[BurritoAlPastor]

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.

That’s like saying that the manufacturer of my vacuum has a monopoly on vacuum bags.

[blfr]

Yes, pretty much. Except vacuum cleaner manufacturers don't actually have that monopoly. You can easily buy substitute bags from another manufacturer for most popular vacuum cleaners.

[Retric]

That’s not the case with Nintendo or even inkjet printers.

Apple can make the argument that curating the App Store is required to maintain quality.

[beaner]

Your vacuum manufacturer probably has a monopoly on vacuum bags for it's machine because it's niche enough for nobody else to care about making alternative bags. If someone decided that they wanted to, they could.

This isn't the case with the iPhone. It isn't niche and plenty of people want to build and be listed in alternatives, but they are prevented from doing so.

[nl]

The article explicitly says “accusing it of breaking federal antitrust laws by monopolizing the market for iPhone apps“

I’ve never heard of a market being divided up like that legally. But it’s in the Supreme Court so it can’t be completely without legal merit.

[AnssiH]

Sounds similar to what EU EC did with Google's anti-trust fine case, i.e. they considered Google to be dominant in the market of "app stores for the Android mobile operating system" (along with some other markets).

Source: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm

[detaro]

> But it’s in the Supreme Court so it can’t be completely without legal merit.

From my understanding, the lower courts haven't looked at that argument yet, since the question "do these people even have standing to sue" comes before any arguments.

[BurritoAlPastor]

Correct. From Apple’s original petition:

“The question presented is: Whether consumers may sue for antitrust damages anyone who delivers goods to them, even where they seek damages based on prices set by third parties who would be the immediate victims of the alleged offense.”

[belltaco]

Not true, nothing ever goes to the Supreme court without a lower court considering and rendering a decision on the same question. Otherwise the court would be swamped and unable to function.

[detaro]

I think you misunderstood the thread. Of course the question asked to the Supreme Court has been looked at in detail by the lower courts, but other questions in the case haven't yet.

[Y7ZCQtNo39]

I think it's strange since I can download software for MacOS anywhere. The only reason that it's accepted that you must use the App Store is because Apple was first to the smartphone scene.

Had Apple tried to force everyone into using a gatekeeping App Store after smartphones took hold, end users would've rejected it.

[dirkgently]

Read it again - it's about the monopoly on App Store.

It's like buying a car and only able to use gas sold by that company.

[greglindahl]

Right, and US anti-trust law is pretty much OK with a car manufacturer requiring that, because no car manufacturer has a monopoly.

There may be other laws that would prohibit that, but they aren't anti-trust laws.

[geitir]

That's the contingency: Where is the separation of product? Apple isn't strictly a hardware company more than it's strictly a software company. If you consider the iPhone a unified inseparable product, then the ability to install other apps is a privilege

[coin]

Similar to ink cartridges for inkjet printers

[blfr]

Which is crazy as well, right?

[dwaite]

Sort of. Some printers have built the print head (with low MTBF) into the ink cartridge itself. You can refill once, but by the second time the output will be really bad.

Some printers ship with only partially-filled cartridges. This winds up being destructive on several fronts - users feel buying a whole new printer is cheaper than buying all the refill cartridges, not understanding that the new cartridges are different than what they had. This means the printer company is constantly selling new printers at a loss, with functional printer hardware thrown away to make space.

The print cartridges also usually sell with an XL-size option that appears cheaper overall. However, people who feel they should buy a new printer rather than cartridges are typically people who are at an ultra-low usage level (<10 pages per month). Even at the normal size, they are not going to make it through the ink before the cartridge starts to degrade with age.

HP rolled out a printer monitoring/ink subscription service which may solve these problems - assuming people feel it is financially sound to subscribe.

[EGreg]

Sorry but there are tons of companies like that.

Nintendo

Sega

Any loss leader product

[ajross]

No one has made a decision on that issue, and that's not what's being appealed. The question here is about who can sue, not whether there is an antitrust violation.

