{"id":25246,"date":"2019-05-13T15:32:13","date_gmt":"2019-05-13T19:32:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/?p=25246"},"modified":"2021-10-15T15:15:55","modified_gmt":"2021-10-15T19:15:55","slug":"app-store-monopoly-lawsuit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/2019\/05\/13\/app-store-monopoly-lawsuit\/","title":{"rendered":"App Store Monopoly Lawsuit"},"content":{"rendered":"

NY Times Editorial Board<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

The actions by Apple highlight the inherent tension in the company’s fierce control over its mobile operating system: On the one hand, the closed environment is a boon to consumer privacy because the company has the leverage to insist upon it; on the other hand, that environment fosters a kind of monopoly.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Adi Robertson<\/a> (MacRumors<\/a>):<\/p>\n

\n

The Supreme Court is letting an antitrust lawsuit against Apple proceed, and it’s rejected Apple’s argument that iOS App Store users aren’t really its customers. The Supreme Court upheld<\/a> the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Apple v. Pepper<\/em>, agreeing in a 5-4 decision that Apple app buyers could sue the company for allegedly driving up prices. “Apple’s line-drawing does not make a lot of sense, other than as a way to gerrymander Apple out of this and similar lawsuits,” wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh.<\/p>\n

Apple had claimed<\/a> that iOS users were technically buying apps from developers, while developers themselves were Apple’s App Store customers. According to an earlier legal doctrine known as Illinois Brick, “indirect purchasers” of a product don’t have the standing to file antitrust cases. But in today’s decision, the Supreme Court determined that this logic doesn’t apply to Apple.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Ryan Jones<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

I believe this is true and right.<\/p>\n

Only Apple charges, refunds, owns the customer relationship, sends receipts, etc.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Marco Arment<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

I’m no lawyer, but two things have been obvious to me:<\/p>\n

- Customers absolutely buy apps from Apple, not developers.<\/p>\n

- Apple’s requirement that all in-app transactions go through their system (which takes 30%) is anticompetitive, and should absolutely be challenged by regulators.<\/p>\n

Add this to the pile of significant legal anticompetitive challenges that Apple faces by their in-app purchase rules.<\/p>\n

They’ll never allow sideloading or reduce the 30%, but I expect all of this to result in a relaxing of the “can’t even mention other payment methods” rule.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Michael Love<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

Could be forced to do a lot more, c.f. Microsoft having to un-bundle IE; Apple could be compelled to not only allow other app stores but actually provide a startup alert to invite you to pick an alternate one.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Steve Troughton-Smith<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

If antitrust rulings against Apple are finally what it takes to bring Gatekeeper to iOS, then so be it. It is crazy that non-developer users pay for $100 developer accounts just to sideload apps<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Previously:<\/p>\n