When the authors write 'Without the App Store, there would be no Uber or Lyft for calling cars, Instagram for sharing pictures and videos, or Postmates for ordering food', they are wrong. We could have an iPhone ecosystem without the App Store, or at least without the App Store gouging a third of app prices in commissions.
Trump's appointees, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, are independent thinkers, evidenced by their split vote on the antitrust case. This is demonstrative that Trump's appointees are great jurists, and they do not take direction from Trump or from the Republican Party. We are so sick and tired of hearing the criticism about everything Trump does. Get off the guy's back and let him do his job. He is Making America Great Again.
2
About time, but the wrong suit. One can get just about any major program free (with ads) from the Apple Store.
The problem is much larger than store profits.
The closest parallel to the Apple case wasn’t even mentioned.
Microsoft sought to limit software by making its Internet Explorer browser a required element of Windows.
Microsoft, which manufactures very little hardware, lost.
Unlike iOS phones, users may select alternative browsers and other important programs as their primary applications.
Apple refuses to do this It offers of free browsers like Firefox, but only with severely limited features.
The alternates can’t be made the “primary’ application.
Firefox is prevented from using any of the thousands of add-ons offered free, especially any securing against infotheft.
And any time another app calls for ‘web access, it must use Apple Safari.
Most importantly, though the phone’s OS, just a pretty face atop elements taken from Linux and Free BSD, two “UNIX clones”,
with each new phone, Apple has made it harder to “jailbreak” and run Linux or BSD alone, an alternative available to any PC user.
Apple also limits add-on hardware, like keyboards and extended memory.
Using straight Linux would increase the speed of non-phone functions, and free software available for phones.
One could add memory for next to nothing. Apple charges thousands of dollars more for phone models with a few dollars’ added memory, and once bought, no more can be added.
2
This case is more about common sense than law. Apple is the gatekeeper here. No one can enter except through Apple. The gatekeeper should be held liable not the people on the other side of the gate for selling their products.
The bigger story: Kavanaugh siding with the liberal justices?! There may be judicial hope yet....
1
Monopolies can grow only in an open market, where at market's inception any seller is able to offer goods/services to any buyer -- and over time monopolistic sellers block other sellers. The App Store can't be a monopoly -- since from day 1 it was a closed market only meant to sell apps only for Apple phones.
Another truth: apps can be dangerous, both to users and devices. A phone manufacturer has to protect its devices from bad apps. Only that manufacturer can FULLY protect its device from bad apps.
To protect its devices, Apple must expend time/resources - and so they charge app-sellers a % fee.
Now, are our smart TVs also open markets?
If the government forcibly creates "open" apps markets, where **Anyone** can give/sell harmful apps with no one vetting, this will harm consumers. An "open" apps market allows uncontrolled/untested apps, including viruses that infect phones, and apps that extract users' private data (our 24/7 history of GPS locations). There would be no stopping bad apps, including ransomware (that locks a phone, then demands payment to unlock it).
Apple is one of few tech companies that diligently tries to safeguard users/data/privacy. Look at their EULA (end-user license agreement), compared to those by Google, Facebook, and Amazon. The other tech giants require in their EULA that they can keep our data, and do anything with our data. Apple does not, and instead says WE own our data.
Apple helps users protect our data/privacy and our devices.
4
So if Apple charges developers too much, then don’t write “i” apps, and just do Android. Those of us that elect the Apple eco-system do so because it IS so heavily policed and curated. Where Android is the “Wild West”, if there is an issue with anything in the “eco system “, it’s Apple’s issue, and they fix it efficiently and effectively.
The reason that we pay a premium for Apples ‘system’ is the integration of the hardware, software, and support. We may pay a premium, but we also get bulletproof security, responsiveness, and quality. Apps are supported as the operating system advances. Bugs are found and fixed quickly.
For me, these products are a tool. If someone else wants to make the heir hobby, more power to them-and they do have options.
3
It is great to see things like this undertaken. In matters such as this I feel the US still is quite a bit better than my own country where information disclosure is much poorer, and where commercial interests exercise great power much less visibly, and a lot of dirty business never sees the light of day, and even when it does, seldom gets a serious challenge. Admittedly the greater constitutional power of our provinces compared to US states makes effective across-the-board public interest actions more difficult.
I am not an attorney but on the face of it I think the case has enough merit that a jury should decide rather than the SCOTUS. On what basis did these four justices dissent in this case? Big Business über alles?
Some blame Apple because they claim "iPhone apps are too expensive"
Seriously? Thanks to the "race to the bottom," iPhone app prices are insanely INEXPENSIVE. For a couple bucks, most of these apps provide a vastly superior feature set to apps that ten years ago cost HUNDREDS of dollars on a desktop computer.
AND -- let's not forget the superior SECURITY the app store gives us all. You really want to expose users to the dangers of side loading their apps from unreputable sites?
Apple's 30% cut, while that might SEEM steep, is totally in-line with the distribution and retail costs of the long-forgotten software retailers like CompUSA, Best Buy, Walmart, Egghead, MacMall -- etc. Try paying 50% and then being forced into cooperative marketing deals just to get your software on the shelf. Even APPLE STORES were not inexpensive for developers like myself to get our software on the shelf -- as we did before the era of the iPhone and the App Store.
Apple has created an excellent ecosystem for developers. If you want free, insecure, dangerous apps that can be obtained from any site, head on over to Android.
4
My two biggest financial mistakes ever were to buy Apple at $42/share and a few weeks later sell it at $49/Share.
Buying was the bigger of the two, since the company's philosophy runs counter to my core beliefs. I should never have done it.
30%?! That's brutal for developers.
2
This aggressive behavior on the part of Apple is not new. They have fought interoperability since the beginning. Somehow, they have managed to create a cult-like following among their many users. Once upon a time, Apple actually produced superior products, if overpriced, but that edge is gone. I'm not sure how they can continue with the old momentum.
1
How many of the NYTimes readers remember that during the '90's, under the Clinton administration, the Justice Department litigated along the same lines (anti-trust; monopolistic practices; class action lawsuit) against Microsoft?
The legal pundits were certain that Microsoft was going to lose - be broken up like the "Baby Bells" when - boom - George Bush ascended to the White House. The Justice Department's lawsuit against Microsoft was IMMEDIATELY dropped.
The Gates Foundation came into existence at the time the Justice Department filed against Microsoft and simultaneously Microsoft hired a phalanx of lobbyists to protect 'their' interests.
History does repeat itself. Let's hope the outcome this time around is more equitable.
If all the app makers that are complaining stopped creating apps or simply pulled them from the App Store, the App Store would have nothing to sell and Apple would wake up! It is themselves that have fostered the situation by accepting the terms and participating. In the end, all this is going to be is a big payday for the lawyers.
This legal stuff is way over my head as I am no lawyer.
But I do have an app in Apple store which is free - it's a Travel Forum app allowing users to share travel experiences and seek tips from a seasoned traveler like me. Been to more than 110 countries and counting.
