57 ms·

Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

448 points by CWSZ 7y ago

Jorge1o1 7y ago
Wow! 5-4 decision, but overall a big win for the consumer. Apple’s legal team is having a really rough year
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
mmastrac 7y ago
For those confused like me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Pepper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Pepper > Apple filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court in August 2017, posing the question "whether consumers may sue anyone who delivers goods to them for antitrust damages, even when they seek damages based on prices set by third parties who would be the immediate victims of the alleged offense". The Court agreed to hear the case in June 2018.[8] Oral arguments were held on November 26.[9] [10] Court observers stated that the four liberal Justices were joined by three of the conservative ones, Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, as to side with consumers on the question of standing.[11] Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated that Apple's practice creates a closed loop that impacts the price paid by consumers.[12] Justice Neil Gorsuch considered that the prior decision from Illinois Brick may need to be overturned at the federal level, as at least 30 states have rejected the Illinois Brick doctrine.[12] > The Court issued its 5-4 decision on May 13, 2019, affirming the Ninth Circuit's decision that consumers did have standing under Illinois Brick to sue Apple for antitrust practices. Justice Bret Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, stated that under the test of Illinois Brick, consumers were directly affected by Apple's fee and were not secondary purchasers, that consumers could sue Apple directly since it was Apple's fee that affected the prices of the apps, and that while the structure for any damages that consumers may win in the continuing suit may be complicated, this is not a factor to determine the standing of the suit. Kavanaugh was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. The decision remanded the class-action case to continue in lower courts, though did not rule on any of the antitrust factors otherwise at the center of the case.
jcranmer 7y ago
For those who don't want to read the opinion: SCOTUS holds that Apple can be sued for alleged monopoly of the Apple App Store. It does not decide whether or not this alleged monopoly exist. Interestingly, it's a 5-4 decision, with Kavanaugh writing the decision, joined by the 4 liberal justices. Probably the most unexpected alignment of the current term!
- charliemil4 7y ago
  Edit: friends, apologies for upsetting... first, I find the accusations horrendous. I am more just amused that K chose to write the opinion. Politics is a funny game. It’s hard to swallow, but we need a third constitutional convention because this stuff is wrecked in the us.
  - davidu 7y ago
    Prior to the confirmation insanity, Kavanaugh was viewed as one of the best supreme court justice nominations for all sides. All the confirmation hearings did was potentially radicalize him to the right. One of the best things about being a supreme court judge is that he no longer has to care about being reappointed or elected. He's not doing damage control, he's just being a supreme court judge.
    - beart 7y ago
      > Kavanaugh was viewed as one of the best supreme court justice nominations for all sides What is this based on? Everything I've read up to today, even ignoring the confirmation events, has indicated that Kavanaugh is not a desirable choice for those on the left side of the political spectrum.
      - davidu 7y ago
        My understanding is that when compared to alternative, qualified, right-leaning candidates, he was the most moderate. This is just based on people I know who have worked with him and tried cases in front of him.
cabaalis 7y ago
Am I reading correctly that this argument has now been going on for 8 years, or at minimum nearly 6? [1] An argument about who I am buying from when I type my credit card into Apple's system, click a purchase button on an Apple device, and then use the results of that purchase solely on Apple devices? [1] https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-204 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-204
- randyrand 7y ago
  2/3 of those are true for every purchase you make on your phone. 3/3 of those are true for some digital products like amazon kindle books even where you buy from amazon, not apple. Or put another way, those are therefor clearly not the correct questions to be asking.
  - filoleg 7y ago
    I think that’s why you cannot buy kindle books from the amazon app on iOS.
- bluGill 7y ago
  Not surprising. The supreme court typically takes a long time to get involved with anything. They are the final word, so they must get it right. Thus they want lots of other lawyers and judges to spend time coming up with all arguments and working out all angles. The worst possible thing would be for them to issue a final ruling, only to realize they are wrong because of some line of reasoning nobody had thought of. In short, by taking 8 years, many smart people have spent 8 years thinking about the issue. There is a good chance that nobody will think of a different argument that is compelling. Unfortunately law is not math. There are no fundamental truths to start from. It is a matter of conflicting opinions. We will never be sure that they are right or wrong, but at least they carefully considered their decision trying to get it right.
  - Gene_Parmesan 7y ago
    That's not why they took 8 years at all. You just pulled this out of your ass? Or...? It took 8 years because of the long, complicated procedural history -- complaints filed, motions to dismiss, appeals to decisions re: motions to dismiss, re-filed complaints, re-filed motions to dismiss, re-filed appeals to decisions re: motions to dismiss, and you get the point. The Supreme Court can't hear a case until they have jurisdiction. Generally, that means the case has to be heard by the District Court, then heard under appeal by the Court of Appeals for the relevant circuit, and only then can the process to request cert begin. Furthermore, there generally has to be some "split" between circuits in order for SCOTUS to hear a case -- in other words, the case presents some sort of conflict in federal law, with certain circuits holding one way and the rest holding another. There are slowdowns at every step because of (a) how busy the courts are (particularly SCOTUS, it's usually around a year from cert request to hearing the case, then another several months before the decision comes out), but also (b) because at each step in a case, us lawyers will appeal every adverse decision we can, which is what you see in this case. But as soon as they can hear the case, they do -- or at least put it on the docket, which (like I said) can be slow moving due to the huge volume of cases where people are requesting cert. You can see the procedural history outlined in the circuit court's opinion -- https://casetext.com/case/schwartz-v-apple-inc-in-re-apple-iphone-antitrust-litig-1 https://casetext.com/case/schwartz-v-apple-inc-in-re-apple-i....
ilarum 7y ago
Essentially, the Supreme Court is letting an antitrust lawsuit against Apple proceed — and it has rejected Apple’s argument that iOS App Store users aren’t really its customers.
- simonh 7y ago
  Not really, no. Apple has two customers in this respect - the developers it provides distribution services to and the consumers that buy the apps. The point in question is which of these two customers has standing to sue on the basis of the specific harm in question. Under US law the answer cannot be both.
  - chadash 7y ago
    > Under US law the answer cannot be both. Do you have a source for this? Reading the decision here it seems like both the developers and the consumers have standing to sue, although for slightly different reasons [0]. [0] from the decision: "Here, some downstream iPhone consumers have sued Apple on a monopoly theory. And it could be that some upstream app developers will also sue Apple on a monopsony theory. In this instance, the two suits would rely on fundamentally different theories of harm and would not assert dueling claims to a “common fund,” as that term was used in Illinois Brick. The consumers seek damages based on the difference between the price they paid and the competitive price. The app developers would seek lost profits that they could have earned in a competitive retail market. Illinois Brick does not bar either category of suit."
    - simonh 7y ago
      I tried to be clear about that. They are not the same “specific harm in question”.
josephjaber 7y ago
Another article for more context. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/11/26/iphone-users-are-taking-apples-app-store-supreme-court-heres-what-it-means/?noredirect=on https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/11/26/iphone-... > iPhone users can sue Apple over “monopolistic” prices in the iOS App Store, prices that a group of consumers allege are driven higher by the commissions Apple charges independent appmakers.
samfisher83 7y ago
delete
- jpmattia 7y ago
  > I am surprised Kavanaugh joined the Liberal block on the vote. I'm not. There is a pretty big cloud of illegitimacy over his head. He needs allies in case the next administration encourages some of the proposed inquiries to proceed.
