8 ms·

U.S. Supreme Court will hear Apple's appeal of App Store class-action lawsuit

79 points by sidhanthp 8y ago

MBCook 8y ago
The Supreme Court isn’t ruling on if the App Store is legal, they’re ruling on if the class has grounds to sue correct?
- mi100hael 8y ago
  Correct > The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to take up Apple Inc’s bid to escape a lawsuit accusing it of breaking federal antitrust laws https://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCAKBN1JE1JH-OCABS https://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCAKBN1JE1JH-OC...
CobrastanJorji 8y ago
> its phones’ ecosystems are closed for security reasons since it can vet App Store apps for malicious code and other dangers. I'm not saying that this is not true, but given that Apple's app store revenue will probably be greater than global movie ticket revenue in 2018, I suspect that "security precaution" is perhaps not 100% of the motivation behind blocking all competition.
- mankash666 8y ago
  That's some fucked-up mental gymnastics of an excuse to explain the existence of the app-store. It's like having your refrigerator manufacturer enforce purchasing of groceries that he's vetted to save you from a salmonella infection, where the manufacturer keeps 30% of the grocery revenues, and arbitrarily controls what groceries can be purchased in the first place Outside of apple, software is bought and sold in a secure manner without forking 30% to Apple, or having Apple mark you as a threat and toy-fuck you out of business [1]. [1]: https://www.macrumors.com/2018/05/24/apple-rejects-valve-steam-link-app/ https://www.macrumors.com/2018/05/24/apple-rejects-valve-ste...
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    And you do have the ability to purchase phones which use those other channels.
    - mankash666 8y ago
      Doesn't have ANY bearing on the fact that Apple is anti-competitive. No excuse for one company to break the just because others follow the law
      - s73v3r_ 8y ago
        But the point is that Apple is not breaking the law. This is not an anti-competitive move by them.
        mankash666 8y ago
        And by what legal authority did you just state that? Microsoft was forced to ship competitive browsers in the OS to avoid monopoly claims, but Apple - unlike Microsft, they won't even allow 'un-blessed' apps to RUN on the phone. Seems patently illegal
        rayiner 8y ago
        Microsoft had a monopoly on the desktop PC OS. Apple has no monopoly on any product category. (Defining "iOS" as a "market" and saying Apple has a monopoly over that is absurd; it would turn every platform into a monopoly. By that reasoning, Facebook has a monopoly on Facebook.)
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        s73v3r_ 8y ago
        The same legal authority you've used to make your argument. And Microsoft's situation was quite different from this one. For one, they had an overwhelming monopoly in desktop operating systems (something like 95% marketshare), and they had several times been caught intentionally breaking competitors' offerings.
Spivak 8y ago
> Businesses that potentially could be threatened by such consumer litigation are electronic marketplaces like the App Store, ticket site StubHub, Amazon’s Marketplace and eBay where individual sellers set prices. I don't think the important fact of the case is the fact that sellers can set their own prices, but the fact that a single entity has total control over the distribution of a broad category of 3rd-party consumer good. So it's not Amazon and StubHub that should be worried, but groups like Nintendo, Microsoft's Xbox division, Sony, or The Blu-ray Disc Association.
- heartbreak 8y ago
  > I don't think the important fact of the case is the fact that sellers can set their own prices This is actually an important fact of the case. The case isn't about Apple's total control over the App Store, it's about whether end-users can sue.
mankash666 8y ago
This kind of behavior - where whole swaths of consumers pay inflated prices, and have choice severely restricted, but the company enforcing such monopoly gets away on a ludicrous technicality, needs to end. However you look at it, completely locking down hardware owned by the user, to apps blessed by the manufacturer is the text-book definition of anti-competitive, and lest we forget, didn't exist before Apple's false "but it's all for the consumer's good" marketing blitzkrieg. Regardless of the B.S. mental gymnastics employed by Apple and it's shills, it is unfairly placed as a kingmaker in a $60B app-store market - and it's app store is designed to place it as a monopoly controller of software running on it's phones.
- artimaeis 8y ago
  > However you look at it, completely locking down hardware owned by the user, to apps blessed by the manufacturer is the text-book definition of anti-competitive https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/anticompetitive-practices https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/anticompetitive-practices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices The practice of locking down hardware is many things, but textbook anticompetitive it does not seem to be. Apple isn't working with other vendors to fix prices (cheap Android devices are far more common), reduce quality, or innovation.
