[cabaalis]

> 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.

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.

They are seeking to chill consumers and developers alike.

[rkagerer]

"Apple said it is acting only as the agent for app developers who sell the apps to consumers through the App Store."

Sure, an agent who just so happens to control the platform, the API's and building blocks, all the rules, the horizontal, the vertical, and unilaterally decides which apps are allowed to exist. But, "we're just an agent".

I'm not familiar enough with the case to form an opinion on the whole thing, but I do hope the court sees through that particular sham of an argument.

[rickycook]

i wouldn’t pin that all on anti competitive behaviour though... the end to end control of the platform is kind of Apples MO, and is a fairly distinguishing feature between the Android ecosystem and the Apple ecosystem. it’d be nice to have another distribution option, but not at the expense of a simple UX, security, or any other very valid reason to only allow a tightly controlled experience

[lwansbrough]

Oh okay, so as long as it's their MO to have a monopoly then it's fine. I'm sure plenty of iPhone users, for example, would like to have a PornHub app on their iPhone, but that's currently impossible because of Apple's guidelines. You could build a very high quality app and be denied for a reason strictly outside of the "UX, security 'or any other very valid reason'" that Apple arbitrarily decides.

[caf]

Forget PornHub, the Valve's SteamLink app is a much better example. Denied, on Apple's own words, because of a business model conflict.

[scarface74]

And what would this pornhub app do that you couldn’t do from the website?

Should Nintendo also be forced to sell a PornHub game?

[AnthonyMouse]

> And what would this pornhub app do that you couldn’t do from the website?

Store files for offline use or untracked use, have better privacy because user settings can be stored locally rather than on the server, provide source code that can be audited rather than relying on javascript that can change at any time, etc. In general, anything an app can do that a website can't -- otherwise why do native apps even exist?

> Should Nintendo also be forced to sell a PornHub game?

They shouldn't be allowed to prevent someone else from distributing one.

[scarface74]

So let’s see, you downloaded the files from their server, now they have a unique id for each user and they can track you more.

Most commercial apps aren’t going to give you access to the source control.

[wild_preference]

Their point wasn't just "it's their MO". You just attacked the lowest hanging fruit. It doesn't make for good discussion.

[ethbro]

(Not a lawyer, so no idea if this is still controlling case law)

The full reasoning chain seems to be that Hanover Shoe v United Shoe Machinery Corp (1968), in which the issue was USMC's leasing but refusal to sell machinery on which they had a monopoly, decided that being able to "pass along costs" was not a valid defense by a monopoly when sued by its direct customers.

Consequently, in Illinois Brick v Illinois (1977) the court decided that if a monopoly cannot use "they can pass along costs" as a defense from damages, then it follows that indirect purchasers (ie customers of customers) cannot use same offensively to sue a monopoly.

The intent is to prevent the complexity of calculating damages-once-removed, and putting the onus on the (simpler) damage calculation between direct monopoly and immediate customer.

If the Court upholds the prior decision, the plaintiffs will be denied standing. In that case, the appropriate legal challenge would either be an app seller suing Apple, or a customer suing an app seller (who could likely sue Apple in response).

If this is still case law, the only way I see this going another way is if the Court sees Apple's flat-30% as fundamentally different (and simpler) than the previously considered costs.

[1] Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 392 U.S. 481 (1968) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/481/

[2] Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/431/720/

[rickycook]

the important part against that line of reasoning though is at the very bottom of the article:

“The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year revived the lawsuit, deciding that Apple was a distributor that sold iPhone apps directly to consumers.”

if they decide that apple sells apps directly (after all, you go through apples distribution, payment, and “editorial” channels and have only a tenuous link to the developer i question) rather than the developers selling apps, then that could be an issue for them

[caf]

Right, this is distinct from the shoe case because here Apple has a direct relationship with the customer in a way that USMC didn't with the purchasers of shoes.

[mitchty]

I think this is their argument ultimately:

Apple has seized upon a 1977 Supreme Court ruling that limited damages for anti-competitive conduct to those directly overcharged instead of indirect victims who paid an overcharge passed on by others. Part of the concern, the court said in that case, was to free judges from having to make complex calculations of damages.

I'm no lawyer either but that seems to generally be true of this case in that users shouldn't be the ones bringing cases but developers could by my read. But whatever we'll see what the court decides.

[rickycook]

mentioned and expanded on in a parent comment, but the important part of the article related to that is right at the bottom:

“The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year revived the lawsuit, deciding that Apple was a distributor that sold iPhone apps directly to consumers.”

the question is whether apple sells the apps, or the developer sells the apps.

[mitchty]

Right but that seems to be the ultimate thing at question here not? Whether the ninth circuit's decision is correct.

I'll have to wait for this week in law to cover the case from a legal perspective, they're lawyers so they tend to have a more lawyery view of things and bring on experts in the field. There tends to be more nuance than most engineers tend to bring in "apple charging 30% is immoral" arguments.