- protomyth 7y ago
  I think if 30 states hadn't rejected it, the case probably would have had 2 of the 4 switching sides. It does point to the need for some changes to the federal anti-trust laws in the technology era.
lalos 7y ago
Question: How can Apple have a monopoly if a customer can decide to buy a competitor's phone to use as they please (Android, etc). That's where I get lost. The Windows/Netscape made sense since the claim was that Windows dominated the market almost completely (around 90% on those times?). Can I sue any other hardware device company (smart fridges, smart tvs, rokus) for monopoly since I can't load my own apps on them? Anyways, having an alternate app store on iOS sounds good to me.
- DannyBee 7y ago
  This is specifically about the app store. Antitrust is all about defining markets (which lots of people at HN don't get). How the court defines the market will decide whether you win or lose in almost all cases. Here, this is a case about the app store. The market was defined as consumers of apple phones who use the app store. In that market, apple is clearly a monopolist. In some larger or smaller market, they may not be.
  - lalos 7y ago
    Thanks for that pointer, this seems to a good read for more info on defining markets. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/atr/legacy/2012/08/22/286279.pdf https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/atr/legacy/2012/...
  - hestefisk 7y ago
    Very helpful thanks.
  - conanbatt 7y ago
    Lke Thiel says, if you have a monopoly you define yourself as "part of the industry software" to dilute the actual monopolistic position
- ltbarcly3 7y ago
  To my understanding, anti-trust laws are generally designed to discourage the ability of companies to use success in one area to capture customers and thus have monopolistic pricing ability in another area. In this case I think it is going to be a hard sell to demonstrate an anti-trust issue, but "A vertical arrangement may violate the antitrust laws, however, if it reduces competition among firms at the same level (say among retailers or among wholesalers) or prevents new firms from entering the market."[1] I think claiming that Apple has some kind of monopoly on the smartphone market is a nonstarter, since they are well below 50% of the smartphone market in every country, including the US. It's not clear that Apple's policies reduce competition among firms at the application creator level. However, Apples policies clearly do prevent new firms from entering the market. For example, Apple has explicit rules forbidding entire classes of apps that it believes compete with it's own services. I think you might be able to make the following case, although the lack of an actual monopoly makes it more difficult (but not impossible) to frame it as an anti-trust issue: The levels of this vertical integration are 1. selling phone hardware 2. providing phone operating systems 3. reselling of applications (app stores) 4. production and sale of applications (app developers). Apple doesn't allow competing app stores at all on the hardware it sells, so it's clearly using it's control of a large segment of the smartphone hardware selling market in a way that discourages competition in the application store market. [1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/dealings-supply-chain https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
DannyBee 7y ago
I wrote comments on this case here in the past, and not gonna rewrite them, so here is the TL;DR: This was not unexpected but precedent was on Apple's side. Apple was basically playing the "whoa, we don't sell apps, we just make an app store. They buy apps from the developers" card. This is technically true. In that situation, Illinois Brick/etc would normally say consumers cannot sue you, only app developers can. Most of the reasoning in those decisions is around how hard it is to calculate damages, etc. However, the court refused to buy it. The abstract they give is pretty easy to understand: "Second, Apple’s theory is not persuasive economically or legally. It would draw an arbitrary and unprincipled line among retailers based on their financial arrangements with their manufacturers or suppliers. And it would permit a consumer to sue a monopolistic retailer when the retailer set the retail price by marking up the price it had paid the manufacturer or supplier for the good or service but not when the manufacturer or supplier set the retail price and the retailer took a commission on each sale. Third, Apple’s theory would provide a roadmap for monopolistic retailers to structure transactions with manufacturers or suppliers so as to evade antitrust claims by consumers and thereby thwart effective antitrust enforcement. "
- pentae 7y ago
  > Apple was basically playing the "whoa, we don't sell apps, we just make an app store. They buy apps from the developers" card. This is technically true. How is it technically true? Apple collects the payment and takes a cut. Yes, the developer gets to set their prices, but I don't see this as any different to manufacturers of products setting their cost price for retailers, who then go and apply their markup to it.
  - DannyBee 7y ago
    It's technically true because there is no real intermediary in apple's case (the "retailer" in your example). It's illusory. (this is also what the court found) Also keep in mind that various kinds of price fixing by manufacturers (IE forcing retailers to sell at a certain price) are also subject to antitrust arguments. It's simply no longer "per-se" illegal. For a long time, the precedent was that various forms of price fixing and price maintenance were illegal on their face. YOu didn't have to prove it hurt anyone, only that it existed. They are now subject to rule of reason analysis (basically, balancing of harms). The reason such lawsuits are uncommon is not because the price fixing is okay, but because it is incredibly expensive and time consuming to litigate for a very uncertain outcome :)
simonh 7y ago
For those downvoting bitwize, get a life. This is an accurate and impartial explanation of the arguments actually at stake in the legal case, clarifying an ambiguity in the post it's replying to. Apple has two possible customers in this issue - the developers it provides distribution services to and the consumers that buy the apps. The point in question is which of these two customers has standing to sue on the basis of the specific harm in question. Under US law the answer cannot be both.
- DannyBee 7y ago
  It looks like there is a tremendous amount of downvoting of simple factual info in this thread, unfortunately (the subjective opinions, sure, whatever)
  - ckastner 7y ago
    I've noticed with my own posts that some people here tend to downvote purely factual information simply because they find it unpleasant. Although that usually happens on some of the more controversial topics (and much more frequently on weekends, IMO). This post isn't really controversial...
    - CivilianZero 7y ago
      You can count on anything about Apple to be considered controversial, especially if it's not a blanket and unconditional bashing of Apple, even if what you say isn't even positive towards Apple.
      - ipsum2 7y ago
        Hardly, Apple is held as a bastion of privacy and freedom of speech, even if that isn't really necessarily true.
    - shawnz 7y ago
      I don't think it's wrong to downvote unpleasant-but-true posts if it appears that the author's intention was strictly to be provocational. Clearly that's not the case here though
kbf 7y ago
How can Apple’s App Store prices be monopolistic if the App Store has driven software prices so low that a lot of developers are having a hard time making money? Before the App Store, software licenses for Mac software could be priced in the $40-$70 range for software that might have had feature parity with what you get in a $3-$10 app on iOS these days. That’s not even taking into account the fact that paying for a new version of a piece of software used to be the norm, but on iOS, you buy the app once and expect updates for free forever.
- sethhochberg 7y ago
  Nobody has ruled on whether the practices are actually monopolistic or not - this ruling just allows a suit against Apple to proceed, which will then make that determination about their business practices. The debate in this case was all about whether the end user was Apple's customer (thus able to sue Apple directly) or the developer's customer.
  - criddell 7y ago
    There's nothing illegal about having a monopoly, is there? Don't you have to abuse that power before regulators step in?
    - analognoise 7y ago
      Notably Walmart has been examined for as a monopoly but because in every case that was examined they decreased prices to consumers, no action was taken. I hate that they use federal money to subsidize their workforce' paychecks (non-living wages, supplemented by food stamps), but...they're great for the consumer.
      - notfromhere 7y ago
        the consumer price standard is a pretty poor metric for monopoly. You can thank Bork of Watergate fame for that one.
      - 7y ago
fastball 7y ago
It would be nice if people in this thread could stop expressing surprise that Justice Kavanaugh sided the way he did when these people presumably have no idea which way Kavanaugh has decided for similar cases in the past.
- vorpalhex 7y ago