  - mankash666 8y ago
    From the wiki link: "Protectionism, tariffs and quotas which give firms insulation from competitive forces" This is indeed text-book protectionism
    - artimaeis 8y ago
      How does the level of locking of the Apple App store on iOS or Mac OS insulate Apple from outside competition the likes of Samsung, Google, Huawei, etc? Edit: In fact, doesn't the locked-down state of the hardware actually encourage competitors to release their own products? Anti-consumer could be valid here, but anti-competitive just doesn't seem correct.
ocdtrekkie 8y ago
It's hard to even characterize the level of impact a case like this could have. For years, the tech industry has understood that the key to success is to control the platform, and then get other developers building on and generating income for your platform. Imagine the sheer number of businesses that may have their business model blown apart by this. If a company is ruled against on having their own app store on their own OS on their own devices, when they aren't even a monopoly-level player in the larger market, this will blow apart nearly any app store model out there. I'll, uh, get my popcorn ready.
- hungerstrike 8y ago
  Apple is a monopoly level player in the United States because they have close to 50% of the market with their smart phone operating system at ~45% - https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-share-held-by-smartphone-platforms-in-the-united-states/#0 https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-share-held... You don’t need a strict majority market share to be considered a monopoly in our legal system.
- simion314 8y ago
  > this will blow apart nearly any app store model out there. But on OSX you have an app store and you can side load applications, so you can have them both.
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    OS X and Windows will probably be okay because the "default" is to install outside the store. It's not really considered "sideloading". But most other platforms with single-source app stores will be in trouble.
    - simion314 8y ago
      Why the default is important in this case, if the device owner can enable side loading in an easy way then I am okay with a secure default. Hopefully some progress is made and OSX and Windows remain unlocked even if MS and Apple are slowly pushing in the other direction.
mnm1 8y ago
If the Apple app store isn't a monopoly I don't know what is. These kind of practices make Microsoft's anti trust practices from the 90's look like child's play. I hope the Supreme Court doesn't fall for their bullshit lies about security being the reason for this setup but I doubt any of the justices will even understand the case properly, let alone make intelligent decisions.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  Because Android and it's various stores exist, and have fairly good marketshare? Remember, the market isn't defined as "iOS apps", it's "mobile apps".
  - mark212 8y ago
    actually at this stage of this litigation, the market is defined as whatever the plaintiff says it is. Because the issue here is standing to sue. The case will get to the definition of relevant market later on, assuming this standing hurdle is resolved in favor of the plaintiff consumers. But I do agree with you on the merits. The relevant market ought to be mobile apps generally, not iOS apps. That's just not the question for which the US Supreme Court granted certiorari (as other comments have pointed out).
- Jtsummers 8y ago
  Microsoft had something like a 97% marketshare. Apple is nowhere near that. They spent $1 billion to market a free product in order to eliminate or undermine a competitor (Netscape). They threatened hardware vendors with increased licensing fees if they sold non-Windows PCs (this helped kill BeOS and held back some efforts on selling Linux to consumers as well). MS did all of this and got away with it because of their marketshare. Without it, they wouldn't have gotten nearly as far as they did in these behaviors. Apple isn't in the same position, at all.
  - berthe 8y ago
    >> If the Apple app store isn't a monopoly I don't know what is. > Microsoft had something like a 97% marketshare. Apple is nowhere near that. Whether a company is a monopoly or not seems to depend a lot how the market in question is defined, for instance: Apple has a 100% marketshare in the distribution of iOS apps. Monopoly-era AT&T had far less than a 100% marketshare in electricity-powered devices.
dang 8y ago
Url changed from https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/18/17474760/apple-app-store-ios-supreme-court-lawsuit-hearing-pepper https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/18/17474760/apple-app-store-..., which points to this.
DannyBee 8y ago
