4 ms·

>And if that’s true, then where’s the line between that and “each app you purchase is purchased from its own little stall in this digital mall, which is owned a

>And if that’s true, then where’s the line between that and “each app you purchase is purchased from its own little stall in this digital mall, which is owned and operated by the software author”? Is there one? To use your analogy, the line is if someone can set up their own shop outside the mall. As a consumer, if I have no way to avoid purchasing from a store inside a single mall then I'm effectively purchasing from the mall itself. At least in my opinion. I'm not a lawyer.

Spivak 7y ago
How do you resolve this with the fact that exclusives exist and are tolerated in just about every industry. You can only buy the new Jordan's from X stores, only available on PS4, exclusively at Target, etc. And places that sell things are well within their right to choose their vendors unless you want to demand that the BMV dealership be leglly required to sell Ford trucks if Ford desired. Put exclusivity and vendor selection together and you have a digital app store. Apple doesn't even pretend to be open -- they're a product with licensed 3rd party integrations. On what grounds should they be compelled to be anything else?
- holy_city 7y ago
  Exclusivity deals are pretty complicated under the Sherman/Clayton acts. It's hotly contested - hardly "tolerated in just about every industry." Here are some links: https://www.businessjustice.com/is-exclusive-dealing-illegal-under-the-antitrust-laws.html https://www.businessjustice.com/is-exclusive-dealing-illegal... https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/dealings-supply-chain/exclusive-dealing-or https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a... https://www.theantitrustattorney.com/exclusive-dealing-agreement-violate-antitrust-laws/ https://www.theantitrustattorney.com/exclusive-dealing-agree... That's why this is going to the Supreme Court - we all recognize that the App Store uses exclusive dealing, but it's non-obvious whether or not it's lawful. >And places that sell things are well within their right to choose their vendors unless you want to demand that the BMV dealership be leglly required to sell Ford trucks if Ford desired. Not sure what that has to do with anything. Apple's point was that they aren't selling anything - therefore appstore customers wouldn't have standing to bring an antitrust against them.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  > You can only buy the new Jordan's from X stores, only available on PS4, exclusively at Target, etc. When this matters is when you have a dominant market position. Target doesn't have to sell Nike because you can reasonably buy them at Walmart. Nike doesn't have to sell to Target because Target can reasonably buy from Reebok, which is a reasonable substitute. The issue here is that there is no reasonable substitute for Apple's App Store, because they have made it that way on purpose. You can't sell your iOS app through Walmart or Google Play or Amazon. You can't download it from the developer's website. And you can't run Android apps on iOS devices. So Apple has a dominant position in iOS app distribution, and with that comes the antitrust restrictions that don't apply to competitive markets.
  - esmi 7y ago
    > So Apple has a dominant position in iOS app distribution Is iOS app distribution a thing that can be dominated though, legally? In your example I get how stores and shoes are both things that can be dominated but what category of thing does iOS app distribution fall into? Is it still in the same category if one deletes iOS and just calls it in "app store"? Would Apple still dominate apps? It's all confusing to me. I'm asking sincerely because I honestly don't know.
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      This is getting into market definition, which is kind of complicated and subjective, but one of the key factors is substitution. So for example, is "Clorox bleach" its own market, separate from just "bleach"? Well, no. Clorox bleach is chemically identical to any other bleach. You could switch one for the other and not even be able to tell the difference. On the other hand, is "broadband internet service in Pittsburgh" a different market than just "broadband internet service"? It kind of is. There may be a dozen different ISPs in varying cities across the country, but the prerequisite to using one that doesn't offer service in your city is to sell your house and move somewhere else. That doesn't make it a particularly viable substitute. So then is "iOS app store" a different market than just "app store"? Well, what do you have to do to substitute one for the other? Is it reasonable to have to exchange your $600 phone, or buy a second $600 phone, in order to buy a $1 app from a different store?
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  The argument discussed was literally Apple trying to argue that you aren't their customer for the purpose of legal liability while you pay them money to install apps from their store on a device they configured to only be able to buy from their store. This decision makes clear that legal weasels lost. Understanding next steps requires constructing the argument correctly. One could ask why should Apple be forced to open "their" phone for example. This too would be weasel words because nobody on earth is asking Apple to open the phones in their pockets. A more reasonable person might ask that Apple allow owners to control THEIR OWN PHONES. You ask erroneously if BMW should have to stock ford Trucks. This isn't remotely analogous. This is asking if BMW owners ought to have to go to a BMW gas station, seek repairs only at BMW owned service stations. Listen to BWM approved music on BMW approved stereos. Fundamentally using control of a users device after sale to maximize future revenue is inappropriate and the only remedy is to give users full control.
  - Spivak 7y ago
    Look I want to have full control of my devices but I don't think owning the physical hardware entitles you to any rights other than you may do with the device as-is as you please. If we decide that designing a toaster to only accept $vendor's bread is illegal that's all well and good but the justification for such a law will be that it's monopolistic behavior, not that the end user owns the toaster.
    - moron4hire 7y ago
      It's really hard to prove that a person who paid money for an object in their hand, without an explicit leasing agreement, is not the "owner" of that object. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_is_nine-tenths_of_the_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_is_nine-tenths_of... Without a compelling, court-tested, legal precedent for Apple to claim "you don't own that iPhone in your hand", the assumption is that you do, regardless of what the EULA might say. EULAs that are contrary to standing law are not valid. The fact that one can buy iPhones on the secondary market lends credence to notion that consumers own their devices. And given that Atari and Nintendo both tried, and failed, to make similar arguments against 3rd party software manufacturers, I think it's pretty clear which way the courts would go, if it were to ever be tested. We don't live in a society where corporations get to make up whatever rules they want, as long as they can convince someone to sign on the dotted line.