  This is flippant and non-helpful. If you disagree with how his record is characterized, then please post counter examples. But let me post the following: + Rejected challenges to NSA authority + Rejected workers rights to picket + Opinionated diverting public funds to religion schools + Rejected meat labeling requirements + Repeatedly restricted the EPA https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/09/brett-kavanaugh-track-record-675294 https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/09/brett-kavanaugh-tr... Kavanaugh is highly anti-consumer. That he's sided with consumers in this case is very surprising to me.
  - ff317 7y ago
    None of your examples are about how he looks at the particular issues in this case though. You've arbitrarily grouped this case with the several others above by putting them all on an axis of whether he's anti-consumer or pro-consumer. You may choose to perceive justices on these ideological axes, but these ideological axes are probably not what determines how they vote, even if there are sometimes strong correlations.
    - vorpalhex 7y ago
      It doesn't matter the theory driving his votes, it matters the outcome. If you vote against say, civil rights, because you have some super-nuanced view about how the court can or can not be involved in respect to state politics, you're still propping up Jim Crow laws. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
      - forrestthewoods 7y ago
        > The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I strongly agree. To focus on preferred outcomes rather than strong first principles is a good intention on the path to hell.
chirau 7y ago
Is this not similar to when you buy an item from a department store? When you buy a jacket from say, Tommy Hilfiger, in Macy's.. . who are you buying from?
- 0_gravitas 7y ago
  But this isnt as easy as Steam vs Epic, Apple is the only "department store" on their platform, it's like if McDonalds took over every restaurant in the country- you can order whatever you want from the menu, but you're in their power.
  - cmorgan31 7y ago
    Hmm, might be more apt to say you purchased an Apple self driving car whose GPS only takes you to places apple approved and listed. It doesn’t let you drive and it doesn’t let you input your own destination but it’s pretty damn cute looking and it’s pretty safe. You can choose to use another method to reach similar destinations so long as it’s not Apple. You lose your choice by accepting the perceived benefits of the platform. The end users are the ones who can sue Apple if this ends up being ruled a monopoly.
    - bduerst 7y ago
      That's still anticompetitive if the 'approved' Apple list excludes competition. It's like the right to repair - just because you bought the car from a certain manufacturer doesn't mean you can only repair it at the 'licensed' dealer.
- oflannabhra 7y ago
  It is similar, but not identical. A department store buys physical goods from a vendor, and then sells them to consumers. An App Store provides distribution and payment services to vendors and consumers. For a department store, it is very clear that you are buying from the department store. They own the physical goods at the time of sale. For an App Store, most people would agree that the Store does not own the digital goods they are selling to consumers. So, while a superficially similar transaction occurs, both the nature of digital goods and the difference between goods and services makes for pretty vast differences under the surface.
cwoolfe 7y ago
As an app developer, I'm not a fan of apple taking a 30% or 15% cut. It's is possible to get around by offering the app for free and then using a third party payment processor to allow users to purchase or subscribe to a service your app provides. The way I see it, developers have that choice to charge the "expensive, easy way" using Apple's platform, or the "more profitable but harder way" using a third party.
- cullenking 7y ago
  You cannot do this. I run a website and mobile app ecosystem, which started as a website with standard credit card billing. If you want to mention that you have a website, or link to the website, you must provide every option the website has for purchasing, in your app, using apple's payment system. There is one exception, which is for physical goods/services, see Lyft and the like. Sorry, but you have to take the 30% hit, or you can't mention your website, and you certainly can't put in a third party payment system. You'll get booted fast, or, won't even make it in the door when they review your app.
  - danesparza 7y ago
    Interesting. I suppose the distinguishing factor with apps like Amazon or Home Depot is they deal in physical goods?
    - holy_city 7y ago
      I'm pretty sure the distinguishing factor is that Apple takes a cut of all revenue that passes through the app. That was the beef Spotify had at least.
      - danesparza 7y ago
        Hmmm ... see the other comment to my post. It sounds like this isn't entirely true. Certain apps like Amazon.com don't have to pay Apple 30% -- I buy plenty of physical goods with the Amazon app, but 30% of those sales don't go to Apple.
elamje 7y ago
What is a reasonable time frame for an antitrust lawsuit to conclude in? Now that the consumers have the legal ability to sue, how long could this take, considering that it took 8 years to get to this point?
0_gravitas 7y ago
Now I'm not in the apple ecosystem personally so I don't know, but are there other "store fronts" that serve the apple ecosystem, or is Apple store the only one?
- m-p-3 7y ago
  Since nobody answered and downvoted, all apps needs to be submitted to the App Store and be downloaded from there exclusively, and all payments, even subscriptions that are made through the app, needs to go through Apple. Some providers like Netflix and Spotify are deliberately not offering the option to subscribe through the iOS app to avoid paying the Apple tax currently at 30%, and for subscriptions I believe the cut is reduced if the user is subscribed for a certain period of time.
lqet 7y ago
How are these documents typeset?
8347mr 7y ago
The dissent's opinion is very weird. All of the justices agree that developers are suppliers, Apple is the seller, and the consumers are the buyers. They all implicitly agree that buyers have standing to sue sellers who illegally use a monopoly to overcharge the buyer. But - somehow - that is no longer true if the seller also overcharges their supplier. Then the dissent says that any harm is "passed-through" the supplier. Huh? The buyer isn't buying from the supplier, they're buying from the seller. If any harm passes from the seller to a supplier, then the only way for it to get back to the buyer is for it to then flow back through the seller to the buyer. AKA the overcharge is still coming from the seller.
sgjohnson 7y ago
I don’t think it’ll go anywhere. How is it any different from what Sony is doing with the PlayStation store or Microsoft with Xbox?
- intopieces 7y ago
  Those two stores are not the exclusive avenue for customers to play games. Developers may choose to bypass those stores altogether and release their games on disc if they choose.
  - sgjohnson 7y ago
    Good point.
  - amdavidson 7y ago
    Aren't all PS4 discs AES signed? I believe that (barring a hacked system) there is no side loading of games that aren't Sony-blessed.
    - intopieces 7y ago
      Sony blesses them, but the ways in which a consumer can obtain those blessed discs is much more varied than the App Store, and Sony doesn’t oversee the sale of discs. You can’t rent or borrow apps, can’t resell them, can’t trade them...
cfarm 7y ago
I'm so confused how this is a monopoly. Buy an Android device.
intopieces 7y ago
If Apple were to be required to allow third party App Stores or side loading apps, could it legally deny interoperability with Apple services as a “security measure,” like a sandbox? For example, you can download a game, but it won’t hook into their gaming social network. No ability to share in iMessage, or sync data to iCloud. Basically cripple the apps so that for the end user it isn’t worth saving the money on the apps that don’t have the 30% markup.
- hmage 7y ago
  In my experience, if there's an option to ask same price everywhere, sellers will do that. So on app store it will cost (for example) 4.99$, and on third party app store without 30% cut, the developers will still set the price of 4.99$. The only kind of place I've seen prices less than MSRP is discount stores like cdkeys. For example, try to find microsoft windows that costs less than MSRP -- on all stores, first party and third party, the price will be the same. So, lack of 30% markup is very unlikely to reduce the final asking price by 30%.
  - intopieces 7y ago
    If this is the case, I see no particular reason to go through the hassle of a 3rd party App Store or side loading on iPhone. But, my time vs $ saved equation is different from lots of people, so I suppose it would appeal to some users at even a 10% discount or less.
- ThatPlayer 7y ago
  I'm sure both the developers and the consumers will still choose to use the sideloaded app depending on the app. Look at how Fortnite on Android skipped the entire Google Play Store because they can provide the entire infrastructure themselves anyways. Or apps that get denied from the Apple App Store. Emulators come to mind, but also the recent Steam Link app is still not allowed on the App Store.
sbr464 7y ago
