iPhone app purchasers may sue Apple Inc over allegations that the company monopolized the market for iPhone apps by not allowing users to purchase them outside the App Store, leading to higher prices, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Thursday.
Apple bloggers obviously kneejerk straight into defence mode in response to this news, but if you actually dive into the decision, the court makes a very compelling argument as to why this case ought to be allowed to continue, that preempts all the usual terrible analogies they tend to come up with and/or parrot from the party line:
Apple argues that it does not sell apps but rather sells “software distribution services to developers.” In Apple’s view, because it sells distribution services to app developers, it cannot simultaneously be a distributor of apps to apppurchasers. Apple analogizes its role to the role of an owner of a shopping mall that “leases physical space to various stores.” Apple’s analogy is unconvincing. In the case before us, third-party developers of iPhone apps do not have their own “stores.” Indeed, part of the anti-competitive behavior alleged by Plaintiffs is that, far from allowing iPhone app developers to sell through their own “stores,” Apple specifically forbids them to do so, instead requiring them to sell iPhone apps only through Apple’s App Store.
[…]
Instead, we rest our analysis, as compelled by Hanover Shoe, Illinois Brick, UtiliCorp, and Delaware Valley, on the fundamental distinction between a manufacturer or producer, on the one hand, and a distributor, on the other. Apple is a distributor of the iPhone apps, selling them directly to purchasers through its App Store. Because Apple is a distributor, Plaintiffs have standing under Illinois Brick to sue Apple for allegedly monopolizing and attempting to monopolize the sale of iPhone apps.
Over on Twitter, John Gruber asked me “iPhones are their own market? Does BMW have a monopoly on BMWs?” This clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding of how the car market actually works (and, quite clearly, indicates Gruber didn’t even read the actual decision quoted above). In fact, exactly because car manufacturers have a de facto monopoly on their own products, they are legally obliged to open up their specifications to allow other companies to manufacture competing, off-brand parts and to allow third parties to service and maintain the cars according to the manufacturer’s own specifications.
As I’ve argued before, there’s absolutely no reason why the technology world should be treated any differently. Computers have become integral parts of our society, much like cars, and as consumers we should not be forced into relying on just one company for servicing, maintaining, and using them. It’s high time we stop treating technology companies like special little flower children, and force them to grow up and become real companies with real responsibilities.
There has been a long discussion on macrumors, too:
http://forums.macrumors.com/threads/court-rules-apple-can-be-sued-f…
Wondering why some users actually want to keep their iPhone closed from third party installs, …
!!!???
Edited 2017-01-14 14:35 UTC
I can’t imagine why…..
http://arstechnica.co.uk/security/2016/11/android-malware-gooligan/
http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/593804/android-root-malware-w…
No one forces them to install from 3rd party sources, but why limit others in doing so?
Apple offers a curated software system. This offers quite a lot of advantages mostly to do with security, system stability and ease of use. Several hundred million people seem to prefer this model. If they don’t like it they can jail break their devices or use another platform/product.
What advantages would forcing Apple to end their App store model bring? Cheaper apps? More apps? Hard to believe their could be cheaper apps or more apps, least of all brought about by the existence of third party app suppliers.
Apple is offering a product package in a market place where there are lots of alternative products for consumers to choose from.
This whole thing is just a whipped up fake controversy brought about by a tiny minority of very vocal tech obsessives. Nobody in the real world gives a hoot.
What proportion of Apple’s vast customer base is pining for an alternative to the Apple app store?
What benefit would a third party app store actually bring to Apple’s customers?
This whole whacko issue is just too silly and trivial for words – really guys – start thinking about stuff that actually matters.
Like who gets to control my hardware, and what kind of software is running on the hardware, I own?
I’m split on this one.
We buy into that ecosystem when we purchase an iPhone, so we should quit having a sook after the fact. We could get an Android and be free, particularly since Android is just so much better.