So, I make no money from this app and neither does Apple.
But I can say this.
The same app - is also available on Android phones. Google took less than a day to approve it.
It took Apple - after initially rejecting it - and then forced to modify some content - took almost 3 months.
While I was attempting to put into on Apple stores, I read some horror stories about folks attempting to upload their app - including one lady from Scandinavia who missed the whole Winter Olympics sale because Apple took too long.
But of course, i wanted it in Apple stores so I had to hew to their demands.
Though, lately they have become much softer than in the past in approving apps.
I think Apple can minimize this discontent by copying a little from Google by making it a lot easier to use its store and not constantly demanding, for example, Apple ID.
1
It comes down to one thing, security. The difference between the Apple App Store and Google's is that Apple checks the apps much more closely for security flaws. That takes time and developers need to include that into their business plan when writing apps for iPhones.
Why was the app initially refused? I assume Apple gave you some reasons.
And Apple asks for your ID for your safety. So you don't get cheated.
This is serious business and Apple takes it seriously. That's why I buy their products.
1
This legal stuff is way over my head as I am no lawyer.
But I do have an app in Apple store which is free - it's a Travel Forum app allowing users to share travel experiences and seek tips from a seasoned traveler like me. Been to more than 110 countries and counting.
So, I make no money from this app and neither does Apple.
But I can say this.
The same app - is also available on Android phones. Google took less than a day to approve it.
It took Apple - after initially rejecting it - and then forced to modify some content - took almost 3 months.
While I was attempting to put into on Apple stores, I read some horror stories about folks attempting to upload their app - including one lady from Scandinavia who missed the whole Winter Olympics sale because Apple took too long.
But of course, i wanted it in Apple stores so I had to hew to their demands.
Though, lately they have become much softer than in the past in approving apps.
I think Apple can minimize this discontent by copying a little from Google by making it a lot easier to use its store and not constantly demanding, for example, Apple ID.
APPLE HAS AN EXTREMELY HIGH Profit margin. Yes, their products are excellent. But their profit margin is somewhere in the 85% range. They might be even more competitive if they moderated their prices. I'm an Apple person from way back. I find their products to be far more user friendly than what PC's offer. But I do believe that it is fair to see if they are using their corner on the market to gouge customers, consultants and employees alike. It's way past time for a reckoning.
No one has to buy an iPhone. iPhone does not have the largest market share. App writers don't have to sell to Apple, but they want to. App writers don't like the market structure then don't interact with it. Apple created the app industry. Apple vets and maintains control and with this control comes less hacking of iPhones which most iPhone users pay for this closed system that provides security.
2
Apple has played fast an loose. They have tried to evade taxation and they have undue control over independent app designers.
29
the actual case should go nowhere, legally and morally:
5 out of 6 smartphones are not iphones - what monopoly?
people that buy iphones do so because we actually prefer quality control and rules over what Apps are allowed onto our phones. If we wanted bloatware and ad-abuse we would buy android.
Spotify is not forced to develop for the iphone, neither does any company have the RIGHT to a free ride. Imagine if in their early days Apple had charged them a small one-off fee for registration, QA and Distribution, say $25 per download. How many people would have downloaded spotify versus the one that apple charged Spotify zero for??
I am tired of these whining millenials and their complaints about rights, rights, rights, unfair. But, I suppose it is not their fault
6
I have spent a great deal of time discussing how important Milton's Paradise Lost was to the nation's founders. I am sure Jefferson also took note of Milton's Areopagitica which demands reading before discussions about the difference between property and true intellectual property. Jefferson understood; which may be why the Federalist Society was formed to destroy
Jeffersonian Democracy and Jefferson medals are for science not dogma.
@Montreal Moe
As a Canadian who has learned to co-exist with Asperger's for seven decades I find this debate an escape from a reality that really demands immediate attention for our survival.
America is divided not by its politics but its identity. I am by choice the most reclusive solitary of individuals but known to most as a an example of most loud large and loveable of extraverts. It hasn't been easy but it has been interesting and rewarding.
John Milton addressed the topic of intellectual property as well as anyone could possibly address it for all time in his 1644 Areopagitica. Why would anyone believe your Supreme Court could address it any better?
John Milton was Cromwell's secretary and called himself a liberal Puritan and Cromwell was Lord Protector of England and his butchery and outlawing of joy and happiness attested to his Christianity and his love of God.
Before all else America must decide if it is Cromwell or Milton, it must decide if politics are possible because I might suggest Apple really needs this decision as much as America's divided citizenry. It is time to stop fighting the English Civil War if your motto is E Pluribus Unum.
The only thing that the Apple App Store has a monopoly on is Apple products. If you have a more common android-based device, or other non-iOS device, the Apple App Store has zero control over you. That's not a monopoly, it's just an integrated business model. There are both technical and business reasons why that is a good thing.
6
I don’t have to read this article or any other about smartphones to ascertain what anyone any who has a smartphone knows already...the power lies with the corporate masters not the consumers or the developers of any of the technology discussed in this article. We don’t need the SCOTUS to tell us this!
2
So after reading the comments there is nothing wrong with being s monopoly or forcing prople like Microsoft to use their platform
Apple refuses to pay there employees here is the states a good wage I don’t believe in being the only vendor and Mr. Jobs told President Obama he would never bring jobs back to the US because employees would wAnt a fair wage. Well no one needs these apps and a law suite is about time.
2
Apple is fiscally registered in Europe and not in the USA ,like all other US corporations : Amazon, Facebook, Yahoo, Google, Starbucks, Netflix ,etc... They all hide under fake fiduciaries in Ireland and cheat by using tax loopholes that are meant to benefit small European companies in between themselves . So they use the trick to pay zero taxes in Europe while invading the market and destroying the European economies.
The fiscal fraud onto the European workers is equivalent to the deficit of the EU budget annually = 20 % .
The Us corporations ,then repatriate the cash via the London banking exchange and its connexions with the US offshore banks in the Caribbean.
1
So many other companies actually do try and control everything. Apple only wants to control it’s users and vendors... not everything.
3
The App Store also takes care of the distribution of ongoing updates. I have several apps that I bought years ago. Spent no more money on them, but continue to get updates. Also, banks and retailers offer free in perpetuity apps. I am not sure how Apple gets paid for managing them.
I bought a small app to monitor my old phone's battery. Last year I was informed that iOS would not longer allow access to battery data, so the app became defunct. It is hard to fathom why. I can only assume that functionality was part of other access that legitimately could be closed off. If Apple is not providing libraries, absent legitimate security concerns, that allow independent developers to innovate, then that could be restraint of trade. See an earlier comment by Iko.
I do dislike that all of the prices end in .99. Seems tacky, like car leases advertised at prices always ending in one or more nines.
2
This is a superb decision and a very good day for antitrust and Supreme Court jurisprudence. Many of the comments in favor of Apple seem so biased and myopic as to make me wonder who provided them. We need much more forceful enforcement of our antitrust laws. This decision is one very good step in the right direction after so many setbacks for federal antitrust law since the 1970s.