Details: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-204 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-204 Link to Oral Argument Audio: https://apps.oyez.org/player/#/roberts10/oral_argument_audio/24778 https://apps.oyez.org/player/#/roberts10/oral_argument_audio...
theshrike79 7y ago
So I could now sue Microsoft because I can only buy XBox games from their store? Or Sony, because they are the only vendor of Playstation games?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- pier25 7y ago
  It's all relative, but I don't think a game console can be compared to a general purpose pocket computer. Even Apple has been marketing the iPad as a laptop replacement.
- dodobirdlord 7y ago
  > So I could now sue Microsoft because I can only buy XBox games from their store? Yes, though I have no idea if you would win. This decision doesn't decide that Apple has a monopoly or that Apple is abusing a monopoly. It decides that the end-user purchasers of apps on the app store are Apple's customers, not customers of the app developer only. It follows that they are entitled to raise a suit that Apple is abusing monopoly powers in a way that harms them. Whether Apple has a monopoly, and if so, whether Apple is abusing that monopoly both remain to be decided. (My guess is neither.)
- sjy 7y ago
  Would it be a bad thing for society if the antitrust laws were interpreted in this way? Why should these hardware vendors be allowed to exercise control over the software their customers run? Personally I think that open platforms are socially important, and I'm concerned that voting with my wallet isn't enough to protect and nurture them. Most people don't have the time, knowledge or interest to think about open vs closed platforms when they make purchasing decisions, and I think law is an appropriate solution to this market failure.
dlandis 7y ago
> In this case, unlike in Illinois Brick, the iPhone owners are not consumers at the bottom of a vertical distribution chain who are attempting to sue manufacturers at the top of the chain. There is no intermediary in the distribution chain between Apple and the consumer. The iPhone owners purchase apps directly from the retailer Apple, who is the alleged antitrust violator. The iPhone owners pay the alleged overcharge directly to Apple. The absence of an intermediary is dispositive. Key paragraph from opinion.
swedish_mafia 7y ago
Try to understand: Kavanugh and the people he is aligned with are like that incompetent manager in your office who took your successful project using their influence. Now they want to shake down Apple. After that google just watch.
pier25 7y ago
What excites me most about this is being able to test on iOS devices without all the Apple signing paranoia and having more browser engines on iOS.
dang 7y ago
The opinion is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-204_bq7d.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-204_bq7d.pdf. (That was the posted URL, but it's usually best to find the highest-quality popular article on a story and then include a link to the "paper" in the thread. If anyone finds a better URL we can change it again—I just Googled until I found something that wasn't too annoying.)
- Kye 7y ago
  SCOTUSBlog is my go-to source for all SCOTUS news and discussion. https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/05/opinion-analysis-divided-court-allows-antitrust-lawsuit-against-apple-to-continue/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/05/opinion-analysis-divided-...
  - remarkEon 7y ago
    The audio overlay with the transcript is always amazing. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-204 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-204
    - ZeikJT 7y ago
      That was amazing. Never knew this kind of resource existed, thanks!
      - remarkEon 7y ago
        The best part is how the headshot of the Justice is highlighted when he or she is speaking. It's great. Since there are no cameras allowed in the Supreme Court (thank God), this is I think the best approximation there is. June is right around the corner too, so there will be plenty more to go through soon.
- jessriedel 7y ago
  Agree with Kye. In general, SCOTUSblog is a vastly better source on all Supreme Court cases than any traditional news site.
naravara 7y ago
I'm going to love reading the amicus briefs that Google and Amazon will surely file.
abduhl 7y ago
Oral arguments can be heard here https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-204 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-204 A non-PDF version of the opinions can be found through that link or at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/587/17-204/#tab-opinion-4093561 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/587/17-204/#tab-... (which is at that link)
GeekyBear 7y ago
This would be an example of a class action lawsuit and not an antitrust lawsuit, no? Antitrust lawsuits are brought by the government itself, not consumers. For example, Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Incorporated or United States vs. Microsoft Corporation.
- sjy 7y ago
  Whether it's an antitrust suit depends on whether the plaintiff is suing under the antitrust laws, not whether the plaintiff is the government. "Any person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws may sue therefor in any district court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides": https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/15 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/15
pankajdoharey 7y ago
I am having hardtime understanding if this can even be called a monopoly? Assume there is a Amart if it lets other vendors sell their products in its store on the condition that there is a small price they have to pay in order to put their products on its shelves in return they dont need to pay rent and they get the benefit of customers who love to shop at Amart could this be considered a monopoly? Also who is responsible if there is a defect in the product? the vendor of the said product or Amart?
- Kye 7y ago
  I can go somewhere else to buy potatoes if I don't like how one store handles them. An iPhone owner can't go off to the Microsoft, Google, or Amazon stores if they don't like the version in the Apple store. They have a monopoly on apps for iOS devices.
  - pankajdoharey 7y ago
    Well with that logic, i you own a Ford Truck and you dont like their service can you go to Honda service center? the app store.
    - hxegon 7y ago
      you can go to an independent mechanic, or a different ford service center.
      - pankajdoharey 7y ago
        Well you can install alternative app stores on iOS Devices without jailbreaking. Essentially all you need is a profile for that app store, the entire ecosystem of enterprise Device management in built on this mechanism which provides custom app stores to enterprises.
        chj 7y ago
        No, you can't distribute apps directly to customers. That's why Facebook's certificate got revoked by Apple. [1] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-offered-gift-cards-for-root-level-access-to-ios-users-data/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-...
shmerl 7y ago
Can anyone now blast Apple on anti-trust grounds, for banning competing browsers in their store? When Apple want to sabotage universal adoption of certain technology (such as DASH for video streaming), they can avoid implementing needed components on the client side in their engine, forcing everyone who wants to target iOS (a sizable chunk of the Web market) to support their own technology instead of only something else. So control over the browser engines in the store gives them anti-competitive control which extends way beyond it. It's surprising no one challenged that garbage until now.
- mr_toad 7y ago
  On the one hand I dislike that Safari has a monopoly in iOS, but I fear the alternative is a de-facto monopoly for Chrome, which could be even worse.
  - milkytron 7y ago
    What happened to Firefox?
    - rubidium 7y ago
      It looses everywhere it competes with Chrome... much as I hate to say it.
      - shmerl 7y ago
        It doesn't matter if it can't be even released there. That's the whole point. Apple don't compete on merit, they use monopolistic tactics to ban competition.
        millstone 7y ago
        When Google puts Chrome banners on google.com, and in gmail popups, is that "competing on merit?" How can I run some ads on google.com?
  - 7y ago
3xblah 7y ago
"But Illinois Brick is not a get-out-of-court free card for monopolistic retailers to play anytime that a damages calculation might be complicated." A reference to the American board game "Monopoly" and its "Get out of jail free" card. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_(game) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_(game)
wdn 7y ago
I think this is BS. The developer is not required to release their apps on the Apple platform. The consumers can elect not to buy Apple's product. Now this case can proceed, then what stops consumers or sellers from suing Amazon, eBay or Google Express? They are a monopoly in their own domain. Amazon, for example, charges 15% for sellers fulfilled for every sale. The fee is even higher if the seller elects to be filled by Amazon.
m3kw9 7y ago
Lol, according to the complaint, the 30% fee represent pure profit. That’s a bad line of argument.
EGreg 7y ago
We need open source software to decentralize large corporate app stores.