On the other hand, I wouldn’t mind having the option to bypass the Apple App Store, as long as I understand and accept the risks involved in doing so. Should I be entitled to this by law, is something we’ll eventually find out.
In the interim, I really don’t find my life is worse off with an iPhone.
And yes, there are far more important things to worry about in life.
Edited 2017-01-15 03:24 UTC
Somebody please correct me if I’m wrong,
but Medior, I believe you can legitimately side-load iOS apps outwith the App Store (without any jailbreaking) – if you simply install the xcode developer package and install from there.
Admittedly that requires an apple laptop, setting up a developer account and installing quite a big application. Big it’s a workaround for non app-store apps.
Sure they could make such a process easier but theoretically it’s there
There are things that are reasonable, and that are not.
How about BMW require you to register with them to change a tyre and demand that you have access to a BMW’s own wheel balancer?
Sure. Theoretically you will succeed – too, because you just forgot this step which is kinda a must-have – to convince every iOS app developer to hand you their source code so you can compile and side load his app in order to use his app without Apple being able to say a word.
Sure.
Theoretically.
Two examples :
– Cheaper apps without the Apple fee, or with lower margin.
– Apps not allowed by Apple : Alternate browsers, emulators (game consoles, one could even make an android emulator),…
[- Pirated games, obviously.]
Apps not allowed by Apple I’ll give you, but cheaper apps? $0.99 is too expensive? You think devs would go below that just because Apple weren’t taking 30% ? Apps are too cheap as it is, which is why there are so few high quality ones.
Why should they even get that much for Apps?
Developers need an OSX machine to compile for IOS (so they profit from that) and IOS is only available on Apple hardware (more profit).
Furthermore, if you offer subscription costs (to host your services), they charge a fee for that too I think. But despite charging you for the privilege, won’t webhost your App for free (so if you don’t pay them, you are inconveniencing your customers).
They are very anti-developer. If you could guarentee that your App can run on IOS (even by alternative app store), and not be blocked, then you’d probably see more competitive apps. You’d certainly see the ability to pay for subscriptions built into more apps.
Most apps are free or cost almost nothing. There are plenty of browsers already available on iOS. I still can’t see any tangible benefit for Apple’s customers of breaking the App Store model.
This is a non issue except for a tiny number of obsessives. Apple’s customers do not think the current model is broken. The App Store did $20 billion worth of sales in 2016. It appears the current model is very popular with customers.
Most of that revenue comes from crappy pay-to-win games.
If you want to boast about selling the digital equivalent of crack, then be my guest. It’s right up serial liar Tim Cook’s ally.
According to Apple policy, they must all use the iOS-provided copy of WebKit.
If you got to sites like caniuse.com, you’ll see that WebKit has been falling behind in feature support ever since Blink forked off from it.
…of course, Apple is perfectly happy if services like appear.in must release iOS apps because the native browser doesn’t support WebRTC.
But still ahead of Edge based on that. As for WebRTC, stop adding so much crap to the browser, you want something like that do it in another program.
WebRTC allows to capture sound (and eventually video) from JavaScript.
(Of course, the browser asks the user before allowing it)
It is an useful and logical extension to existing features.
Wonderful, open up my microphone and webcam to an already large and complicated piece of software. What could possibly go wrong. Stop trying to recreate emacs.
daveak,
Or use a different browser…Oh wait, banned.
It’s not merely webrtc though, some of apple’s business interests are a slap in the face to our freedoms – like refusing to play ogg or webm and forcing developers to use encumbered formats.
While not as severe as microsoftian dark ages of IE4-7, the problem then was the lack of competition in part due to microsoft’s actions to kill it. When a company is undermining and even banning competition, we need to take a lesson from the past and recognize how much harm it can do.
Edited 2017-01-15 21:58 UTC
The problem is Ogg and WebM are niche formats, Google look set to possibly change this with WebM with recent YouTube changes (namely their VP9 changes seem to be kicking in, they are pushing it on youtube.com, some newly upload 4K + 5K videos now do not play in Safari).