5
@Zola The anti-trust section of the justice dept. has been asleep at the wheel for too long. That's why 5 or 8 air lines are there to chose from instead of 28 players, that would be trying to make your flight a more pleasant trip.
3
We can’t have nice things. The one tech company that looked out for its users. Apparently we can’t have that. If people don’t like it, they should stay away from Apple products—leaving those of us who don’t want to be *the* product to enjoy Apple products.
9
@UJS allowing apps on iPhones through other avenues doesn't mean you can't use the app store.
2
Dr Ford was and is very believable. This is a sad situation we have on the highest court in the USA when these of idealogues have so much power. We are bound to be horrified by many important decisions to come from this conservative bench.
The Senate that let these so called originalists slide through confirmation are as much to blame as the men that selected the likes of Cavenaugh, Gorsuch, and Thomas.
Linda Greenhouse's op-ed is chilling. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/opinion/supreme-court-census-trump.html
And makes us really understand what we're in for, for decades to come.
3
@Owen "We are bound to be horrified by many important decisions to come from this conservative bench".
Was it not the 4 liberal judges and one conservative judge who made up the majority in this case?
1
I don't agree that this anti-trust case has merit to proceed. It is Apple's phone, their operating system, their platform, their app store, their customers. If you want to develop apps for it and sell it, then you have to decide on the pricing, including whether to add the full 30% markup to cover Apples's commission. No one is forcing these developers to develop Apple apps and selling them to the Apple customers who tend to be more affluent than the national average, and no one is forcing them to tack on the 30%. As far as saying that this just allows the suit to proceed, it will be a huge resource distraction and diversion - wouldn't you rather have Apple concentrate on the next big thing rather than spending money on lawyers? To be clear, this is why our household did not go with Apple. Apple is a closed, proprietary system, and there are many good things about that. But you do end up living in their world.
10
Apple will probably just push another U2 album at us all and hope that pacifies us....
3
I'm sure the fact that Apple refused to comply with FBI demands for unlocking phones had nothing to do with this decision to go after Apple.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93Apple_encryption_dispute
8
My thoughts exactly.
2
This is nonsensical. "(Apple) charges up to a 30 percent commission to developers who sell their products through its store, bars them from selling their apps elsewhere and plays a role in setting prices," the article says.
Then it goes on to name apps—Uber, Lyft, Instagram, Postmates, Spotify, Netflix, Amazon—which like thousands of others are sold elsewhere. You don't need an iPhone to get those nor, if you have another device, do you need to download them from the App Store.
I'm a Comcast customer. I want MSNBC and CNBC (sometimes live, sometimes delayed) on my TV. Do I have a choice other than Comcast? Can I get them via the App Store?
No, I cannot.
Can I access the individual programs I want on the App Store, or for that matter Netflix or Amazon Prime? No, I cannot.
Can I access the channels and/or all the individual programs through Comcast without paying for a bundle of hundreds of channels I have absolutely no use for?
No, I cannot.
Comcast seems to do everything Apple does—makes money from MSNBC and CNBC, bars me from getting them elsewhere, sets extraordinary prices for packages which include them both, and targets ads at me to boot.
I don't WANT to get iPhone apps anywhere but the App Store and I hope no legal decision forces me to do so.
I DO want desperately to just pay for half a dozen channels without a bundle, but I feel held hostage by my cable company and forced to pay $2,500 a year. Why no lawsuit to redress this more serious grievance?
29
Amazon takes 30 percent of small indie music as well...
6
Once Apple changed its App Store to offer advertising, it marked the beginning of the end for independant developers. When you type in the name of our app, you'll get an ad for competing product. So, now we have to pay Apple coming and going.
The Apple Watch is even worse. Unlike the iPhone which is one half of a duopoly, the Watch is a monopoly. There are things that Apple can do on the watch that we indy developers cannot do. So, they have an unfair competitive advantage.
A rumor is that Apple will be announcing a product, for the next version of WatchOS, that directly competes with us. We've begged them to give us the same access to their programming APIs that they have. Apple's developer conference is next month. That's when we'll know whether we just wasted a couple years of our life.
5
@Iko
I'm perplexed. When I Google a national business, the first thing that comes up is an ad for the business, but the second thing is the business itself, then the Wikipedia article and a host of competitors' ads.
I always jump over the ad and go to the standard link to the thing I searched for.
Is it not the same on the App Store? If your competitor pays to advertise when someone searches for your company, and you don't advertise but you ARE the result for a search of your company, isn't your company among the top results anyway?
Isn't it anti-competitive for you to suggest a search for your company should NOT allow me to see other similar apps so I'm confident I'll get the right one and the best one for me?
In a brick-and-mortar store, if I ask for a product I'm directed to a section devoted to that type of product with an assortment of competitors' products right around it that may catch my eye with paid-for eye-level or end-cap placement, signage, etc. Be it clothes, cars, groceries, someone always has a promotion. And the price is undercut by a generic or store brand.
Brick-and-mortar or online retailers charge double-digit percent markups from what a manufacturer asks.
And we occasionally hear retailers discontinuing individual items or whole brands at will.
I get that your experience is different than it was. I don't get how it's monopolistic, usurious or anything but a lot better than selling any other sort of product through any other sort of channel.
5
@J T > When I Google a national business, the first thing that comes up is an ad for the business, but the second thing is the business itself,
Not so with our app. If you type in the name of the app in the search bar, you will either get a blank page or an ad for a competing product. If you type in a subword, we don't appear at all. It is impossible to direct a user to our app in the AppStore without giving explicit directions.
Apple is both the distribution channel and an app maker. They make money on the hardware. So they can offer a competing product for free. Even if we wanted to sell our company to Apple, we're at disadvantage.
Here's an earlier example form an earlier monoopty: Microsoft. Around Cambridge UK, there were a couple competing 3D software companies. MSFT lowballed offers to both by saying: "if we buy your competitor, we will offer their software for free as a part of our platform and you will go out of business" And that is exactly what happened. MSFT bought one, the other went out of business, and then MSFT hired the losers.
That is a platform monopoly. Apple controls the distribution, restricts the APIs, and makes or buys competing apps that can put you out of business.
I've been a developer on iOS since version 1.1.1 - before there was an AppStore. Now I'm considering writing off 12 years of experience and switching to Android.
I'm a little mystified by what you are saying- please let us know what the name of your app is, so we can see for our selves how Apple App Store is hiding it from us.
3
This is huge & wonderful. Apple must be forced to allow more appstores run by 3rd parties. Also, Apple should not be allowed to use their ownership of the Iphone hardware to put Apple Music, News, & Games apps directly on Iphone. Apple should be made to compete fairly.
3
@Paul Schejtman The other question is why doesnt Apple charge Google, Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, Amazon or anyone else whose app is downloaded in the appstore.