448 points by CWSZ 7y ago

Jorge1o1 7y ago

Wow! 5-4 decision, but overall a big win for the consumer. Apple’s legal team is having a really rough year

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

mmastrac 7y ago

For those confused like me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Pepper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Pepper > Apple filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court in August 2017, posing the question "whether consumers may sue anyone who delivers goods to them for antitrust damages, even when they seek damages based on prices set by third parties who would be the immediate victims of the alleged offense". The Court agreed to hear the case in June 2018.[8] Oral arguments were held on November 26.[9] [10] Court observers stated that the four liberal Justices were joined by three of the conservative ones, Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, as to side with consumers on the question of standing.[11] Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated that Apple's practice creates a closed loop that impacts the price paid by consumers.[12] Justice Neil Gorsuch considered that the prior decision from Illinois Brick may need to be overturned at the federal level, as at least 30 states have rejected the Illinois Brick doctrine.[12] > The Court issued its 5-4 decision on May 13, 2019, affirming the Ninth Circuit's decision that consumers did have standing under Illinois Brick to sue Apple for antitrust practices. Justice Bret Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, stated that under the test of Illinois Brick, consumers were directly affected by Apple's fee and were not secondary purchasers, that consumers could sue Apple directly since it was Apple's fee that affected the prices of the apps, and that while the structure for any damages that consumers may win in the continuing suit may be complicated, this is not a factor to determine the standing of the suit. Kavanaugh was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. The decision remanded the class-action case to continue in lower courts, though did not rule on any of the antitrust factors otherwise at the center of the case.

jcranmer 7y ago

For those who don't want to read the opinion: SCOTUS holds that Apple can be sued for alleged monopoly of the Apple App Store. It does not decide whether or not this alleged monopoly exist. Interestingly, it's a 5-4 decision, with Kavanaugh writing the decision, joined by the 4 liberal justices. Probably the most unexpected alignment of the current term!

charliemil4 7y ago
Edit: friends, apologies for upsetting... first, I find the accusations horrendous. I am more just amused that K chose to write the opinion. Politics is a funny game. It’s hard to swallow, but we need a third constitutional convention because this stuff is wrecked in the us.
- davidu 7y ago
  Prior to the confirmation insanity, Kavanaugh was viewed as one of the best supreme court justice nominations for all sides. All the confirmation hearings did was potentially radicalize him to the right. One of the best things about being a supreme court judge is that he no longer has to care about being reappointed or elected. He's not doing damage control, he's just being a supreme court judge.
  - beart 7y ago
    > Kavanaugh was viewed as one of the best supreme court justice nominations for all sides What is this based on? Everything I've read up to today, even ignoring the confirmation events, has indicated that Kavanaugh is not a desirable choice for those on the left side of the political spectrum.
    - davidu 7y ago
      My understanding is that when compared to alternative, qualified, right-leaning candidates, he was the most moderate. This is just based on people I know who have worked with him and tried cases in front of him.

cabaalis 7y ago

Am I reading correctly that this argument has now been going on for 8 years, or at minimum nearly 6? [1] An argument about who I am buying from when I type my credit card into Apple's system, click a purchase button on an Apple device, and then use the results of that purchase solely on Apple devices? [1] https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-204 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-204

randyrand 7y ago
2/3 of those are true for every purchase you make on your phone. 3/3 of those are true for some digital products like amazon kindle books even where you buy from amazon, not apple. Or put another way, those are therefor clearly not the correct questions to be asking.
- filoleg 7y ago
  I think that’s why you cannot buy kindle books from the amazon app on iOS.
bluGill 7y ago
Not surprising. The supreme court typically takes a long time to get involved with anything. They are the final word, so they must get it right. Thus they want lots of other lawyers and judges to spend time coming up with all arguments and working out all angles. The worst possible thing would be for them to issue a final ruling, only to realize they are wrong because of some line of reasoning nobody had thought of. In short, by taking 8 years, many smart people have spent 8 years thinking about the issue. There is a good chance that nobody will think of a different argument that is compelling. Unfortunately law is not math. There are no fundamental truths to start from. It is a matter of conflicting opinions. We will never be sure that they are right or wrong, but at least they carefully considered their decision trying to get it right.
- Gene_Parmesan 7y ago
  That's not why they took 8 years at all. You just pulled this out of your ass? Or...? It took 8 years because of the long, complicated procedural history -- complaints filed, motions to dismiss, appeals to decisions re: motions to dismiss, re-filed complaints, re-filed motions to dismiss, re-filed appeals to decisions re: motions to dismiss, and you get the point. The Supreme Court can't hear a case until they have jurisdiction. Generally, that means the case has to be heard by the District Court, then heard under appeal by the Court of Appeals for the relevant circuit, and only then can the process to request cert begin. Furthermore, there generally has to be some "split" between circuits in order for SCOTUS to hear a case -- in other words, the case presents some sort of conflict in federal law, with certain circuits holding one way and the rest holding another. There are slowdowns at every step because of (a) how busy the courts are (particularly SCOTUS, it's usually around a year from cert request to hearing the case, then another several months before the decision comes out), but also (b) because at each step in a case, us lawyers will appeal every adverse decision we can, which is what you see in this case. But as soon as they can hear the case, they do -- or at least put it on the docket, which (like I said) can be slow moving due to the huge volume of cases where people are requesting cert. You can see the procedural history outlined in the circuit court's opinion -- https://casetext.com/case/schwartz-v-apple-inc-in-re-apple-iphone-antitrust-litig-1 https://casetext.com/case/schwartz-v-apple-inc-in-re-apple-i....

ilarum 7y ago

Essentially, the Supreme Court is letting an antitrust lawsuit against Apple proceed — and it has rejected Apple’s argument that iOS App Store users aren’t really its customers.

simonh 7y ago
Not really, no. Apple has two customers in this respect - the developers it provides distribution services to and the consumers that buy the apps. The point in question is which of these two customers has standing to sue on the basis of the specific harm in question. Under US law the answer cannot be both.
- chadash 7y ago
  > Under US law the answer cannot be both. Do you have a source for this? Reading the decision here it seems like both the developers and the consumers have standing to sue, although for slightly different reasons [0]. [0] from the decision: "Here, some downstream iPhone consumers have sued Apple on a monopoly theory. And it could be that some upstream app developers will also sue Apple on a monopsony theory. In this instance, the two suits would rely on fundamentally different theories of harm and would not assert dueling claims to a “common fund,” as that term was used in Illinois Brick. The consumers seek damages based on the difference between the price they paid and the competitive price. The app developers would seek lost profits that they could have earned in a competitive retail market. Illinois Brick does not bar either category of suit."
  - simonh 7y ago
    I tried to be clear about that. They are not the same “specific harm in question”.

josephjaber 7y ago

Another article for more context. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/11/26/iphone-users-are-taking-apples-app-store-supreme-court-heres-what-it-means/?noredirect=on https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/11/26/iphone-... > iPhone users can sue Apple over “monopolistic” prices in the iOS App Store, prices that a group of consumers allege are driven higher by the commissions Apple charges independent appmakers.

samfisher83 7y ago

delete

jpmattia 7y ago
> I am surprised Kavanaugh joined the Liberal block on the vote. I'm not. There is a pretty big cloud of illegitimacy over his head. He needs allies in case the next administration encourages some of the proposed inquiries to proceed.
protomyth 7y ago
I think if 30 states hadn't rejected it, the case probably would have had 2 of the 4 switching sides. It does point to the need for some changes to the federal anti-trust laws in the technology era.

lalos 7y ago

Question: How can Apple have a monopoly if a customer can decide to buy a competitor's phone to use as they please (Android, etc). That's where I get lost. The Windows/Netscape made sense since the claim was that Windows dominated the market almost completely (around 90% on those times?). Can I sue any other hardware device company (smart fridges, smart tvs, rokus) for monopoly since I can't load my own apps on them? Anyways, having an alternate app store on iOS sounds good to me.

