5 ms·
Is there a precedent of app stores needing to enforce app restrictions on a state-by-state basis? What if Apple protests and just disables their store in MT? I
by DanAtC 3y ago
Is there a precedent of app stores needing to enforce app restrictions on a state-by-state basis?
What if Apple protests and just disables their store in MT? It would only impact at _most_ 500k people (population 1mm at 50% market share, not accounting for demographics)
A huge number of angry Montanians who might vote their representatives out, but a rounding error for Apple.
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoWhy would Apple do this to help a foreign company? They have nothing to gain except a small amount of app store fees. And they'd piss off a ton of Republican and some Democrat lawmakers, not to mention the 80% of their customers who don't use TikTok. If Apple did do this to help a foreign company (or any company), it would probably fall afoul of the law: https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/dealings-supply-chain/refusal-supply https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui... > A firm's refusal to deal with any other person or company is lawful so long as the refusal is not the product of an anticompetitive agreement with other firms or part of a predatory or exclusionary strategy to acquire or maintain a monopoly. (emphasis mine) IANAL, so I'm sure there are other laws I am not aware of that would squelch such a move.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoThey almost certainly don't want to set the precedent of caving in to a sub-national jurisdiction's bills when they don't even have any business operations in that jurisdiction. Because then every state, province territory, etc., in the world will have an excuse. Since there are App Store users everywhere.
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoThis is what lawsuits are for, not preemptive refusal to do business with an entire state. It's a lot cheaper to code geographic controls (that they already have for national-level jurisdictions) than to only temporarily boycott even only 100k paying App store customers.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoIt's not possible to code sub-national geographic controls without sacrificing markets much bigger then Montana. There's a reason why no company has ever successfully done such a thing for any consumer product.
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoAs long as they do the best they can to comply with the law they would likely be protected from judgement. Courts do not require unreasonable standards of compliance. If phone users turn off their GPS location feature Apple can't be held accountable.
- threeseed 3y agoAs countless developers have learnt over the decades: no app is bigger than Apple. They will never shut down their store because of TikTok. And some people might protest but everyone else will quietly switch to YouTube Shorts and Instagram Reels.
- Jemaclus 3y agoWhile I agree with the "no app is bigger than Apple," I'm not sure the TikTok ban is specifically about TikTok. This opens the door to each state doing similar things for whatever they want -- imagine Alabama banning period-tracking apps or California banning Parler. I'm not convinced Apple or Google want to be in the business of state governments telling them what apps they can and can't sell. Although I do concede that they do this at the country level, so what's one more level of geo-restriction? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- tdaltonc 3y agoSpeaking of precedent, this seems like a pretty straightforward violation of the interstate commerce clause.
- friend_and_foe 3y agoThat's an interesting consideration. So if this were a company headquartered in Montana they could ban it, but if it's headquartered outside of Montana they can't ban it internally? Its a strange conundrum.
- owenmarshall 3y agoThe interstate commerce clause has been stretched enough that even if ByteDance was based in Bozeman, and the Montana government still wanted to ban it for some reason, they might find legal obstacles.