It makes NO sense to allow Apple to charge some companies 30% of their revenues and not to charge others at all.
Why doesn't Facebook pay anything to Apple?
Facebook pays nothing to Apple whereas other small developers pay 30%. That is very very wrong.
Facebook uses the Apple Appstore as much as any other developer. Just because they get paid via ads an not by cash should not stop Apple from charging them but Apple wouldnt dare try to charge Facebook.
Apple bullies the small developers.
2
@Paul Schejtman If you charge for the app or have in app purchases Apple takes the 30%.
Q: does Uber Amazon etc also pay the 30% of fare/order amount? I don't think so.
1
If a consumer wants to save money, there is a choice to buy Android, use Amazon et al thru direct websites and eschew Apple world. A monopoly used to mean the obliteration of choice....
And since when are dumb games & photo scrambles worthy of consumer protection? That’s like suing candy for excess sugar.
5
@Sara
Indeed. Android and Samsung are the true 500-pound gorillas in the room. Not to mention Amazon.
5
That there are so many comments here from all ends of the spectrum really is proof that this lawsuit should play out in court—not be quashed a priori due to a dubiously applied precedent before all the facts can come out.
5
I think it’s great that the SCOTUS allowed me lawsuit to proceed. Too often huge multinationals are able to stifle consumers who find fault with their products and platforms by strong arming them into arbitration.
That being said, I don’t believe Apple is engaging in anticompetitive practices by a long shot. If you separate Apple from its App Store, you only weaken the last remaining stronghold of consumer privacy in an industry that has acted as if it didn’t exist at all.
3
You don’t permit anti-competitive behavior just because you like their privacy policies; you come up with universally-applied appropriate privacy policies.
3
Apple operates a closed market with their App store. Nothing directly wrong with that per se.. until they decide to extract a high commission (30%) on every sale. Apple benefits by App sales in many other ways... so them deciding to make the App store a cash cow is not fair consumer practice.
30% commission for acting as a sole source store front for Apps is predatory. So.. yeah.. take them to court and let the courts decide what to do about it... which is exactly what the court decided today... to let the law suit go forward.
5
@Chuck I agree with you. I also believe and hope you also believe that Apple should not be allowed to use their ownership of the Iphone hardware to put Apple Music, News, & Games apps directly on Iphone.
Apple should be made to compete fairly with every app developer out there.
1
@Chuck Reselling used items at Amazon is about 20% commission.
Good....I hope they get creamed. I'm sick of the monopolizing GREED of Apple, Amazon and the like.
3
As just a fact The Google Play store, Apple’s chief rival to the App Store, takes a similar cut of up to 30% from developers for app sales.
11
At least Apple makes sure the developers apps work. Not so much with google play.
5
Hard to make the monopoly argument when Apple has less than half the smart phone market and No one is forcing app developers to put their products on iPhone.
7
@Matthew, if there's anything that we've learned in the past couple years, is that you don't need an explicit agreement ... implicit collusion is now a thing.
1
@Iko
luckily conspiracy is still a crime when it comes to "presidents".
2
If Apple is guilty, then what about Sony and Microsoft's video game consoles? Their game ecosystems, basically work the same way.
8
@Still Waiting for a NBA Title
They sell retail games digitally.. and buyers can go buy the same games from other vendors.... they do not have to buy directly from Sony or Microsoft.
Also...they do not extract the kind of commissions that Apple does with their App store...
...so.. no.. not the same.
2
One of the outcomes I'm hoping for is for iMessage to open up and work for Android users. I'm tired of being shamed for my green bubbles and messing up group texts.
5
I simply dislike Apple and am glad to see them get what's coming to them. Their very controlling and way overpriced.
6
Maybe “personal animosity” should be one of the charges against Apple? Then they could have you testify about your righteous hate and desire to see them hurt? Makes sense, right? Nothing at all would possibly go wrong with this brilliant plan.
9
"Saint Peter don't you call me, 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store."
Apple, from the first, all the iHype aside, has always been about aggressively corralling users within its brand in order to maintain artificially high prices at its company store. If it weren't for the fact that Bill Gates - no saint - had to play the hand he was dealt as an IBM vendor, with no lock on hardware, personal computer prices would never have fallen as far and as fast as they did. Our digital world would be very different and likely more class-restricted than it is. With the iPhone's widespread, irrationally fanatical adoption, Apple has had another shot at the same old tricks, with Google - also, no saint - and its hardware-independent Android OS playing the downward price-pressure role Gates and DOS/Windows once did. These are all monopolists or would-be monopolists. Judicial intervention to curb their impulses and take away their cattle-prods is entirely appropriate.
4
No one wants "app developers" who are nothing more than snake oil salespeople or malware. Windows app store is an example of that.
What should go to the Supreme court as well are all the child labor camps around the world that Apple and other USA companies use to make most electronics these days to make themselves richer.
And while we at it let's take the oil, coal, chemical, pharmaceutical, and weapons manufacturers who continue to destroy America to a just outcome.
1
can we now celebrate the balanced and fair mind of Justice Kavanaugh?
9
And Americans can see- all this stunts against him were downright wrong.
1
@Joe Yoh
I don't know. Does he own stock in Apple's competitors?
3
@Joe Yoh
For what, exactly? This is not a judgement of the court. Just that the case is allowed. Bizarre you have such a knee-jerk need to give him a break. Maybe you were also in the house long ago and have something to say about truth of Blasey-Ford's testimony? Apparently you have the inside skinny.
Or is that you, Brett? "Joe"?
2
"Apple did not respond to a request for comment."
no one knows for sure
what a giant is thinking
but it ain't pleasant
This argument is silly when compared with the too-big-to-fail financial firms. Apple's pricing policies are not going to collapse our economy anytime soon. But we have not learned the lessons of 2008 and, while we argue about Apple, the too-big-to-fail firms have done their best to set the stage for a repeat of 2008. Apple is an inconvenience by comparison.
1
And the Four Horsemen say, "Antitrust? What a silly notion!"
There is a strong argument for breaking up tech behemoths. One of them is to give consumer choices that are less invasive to their privacy. Right now everyone is afraid to go up against Apple or Facebook so that squelches innovation and consumer choice. We are terrified something will get "messed up" with our apps. Well they are messed up! We have zero options.
4
@Theresa. Of course you have options. Don’t buy an iPhone.
3
@Theresa
I wish someone would articulate specific, actual compelling options they are prevented from getting.
And I wish people would stop conflating Facebook and Apple.
You need to register at and give all sorts of personal data to and sign in to Facebook in order to respond to things I have posted there and if you don't I think you're ghosting me and I get offended. (Hypothetical, I am not on Facebook.) Then they data mine the both of us, and everybody we've ever met.
On the other hand, I don't need to have anything to do with Apple or its products to directly respond back and forth to your Apple Mail email, your iMessage text, or on the off chance someone uses an iPhone to make a phone call, much less any of the other messaging apps the article mentions like Instagram.