DannyBee 7y ago
This is specifically about the app store. Antitrust is all about defining markets (which lots of people at HN don't get). How the court defines the market will decide whether you win or lose in almost all cases. Here, this is a case about the app store. The market was defined as consumers of apple phones who use the app store. In that market, apple is clearly a monopolist. In some larger or smaller market, they may not be.
- lalos 7y ago
  Thanks for that pointer, this seems to a good read for more info on defining markets. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/atr/legacy/2012/08/22/286279.pdf https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/atr/legacy/2012/...
- hestefisk 7y ago
  Very helpful thanks.
- conanbatt 7y ago
  Lke Thiel says, if you have a monopoly you define yourself as "part of the industry software" to dilute the actual monopolistic position
ltbarcly3 7y ago
To my understanding, anti-trust laws are generally designed to discourage the ability of companies to use success in one area to capture customers and thus have monopolistic pricing ability in another area. In this case I think it is going to be a hard sell to demonstrate an anti-trust issue, but "A vertical arrangement may violate the antitrust laws, however, if it reduces competition among firms at the same level (say among retailers or among wholesalers) or prevents new firms from entering the market."[1] I think claiming that Apple has some kind of monopoly on the smartphone market is a nonstarter, since they are well below 50% of the smartphone market in every country, including the US. It's not clear that Apple's policies reduce competition among firms at the application creator level. However, Apples policies clearly do prevent new firms from entering the market. For example, Apple has explicit rules forbidding entire classes of apps that it believes compete with it's own services. I think you might be able to make the following case, although the lack of an actual monopoly makes it more difficult (but not impossible) to frame it as an anti-trust issue: The levels of this vertical integration are 1. selling phone hardware 2. providing phone operating systems 3. reselling of applications (app stores) 4. production and sale of applications (app developers). Apple doesn't allow competing app stores at all on the hardware it sells, so it's clearly using it's control of a large segment of the smartphone hardware selling market in a way that discourages competition in the application store market. [1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/dealings-supply-chain https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...

DannyBee 7y ago

I wrote comments on this case here in the past, and not gonna rewrite them, so here is the TL;DR: This was not unexpected but precedent was on Apple's side. Apple was basically playing the "whoa, we don't sell apps, we just make an app store. They buy apps from the developers" card. This is technically true. In that situation, Illinois Brick/etc would normally say consumers cannot sue you, only app developers can. Most of the reasoning in those decisions is around how hard it is to calculate damages, etc. However, the court refused to buy it. The abstract they give is pretty easy to understand: "Second, Apple’s theory is not persuasive economically or legally. It would draw an arbitrary and unprincipled line among retailers based on their financial arrangements with their manufacturers or suppliers. And it would permit a consumer to sue a monopolistic retailer when the retailer set the retail price by marking up the price it had paid the manufacturer or supplier for the good or service but not when the manufacturer or supplier set the retail price and the retailer took a commission on each sale. Third, Apple’s theory would provide a roadmap for monopolistic retailers to structure transactions with manufacturers or suppliers so as to evade antitrust claims by consumers and thereby thwart effective antitrust enforcement. "

pentae 7y ago
> Apple was basically playing the "whoa, we don't sell apps, we just make an app store. They buy apps from the developers" card. This is technically true. How is it technically true? Apple collects the payment and takes a cut. Yes, the developer gets to set their prices, but I don't see this as any different to manufacturers of products setting their cost price for retailers, who then go and apply their markup to it.
- DannyBee 7y ago
  It's technically true because there is no real intermediary in apple's case (the "retailer" in your example). It's illusory. (this is also what the court found) Also keep in mind that various kinds of price fixing by manufacturers (IE forcing retailers to sell at a certain price) are also subject to antitrust arguments. It's simply no longer "per-se" illegal. For a long time, the precedent was that various forms of price fixing and price maintenance were illegal on their face. YOu didn't have to prove it hurt anyone, only that it existed. They are now subject to rule of reason analysis (basically, balancing of harms). The reason such lawsuits are uncommon is not because the price fixing is okay, but because it is incredibly expensive and time consuming to litigate for a very uncertain outcome :)

simonh 7y ago

For those downvoting bitwize, get a life. This is an accurate and impartial explanation of the arguments actually at stake in the legal case, clarifying an ambiguity in the post it's replying to. Apple has two possible customers in this issue - the developers it provides distribution services to and the consumers that buy the apps. The point in question is which of these two customers has standing to sue on the basis of the specific harm in question. Under US law the answer cannot be both.

DannyBee 7y ago
It looks like there is a tremendous amount of downvoting of simple factual info in this thread, unfortunately (the subjective opinions, sure, whatever)
- ckastner 7y ago
  I've noticed with my own posts that some people here tend to downvote purely factual information simply because they find it unpleasant. Although that usually happens on some of the more controversial topics (and much more frequently on weekends, IMO). This post isn't really controversial...
  - CivilianZero 7y ago
    You can count on anything about Apple to be considered controversial, especially if it's not a blanket and unconditional bashing of Apple, even if what you say isn't even positive towards Apple.
    - ipsum2 7y ago
      Hardly, Apple is held as a bastion of privacy and freedom of speech, even if that isn't really necessarily true.
  - shawnz 7y ago
    I don't think it's wrong to downvote unpleasant-but-true posts if it appears that the author's intention was strictly to be provocational. Clearly that's not the case here though

kbf 7y ago

How can Apple’s App Store prices be monopolistic if the App Store has driven software prices so low that a lot of developers are having a hard time making money? Before the App Store, software licenses for Mac software could be priced in the $40-$70 range for software that might have had feature parity with what you get in a $3-$10 app on iOS these days. That’s not even taking into account the fact that paying for a new version of a piece of software used to be the norm, but on iOS, you buy the app once and expect updates for free forever.

sethhochberg 7y ago
Nobody has ruled on whether the practices are actually monopolistic or not - this ruling just allows a suit against Apple to proceed, which will then make that determination about their business practices. The debate in this case was all about whether the end user was Apple's customer (thus able to sue Apple directly) or the developer's customer.
- criddell 7y ago
  There's nothing illegal about having a monopoly, is there? Don't you have to abuse that power before regulators step in?
  - analognoise 7y ago
    Notably Walmart has been examined for as a monopoly but because in every case that was examined they decreased prices to consumers, no action was taken. I hate that they use federal money to subsidize their workforce' paychecks (non-living wages, supplemented by food stamps), but...they're great for the consumer.
    - notfromhere 7y ago
      the consumer price standard is a pretty poor metric for monopoly. You can thank Bork of Watergate fame for that one.
    - 7y ago

fastball 7y ago

It would be nice if people in this thread could stop expressing surprise that Justice Kavanaugh sided the way he did when these people presumably have no idea which way Kavanaugh has decided for similar cases in the past.

