Developers get day in court over 'tyrannical greed' of Apple's App Store
App developers arguing that Apple hundreds of thousands of hours work are being discarded by Apple "exploiting its market power" with the App Store.
App Store
In July 2021, two developers of free apps sought $200 billion in damages from Apple, claiming that the App Store process restrains trade. Now the case has expanded to include a further developer, and representatives of the three have met Apple in a court session.
According to Courthouse News, US District Judge Edward Chen has held a hearing session over Zoom, with the developers of "Coronavirus Reporter," "Caller-ID," and "WebCaller," as well as the company Calid. The group continues to press for $200 billion damages, an injunction to prevent Apple barring apps, and an end to the annual $99 developer fee.
"Apple's conduct exploiting its market power substantially forecloses competition , amongst emergency COVID pandemic response apps," the developers said in their court documents. "[H]undreds of thousands of person-years of our best developers are being discarded by Apple's tyrannical greed."
"The United States government spent decades building what is now known as the Internet," continue the developers. "Subsequently, we as a nation collectively invested in putting a smartphone, an amalgamation of sensors, software, and communication devices, in the hands of nearly every citizen, forming a network with capabilities amounting to fantasy of science-fiction of prior generations.
According to the developers, this means that everyone should have access to the App Store. Judge Chen sought to clarify whether the dispute was about the App Store, or people's ability to run these apps.
"What is the access issue here," he asked, "the smartphones themselves, or the store?"
The developers decided to focus on the phones and how Apple controls them. Apple attorney Rachel Brass said that this does not form an argument for an antitrust complaint.
"If the complaint is about access to the store then smartphones are not the relevant market," said Brass. "You have to be a competitor in the relevant market, and none of the plaintiffs here are smartphone manufacturers."
Judge Chen also pressed on the details of the complaint, and whether Apple's rules could legitimately be described as antitrust.
"It's not like Apple is trying to sell a competing app and icing people out," he said, "it is unhappiness with getting access to the store."
"How is that an injury to general competition?" asked the judge. "There's individual grievances but how is that anticompetitive injury?"
Dr. Jeffrey Isaacs, developer of "Caller-ID" and "WebCaller," said that Apple wielded "authoritarian control" over the App Store.
"We'd like to be distributors of apps, but we're being disallowed from competing with Apple there," he said. "The only way to distribute an iPhone app is the App Store and it should be open."
Apple's attorney said that the developers' arguments did not demonstrate Apple that was unfair as it pertains to competition. She said that the same arguments proved the opposite.
"For example, for the Covid-19 app," she said, "the plaintiff alleges there are thousands of apps for Covid-19 that have been allowed onto App Store. So that's not an injury to competition, that's an injury to Coronavirus Reporter."
Judge Chen is considering the arguments. No date has been set for his decision.
Read on AppleInsider
App Store
In July 2021, two developers of free apps sought $200 billion in damages from Apple, claiming that the App Store process restrains trade. Now the case has expanded to include a further developer, and representatives of the three have met Apple in a court session.
According to Courthouse News, US District Judge Edward Chen has held a hearing session over Zoom, with the developers of "Coronavirus Reporter," "Caller-ID," and "WebCaller," as well as the company Calid. The group continues to press for $200 billion damages, an injunction to prevent Apple barring apps, and an end to the annual $99 developer fee.
"Apple's conduct exploiting its market power substantially forecloses competition , amongst emergency COVID pandemic response apps," the developers said in their court documents. "[H]undreds of thousands of person-years of our best developers are being discarded by Apple's tyrannical greed."
"The United States government spent decades building what is now known as the Internet," continue the developers. "Subsequently, we as a nation collectively invested in putting a smartphone, an amalgamation of sensors, software, and communication devices, in the hands of nearly every citizen, forming a network with capabilities amounting to fantasy of science-fiction of prior generations.
According to the developers, this means that everyone should have access to the App Store. Judge Chen sought to clarify whether the dispute was about the App Store, or people's ability to run these apps.
"What is the access issue here," he asked, "the smartphones themselves, or the store?"
The developers decided to focus on the phones and how Apple controls them. Apple attorney Rachel Brass said that this does not form an argument for an antitrust complaint.
"If the complaint is about access to the store then smartphones are not the relevant market," said Brass. "You have to be a competitor in the relevant market, and none of the plaintiffs here are smartphone manufacturers."
Judge Chen also pressed on the details of the complaint, and whether Apple's rules could legitimately be described as antitrust.
"It's not like Apple is trying to sell a competing app and icing people out," he said, "it is unhappiness with getting access to the store."
"How is that an injury to general competition?" asked the judge. "There's individual grievances but how is that anticompetitive injury?"
Dr. Jeffrey Isaacs, developer of "Caller-ID" and "WebCaller," said that Apple wielded "authoritarian control" over the App Store.
"We'd like to be distributors of apps, but we're being disallowed from competing with Apple there," he said. "The only way to distribute an iPhone app is the App Store and it should be open."
Apple's attorney said that the developers' arguments did not demonstrate Apple that was unfair as it pertains to competition. She said that the same arguments proved the opposite.
"For example, for the Covid-19 app," she said, "the plaintiff alleges there are thousands of apps for Covid-19 that have been allowed onto App Store. So that's not an injury to competition, that's an injury to Coronavirus Reporter."
Judge Chen is considering the arguments. No date has been set for his decision.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
How evil it is of Apple to make any requirements, like this one. It inhibits competition! It makes Apple a monopoly!
”Store owners are greedy!!!”
Also, are these plaintiffs even suggesting why their requested ruling should apply only to Apple, and not also to all other companies' locked-down platforms, stores, etc? Why should any other company get to have tyrannical, greedy, anticompetitive control of its own thing?
If you want to go after Apple's monopoly, you have to use the customer's right to chose what apps they can use on their iPhones. That is where Apple is the weakest.
For example, why can't I mine cryptocurrency on my iPhone if I want to?
Why can't I use BitTorrent if I want to?
Why can't I display a list of the WiFi networks around me?
Why can't I run a Windows or game emulator?
Why can't I choose any kind of Apple Watch face?
2. You chose to use the product knowing the limitations
3. You don't have a "right" to choose features and capabilities Apple doesn't offer.
4. You DO have the right to petition Apple to change its policies.
The arguments that Apple is harming competition are laughably absurd. The consumer now has choices of hundreds of thousands of apps that are often free or low cost. Many small developers have sprung up. Heck, the guy that invented flappy bird had to walk about because he was making too much money. There is more choice, lower cost and better quality. Those are signs of a healthy marketplace. In fact, one could argue that were it not for Apple's store, Google Play and others wouldn't even exist.
I do think that Apple's blanket prohibition on third party payment systems and anti-steering is something they'll be forced to change eventually. Not that it will matter, because Apple can still get their cut through other means.
Steve Jobs commenting on applications that are rejected in the Appstore because they provide pornographic content (2017):
"Folks who want porn can buy an Android phone."