4
These compalints seem to center around apps that are running stores or subscriptions with products that originate from outside of the app. These situations are vastly different from the million plus applications that are usuially one-trick pony, quick-fix programs.
I think Apple has gotten into people's core businesses a bit in some of these situations.
But let me pose the question to anyone who knows... When I use the Amazon app on my iphone and order something, does Apple get 30% of the merchandise price?
Somehow I'm doubting that they do. So this is confusing, at best.
1
An iPhone is just a portable computer, "app" is just a word for software. If Apple limits what software can run on the computer they sold to you, it's no different than what happened with Sony's playstation or Microsoft's xbox, or other similar devices. For example I have a dLink network-attached storage device that is fundamentally a miniature Linux computer. At first the only software that would run on the device was software that dLink published themselves, but then people figured out how to make their own software outside of dLink's control.
I think if Apple wishes to retain control over their system that's fine, it's no different than Nintendo or Sony or other similar companies. The free market will respond accordingly, since Apple certainly has no monopoly over cellular phones or portable computers.
7
The free market will NOT “respond accordingly” because the market isn’t free here. You CANNOT (read: are prohibited by Apple) to sell apps, in-app purchases, and subscriptions outside of apple’s App Store.
Yes, maybe someday someone will upend Apple’s massive share of the mobile phone market, but for now if you wish to sell on iOS you must do so through Apple.
2
The only possible outcome to this case is personal chaos. A new app store full of worthless junky apps and malware galore, with the privacy of your phone sold to bad actors with look alike apps. There is a place like that for technology products, it's called the Windows App Store.
38
The App Store does very little in the way of promoting quality. App approval is more about meeting basic technical standards than quality and artistic ones.
2
I don't have any Apple products and never have.
6
Apple is a California corporation. California is a liberal Democrat stronghold. Therefore, this lawsuit must be a plot by conservatives.
5
@Richard Winchester
We know conservatives are not that smart. So, No we don’t think that. Thanks for playing.
4
Apple products are over rated and over priced. This Mc book will be my last purchase.
3
Every 5-4 Supreme Court of the United States opinion weakens the least democratic branch of the American republic.
Every politically partisan Supreme Court of the United States nomination fight openly exposes Article III judiciary hypocrisy about what the law is and is not. Blind and unbiased justice is and always has been a delusional myth.
2
A five to four decision is not necessarily a sign of partisanship. Sometimes justices merely disagree on an issue.
6
@doug
They call that dissent.
The dissent in Dred Scott was confirmed by the Civil War, the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments.
The dissent in Plessy was confirmed by Brown and the 1964, 1965 and 1968 civil rights laws.
Why not cut the baby in half?
' The Supreme Court follows the election returns'
The Supreme Court is not final because it is wise. The Supreme Court of the United States is wise because it is final.'
2
There is more than just a marketplace at stake here. Once dodgy and unscrupulous developers are freed from Apple's restrictions on data acquisition and use, watch for the IOS ecosystem to start to mirror Android's. Like, when Facebook flagrantly has taken advantage of Android users just because they could.
If developers think I'm going to side load their apps on IOS from their web site or a third party store, yeah, good luck with that. Those who do, enjoy having your privacy and autonomy over your
personal data eroded even further.
12
@Jeff B Sounds to me you feel Apple is operating close to a public utility. If so, it should be regulated as such. Certainly, the internet as a whole should be. That it isn't is one of the biggest signs that the American Experiment is relegated to a corporate subsidiary.
2
Still in shock over Justice Kavanaugh's siding with the 4 liberal justices in favor of class action suits. And our country needs this. Arbitration has been sweeping into use as it ensures corporations will win. The individual lacks the wherewithal to withstand the costs of such a fight.
5
I see a lot of comments getting quite excited as though Apple is staring at its comeuppance. This news is about the SCOTUS agreeing to hear the case, people!
5
The supreme court is not going to hear this case. The decision says that the antitrust suit against Apple can go forward in another court.
4
The Supreme Court is simply allowing the case to go forward, in the trial court (Federal District Court). It did not agree to hear the case, only this preliminary issue.
2
@FurthBurner it is NOT about the SCOTUS hearing the case; but letting is proceed in lower courts.
2
Even if the plaintiffs prevail, most of the fines we've seen issued to tech companies barely make a blip in their revenue.
The drop in stock price is likely more due to lost sales in China, waning iPhone sales internationally, and Trump's tariffs that hit US consumers directly, providing further disincentive to buy expensive Apple products.
Unless the federal government gets serious about curbing monopoly power and starts breaking up companies that are so large that they exert undue influence on the markets they operate in, tech companies will continue to roll over consumers and developers.
We've seen in recent rulings regarding Google and Facebook that the government is not serious in these matters. The Supreme Court may pay lip service to antitrust law, but they are now a political arm of the executive branch, which has shown itself comfortable with eliminating restrictions on corporate misbehavior. Apple shareholders are probably safe on this front.
1
I cannot see Apple giving developers the "keys" to all of their malware protection, as well as dropping the restrictions against some banned areas, like pornography.
Apple's approach is first about protection from malware. Apple has set standards for their app environment that includes testing. As a result apps on Apple's iOS environment are not as exposed to malware as their competitors.
Apple does charge developers to have their software on the App Store. Those charges include the warehousing of the software for downloading to customers, testing of the software to keep malware out, promoting the software on the App Store, collecting the customer's money (and paying the credit card charges) and providing the Developers with their payment on a timely basis. And providing the various tax authorities with details of these payments and Apple's Fees.
17
@Ken
Apple has been caught "asleep at the switch" on oversight of applications that use Glassbox and other APIs to record screen and keypress input, sending recordings of your activity back to a third-party developer without your knowledge or consent. Likewise, malware like XcodeGhost and AceDeceiver have made it into apps distributed through Apple's storefront.
It has taken public reporting in tech press to get Apple to move faster on patches and revisions to its operating system to close these vulnerabilities.
There may be questions of whether or not Apple delivers fair value for the fees it charges. And security is a valid reason to have app vendors that are supposed to vet what they sell.
The larger problem is that Apple is the major storefront for apps on its platform. When the only other storefront is Cydia, which offers no protection from malware, at all, then Apple effectively owns control of the app market on its platform.
1
@Ken
Also providing access to millions of users via the App Store.
@Ken But see NYTimes readers and most Apple haters won't understand the details. It is sad, the article says Apple is a monopoly? Really? Apple has 13-14% of the global marketshare. Android has 84%. Android also has 95% of the mobile malware. Most cant update without breaking most apps. SC doesn't understand and haters of Apple won't understand the complexity.
3
So much for the fear that Justice Kavanaugh, who voted with the majority in this case, is in the pocket of Trump or the right wing.
5
One judicial decision does not prove anything.
Constraint refers to imposition of restriction and limitation over the action being done. In this case “the action” is the selling of developers’ app’s to consumers by Apple.