vorpalhex 7y ago
This is flippant and non-helpful. If you disagree with how his record is characterized, then please post counter examples. But let me post the following: + Rejected challenges to NSA authority + Rejected workers rights to picket + Opinionated diverting public funds to religion schools + Rejected meat labeling requirements + Repeatedly restricted the EPA https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/09/brett-kavanaugh-track-record-675294 https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/09/brett-kavanaugh-tr... Kavanaugh is highly anti-consumer. That he's sided with consumers in this case is very surprising to me.
- ff317 7y ago
  None of your examples are about how he looks at the particular issues in this case though. You've arbitrarily grouped this case with the several others above by putting them all on an axis of whether he's anti-consumer or pro-consumer. You may choose to perceive justices on these ideological axes, but these ideological axes are probably not what determines how they vote, even if there are sometimes strong correlations.
  - vorpalhex 7y ago
    It doesn't matter the theory driving his votes, it matters the outcome. If you vote against say, civil rights, because you have some super-nuanced view about how the court can or can not be involved in respect to state politics, you're still propping up Jim Crow laws. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
    - forrestthewoods 7y ago
      > The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I strongly agree. To focus on preferred outcomes rather than strong first principles is a good intention on the path to hell.

chirau 7y ago

Is this not similar to when you buy an item from a department store? When you buy a jacket from say, Tommy Hilfiger, in Macy's.. . who are you buying from?

0_gravitas 7y ago
But this isnt as easy as Steam vs Epic, Apple is the only "department store" on their platform, it's like if McDonalds took over every restaurant in the country- you can order whatever you want from the menu, but you're in their power.
- cmorgan31 7y ago
  Hmm, might be more apt to say you purchased an Apple self driving car whose GPS only takes you to places apple approved and listed. It doesn’t let you drive and it doesn’t let you input your own destination but it’s pretty damn cute looking and it’s pretty safe. You can choose to use another method to reach similar destinations so long as it’s not Apple. You lose your choice by accepting the perceived benefits of the platform. The end users are the ones who can sue Apple if this ends up being ruled a monopoly.
  - bduerst 7y ago
    That's still anticompetitive if the 'approved' Apple list excludes competition. It's like the right to repair - just because you bought the car from a certain manufacturer doesn't mean you can only repair it at the 'licensed' dealer.
oflannabhra 7y ago
It is similar, but not identical. A department store buys physical goods from a vendor, and then sells them to consumers. An App Store provides distribution and payment services to vendors and consumers. For a department store, it is very clear that you are buying from the department store. They own the physical goods at the time of sale. For an App Store, most people would agree that the Store does not own the digital goods they are selling to consumers. So, while a superficially similar transaction occurs, both the nature of digital goods and the difference between goods and services makes for pretty vast differences under the surface.

cwoolfe 7y ago

As an app developer, I'm not a fan of apple taking a 30% or 15% cut. It's is possible to get around by offering the app for free and then using a third party payment processor to allow users to purchase or subscribe to a service your app provides. The way I see it, developers have that choice to charge the "expensive, easy way" using Apple's platform, or the "more profitable but harder way" using a third party.

cullenking 7y ago
You cannot do this. I run a website and mobile app ecosystem, which started as a website with standard credit card billing. If you want to mention that you have a website, or link to the website, you must provide every option the website has for purchasing, in your app, using apple's payment system. There is one exception, which is for physical goods/services, see Lyft and the like. Sorry, but you have to take the 30% hit, or you can't mention your website, and you certainly can't put in a third party payment system. You'll get booted fast, or, won't even make it in the door when they review your app.
- danesparza 7y ago
  Interesting. I suppose the distinguishing factor with apps like Amazon or Home Depot is they deal in physical goods?
  - holy_city 7y ago
    I'm pretty sure the distinguishing factor is that Apple takes a cut of all revenue that passes through the app. That was the beef Spotify had at least.
    - danesparza 7y ago
      Hmmm ... see the other comment to my post. It sounds like this isn't entirely true. Certain apps like Amazon.com don't have to pay Apple 30% -- I buy plenty of physical goods with the Amazon app, but 30% of those sales don't go to Apple.

elamje 7y ago

What is a reasonable time frame for an antitrust lawsuit to conclude in? Now that the consumers have the legal ability to sue, how long could this take, considering that it took 8 years to get to this point?

0_gravitas 7y ago

Now I'm not in the apple ecosystem personally so I don't know, but are there other "store fronts" that serve the apple ecosystem, or is Apple store the only one?

m-p-3 7y ago
Since nobody answered and downvoted, all apps needs to be submitted to the App Store and be downloaded from there exclusively, and all payments, even subscriptions that are made through the app, needs to go through Apple. Some providers like Netflix and Spotify are deliberately not offering the option to subscribe through the iOS app to avoid paying the Apple tax currently at 30%, and for subscriptions I believe the cut is reduced if the user is subscribed for a certain period of time.

lqet 7y ago

How are these documents typeset?

8347mr 7y ago

The dissent's opinion is very weird. All of the justices agree that developers are suppliers, Apple is the seller, and the consumers are the buyers. They all implicitly agree that buyers have standing to sue sellers who illegally use a monopoly to overcharge the buyer. But - somehow - that is no longer true if the seller also overcharges their supplier. Then the dissent says that any harm is "passed-through" the supplier. Huh? The buyer isn't buying from the supplier, they're buying from the seller. If any harm passes from the seller to a supplier, then the only way for it to get back to the buyer is for it to then flow back through the seller to the buyer. AKA the overcharge is still coming from the seller.

sgjohnson 7y ago

I don’t think it’ll go anywhere. How is it any different from what Sony is doing with the PlayStation store or Microsoft with Xbox?

intopieces 7y ago
Those two stores are not the exclusive avenue for customers to play games. Developers may choose to bypass those stores altogether and release their games on disc if they choose.
- sgjohnson 7y ago
  Good point.
- amdavidson 7y ago
  Aren't all PS4 discs AES signed? I believe that (barring a hacked system) there is no side loading of games that aren't Sony-blessed.
  - intopieces 7y ago
    Sony blesses them, but the ways in which a consumer can obtain those blessed discs is much more varied than the App Store, and Sony doesn’t oversee the sale of discs. You can’t rent or borrow apps, can’t resell them, can’t trade them...

cfarm 7y ago

I'm so confused how this is a monopoly. Buy an Android device.

intopieces 7y ago

If Apple were to be required to allow third party App Stores or side loading apps, could it legally deny interoperability with Apple services as a “security measure,” like a sandbox? For example, you can download a game, but it won’t hook into their gaming social network. No ability to share in iMessage, or sync data to iCloud. Basically cripple the apps so that for the end user it isn’t worth saving the money on the apps that don’t have the 30% markup.

hmage 7y ago
In my experience, if there's an option to ask same price everywhere, sellers will do that. So on app store it will cost (for example) 4.99$, and on third party app store without 30% cut, the developers will still set the price of 4.99$. The only kind of place I've seen prices less than MSRP is discount stores like cdkeys. For example, try to find microsoft windows that costs less than MSRP -- on all stores, first party and third party, the price will be the same. So, lack of 30% markup is very unlikely to reduce the final asking price by 30%.
- intopieces 7y ago
  If this is the case, I see no particular reason to go through the hassle of a 3rd party App Store or side loading on iPhone. But, my time vs $ saved equation is different from lots of people, so I suppose it would appeal to some users at even a 10% discount or less.
ThatPlayer 7y ago
I'm sure both the developers and the consumers will still choose to use the sideloaded app depending on the app. Look at how Fortnite on Android skipped the entire Google Play Store because they can provide the entire infrastructure themselves anyways. Or apps that get denied from the Apple App Store. Emulators come to mind, but also the recent Steam Link app is still not allowed on the App Store.