The issue here is very different than people seem to think. The supreme court granted cert on one question: "Whether consumers may sue for antitrust damages anyone who delivers goods to them, even where they seek damages based on prices set by third parties who would be the immediate victims of the alleged offense." (This is apple's statement of the question, and thus necessarily is tilted in how they see things) The petition summary has more details and is quite short: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/17-204-petition.pdf http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/17-204-... There is a circuit split on this issue, which is likely why the supreme court took it. It's mostly about indirect purchasers vs direct purchasers. Indirect purchasers cannot sue, only direct purchasers can, mainly because it's really hard to apportion damages properly. The previous major case on distribution monopolization was an eight circuit case about ticketmaster, Campos v. Ticketmaster Corp, https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-8th-circuit/1097030.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-8th-circuit/1097030.html. Section II of that opinion is a fairly readable rundown of the issue of direct vs indirect purchasing and who gets to sue. Ticketmaster held that people paying greater distribution fees to ticketmaster as a result of their monopoly could not sue, as they are indirect purchasers. The ninth circuit, in the apple case, held differently, holding that apple was selling directly to consumers, regardless of whether app developers got to set price. The opinion, which is also quite readable, is here: https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20170112133 https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20170112133. Again, i'd just read the part starting with "plaintiffs are direct purchasers" Personally, i think the dissent in ticketmaster (and the ninth circuit) got it right. This is also what the ninth circuit explicitly says. In these models, only the people at the bottom make sense as the people to sue, as when you control distribution carefully like this, they are the only injured party.
- dcow 8y ago
  I think it would be interesting if the court looked at who signs the software being purchased, from a digital security and ownership perspective. When you purchase an app from the App Store you are purchasing Apple's software. It's no longer signed by the original developer. If the court held Apple to the model they've deployed for their ecosystem, that could have interesting ramifications on the means by which Apple locks its platform down.
debt 8y ago
Apps are extremely tricky. The 30% does seem like a lot but if you consider a few things: Apple is providing an instantaneous, global distribution network. Save your ability to market the app, you can effectively guarantee the same experience across billions of disparate devices. The open web can not provide the same piece of mind in terms of security to the end user. The app vetting process isn't free. Apple is ensuring quality within the App Store. Bad apps still get past Apple's vetting rules and are retroactively denied all the time. This creates extremely a strong sense of trust between the customer and Apple. Consumers become less and less risk-averse when it comes to downloading new apps from the App Store. Again, I'd argue this runs counter to the open web due to its long history of leaks, hacks, privacy violations, phishing attempts, etc. The Apple App Store currently has the highest bar for an "open" ecosystem of independently-developed software. Apple provides the service of the App Store at its own expense. The App Store has pulled in $100BB over 10 years which is great, but I'm sure they'd turn it off in a heartbeat if it consistently caused serious security breaches within the phone. Tim Cook has gone on record so many times about the personal and private nature of the phone. Whether it's possible or not for a rogue app to circumvent Apple's numerous security safeguards is irrelevant as security is a policy Apple takes extremely seriousl; maybe to their own detriment. Apple has a history of providing basic, free alternatives to apps that monopolize particular verticals within the App Store. Calculator, Flashlight, the various flavors of Timer functionality, the new ARKit Ruler app, etc. I don't view these Apple-provided apps as akin to drug stores offering basic alternatives to things like Tylenol etc. it's good for the overall App market economy as it should stem the rise of local monopolies. Ironically, the only app in which Apple does not offer an alternative is the App Store. The App Store isn't an alternative, it's simply the only way to download apps. I do see a future where phones will have a heavily-reduced version of iOS that offers a small subset of Apple-created apps without the App Store. The numbers don't lie, most iPhone users do not download apps, or only download less than 10 apps over the lifetime of the phone. At the end of the day, apps must be vetted for quality because Apple has a brand to maintain. They simply can't allow apps that seriously compromise the performance of the phone or the privacy of the data on it. It's not within the realm of an allowable reality as per Apple policy. The 30% taken by Apple may be eclipsed by the App Store ad revenue. I assume they'll greatly reduce the 30% cut moving forward as the App Store ad revenue increases.