Apple’s agreement with software developers, who sell their products through its App Store, imposes the following constraints:
1. Bars developers from selling their apps elsewhere (thereby, severely constraining the app developer’s effort to sell his or her work product by other competitive means)
2. Requires developers pay up to 30 percent “gatekeeper’s commission” to Apple (thereby, excessively raising the price paid for the app by the consumer and reducing the number of units sold by the app innovator)
Obviously, the purpose of the U. S. Supreme Court’s ruling today is to curb monopolistic behavior where appropriate and require that the issue now be decided at trial.
Plaintiffs filed the suit in a California federal court in 2011 and were supported by 30 state attorneys general, including from Texas, California and New York. After a federal judge in Oakland, California threw out the suit, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived it in 2017, finding that Apple was a distributor that sold iPhone apps directly to consumers.
5
My whole family have been Apple fanatics since the 1980s. Our house is full of Apple products.
But Apple needs to start doing something for America. They moved to China, hoard all their capital, and don't pay taxes. Really? This is how they treat the country that made them mega-gazillionaires? Apple is not looking too luscious to me.
8
Apple products are over priced and over hyped. There is clear monopoly.
Regulations are an essential part to curb corporate greed.
2
@Surya You can buy many other brands of phones and computers.
What ever happened to the idea that tech would bring out the best in humanity?
2
Ah the Steve Jobs legacy at Apple revealed again. He was no different than John D. Rockefeller. Both engaged in restraint of trade.
3
This is an interesting problem. If it is viewed that the App Store is part of the Apple platform, then the pricing is commensurate with what Apple charges for its products.
But as others post here, especially app developers, they want to be able to sell directly to consumers, and they certainly do not want to be taxed by Apple, and taxed at a high rate, to be able to do so through Apple services.
And as others have posted here, we need to bring antitrust legislation into the 21st century; the 1977 decision in Illinois Brick was pre commercial computer networks.
There is some logic to be applied to this case. If one agrees that having an apps store is integral to the platform that executes the app, then all platforms, such as Android, would have an app store, and any pricing would be subject to competitive prices from the app stores of other platforms.
But it seems odd that a court would decide that controlling the store that exclusively determines the prices its products (sans competitive pressures) doesn't violate some sort of antitrust law.
It appears that what has happened is that the Apps Store simply appeared under the control of Apple because it was possible for Apple to develop that venue for distributing its apps. The legality of the store was untested... until now. And there seems to be no competitive way to check any price that Apple arbitrarily puts on top of the cost of an app. The store seems destined for antitrust litigation.
13
Apple executives receipt of this news was delayed because of iPhone throttling.
12
When I buy a computer, I should be able to load any software I want onto it and use it however I want. Apple restricts software to only what is approved on the app store and they charge a hefty tax on both the app and when people use the app to buy things. That is just not fair because there is no other store to go to. Switching hardware should not be the remedy.
17
I recall a time when the fastest Windows computer was a Mac. This was when Apple moved to the Intel chips.
@Albert
Enjoy the security disaster there, Albert. Apple has indeed brought this unto themselves with some pretty aggressive pricing, but don't believe for a minute that the security and privacy you've enjoyed on Apple's App Store will be remotely mirrored elsewhere.
Google's Play Store should serve as a cautious tale.
5
@albert Fairness unfortunately is not a legal term of art.
And switching hardware is the accepted remedy in a market. It’s not fair that your Volvo is safer than my Yugoslav. My option is not to sue Volvo, but to buy one.
But...if Apple is breaking the law, then they should be penalized.
3
I have an IPad that I have to use for work. Seems like a good reliable product. I also use Android for my personal stuff. Seems like a good reliable product. Don’t like Apple stuff? Switch to Android.
24
@Donato DeLeonardis It sounds like a simple answer, but the ecosystems of both Android and iOS platforms make it virtually impossible to take your paid applications and media "with you" if you decide to switch. Moving application-specific data is also very difficult.
The ways in which Google and Apple lock in consumers to their platforms is why switching is not an answer, for most users.
If you're just using a web browser for work and fun, then you're fine. But if you're using your Android or iOS device for anything more complicated, then switching is likely going to be a difficult and expensive proposition.
Regulatory action is required to make Google and Apple both open up their platforms.
3
@Donato DeLeonardis
Apple is to Android what champagne is to beer. Both are drinkable but are two different experiences.
It’s not just about a “good reliable product”, it’s also about a good reliable experience. The phone has to not only operate smoothly, the apps have to work well too, consistently.
Apple’s initial monopoly created a near rock-solid and remarkably smooth operating experience unlike the open source, free-for-all that was Android. I’ve been an avid Apple user since 1989 and have dabbled in Windows and Android during that period. I’m still solidly team Apple because the experience of using its products is consistently superior to the experience of the others.
That said, it still really sticks in my craw that Apple’s Macintosh computers have long been completely open to consumer and third-party modification while iPhones have been the opposite, completely locked down. I understand Steve Jobs’s reasoning that such a heavy hand ensured the highest quality of consumer experience from purchase of the phone to using any apps made for it. I get that for tech newbies like my parents but that tech savvy longtime Apple users like me couldn’t make any modifications to the phone itself or the operating system or connect a flash drive to move files without the use of a computer or “cloud” was and still is highly irritating.
If the iPhone wasn’t such a superior product AND experience in general, I would have dumped it long ago. But Android just isn’t as good.
6
The issue is not clear cut. I have no problem with the lawsuit going forward for the purpose of determining WHETHER Apple's restrictive policies, concerning apps, are an UNREASONABLE restraint on trade. In making that decision, there must be taken into account the extremely important necessity of keeping the iphone and ipad platforms secure. In this context, secure means, against theft of personal information, theft of financial resources and data, introduction of intentional or unintentional damage to the operating system, or reduction in other reliability of the devices.
Government has been almost totally unhelpful in protecting against such harm or even in penalizing those who engage in such conduct. Wide open device platforms can do harm to individuals, business entities and the government, itself.
It should also be noted that the system that Apple has in place for distribution and installation of apps is the most successful in the history of software, for keeping the cost down and for providing protection to the integrity of Apple devices.
27
@HJB
Since Apple does not provide a warranty or guarantee of the security of its phones or apps, then I’m inclined to believe that the security it provides is merely ancillary to being a monopoly.
Further, there have been many cases where Apple’s oversight and review of apps has been demonstrated to be either insufficient or arbitrary.
8
@HJB "Government has been almost totally unhelpful in protecting against such harm ..." You must be forgetting how the national DO NOT CALL LIST has eliminated unwanted calls!!! wink wink
1
@HJB
This just reads like a blind support of Apple. What does device security have to do with this? Nothing. Most successful in keeping cost down? Well, the suit itself is about that, so clearly there's more information out there than you are willfully ignoring so that you can make your blind claim.
There's much talk these days about breaking up Facebook (which reminds me of the talk decades ago about breaking up Microsoft because they controlled search - remember!?).
If there's one Tech company that epitomizes "monopoly," it's Apple.