sbr464 7y ago

Details: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-204 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-204 Link to Oral Argument Audio: https://apps.oyez.org/player/#/roberts10/oral_argument_audio/24778 https://apps.oyez.org/player/#/roberts10/oral_argument_audio...

theshrike79 7y ago

So I could now sue Microsoft because I can only buy XBox games from their store? Or Sony, because they are the only vendor of Playstation games?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
pier25 7y ago
It's all relative, but I don't think a game console can be compared to a general purpose pocket computer. Even Apple has been marketing the iPad as a laptop replacement.
dodobirdlord 7y ago
> So I could now sue Microsoft because I can only buy XBox games from their store? Yes, though I have no idea if you would win. This decision doesn't decide that Apple has a monopoly or that Apple is abusing a monopoly. It decides that the end-user purchasers of apps on the app store are Apple's customers, not customers of the app developer only. It follows that they are entitled to raise a suit that Apple is abusing monopoly powers in a way that harms them. Whether Apple has a monopoly, and if so, whether Apple is abusing that monopoly both remain to be decided. (My guess is neither.)
sjy 7y ago
Would it be a bad thing for society if the antitrust laws were interpreted in this way? Why should these hardware vendors be allowed to exercise control over the software their customers run? Personally I think that open platforms are socially important, and I'm concerned that voting with my wallet isn't enough to protect and nurture them. Most people don't have the time, knowledge or interest to think about open vs closed platforms when they make purchasing decisions, and I think law is an appropriate solution to this market failure.

dlandis 7y ago

> In this case, unlike in Illinois Brick, the iPhone owners are not consumers at the bottom of a vertical distribution chain who are attempting to sue manufacturers at the top of the chain. There is no intermediary in the distribution chain between Apple and the consumer. The iPhone owners purchase apps directly from the retailer Apple, who is the alleged antitrust violator. The iPhone owners pay the alleged overcharge directly to Apple. The absence of an intermediary is dispositive. Key paragraph from opinion.

swedish_mafia 7y ago

Try to understand: Kavanugh and the people he is aligned with are like that incompetent manager in your office who took your successful project using their influence. Now they want to shake down Apple. After that google just watch.

pier25 7y ago

What excites me most about this is being able to test on iOS devices without all the Apple signing paranoia and having more browser engines on iOS.

dang 7y ago

The opinion is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-204_bq7d.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-204_bq7d.pdf. (That was the posted URL, but it's usually best to find the highest-quality popular article on a story and then include a link to the "paper" in the thread. If anyone finds a better URL we can change it again—I just Googled until I found something that wasn't too annoying.)

Kye 7y ago
SCOTUSBlog is my go-to source for all SCOTUS news and discussion. https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/05/opinion-analysis-divided-court-allows-antitrust-lawsuit-against-apple-to-continue/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/05/opinion-analysis-divided-...
- remarkEon 7y ago
  The audio overlay with the transcript is always amazing. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-204 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-204
  - ZeikJT 7y ago
    That was amazing. Never knew this kind of resource existed, thanks!
    - remarkEon 7y ago
      The best part is how the headshot of the Justice is highlighted when he or she is speaking. It's great. Since there are no cameras allowed in the Supreme Court (thank God), this is I think the best approximation there is. June is right around the corner too, so there will be plenty more to go through soon.
jessriedel 7y ago
Agree with Kye. In general, SCOTUSblog is a vastly better source on all Supreme Court cases than any traditional news site.

naravara 7y ago

I'm going to love reading the amicus briefs that Google and Amazon will surely file.

abduhl 7y ago

Oral arguments can be heard here https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-204 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-204 A non-PDF version of the opinions can be found through that link or at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/587/17-204/#tab-opinion-4093561 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/587/17-204/#tab-... (which is at that link)

GeekyBear 7y ago

This would be an example of a class action lawsuit and not an antitrust lawsuit, no? Antitrust lawsuits are brought by the government itself, not consumers. For example, Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Incorporated or United States vs. Microsoft Corporation.

sjy 7y ago
Whether it's an antitrust suit depends on whether the plaintiff is suing under the antitrust laws, not whether the plaintiff is the government. "Any person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws may sue therefor in any district court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides": https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/15 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/15

pankajdoharey 7y ago

I am having hardtime understanding if this can even be called a monopoly? Assume there is a Amart if it lets other vendors sell their products in its store on the condition that there is a small price they have to pay in order to put their products on its shelves in return they dont need to pay rent and they get the benefit of customers who love to shop at Amart could this be considered a monopoly? Also who is responsible if there is a defect in the product? the vendor of the said product or Amart?

Kye 7y ago
I can go somewhere else to buy potatoes if I don't like how one store handles them. An iPhone owner can't go off to the Microsoft, Google, or Amazon stores if they don't like the version in the Apple store. They have a monopoly on apps for iOS devices.
- pankajdoharey 7y ago
  Well with that logic, i you own a Ford Truck and you dont like their service can you go to Honda service center? the app store.
  - hxegon 7y ago
    you can go to an independent mechanic, or a different ford service center.
    - pankajdoharey 7y ago
      Well you can install alternative app stores on iOS Devices without jailbreaking. Essentially all you need is a profile for that app store, the entire ecosystem of enterprise Device management in built on this mechanism which provides custom app stores to enterprises.
      - chj 7y ago
        No, you can't distribute apps directly to customers. That's why Facebook's certificate got revoked by Apple. [1] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-offered-gift-cards-for-root-level-access-to-ios-users-data/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-...

shmerl 7y ago

Can anyone now blast Apple on anti-trust grounds, for banning competing browsers in their store? When Apple want to sabotage universal adoption of certain technology (such as DASH for video streaming), they can avoid implementing needed components on the client side in their engine, forcing everyone who wants to target iOS (a sizable chunk of the Web market) to support their own technology instead of only something else. So control over the browser engines in the store gives them anti-competitive control which extends way beyond it. It's surprising no one challenged that garbage until now.

mr_toad 7y ago
On the one hand I dislike that Safari has a monopoly in iOS, but I fear the alternative is a de-facto monopoly for Chrome, which could be even worse.
- milkytron 7y ago
  What happened to Firefox?
  - rubidium 7y ago
    It looses everywhere it competes with Chrome... much as I hate to say it.
    - shmerl 7y ago
      It doesn't matter if it can't be even released there. That's the whole point. Apple don't compete on merit, they use monopolistic tactics to ban competition.
      - millstone 7y ago
        When Google puts Chrome banners on google.com, and in gmail popups, is that "competing on merit?" How can I run some ads on google.com?
- 7y ago

3xblah 7y ago

"But Illinois Brick is not a get-out-of-court free card for monopolistic retailers to play anytime that a damages calculation might be complicated." A reference to the American board game "Monopoly" and its "Get out of jail free" card. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_(game) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_(game)

wdn 7y ago

I think this is BS. The developer is not required to release their apps on the Apple platform. The consumers can elect not to buy Apple's product. Now this case can proceed, then what stops consumers or sellers from suing Amazon, eBay or Google Express? They are a monopoly in their own domain. Amazon, for example, charges 15% for sellers fulfilled for every sale. The fee is even higher if the seller elects to be filled by Amazon.

m3kw9 7y ago

Lol, according to the complaint, the 30% fee represent pure profit. That’s a bad line of argument.

EGreg 7y ago

We need open source software to decentralize large corporate app stores.