Supreme Court rules against Apple, allowing lawsuit targeting App Store to proceed

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Washington Post



Apple suffered a significant defeat at the Supreme Court on Monday, when the justices ruled that consumers could forge ahead with a lawsuit against the iPhone giant over the way it manages its App Store.

The 5-4 decision could spell serious repercussions for one of Apple’s most lucrative lines of business, and open the door for similar legal action targeting other tech giants in Silicon Valley. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh joined the liberal justices in the majority.

At the heart of the case is Apple's handling of iPhone and iPad apps created by third-party developers and made available on its heavily curated App Store. Apple long has taken a commission on every paid app sold through this portal, rankling some developers that essentially see it as a tax.

The policy led iPhone owners to band together in 2011 with a class-action lawsuit, led by plaintiff Robert Pepper, who argued that consumers ultimately felt the brunt of Apple’s policies because developers raised the prices of their apps. These consumers brought their case under federal antitrust laws, arguing that Apple’s practices made it a monopoly.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/05/13/supreme-court-rules-against-apple-allowing-lawsuit-targeting-app-store-proceed/?utm_term=.1caadedd4524

[MissMillie]

1. "Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh joined the liberal justices in the majority."

Interesting.

Wonder if he'll get a "good talking to" from the groper

[emulatorloo]

3. Trump only gives a shit about himself

[Calista241]

10. Kavanaugh actually wrote the opinion, which was joined by RBG, Kagan, Sotomayor and Breyer

I'm actually kind of surprised Gorsuch didn't join this opinion since he's a textualist and the law basically reads pretty clearly, though it is broad.

[emulatorloo]

2. Apple's not a "monopoly". Plenty of other tablets and phones availabile from other manufacturers

They may need to clean up their act re the App Store.

But whining that Apple is a monopoly is hyperbolic and not true. Easy to buy an android device.

[MicaelS]

4. Not at all hyperbolic.

Tell me where can I buy an iOS device or computer running the latest Mac OS not made and sold by Apple?

You can't. So Apple has a monopoly right there.

Where can one purchase iOS apps other than through the App Store? You cant another monoply.

[Pisces]

6. It's their technology! Apple has a monopoly on Apple products? What a revelation.

[LiberalLovinLug]

15. Exactly! lol

Something is wrong here....damn that Apple! How can they have a monopoly on all those well made, well designed products they made?!!!! Something is fishy.


As a Canadian, I find it perpetually puzzling why such a successful, innovative American made company, who revolutionized a number of computer products for the planet is so maligned by many of its own citizens. Always on the cutting edge of simple design and advanced screens and OS functionality. Its not as if those other Japanese and Chinese and south east asian companies have any better labour practices either if one wants to go there. They are not perfect, but none of them are. Been an avid Apple user from day one.

Its like Japanese people dissing Toyota over GM, even if Toyota has a better overall build quality and consumer ratings.

[brooklynite]

21. More to the point, they're maligning Apple on computers and smartphones made by other tech companies

...which apparently have no better business policies.

[Nictuku]

7. I believe it is called proprietary, not monopoly

[MicaelS]

13. Good point.

And people are pushing back against proprietary software. Copyright and Patent Law is clearly out of whack.

http://techrights.org/2014/02/17/proprietary-software-anti-social/

There is clearly something wrong with this current system where copyright makes the singing of “Happy Birthday” an infringement and even linking to a site an infringement ....

A society of few proprietors and many people who are by design “infringers” (similar to incarcerating by wide classification like that of the “War on Drugs”) is a society of selected rulers and many slaves. We need to reject proprietary software and we need to encourage or promote a culture of increased sharing. It’s an ethical matter. It improves co-existence/cooperation and speeds up advancement. █

[emulatorloo]

17. Maybe install Linux then. Neither MS or Apple are required to give you free "non-proprietary"

operating systems and applications.

The solution is pretty easy. Buy what you want.

[MicaelS]

24. They is more to the issue than that.

The whole problem of companies making products that are unrepairable by the average person.