This could be the case of the century.
81
@Prodigal Son, Please describe an area in which Apple is a monopoly. Apple sells a small share of phones, computers, and other tech products in the US and worldwide. Apple does sell an ecosystem in which its products thrive. People can choose Apple's platforms, and many do. People can also choose other platforms that offer different features, and most do that. I'm not seeing the monopoly features.
63
@Prodigal Son
How is Apple a monopoly? No one has to use the iPhone. Go ahead and buy an Android.
12
@Prodigal Son Huh? Google's a monopoly. You can't avoid google analytics, YouTube is a monopoly, Facebook and Whatsapp are huge. If you want to live without Apple so do it. With 15% market share there's clearly no monopoly. Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony take far more than 30% of the revenue on games for their consoles. When Apple set the 30% 10 years ago, it was a customer friendly milestone. Google has the same prices on google play...
11
Question: in case a huge judgment/fine is imposed by the court in this case — like the $5B one Facebook is wrestling with — and the judgment is ultimately upheld — where will this money go?
1
@JHF Easy question (really, two questions):
1. Fines go to the government.
2. Damages go to the plaintiff(s) in a civil suit. Here, that would include the damages "add-on" because of trebling.
Laws could provide otherwise, to some extent, but I'm not aware of any that do.
1
@JHF. Maybe the funds will go to repaint Mar a Lago next year?
1
@JHF they ‘go’ to the govt - or plaintiffs, but largest % goes yo the judges co-careerists [the lawyers]. Also, taxpayers PAY a portion of the ‘fine’ because it is a deductible ‘expense’ so the company pays less tax, and we make up the difference.
The lawsuit seems to be missing the salient point that its impossible to transfer data from iphone to other devices.
6
@Pilot
That is utter nonsense. Both Android and IOS permit you to transfer contacts, calendar and email data between platforms. If there is data in a particular application you can't transfer, talk to the developers of said application.
3
@Pilot
because what you wrote is not true
2
I remember when Apple was cool.
6
"We affirm the judgment of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit." -- not a phrase frequently seen in SCOTUS opinions.
14
Agree with the Court on this case.
4
They are citing a case about brick sales and applying it to Iphone app sales, Certainly it's time to update Antitrust laws for a digital world, it will only become more difficult for judges to rule on digital issues with ancient frameworks
16
Apple should be forced to sell their App Store to a neutral third party. The NYT has an article a week or so ago about their targeting app developers who make parental control apps, in order to favor their own product. Apple have too many perverse incentives to behave badly and there clearly is nobody at the helm with any kind of ethical constraints.
40
@Xoxarle
You mean those ethical constraints that pinned back the ears of Facebook a few months back?
There is no free lunch here. Either you have a secure platform with strict enforcement of rules that benefit Apple's customers (and Apple, by a large margin) or you get what you get with Android; the Windows95 of phone operating systems where developers run roughshod over user privacy.
Pick your poison.
12
@Xoxarle There is no such thing as a neutral third party. The main aim of the app store is to protect my device from all the malicious trash out there. I want Apple to decide who gets access to my device not some no name who may sell access to my device to a bad actor in the name of some contrived sense of fairness.
13
@Frederick
I forgot to add privacy protections and the security benefits to my comment about the superiority of the Apple experience over that of Windows and Android. It’s the other BIG reason I’ve stuck with Apple for so long.
I’ve just never had a virus or data breach on any of my Apple devices nor its data services like email and cloud services. I grumbled about how its lockdown affects tech-savvy users who want to make modifications but I gladly defer that ability now for security in this increasingly technologically insecure age.
3
It's not solely about being a monopoly. Thes big tech companies excercise an overwhelmingly negative impact on competition. When they suck up too much oxygen, they kill competition either by strangling financing sources or by buying up and killing off potential competitors. That kills innovation and is decidedly anti capitalism.
56
@Ron
While tech monopolies are a serious problem, Apple’s ecosystem is not one of them. You buy Apple, you know you’re going to pay more than the Android ecosystem but also have a better integrated system behind its walled garden. You learn this as soon as you do comparison shopping.
I’d much rather that limited resources go toward the true monopolists – Facebook in particular, which has a genuine monopoly on social media and pernicious social costs (as Chris Hughes’s wonderful and courageous editorial on Sunday argued).
Monopolies are a serious problem and it is great that antitrust law is still being practiced. The problem is that consumer prices are still being used as the sole criterion rather than the broader issue of social welfare, and the SCOTUS ruling does not address this.
7
Early on, mid-80s, Apple copied the strategy that worked so well for IBM with mainframes. It's surprising that some form of anti-trust action took so long to happen.
6
@Barrelhouse Solly
It’s no surprise if you look at what was happening politically and culturally during those periods. IBM and Ma Bell happened during the liberal era that sought to protect consumers and workers from the worst of big business excess. The tech boom that followed that period happened during the now conservative era that favors big business vastly over consumers and workers.
Conservatives just don’t care about any sort of monopoly until they think it affects themselves negatively. And it’s telling that Republicans only started caring about big tech power when it appeared to be too liberal in its political and cultural tendencies. Racists, misogynists, homophobes, and bigots getting kicked off platforms matters more to the GOP than Russian-highjacking of those platforms...that is, until it benfits Democrats.
These tech companies have become such a necessary part of our society that they ought to be regulated like utilities.
Maybe this suit will prove the first substantial step needed among many in making Apple more responsive and responsible to its workers and its customers. Maybe then we will see some action with the others also.
Am I holding my breath? No. But I can always hope.
45
@GAR
We had phones developed by companies that operated a bit like utilities. Remember those? Charges per text message, constantly hammering you to buy ring tones and phone features disabled because the carriers felt it gave their customers too much control.
That is what you get with a "utility" designed phone.
8
@db Corrupt regulators do not corrupt the idea of good utilities.
2
@GAR
Good grief! Regulated like a utility? There's a recipe for disaster!! Which utilities are your model here? PG&E? SCG&E? Con-Ed?
What an incredibly uninformed comment!
2
Apple certainly influences app pricing in a big way, including the push for app developers to change pricing model from one-time charge to subscription model. After that, more and more apps want to charge a subscription, sometimes even apps that only operates locally on the device. And Apple continues to get 30% of the subscription revenue.
Apple also requires that if a publisher chooses to sell a digital subscription separately outside of the app, that same subscription offer must be made available, at the same price or less, to customers who wish to subscribe from within the app. That means, the publish is forced to keep the same subscription price even when they have to give 30% to Apple. A very unfair system, in my opinion.
23
@YYL
Subscription pricing? Sounds like a great incentive to clean a bunch of apps off my phone.
11
@YYL False:
https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/19/16502152/google-play-store-android-apple-app-store-subscription-revenue-cut
After Apple (alway the first lowest price in this regard) lowered its share from 30 to 15% for subscriptions in June 2016, Google lowered its pricing in October 17 as well. Because of the bigger share for developers, those chose more the subscription model. Why wouldn't 'benevolent' Google once take lower margins than Apple?
