https://www.engadget.com/2019/05/13/supreme-court-apple-app-store-price-fixing-lawsuit/
The Supreme Court has ruled against Apple in a long-standing case over price fixing in the App Store, in a decision that allows iPhone owners to proceed with a lawsuit against the company. The court heard arguments in the case in November, and the decision was expected sometime this spring.
The plaintiffs claim Apple has a monopoly over iOS app distribution, which it uses unfairly to pass along its 30 percent cut of app sales to consumers. Apple claimed it was a middleman for app distribution, and that developers set the price. Since developers are the ones who pay Apple's commission, and not consumers, only they should be able to file a lawsuit on the issue, the company said.
The case hinged on the question of whether people who buy iOS apps do so directly from Apple. Following a 1977 decision on the case of Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, only direct purchasers of products can file federal antitrust lawsuits.
Those behind the suit say that because payments go to Apple directly, and not the developers, consumers have a direct relationship with the company, and as such that makes this an antitrust case. They also claim that if consumers had other options for apps beyond the App Store, they'd pay less for them, while Apple would be under "considerable pressure" to lower its "pure profit" commission rate.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 14 2019, @11:47AM (2 children)
The headline is a bit misleading, and rather hyperbolic when compared to the actual SCOUTS decision. What was the decision? That Apple can be sued over their App Store pricing. The decision was not that Apple fixed pricing. That trial hasn't taken place yet.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday May 14 2019, @03:08PM (1 child)
I would be highly surprised, if they didn't do some sort of price fixing.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Tuesday May 14 2019, @10:29PM
They don't actually have to. They built the wall, people paid them to get in the garden, and they take a 30% cut on anything you buy in the garden, regardless of who sells. Like a virtual government handling all transactions, and taxing you for the policing and the guaranteed audience.
No need to fix stuff, and they can argue you can move to another garden any time you want. That other garden is less shiny, might have more bad guys in it, but it has multiple doors through which you can buy untaxed goods.
SCOTUS ruled against Apple on a technicality, because Apple was trying to deflect to their vendors, despite being the one who takes the money and vets the vendors. That doesn't mean that they are indeed fixing pricing or doing anything shady. Anybody paying attention (and you should before paying that much of a garden entrance fee) knows beforehand how the garden works. I don't quite know how the plaintives can win that one.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Alfred on Tuesday May 14 2019, @02:57PM (3 children)
If I buy a car and it comes with Goodyear tires I can replace them with Firestones at my will. Obviouslly not a monopoly. If I buy a GM, it comes with OnStar and I can't trade it out for another tech. I argue this is also not a monopoly. I knew it was there and I could have bought any other brand of car instead. (OnStar is pretty much obsolete since I have a more capable cell phone.) When I buy a car there is some sub-set within that car that makes an inseparable package.
Complaining that I bought one option instead of another option is stupid and even worse to sue over it. Apple has its kingdom and if you buy in to it then that is what you get. The wonderful thing about liberty and free markets is that you don't have to buy anything. This suit sounds like people who don't realize that the well documented and lampooned walled-garden has always been a feature in the apple kingdom.
The suit has as much chance as a vegetarian suing because they chose the cheeseburger over the hamburger because they wanted something made of cheese and not ham.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 14 2019, @04:18PM
Onstar is not obsolete, it serves to track your car so that GM can sell the data to the highest bidder.
(Score: 2) by jelizondo on Tuesday May 14 2019, @06:16PM (1 child)
You contradict yourself. Indeed, if it was the case that you had to purchase GM-approved tires, it might constitute a barrier to free commerce, this is, a monopoly.
What other source of apps for your iPad exists? None. Can you create a different source of apps? No.
As someone else pointed out, the Supreme Court did not rule that Apple has a monopoly, it ruled that consumers can bring a suit against it for allegedly being a monopoly and the court that hears that case will decide.
(Score: 2) by Spamalope on Wednesday May 15 2019, @02:02PM
Apple tried to escape the suit via a technicality, and wasn't able to despite success in the lower courts. That's all that's been decided.
Apple actively prevents you from installing software from any source other than the store. They even prevent you from loading software you wrote. If you succeed in bypassing Apple's restriction, they'll attempt to destroy your software through control of the device. You must pay Apple a percentage to use software on the device unmolested.
That's a monopoly on the device, without a doubt. Full stop. That doesn't make it illegal.
The trial court has to determine whether this sort of monopoly falls under the laws restricting monopolies, including all the legal technical requirements.
The viable market for cell phone operating systems has collapsed down to two vendors. In the past courts have considered a wider monopoly to exist when that occurs. This is a case with merit, but one that may turn on arcane legal technicalities.
(Score: 2) by BenJeremy on Tuesday May 14 2019, @07:08PM (3 children)
...but it will give us developers more money.
Seriously, I charge about what I can for the apps I have on the App Store, Amazon's app store and Google Play. What sucks is that Apple, Google and Amazon take a 30% cut on apps and in-app purchases. If that changed to 10%, that doesn't mean we'd suddenly change our app pricing down by that amount.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 15 2019, @08:56AM
But if you did, you would have more customers.
(Score: 2) by Spamalope on Wednesday May 15 2019, @01:41PM (1 child)
I'd be economically viable to add more features, more complex features, or produce one that'll attract a smaller audience. That's still a consumer win.
(Score: 2) by Spamalope on Wednesday May 15 2019, @01:43PM
It'd not I'd. Sigh. Not enough caffeine...