79 points by sidhanthp 8y ago

MBCook 8y ago

The Supreme Court isn’t ruling on if the App Store is legal, they’re ruling on if the class has grounds to sue correct?

mi100hael 8y ago
Correct > The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to take up Apple Inc’s bid to escape a lawsuit accusing it of breaking federal antitrust laws https://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCAKBN1JE1JH-OCABS https://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCAKBN1JE1JH-OC...

CobrastanJorji 8y ago

> its phones’ ecosystems are closed for security reasons since it can vet App Store apps for malicious code and other dangers. I'm not saying that this is not true, but given that Apple's app store revenue will probably be greater than global movie ticket revenue in 2018, I suspect that "security precaution" is perhaps not 100% of the motivation behind blocking all competition.

mankash666 8y ago
That's some fucked-up mental gymnastics of an excuse to explain the existence of the app-store. It's like having your refrigerator manufacturer enforce purchasing of groceries that he's vetted to save you from a salmonella infection, where the manufacturer keeps 30% of the grocery revenues, and arbitrarily controls what groceries can be purchased in the first place Outside of apple, software is bought and sold in a secure manner without forking 30% to Apple, or having Apple mark you as a threat and toy-fuck you out of business [1]. [1]: https://www.macrumors.com/2018/05/24/apple-rejects-valve-steam-link-app/ https://www.macrumors.com/2018/05/24/apple-rejects-valve-ste...
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  And you do have the ability to purchase phones which use those other channels.
  - mankash666 8y ago
    Doesn't have ANY bearing on the fact that Apple is anti-competitive. No excuse for one company to break the just because others follow the law
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      But the point is that Apple is not breaking the law. This is not an anti-competitive move by them.
      - mankash666 8y ago
        And by what legal authority did you just state that? Microsoft was forced to ship competitive browsers in the OS to avoid monopoly claims, but Apple - unlike Microsft, they won't even allow 'un-blessed' apps to RUN on the phone. Seems patently illegal
        rayiner 8y ago
        Microsoft had a monopoly on the desktop PC OS. Apple has no monopoly on any product category. (Defining "iOS" as a "market" and saying Apple has a monopoly over that is absurd; it would turn every platform into a monopoly. By that reasoning, Facebook has a monopoly on Facebook.)
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        s73v3r_ 8y ago
        The same legal authority you've used to make your argument. And Microsoft's situation was quite different from this one. For one, they had an overwhelming monopoly in desktop operating systems (something like 95% marketshare), and they had several times been caught intentionally breaking competitors' offerings.

Spivak 8y ago

> Businesses that potentially could be threatened by such consumer litigation are electronic marketplaces like the App Store, ticket site StubHub, Amazon’s Marketplace and eBay where individual sellers set prices. I don't think the important fact of the case is the fact that sellers can set their own prices, but the fact that a single entity has total control over the distribution of a broad category of 3rd-party consumer good. So it's not Amazon and StubHub that should be worried, but groups like Nintendo, Microsoft's Xbox division, Sony, or The Blu-ray Disc Association.

heartbreak 8y ago
> I don't think the important fact of the case is the fact that sellers can set their own prices This is actually an important fact of the case. The case isn't about Apple's total control over the App Store, it's about whether end-users can sue.

mankash666 8y ago

This kind of behavior - where whole swaths of consumers pay inflated prices, and have choice severely restricted, but the company enforcing such monopoly gets away on a ludicrous technicality, needs to end. However you look at it, completely locking down hardware owned by the user, to apps blessed by the manufacturer is the text-book definition of anti-competitive, and lest we forget, didn't exist before Apple's false "but it's all for the consumer's good" marketing blitzkrieg. Regardless of the B.S. mental gymnastics employed by Apple and it's shills, it is unfairly placed as a kingmaker in a $60B app-store market - and it's app store is designed to place it as a monopoly controller of software running on it's phones.