1
According to the article, Apple "...bars developers from selling their apps elsewhere..."
This seems to be a clear violation of the Sherman anti-trust act, as there is abundant case law to prevent a company from bundling hardware and software. However, these cases have been in the lower Federal courts, so it could be that these companies are trying to challenge this aspect of anti-trust law.
The software bundling problem dates from the time of the mainframe computer makers, and is the only reason that independent software companies like Microsoft exist today. That is to say, without the anti-bundling provisions they would have been locked out of an open software market.
According to Data Gen. v. Grumman Systems Support [36 F.3d 1147 (1st Cir. 1994)]: “Sherman Act provision prohibiting contracts in restraint of trade prohibits seller from ‘tying’ sale of one product to purchase of second product if seller thereby avoids competition on merits of “tied” product. Sherman Act, Sec. 1 as amended 15 U.S.C.A. 1” (36 F.3d 1147, [30])
25
@W It’s also not true.
Unless the Times has a unique definition of that phrase, many, perhaps even a majority of the apps on Apple’s App Store are also available for sale on one or more Android stores.
5
@Brian The question to be settled there would be whether a totally different set of code designed to accomplish the same function is the same product or a different one.
4
the same app on two platforms can be considered two apps as they are not interchangeable.
11
Bravo for Justice Kavanaugh ... Shall we let this be the beginning of the end of automatically bashing justices based on which political party supported them.
25
You do realize the true reason why his confirmation was heavily protested correct? Sexual assault is a serious issue...
22
@Liz Cook Many of us did not want him on the court because of the way he acted during his hearings. He was at a job interview and had the audacity to ask his employers if they were black out drunks. He is one of nine members of the highest court in the land. I still think we could have done much better. Oh, and I believe Dr. Blasey-Ford.
71
@Liz Cook
This is frequent for many justices. Over time, many change their beliefs since they are no longer beholden to anyone.
3
Apple is a bully and may yet get it's comeuppance. As a developer I want to sell directly to the consumer. Apple has no right in a free market from preventing my products to be sold directly to consumers. Their counter arguments are specious.
21
@ECS.
You may want to sell directly to the customer, but there's no reason that Apple should change its business strategy to make that happen for you. It appears that you want the benefits for accessing 30-40% of the Apple iPhone customer base without paying for it. You are most welcome to sell your apps on Android or other platforms.
22
@ECS They are not stopping you from selling directly to the customer, only saying that if you do you cannot ALSO sell in the Apple Store.
While I detest Apple and refuse to support them economically, and I think the rules of the store are oppressive, I do look for accuracy in the complaints against them.
11
@ECS, I have an iPhone because I want Apple to curate apps. I'd never buy your app directly from you because I have no reason to trust you. I'm happy to pay for Apple's certification that your app meets its standards.
Likewise, your app can be found on the App Store. How will anyone find your app if you go it alone? Will you be paying for advertising? The primary beneficiaries from direct sales would large companies that sell on the App Store. They would be able to afford advertising and might be trusted enough for apps to be bought directly.
12
somewhere Teddy Roosevelt is smiling
62
Great decision. The Apple who refused to help with opening a terrorist's phone, yet was happy to help buddy Mueller prosecute Manafort by giving him access to the Cloud. I suffer from Apple fatigue.
3
@Dianne
In the case you're talking about law enforcement deleted the terrorists iCloud backup mere hours after the shooting, which would have provided the access they needed. Educate yourself on encryption before you throw stones at Apple, who is protecting their customer's privacy.
If you think a government can be trusted with a backdoor to any encryption you truly don't understand security and privacy in the 21st century.
11
So we’re not going back the “anything goes” days for big bid’ness on the Court a la the Lochner line.
And Kavanaugh is the back stop.
Go figure
5
Apple, like most multi-national corporations, cares solely about maximizing profitability. Products manufactured in China. American employees underpaid. What's to stop them literally leaving the U.S. altogether? We now live in a world where these corporations govern us, not the other way around. Frightened for our future.
9
@C
>most multi-national corporations, cares solely about maximizing profitability
That's an actual legal requirement of *all* publicly traded corporations.
7
@Ian Yes, Ian, but even 50 years ago, it was hard to set up business abroad. Now, with products easily manufactured in low-wage overseas countries, or if the product is primarily something like Facebook, the future is moving headquarters to a place like the Cayman Islands, their workforce to China or Bangladesh, and their profits to themselves. If our allegiance is to capitalist maximizing profitability, as seems the case, we are becoming a 2nd world country, and these corporations are the world powers.
4
@C
Get real, The next decade will see more consumers in China or India than the ENTIRE POPULATION of the US and more important, they will be younger and and hungrier. Why would any company want to ignore that market.
re recent nytimes' story on divergent paths of trump appointees to Supreme Court -- Kavanaugh joined the liberals. Maybe he will redeem himself.
6
@frankly 32 Calling Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsburg 'liberals' is a stretch; they are centrists. Are they liberal as compared to the remaining right-wing ideologues on the Court? Yes. Are they liberal as measured by historical benchmarks such as Warren, Marshall, Brennan, Douglas, etc.? Not even close.
4
I remember many years ago a joke, "If OS's were airlines." The joke part about Apple was, "Sit down and shut up."
3
Apple should not have any say on where the apps are bought and sold, nor should they be allowed to extract 30% of each individual sale. Perhaps if, for example, Apple would charge a one time (reasonable) assessment fee for each app, allowed the app to be sold elsewhere as well, and would extract a 5% fee for each sale that was sold from the Apple app store, they would be markedly less disingenous when calling themselves an "intermediary". This 21st century version of The Company Store should absolutely be put to the legal test. As things stand, the situation looks an awful lot like antitrust to me.
17
@WGM
Maybe Apple is concerned about every Tom, Dick and Harry who thinks they are a developer putting apps out there for the Apple platform. Then if those apps don’t work well or screw up somebody’s Apple device, the blowback hits Apple.
My father in law was an excellent carpenter/contractor. He would sometimes get guys who wanted him to frame up a house and they would do the finish work. He would never do that. His finish work was great, but if the homeowner did crappy work and then said that my father in law built the house, people would not be interested in hiring him. Similar idea.
App customers are liable to get caught between a developer and Apple pointing fingers at each other if something goes wrong.
4
Good decision. So tired of big corporations using their market power to extract above-market returns from consumers.
102
@Tolerance First
I mostly agree with you, but I worry about security flaws that consumers can't evaluate for themselves.
I am a long-time programmer but I am not qualified.
That analysis has to be done by somebody who has the source code for the app, and thoroughly understands the iPhone platform.
Who might that be?
33
@Tolerance First Tbh it may not do as much damage as you think as they've been pushing profits as a result of declining sales and they'll be moving into the services market
@Josh Rubin
Hacker kids? Aren't there armies of hackers out there who can better identify software issues than those who write from within?
1