Unfortunately for Apple, I do think the App Store being an exclusive and default way to purchase and load apps on iOS is in fact causing prices of Apps, in many cases, to be higher than they should be.<p>The perfect example of this is the subscription services, right now you can get a cheaper subscription to a service such as Spotify if you buy it off the App Store. That is a prime example of how much the 30% payment to Apple is hurting developers and ultimately consumers... Apple is so upset about this they won’t let developers like Spotify link to buying the subscription on their own website anywhere on the app that is sold through their App Store, if that’s not Monopoly abuse I don’t know what is.<p>As much as I love Apples products I do feel that they have gotten away with a lot here, especially since there is zero other ways to load apps into iOS devices, in the very least consumers are paying 30% more for apps if there was a competing App Store on iOS that charged less to load apps.<p>Edit: whether the Supreme Court will see it this way or not is a whole other issue.
Folks here on HN are (understandably) leaping on the notion that this will force Apple to allow other app stores, or sideloading, or something else that keeps the App Store from being the exclusive distributor of iOS apps. But, a few notes that are important to keep in mind:<p>(1) Apple is the petitioner here. They're the ones asking the Supreme Court to make a ruling, specifically on whether the complainant has the legal standing to bring this case at all.<p>(2) If Apple loses at the Supreme Court, this just gets sent back to a lower court. It's not going to force Apple to do anything at this point.<p>(3) Most importantly, there's no guarantee that if Apple <i>does</i> ultimately lose that the remedy will be opening the iOS ecosystem up to other app stores.<p>The complaint in <i>Apple v. Pepper</i> is literally that Apple's lock on app distribution drives up app prices. If app prices are not being driven up by that lock, the argument has a very good chance of falling apart.<p>This is not a case about what restrictions Apple puts on the app store , about software or device freedom, and it's not even a case about whether Apple's mandatory 30% cut is "fairly priced" by whatever definition of fair you care to use -- the case as filed literally hinges on the claim that iOS app prices are artificially inflated by that cut. And I think that in a world where people have been trained to think that $4.99 is a crazy high expensive price for software, that could be a real tough case to prove.
> Developers “cannot risk the possibility of Apple removing them from the App Store if they bring suit,” the American Antitrust Institute advocacy group said in a brief.<p>To my untrained IANAL eyes, this seems to be the meat of the argument. Apple is trying to say they are just an agent facilitating a sale, all the while jingling the kingdom keys in their back pocket by controlling who gets to sell.<p>They are seeking to chill consumers and developers alike.
Perhaps it’s an unpopular opinion, but I’m hopeful that this doesn’t go anywhere for the simple fact that I don’t want to have to keep 5 different app stores installed to have access to everything. It would be cool to have an iOS equivalent of F-Droid, but I’d rather that not come at the cost of scattering commercial iOS apps across stores.<p>I’m not keen on the idea of non-WebKit web engines on iOS either because it will inevitably enable a huge contingent of lazy web developers to just display a “screw you and your device’s battery, go download Chrome” message rather than bother with crafting their sites and web apps in a web engine agnostic way. It’ll be just like when IE was the dominant browser, except this time around the dominant engine is favored by web devs and will continue to be thanks to Google’s web-centrism.
Isn't the premise of this case, that Apple's "monopoly" on the app store and 30% toll on developers is effectively jacking up app prices for consumers, pretty hard to support with evidence? My impression is that the modern app store coincides with (if it didn't actually <i>cause</i>, which is possible as well) an industry-historic decline in software prices for consumers. Things we pay $0.99 today for used to cost $50.
Answer is not to give choice in where to download apps. If you don't like Apple app store, then maybe switch to Android or BlackBerry. Or something else.<p>I like being able to go to just one store and get my Apps there. Imagine the horror of having to get the apps from AT&T or Vz store for iPhone, or having to choose if I need to get an app from official store or from another one run by some east European dude from his basement. I love that apple curates the apps and at least tries to get rid of worst offenders whether it's privacy violations or outright malware.
Here’s what I don’t get: in what sense is this a monopoly? Consumers have knowledge that the App Store is the only game in town on an iPhone, and they have the option to buy a different phone if they don’t want to use the App Store.<p>That’s like saying that the manufacturer of my vacuum has a monopoly on vacuum bags.
Apples total lack of PWA support is a real pain. Making a mobile app is 10x the investment of a PWA and most ‘apps’ would be better off as a website. This issue is annoying me more and more lately as Apple simply wants to hold back so many things. All so they can take 30%.
I don't understand why Apple isn't getting slapped for only allowing Safari-based browsers in the App Store. I don't understand anti-trust laws that well, but didn't Microsoft settle out of a very similar case related to bundling Media Player and IE with Windows?
I feel that all these measures are stop gaps at best. The fundamental thing you want is for customers to install whatever software they want on the hardware they buy. For mass market devices, it really ought to be a law that requires the manufacturer to allow consumers to do whatever they want. The manufacturer doesn't need to support these modes, and that's fine. Once you have that, the rest falls into place. This was the idea behind GPLv3 and anti-tivoization, but it never caught any traction for anything that matters.
I guess the issue is that side loading apps or an alternative App Store is not supported. That and disallowing purchases or rentals on amazon video or kindle apps for iOS.
I'm looking forward to the day I don't have to charge a non-profit doing good in this world $99 a year just to keep their app on the app store. Apple devices should have the equivalent of F-Droid for FLOSS goodies, and that's exactly the conclusion the courts should decide on IMO. This of course will make Apple devices less secure. But then again the current state of affairs is arguably worse given the lack of competition.
IIUC if Apple loses then there may finally be better way to get GPLed software on iOS/tvOS. I currently run Kodi on my Apple TV but I had to compile and sign it myself because they can't put it on the Apple store without an alternate license AFAICT.<p>Unfortunately while I personally think Apple should allow other app stores I don't think this particular suit will succeed.<p><a href="https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/20/17479480/supreme-court-apple-vs-pepper-antitrust-lawsuit-standing-explainer" rel="nofollow">https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/20/17479480/supreme-court-ap...</a>
I have recently found myself reconsidering my views on Tim Cook. He has generally positioned himself as the voice of reason, especially on matters of privacy. He’s gone as far as attack companies like Google and Facebook. And yet, all of this masks a simple truth abt Apple: any extra privacy or consumer protection comes at a <i>very</i> hefty cost, making most of its products unaffordable for most of the world. In contrast, Google’s Android <i>is</i> affordable for many large markets Apple doesn’t find worthy of competing in.
Seems having an open iOS AppStore is just an incentive for crap apps. Not to say iOS doesn’t have them currently, but not matching the levels of Android
Not being American, this is the one thing I wish Trump/GOP/conservatives did in the US: bust the tech trusts. They're taking the courts, they can surely find state or federal attorneys to bring the cases, and the executive would provide them with cover and enforcement.<p>I'm surprised they haven't done it already. It would make sense for purely partisan reasons because tech companies are very liberal and extremely hostile to Trump's administration. But they could even reach across the aisle with megacorps like Amazon pretty clearly abusing their lower level employees which has been a cause on the left for decades.
In today's world successful business often requires online presence<p>online presence requires app<p>to have an app my business "has to be approved by Apple"<p>That's a freaking monopoly.