artimaeis 8y ago
> However you look at it, completely locking down hardware owned by the user, to apps blessed by the manufacturer is the text-book definition of anti-competitive https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/anticompetitive-practices https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/anticompetitive-practices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices The practice of locking down hardware is many things, but textbook anticompetitive it does not seem to be. Apple isn't working with other vendors to fix prices (cheap Android devices are far more common), reduce quality, or innovation.
- mankash666 8y ago
  From the wiki link: "Protectionism, tariffs and quotas which give firms insulation from competitive forces" This is indeed text-book protectionism
  - artimaeis 8y ago
    How does the level of locking of the Apple App store on iOS or Mac OS insulate Apple from outside competition the likes of Samsung, Google, Huawei, etc? Edit: In fact, doesn't the locked-down state of the hardware actually encourage competitors to release their own products? Anti-consumer could be valid here, but anti-competitive just doesn't seem correct.

ocdtrekkie 8y ago

It's hard to even characterize the level of impact a case like this could have. For years, the tech industry has understood that the key to success is to control the platform, and then get other developers building on and generating income for your platform. Imagine the sheer number of businesses that may have their business model blown apart by this. If a company is ruled against on having their own app store on their own OS on their own devices, when they aren't even a monopoly-level player in the larger market, this will blow apart nearly any app store model out there. I'll, uh, get my popcorn ready.

hungerstrike 8y ago
Apple is a monopoly level player in the United States because they have close to 50% of the market with their smart phone operating system at ~45% - https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-share-held-by-smartphone-platforms-in-the-united-states/#0 https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-share-held... You don’t need a strict majority market share to be considered a monopoly in our legal system.
simion314 8y ago
> this will blow apart nearly any app store model out there. But on OSX you have an app store and you can side load applications, so you can have them both.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  OS X and Windows will probably be okay because the "default" is to install outside the store. It's not really considered "sideloading". But most other platforms with single-source app stores will be in trouble.
  - simion314 8y ago
    Why the default is important in this case, if the device owner can enable side loading in an easy way then I am okay with a secure default. Hopefully some progress is made and OSX and Windows remain unlocked even if MS and Apple are slowly pushing in the other direction.

mnm1 8y ago

If the Apple app store isn't a monopoly I don't know what is. These kind of practices make Microsoft's anti trust practices from the 90's look like child's play. I hope the Supreme Court doesn't fall for their bullshit lies about security being the reason for this setup but I doubt any of the justices will even understand the case properly, let alone make intelligent decisions.

s73v3r_ 8y ago
Because Android and it's various stores exist, and have fairly good marketshare? Remember, the market isn't defined as "iOS apps", it's "mobile apps".
- mark212 8y ago
  actually at this stage of this litigation, the market is defined as whatever the plaintiff says it is. Because the issue here is standing to sue. The case will get to the definition of relevant market later on, assuming this standing hurdle is resolved in favor of the plaintiff consumers. But I do agree with you on the merits. The relevant market ought to be mobile apps generally, not iOS apps. That's just not the question for which the US Supreme Court granted certiorari (as other comments have pointed out).
Jtsummers 8y ago
Microsoft had something like a 97% marketshare. Apple is nowhere near that. They spent $1 billion to market a free product in order to eliminate or undermine a competitor (Netscape). They threatened hardware vendors with increased licensing fees if they sold non-Windows PCs (this helped kill BeOS and held back some efforts on selling Linux to consumers as well). MS did all of this and got away with it because of their marketshare. Without it, they wouldn't have gotten nearly as far as they did in these behaviors. Apple isn't in the same position, at all.
- berthe 8y ago
  >> If the Apple app store isn't a monopoly I don't know what is. > Microsoft had something like a 97% marketshare. Apple is nowhere near that. Whether a company is a monopoly or not seems to depend a lot how the market in question is defined, for instance: Apple has a 100% marketshare in the distribution of iOS apps. Monopoly-era AT&T had far less than a 100% marketshare in electricity-powered devices.

dang 8y ago

Url changed from https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/18/17474760/apple-app-store-ios-supreme-court-lawsuit-hearing-pepper https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/18/17474760/apple-app-store-..., which points to this.