The problem of proprietary software in cars, trucks, farm tractors, combines and the like. Mechanics who are unable to repair a without spending tens of thousands of dollars on diagnostic software. Farmers who find out for all intents and purposes that they do not really own their equipment because of fine print in the software that prevents them from repairing their own equipment.

I will say this again..
.
Copyright and patents have gotten way out of control, far from what the founders intended. Just because you create something does mean you should have a lifetime ride. Or do you not believe in "The public interest"?

[cstanleytech]

5. Isn't the case about how they are running

their app store and locking people in to it with no easy option to go somewhere else for apps?

[BumRushDaShow]

8. Seems the bigger issue

was really directed towards developers being required to charge more for offering their (for-cost) apps in order to give Apple their required cut and Apple's counter-argument being that they were just a middleman and developers who utilize the App store need to pay for that service. But I think from a technical standpoint, Apple has also kept 3rd party developers from setting up their own direct-to-consumer app sites due to how iOS is configured (locked down) unless someone goes through the trouble of jail-breaking the device (and voiding the warranty) to get the app side-loaded somehow.

If this is the case, that is why others ecosystems are nervous. Seems a similar (but not identical) thing happened with M$ back in the day when they bundled IE with Windoze and integrated it so that you couldn't remove it and they lost in court for doing that. I.e., they may be trying the same approach as this -

Antonio García Martínez business 02.11.18 10:00 am
What Microsoft’s Antitrust Case Teaches Us About Silicon Valley

<...>

Microsoft famously missed the rise of the web in the early ’90s, with Gates dedicating only a fraction of his mid-’90s tome The Road Ahead to the internet. Meanwhile, Netscape introduced millions to the pleasures of browsing and surfing, forcing Microsoft to do one of its notorious “fast follows” (i.e., rapid copycat product launches). The company introduced Internet Explorer in 1995 and wasted no time in browbeating and cajoling companies the world over into making it the default web browser on their systems.

Word of Microsoft’s depredations reached the US Department of Justice, which in 1998 sued the company for violating the Sherman Act, a vague and archaic law that regulates the ability of conglomerates to assemble monopolies and stifle competition. What’s more, the government’s lawyers wouldn’t just move to penalize Microsoft with fines—they’d seek to break it into smaller companies.

<...>

Microsoft lost the first round in 2001, with the presiding judge ordering the company’s breakup. This “structural solution” (to use antitrust lingo) was later overturned on appeal, largely because under US law being a monopoly per se isn’t illegal. It’s typically only when a company abuses that dominance through coercion and collusion (among other anticompetitive tactics that raise prices and hurt consumers) that drastic remedies must be taken, and the appeals court wasn’t convinced that the judge in the first trial applied the correct standards to order a breakup. Microsoft and the government decided to cut their losses and reach a settlement, with the company agreeing to a series of “behavioral remedies” that dampened its ability to strong-arm others. Microsoft as Gates built it would survive, but the message from the government was clear: No one company could dictate the tech industry’s playbook.

Now, as Gates is off trying to cure malaria, and the chorus of complaint against Big Tech reaches a crescendo, could Bezos and his fellow giants end up in the government’s crosshairs? It’s unlikely, mostly because the tech world is fundamentally different today than it was in 1998 while US antitrust laws are essentially the same. To use a geopolitical analogy, technology was then a unipolar world and Microsoft its lone superpower. The tech world has since become multipolar: Facebook, Amazon, Google, Apple, and (a reduced) Microsoft are near-­absolute monarchs of their respective domains. No single giant can dominate any other, and one company can coerce another only with great difficulty, if at all. The prospect of Facebook twisting Apple’s arm to ship a new iPhone without any social media apps except for Facebook’s—which is more or less what Microsoft supposedly did to Apple with Explorer—is unthinkable.

https://www.wired.com/story/what-microsofts-antitrust-case-teaches-us-about-silicon-valley/

[LanternWaste]

14. A vertical monopoly.

The term does not mean one and only one thing...