With them being niche formats it is not worth Apple implementing them. Software based would kill battery. Hardware, not worth it for something which isn’t used much. Would it be nice to have the choice and to have a patent free format? Yes. Would Apple want to take the inevitable blame for short battery life from watching WebM based video? No.
They refused to support Flash which was actually widely used. Ogg has no chance. WebM, we will see.
Nobody is asking Apple to implement anything. We just want the freedom to then choose a browser that DID implement it.
They would still be blamed though. The iPhone is an appliance first, computer second. Part of the nature of the product. If they believe software could impact on that they will correctly prevent it.
Should they provide a mode, that can be activated with big flashing warnings that you lose support, that allows you to override the appliance nature of the device? Possibly, but given the iPhone user base has been fooled into microwaving, drilling, drowning etc. their device this is not a great idea. “Install Super Turbo Browser to be able to view naked celebs. Just enable non appliance mode.” i.e. the malware problem. Even with a warning that it wasn’t supported, it would happen.
daveak,
They’d be a lot more popular if they weren’t being banned on IOS. In other words, apple’s policies are largely responsible for the catch-22, which you are now blaming for apple’s lack of interest in supporting it. It’s not reasonable to claim that apple’s has played no role here when it has the power to not merely omit these formats, but even to block users from installing a browser that supports them. While it’s not convenient to your narrative, the fact is that apple’s policy of banning alternative technologies really does have an adverse effect on those technologies.
Edited 2017-01-15 23:33 UTC
So despite Android having the majority of the mobile market, all main Windows browser supporting it, it’s Apple preventing it being a mainstream format?
daveak,
Believe it or not, consumers will blame the website even when the problems are technically apple’s fault. Website owners expect their web media to work on iphone/ipad too, it absolutely is a deciding factor (I’ve been there with my clients). Not only is a fifth of the market on IOS significant, it’s also the wealthy fifth. For most website owners, it’s unacceptable to have a website not working properly on IOS.
Will you concede that Apple’s restrictions on IOS can impact the web beyond apple users?
Edited 2017-01-16 08:50 UTC
Sure. Will you concede that at least one of these (the decline of Flash) did have a definite benefit for all?
darknexus,
Sure. I never had a problem with apple refusing to support it for their own IOS browser. However that still doesn’t justify overriding the owner’s choice of browsers and other software.
WebRTC is a common API… Or maybe you like having Zoom for this, BlueJeans for that and WebEx for that.
Having to do teleconferencing daily – WebRTC is actually a godsend.
Common API is good. Chucking more and more into a browser is bad. Computers can run more than one program you know. We don’t all use a kiosk.
Homework: How much did Bell earn per year before the breakup? And do you really believe that money flow for a closed platform mean that there are not advantages for customers and providers (software, service etc.) making that system open?
Did you think before posting? Your post is completely void of any intelligence…
It’s easy to be popular when you’re the only one allowed to compete…
Edited 2017-01-17 15:20 UTC
I’m sorry, but I don’t know any developer who wouldn’t support this move.
Especially since there are a lot of developers out there who had good apps delayed or blocked by the app store
Because then you run into the kind of bullshit like on Android, where you have to download an entire app store just to get certain apps, like Amazon Video.
Mind you, I’m not necessarily saying that’s a good enough reason to limit users to only one app store, but I do see advantages in this model.
Well… Until using original content to draw you into using services becomes illegal, it seems to be pretty reasonable.
Let alone – we are talking about Amazon here, not some random Chinese store.
The thing is, that is Amazon’s (the developer’s) choice. They could easily decide to make their app available in other stores, or make the APK directly available. Google does not restrict developers in the same way as Apple.
Whether Amazon’s decision to force users to download their own store application to obtain Amazon Video is anti-competitive is a completely different debate.