DannyBee 8y ago

The issue here is very different than people seem to think. The supreme court granted cert on one question: "Whether consumers may sue for antitrust damages anyone who delivers goods to them, even where they seek damages based on prices set by third parties who would be the immediate victims of the alleged offense." (This is apple's statement of the question, and thus necessarily is tilted in how they see things) The petition summary has more details and is quite short: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/17-204-petition.pdf http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/17-204-... There is a circuit split on this issue, which is likely why the supreme court took it. It's mostly about indirect purchasers vs direct purchasers. Indirect purchasers cannot sue, only direct purchasers can, mainly because it's really hard to apportion damages properly. The previous major case on distribution monopolization was an eight circuit case about ticketmaster, Campos v. Ticketmaster Corp, https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-8th-circuit/1097030.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-8th-circuit/1097030.html. Section II of that opinion is a fairly readable rundown of the issue of direct vs indirect purchasing and who gets to sue. Ticketmaster held that people paying greater distribution fees to ticketmaster as a result of their monopoly could not sue, as they are indirect purchasers. The ninth circuit, in the apple case, held differently, holding that apple was selling directly to consumers, regardless of whether app developers got to set price. The opinion, which is also quite readable, is here: https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20170112133 https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20170112133. Again, i'd just read the part starting with "plaintiffs are direct purchasers" Personally, i think the dissent in ticketmaster (and the ninth circuit) got it right. This is also what the ninth circuit explicitly says. In these models, only the people at the bottom make sense as the people to sue, as when you control distribution carefully like this, they are the only injured party.

dcow 8y ago
I think it would be interesting if the court looked at who signs the software being purchased, from a digital security and ownership perspective. When you purchase an app from the App Store you are purchasing Apple's software. It's no longer signed by the original developer. If the court held Apple to the model they've deployed for their ecosystem, that could have interesting ramifications on the means by which Apple locks its platform down.

debt 8y ago

Apps are extremely tricky. The 30% does seem like a lot but if you consider a few things: Apple is providing an instantaneous, global distribution network. Save your ability to market the app, you can effectively guarantee the same experience across billions of disparate devices. The open web can not provide the same piece of mind in terms of security to the end user. The app vetting process isn't free. Apple is ensuring quality within the App Store. Bad apps still get past Apple's vetting rules and are retroactively denied all the time. This creates extremely a strong sense of trust between the customer and Apple. Consumers become less and less risk-averse when it comes to downloading new apps from the App Store. Again, I'd argue this runs counter to the open web due to its long history of leaks, hacks, privacy violations, phishing attempts, etc. The Apple App Store currently has the highest bar for an "open" ecosystem of independently-developed software. Apple provides the service of the App Store at its own expense. The App Store has pulled in $100BB over 10 years which is great, but I'm sure they'd turn it off in a heartbeat if it consistently caused serious security breaches within the phone. Tim Cook has gone on record so many times about the personal and private nature of the phone. Whether it's possible or not for a rogue app to circumvent Apple's numerous security safeguards is irrelevant as security is a policy Apple takes extremely seriousl; maybe to their own detriment. Apple has a history of providing basic, free alternatives to apps that monopolize particular verticals within the App Store. Calculator, Flashlight, the various flavors of Timer functionality, the new ARKit Ruler app, etc. I don't view these Apple-provided apps as akin to drug stores offering basic alternatives to things like Tylenol etc. it's good for the overall App market economy as it should stem the rise of local monopolies. Ironically, the only app in which Apple does not offer an alternative is the App Store. The App Store isn't an alternative, it's simply the only way to download apps. I do see a future where phones will have a heavily-reduced version of iOS that offers a small subset of Apple-created apps without the App Store. The numbers don't lie, most iPhone users do not download apps, or only download less than 10 apps over the lifetime of the phone. At the end of the day, apps must be vetted for quality because Apple has a brand to maintain. They simply can't allow apps that seriously compromise the performance of the phone or the privacy of the data on it. It's not within the realm of an allowable reality as per Apple policy. The 30% taken by Apple may be eclipsed by the App Store ad revenue. I assume they'll greatly reduce the 30% cut moving forward as the App Store ad revenue increases.