose software distribution is not restricted, such as the devices which are very similar in form in function that run on the Android OS.
I believe this can be appealed, no? We may not have heard the end of this. But it's a good ruling that at least shuts down the ridiculous 'monopoly' argument. For now...
I don't see how claims of the App Store being a monopoly are ridiculous. If I own an iPhone, I have one place and one place only to buy the apps for my phone: the App Store. Can I buy a phone from a different manufacturer? Sure. But that was the case years ago as well when Microsoft was forced to remove Internet Explorer from Windows because their position in the market essentially gave them an unfair advantage in the browser wars. People had the opportunity to buy Linux and Apple machines. There were alternative operating systems for those who didn't want Internet Explorer, but EU regulators still made MS remove IE from Windows.
The argument against Internet explorer was that Microsoft was using its near complete domination of PC market share (it was well over 95% back then) to gain an unfair advantage in the burgeoning browser wars. Yes you "could" buy a Mac as pretty much the only other realistic choice but almost no one did in practice, statistically speaking. This is not the case with the smartphone market where Apple doesn't even have 50% market share. Not only are Apple not a market share monopoly, they aren't even half of the market, in fact they are behind Samsung as we speak at about 26% to Samsung's 27. The only way you can call Apple a "monopoly" is if you actually declare the iPhone itself a "market" which of course is nuts. Toyota is a monopoly in the "Toyota Camry Market" for example. So yes, calling Apple a monopoly is just bonkers.
A federal judge just said “Apple Not Monopoly”, that is huge and makes it tougher for anyone else in the future to claim Apple is a monopoly.
the App Store payment thing , not everybody will want to connect to an outside store even with option, I won’t for sure
That's NOT what the judge ruled.
She was limiting her comment to a very narrow and targeted segment, "...the submarket for mobile gaming transactions", and "does not find that Apple is an antitrust monopolist in the submarket". That's being so misunderstood, taken as far more than it actually is. This judgement was not about the AppStore (anti)competive environment as a whole, Just a very specific submarket, games, and a particular segment of that, in-app game payments.
A federal judge just said “Apple Not Monopoly”, that is huge and makes it tougher for anyone else in the future to claim Apple is a monopoly.
the App Store payment thing , not everybody will want to connect to an outside store even with option, I won’t for sure
That's NOT what the judge ruled.
She was limiting her comment to a very narrow and targeted segment, "...the submarket for mobile gaming transactions", and "does not find that Apple is an antitrust monopolist in the submarket". That's being so misunderstood, taken as far more than it actually is. This judgement was not about the AppStore (anti)competive environment as a whole, Just a very specific submarket, games, and a particular segment of that, in-app game payments.
There was no "Apple is not a monopoly" ruling.
The sub-market that's being talked about here, and ruled on here, is Apple's largest market sector as it pertains to iOS and iPadOS. There is no antitrust precedent for "All iOS software" as a market category any more than there is "All Xbox software" or "all software sold on the Epic Game Store."
Every lawyer we spoke to about it says this. This extremely powerful precedent will likely be challenged, but it is likely to be upheld.
A federal judge just said “Apple Not Monopoly”, that is huge and makes it tougher for anyone else in the future to claim Apple is a monopoly.
the App Store payment thing , not everybody will want to connect to an outside store even with option, I won’t for sure
That's NOT what the judge ruled.
She was limiting her comment to a very narrow and targeted segment, "...the submarket for mobile gaming transactions", and "does not find that Apple is an antitrust monopolist in the submarket". That's being so misunderstood, taken as far more than it actually is. This judgement was not about the AppStore (anti)competive environment as a whole, Just a very specific submarket, games, and a particular segment of that, in-app game payments.
There was no "Apple is not a monopoly" ruling.
The sub-market that's being talked about here, and ruled on here, is Apple's largest market sector as it pertains to iOS and iPadOS. There is no antitrust precedent for "All iOS software" as a market category any more than there is "All Xbox software" or "all software sold on the Epic Game Store."
Every lawyer we spoke to about it says this. This extremely powerful precedent will likely be challenged, but it is likely to be upheld.
Many commenters here and elsewhere are misconstruing the judge's ruling as one absolving Apple of any antitrust issues connected to the AppStore. "Apple is not a monopoly" is overstating what was truly decided. As Judge Roberts wrote “The court does not find that it is impossible; only that Epic Games failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal monopolist”.
As such I don't see any "powerful precedent" being set regarding any future claims of antitrust. Some upcoming lawsuit, and there will be, may or may not come to a different conclusion on a related competition issue and/or in a different relevant market. See page 39 in her ruling:
“...the evidence does suggest that Apple is near the precipice of substantial market power, or monopoly power, with its considerable market share. Apple is only saved by the fact that its share is not higher, that competitors from related submarkets are making inroads into the mobile gaming submarket,and, perhaps, because plaintiff did not focus on this topic.”