Obviously. But because Apple does have this restriction, that means I can get Amazon Video from the Apple app store. In cases like this, it is a win for the consumer. You either play by Apple’s rules, or you take your ball and go home.
*nod* They could also decide to include rental of a Kindle HDMI dongle as part of your Prime membership, then say that Android users have the app as a second option but iOS users don’t.
The only reason they include things on the iOS store is that they see it as the more profitable choice.
(People seem to forget that, just because companies whine about something, doesn’t mean they’re entitled to it. For example, bad games aren’t entitled to a revenue stream, regardless of whether they have DRM. I neither pirate nor pay for Steam-only games to do my part in driving that point home.)
Edited 2017-01-16 21:24 UTC
Because the whole Apple business relies on locking vendors into an ecosystem.
As if malware comes by downloading official apps even if they come from third party sources.
Malware usually comes from 0day exploits in your web browser, email client and such.
And malware often slipped thru the snake oil review process to start with, because as if malware would not be coded in a way to only get actuate after Apple’s review, …
To me, it’s always been a very simple matter of who owns a device?
If apple owns it and were merely renting to users, then apple should have every say what can and can’t be installed on it.
However this situation where apple continues to hold on to ownership rights while supposedly selling them to new owners is extremely troubling. Apple has no damn business prohibiting buyers and developers from establishing markets for 3rd party commerce outside of apple.
The usual apologists fall in line to defend apple imposed restrictions but it’s all BS, even the security arguments, because their rights to remain inside apple’s security bubble was never jeopardized by other‘s rights to escape it. They need to quit transposing their own restriction justifications onto other owners they don’t even know and who disagree.
Owners should have a legally defended right to do whatever the hell they want with the products they own as long as it is legal. I have absolutely no sympathy for apple defending it’s practices that take away the freedoms of owners. This case is 10 years too late, but hopefully it makes a difference going forward.
Edited 2017-01-14 18:17 UTC
If Apple really owned the device they would be legally required to provide a lifetime warranty and ongoing technical support.
It doesn’t necessarily mean that they will.
Apple also delays approvals on things (and that affected companies such as pebble) such as Pebbles app. That’s if they approve it at all (you may spend thousands on developing an App they don’t approve bankrupting your company).
They also force companies providing subscription based services such as Netflix to pay them a cut I think (for doing nothing but hosting their app).
You also can’t compile IOS code without access to a MAC somewhere (so they triple dip, by taking money from developers for a computer, from the app store, and then charge consumers for their hardware).
The whole thing is an anti-competitive rediculous joke, and unfortunately, many consumers don’t seem to realise.
I don’t care if Apple spins it as though they are opening up their platform if the court forces them to (similar to what Sonos did with Spotify). As long as it happens
It is unfair, that Rihanna has a monopoly on her albums.
She is the sole decider, what music she performs and deliberately rejects my own wonderful creations.
It is also unfair, that I have to follow all that stupid rules and regulations, if I want to get my company listed on the NYSE. They even want me to open my books and make a report every 3 month.
At least they should be forced to let everyone use the bounding and the hardware …
Edited 2017-01-15 06:53 UTC
Your point would make a lot more sense if you hadn’t used a music industy example. You know, the place where the record labels control your copyright, your music and style. and your ability to actually release an album. You know that buisness with Prince not being able to be called Prince or the buisness with Kesha last year where she has to make an album she doesn’t want to make because of her contracts and can’t use her branding on musical projects outside of that contract until it has been completed
You know that the rules regarding publicly traded companies are literally the opposite of what you are arguing, right?
It isn’t that difficult, just use the example of a car.
If I would buy a BMW, I can choose options within the BMW network, made for it, tested and approved and for that reason they work very good with the car. Something like buying apps in the app store to use on the iPhone.
In case I don’t like the trailer hitch BMW delivers on that model, but there is an approved one in another store that I do like I just buy it there. How can I buy an app in another store for the iPhone if that suits me better?