Spivak 7y ago

How do you resolve this with the fact that exclusives exist and are tolerated in just about every industry. You can only buy the new Jordan's from X stores, only available on PS4, exclusively at Target, etc. And places that sell things are well within their right to choose their vendors unless you want to demand that the BMV dealership be leglly required to sell Ford trucks if Ford desired. Put exclusivity and vendor selection together and you have a digital app store. Apple doesn't even pretend to be open -- they're a product with licensed 3rd party integrations. On what grounds should they be compelled to be anything else?

holy_city 7y ago
Exclusivity deals are pretty complicated under the Sherman/Clayton acts. It's hotly contested - hardly "tolerated in just about every industry." Here are some links: https://www.businessjustice.com/is-exclusive-dealing-illegal-under-the-antitrust-laws.html https://www.businessjustice.com/is-exclusive-dealing-illegal... https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/dealings-supply-chain/exclusive-dealing-or https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a... https://www.theantitrustattorney.com/exclusive-dealing-agreement-violate-antitrust-laws/ https://www.theantitrustattorney.com/exclusive-dealing-agree... That's why this is going to the Supreme Court - we all recognize that the App Store uses exclusive dealing, but it's non-obvious whether or not it's lawful. >And places that sell things are well within their right to choose their vendors unless you want to demand that the BMV dealership be leglly required to sell Ford trucks if Ford desired. Not sure what that has to do with anything. Apple's point was that they aren't selling anything - therefore appstore customers wouldn't have standing to bring an antitrust against them.
AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> You can only buy the new Jordan's from X stores, only available on PS4, exclusively at Target, etc. When this matters is when you have a dominant market position. Target doesn't have to sell Nike because you can reasonably buy them at Walmart. Nike doesn't have to sell to Target because Target can reasonably buy from Reebok, which is a reasonable substitute. The issue here is that there is no reasonable substitute for Apple's App Store, because they have made it that way on purpose. You can't sell your iOS app through Walmart or Google Play or Amazon. You can't download it from the developer's website. And you can't run Android apps on iOS devices. So Apple has a dominant position in iOS app distribution, and with that comes the antitrust restrictions that don't apply to competitive markets.
- esmi 7y ago
  > So Apple has a dominant position in iOS app distribution Is iOS app distribution a thing that can be dominated though, legally? In your example I get how stores and shoes are both things that can be dominated but what category of thing does iOS app distribution fall into? Is it still in the same category if one deletes iOS and just calls it in "app store"? Would Apple still dominate apps? It's all confusing to me. I'm asking sincerely because I honestly don't know.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    This is getting into market definition, which is kind of complicated and subjective, but one of the key factors is substitution. So for example, is "Clorox bleach" its own market, separate from just "bleach"? Well, no. Clorox bleach is chemically identical to any other bleach. You could switch one for the other and not even be able to tell the difference. On the other hand, is "broadband internet service in Pittsburgh" a different market than just "broadband internet service"? It kind of is. There may be a dozen different ISPs in varying cities across the country, but the prerequisite to using one that doesn't offer service in your city is to sell your house and move somewhere else. That doesn't make it a particularly viable substitute. So then is "iOS app store" a different market than just "app store"? Well, what do you have to do to substitute one for the other? Is it reasonable to have to exchange your $600 phone, or buy a second $600 phone, in order to buy a $1 app from a different store?
michaelmrose 7y ago
The argument discussed was literally Apple trying to argue that you aren't their customer for the purpose of legal liability while you pay them money to install apps from their store on a device they configured to only be able to buy from their store. This decision makes clear that legal weasels lost. Understanding next steps requires constructing the argument correctly. One could ask why should Apple be forced to open "their" phone for example. This too would be weasel words because nobody on earth is asking Apple to open the phones in their pockets. A more reasonable person might ask that Apple allow owners to control THEIR OWN PHONES. You ask erroneously if BMW should have to stock ford Trucks. This isn't remotely analogous. This is asking if BMW owners ought to have to go to a BMW gas station, seek repairs only at BMW owned service stations. Listen to BWM approved music on BMW approved stereos. Fundamentally using control of a users device after sale to maximize future revenue is inappropriate and the only remedy is to give users full control.
- Spivak 7y ago
  Look I want to have full control of my devices but I don't think owning the physical hardware entitles you to any rights other than you may do with the device as-is as you please. If we decide that designing a toaster to only accept $vendor's bread is illegal that's all well and good but the justification for such a law will be that it's monopolistic behavior, not that the end user owns the toaster.
  - moron4hire 7y ago
    It's really hard to prove that a person who paid money for an object in their hand, without an explicit leasing agreement, is not the "owner" of that object. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_is_nine-tenths_of_the_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_is_nine-tenths_of... Without a compelling, court-tested, legal precedent for Apple to claim "you don't own that iPhone in your hand", the assumption is that you do, regardless of what the EULA might say. EULAs that are contrary to standing law are not valid. The fact that one can buy iPhones on the secondary market lends credence to notion that consumers own their devices. And given that Atari and Nintendo both tried, and failed, to make similar arguments against 3rd party software manufacturers, I think it's pretty clear which way the courts would go, if it were to ever be tested. We don't live in a society where corporations get to make up whatever rules they want, as long as they can convince someone to sign on the dotted line.