Whining and hyperbolic, indeed.

[Politicub]

16. Apple controls the sole store with mobile applications for Apple iOS devices

There is no other marketplace for an iPhone user to turn to for apps for her device.

Apps are an essential element of the expectations of what a smartphone enables.

Apple requires that app developers use its marketplace for distribution. There is no other App Store that a user can access without jailbreaking her iPhone.

Unless Apple allows other marketplaces to compete, it is indeed a monopoly when it comes to applications on iPhone.

It’s not about Android versus Apple. This case is about Apple versus consumer choice for the source of applications, and developers versus Apple for competitive marketplaces to distribute their wares.

There are benefits to Apple’s walled-garden approach to the device and software. It reduces the chance for malicious software to find its way on users’ phones. A consumer benefit provided by a single-source company does not excuse a company from abusing its hold on a marketplace it created.

[emulatorloo]

18. I don't care. As long as they are fair on their pricing. If you feel it is too onerous for you

then don’t buy an Apple product

[Politicub]

20. It's not all about you.

I am not a developer or content provider so this doesn’t affect me directly. But I can see the issue from a developers’ perspective. You don’t seem to be able to do that. You be you.

[emulatorloo]

22. It is not about you either. I am a retired content provider/developer so of course

I can see it from a developer’s perspective. I also used Apple tools to develop.

If the App Store can be pressured into being more equitable w developers I am all for it.

——-

I have a lot of brand loyalty to Apple because of the top notch customer service.

For example, I found a minor bug in High Sierra in how the Midi settings was working with displaying icons of external hardware devices. I called tech support and was eventually booted up to engineering. I helped them track down what was going on. The bug was fixed in Mojave.

I just bought Final Cut Pro as I am getting back into video production. Tech support has been great on that product, the team is happy to sit on the phone with me and answer all my questions as I am learning it.

I use Windows as well and I give a hat tip to Hewlett-Packard. But even they aren’t on the same level as Apple when it comes to customer service.

All I see here is a bunch of DU Apple “haters” using this class action suit as a way to tear down a good company who tries very hard to keep its customers happy.

It is a typical pattern on DU which I just don’t get.

Some DU’ers for some reason wanna act like Apple is a viscious Asshole because it fits some kind of left over “platform wars” narrative they have in their heads.

I’ll also that note in this thread (and others in the past) that Apple customers are being bashed as cultists.

I really don’t understand why this “war” is a thing here on DU. It the real world it is over.

Don’t we have a White House and Senate to take back? What’s more important, ‘destroying Apple, or destroying Donald Trump?

[Jedi Guy]

23. Don't really get the hate for Apple either, personally.

I had an iPhone and felt that it was a bit too restrictive, so when it came time to get a new phone I switched to Android. I still have my old iPad since I have a bunch of ebooks on it, but I mainly use my Android tablet now.

Apple's products are well-made and easy to use, which is great for people like my mother-in-law who aren't very tech-savvy.

With so many options out there, if one doesn't like Apple's products or the way they do business, the solution is simple: buy a different device. It's not as if they're the only smartphone game in town.

[crazytown]

9. In 2016, Tim Cook donated $236,000 to Hillary's Victory fundraising committee.

Kav confirmation hearing

“This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit ... revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups”

Revenge served cold.

[Bengus81]

11. What a JOKE...ok Apple is a monopoly,now you guys can go sue them..........

Sure,find some $500 per hour lawyer and knock yourself out. The US Gov will take NO anti-trust steps against Apple. Their laughing and it's business as usual.

[Five Ten Nineteen]

12. Excellent!

Anything that impedes that goddam Cult is to be cheered.

[emulatorloo]

19. Please don't insinuate people are cult members because they prefer using Apple products.

Is Samsung a Cult? Google? Microsoft? Sony? Ford?

People are allowed to use the tech products they want with out being labeled cultists.

I personally don’t care what products you choose to use. Not sure why you care what products I choose to use. It really isn’t that important.