By the way, neither company thought the judge should consider the relevant market as being gaming app payments. She came up with that on her own, as of course she could.
Comments
And as a reminder, "Fanboy" and similar statements are against the forum rules. Knock it off. No more warnings will be given.
Meanwhile, if you have your own payment processing website you can link to it from your app which would satisfy Epic if their stated objective were true - which it obviously was not.
Sweeney is such such a scumbag - he ought to be replaced by Epic's board for needlessly cutting the company off from so much of its revenue.
I feel Apple needs to start charging developers a separate fee for hosting if they aren't using the Apple payment system. Let's hear what the judge says about that. There's nothing illegal about charging hosting fees.
Now the Cat is out of the bag I'd hope Apple might there to improve the situation as far as professional software goes. Let those developers delivery, update and version via the app-store mechanics and finally add Trials. Many of these apps are smaller bundles than many games and deliver updates less often.
There seem to be ways Apple could get some revenue out of this:-
- Apple Pay interface for low friction transactions
- ICloud storage integration so users move up a tier.
- Adhoc subscriptions so people can buy a week or month here and there .
- Or TImelimit subscription (say 4hrs a week for 2.99/m)
It in fact is only holding a high standard for that charge, which is generally a good thing. We don't want a low standard for government intervention on markets. But, the ruling merely leaves the App Store monopoly question unanswered for now, and invites a stronger case to be made to put it to rest. She actually spelled out specific evidence that needs to be brought in such an argument.
Some of the analogies presented in this forum are strange. There is a simple case which most Americans can relate to: Your car. If tomorrow, all car makers were allowed to prevent any parts, accessories, or upgrades for your vehicle from being purchased through any other company, or maintenance being serviced by anyone other than their own authorized dealerships or service centers, everyone would rightfully be up in arms. Instead there are many OEM replacement parts manufacturers, aftermarket accessory makers, and independent service shops. Yet, many customers still choose to deal only with the manufacturer of their vehicles for parts and service. Fine for those who choose. But, no one is physically prevented from utilizing their own property (the car) just because the manufacturer doesn't think it's the best user experience of the hardware that we now own.
Do you own the physical device, or are you merely renting it until the manufacturer decides to prevent you from using your own property as it was intended to work? iOS devices cease to function not because of a lack of market demand or third-party will to develop for the hardware, or consumer safety, but because the manufacturer Apple maintains the monopolistic physical ability to disable reasonable modification to the software. This is merely the proprietary business strategy of the original hardware manufacturer governing perpetual future use.
This is why everyone was so angry that Apple was deliberately slowing the CPUs down as batteries degraded over time. Did it make sense for user experience? Maybe. But, people were upset because how dare they make that choice of how we can use our own hardware?
Imagine if we had to "jailbreak" (take unreasonable steps to enable modification or repair) our own cars.
This is why there are laws being passed for the "right to repair". Hardware manufacturers can not prevent you from being able to maintain or repair your own physical property.
"The final trial record did not include evidence of other critical factors, such as [barriers to entry] and conduct [decreasing output] or [decreasing innovation] in the relevant market." If the relevant market on trial was iOS and iPadOS software distribution itself. These factors are readily apparent. Apple has created direct barriers to enter that market by policy and OS-level software restrictions. This decreases output and innovation by preventing any competition in the relevant market. The Apple App Store serves 100% of the market by force. This stands in contrast to many other computing devices whose software distribution is not restricted, such as the devices which are very similar in form in function that run on the Android OS.
She was limiting her comment to a very narrow and targeted segment, "...the submarket for mobile gaming transactions", and "does not find that Apple is an antitrust monopolist in the submarket". That's being so misunderstood, taken as far more than it actually is. This judgement was not about the AppStore (anti)competive environment as a whole, Just a very specific submarket, games, and a particular segment of that, in-app game payments.
There was no "Apple is not a monopoly" ruling.
As such I don't see any "powerful precedent" being set regarding any future claims of antitrust. Some upcoming lawsuit, and there will be, may or may not come to a different conclusion on a related competition issue and/or in a different relevant market. See page 39 in her ruling:
“...the evidence does suggest that Apple is near the precipice of substantial market power, or monopoly power, with its considerable market share. Apple is only saved by the fact that its share is not higher, that competitors from related submarkets are making inroads into the mobile gaming submarket, and, perhaps, because plaintiff did not focus on this topic.”
By the way, neither company thought the judge should consider the relevant market as being gaming app payments. She came up with that on her own, as of course she could.