[dmead]

but don't they? i think a more apt analogy would be your trash can manufacturer having a monopoly on trash bags. You shouldn't really expect that to be the case at all.

[BurritoAlPastor]

Why is that more apt? Why shouldn’t I expect it? Apple didn’t even invent the walled-garden digital software store; Microsoft was using it on the X-Box in 2005. If you go back to before digital distribution, Sony and Nintendo had total authority over third-party software releases for their platforms since the 90s and 80s respectively.

I understand the free-software arguments for why I should be able to run arbitrary code on any computer I own. What I don’t get is the monopoly argument.

[dirkgently]

> Why shouldn’t I expect it?

Why should I, as a consumer? I don't understand this argument from Apple apologists.

> Apple didn’t even invent the walled-garden digital software store; Microsoft was using it on the X-Box in 2005.

So if it wasn't called out then, it should never be called out ever?

[BurritoAlPastor]

“Called out”? Sure. It was called out when Microsoft rolled it out and it’s been called out persistently for ten years, to the point that I’m used to being called an “apologist”. But public criticism is orders of magnitude different from a legal injunction. I simply don’t see how the definitions and aims of a theory of monopoly can be usefully applied to this case.

[rickycook]

plenty of reasons. the difference between android and apple is pretty stark, and they both have merit but dont dismiss the arguments against the more closed ecosystem

the apple method allows a really easy UX for every single purchase and install on ios; if you allow a developer to decide that they’re only releasing on NewOpenAppStore, a user has to go ahead and somehow install that, which is a mess. apple don’t want that, because it just looks bad for the whole ecosystem

the security implications are obvious; if a user wants a pirated app, they will follow the “technical instructions” to click through menus and allow 3rd party installs so they can download their package from legitnotmalware.com

there are plenty more in the same kinda thinking, but overall they are different approaches but the walled garden should not be dismissed. you can argue that the down sides outweigh the upsides, but don’t just dismiss anyone that decides the upsides are worth it as “apple apologists” in an effort to condescend and shut down conversation

[dirkgently]

You must be joking if your argument is that a closed system is in any way superior to an open one.

Android lets you install apps outside of play store, without any hard tech knowledge. That's not possible on Apple devices unless you are tech savvy and can go through a 10 step process.

Whatever upside you think they have flies in the face of openness.

[dwaite]

Side-loading apps used to require switching the phone to a developer mode which disabled certain security restrictions in Android. They made it so any user could do it, including users without the technical chops to understand the ramifications.

Likewise, rather than having Apple review entitlements and for entitlements to privacy-impacting features like location or the camera be approved by the user at runtime, Google put a screen that asked users without the proper technical knowledge to make an evaluation a decision - either allow things that sound scary, or abort running the app.

The App Store review process is an abstraction that allows normal users to decide they trust the system to limit abuse so that they don't have to learn how to evaluate entitlement policies. Putting roadblocks to side loading apps (as you seem to know, still possible on iOS, but harder) means you don't have third parties convincing users to agree to security changes they don't understand.

This is not an open vs closed argument, since it is theoretically possible to build an open system with such features exposed opt-out with sufficient gymnastics. But that is a lot harder, and there is no financial motivation by Apple (or Google, or Microsoft, or any of the console vendors) for doing so.

[jasonlotito]

> Apple didn’t even invent the walled-garden digital software store; Microsoft was using it on the X-Box in 2005.

I can't install software I buy in a store or direct from someone else without going through Apple. Even with the XBox, I could buy from a store, or second hand and play the game. Apple has invented the computer that forces you to pay Apple for for software or services you want to buy because of their store.

> What I don’t get is the monopoly argument.

The argument is this: Apple has a monopoly on iOS devices. Whether you think that has standing or is an issue in the smart phone market is a different issue. But at least you now understand what the argument is.