[auslander]

> Folks here on HN are (understandably) leaping on the notion that this will force Apple to allow other app stores

I'm leaning in quite opposite way. Apple enforces security and privacy policies of its store apps, which is main reason why it is much safer to use than Android.

As for app prices, Apple Store is an open competitive market, no apps are restricted to compete. I see the point being moot. Adtech industry would love to see Apple lose though, don't let them.

[auslander]

Apple cut the oxygen to Adtech business models.

iOS Apps have no way to identify user's devices, apps can only store two bits of info locally, DeviceCheck. Location while using the app option, hello Android? :)

Safari's ITP 2.0 clears tracking cookies in a way, that no tracking is longer possible. Adtech not happy.

[Tsubasachan]

And yet Apple restricts ad blockers... Same as Google.

[auslander]

It does not. I have Firefox Focus Content Blocker enabled in iOS Safari, and other Content Blocker apps for Mac Safari.

[mmebane]

They have banned the use of VPN APIs to tunnel traffic through a filtering proxy. Apps such as AdGuard Pro used to use this to perform whole-device adblocking.

[auslander]

VPN APIs is for VPNs, not ad blocker apps. Apple is “sandboxing” applications, so apps have limited ability to interfere with each other or alter the overall workings of the phone. Which is a good thing, one app should not see other app's traffic.

[daveFNbuck]

> no apps are restricted to compete

Apps are restricted from competing on price. I can't release a 79 cent app to compete with a similar 99 cent app.

[jsjohnst]

At some point the race to the bottom is a losing battle where no one wins. Apple decided to put that bottom point at 99 cents.

[daveFNbuck]

So you agree that Apple is using its market position to increase prices compared to what they would be if apps were available from other sources?

[chipotle_coyote]

I'm not convinced that "Apple's refusal to let developers set app prices at a more granular level is an unfair predatory practice" is a slam dunk argument.

Additional later note: the actual court case here does, in fact, argue that requiring that all app prices end in 0.99 means Apple is dictating pricing terms, which on some level is of course absolutely true, i.e., it's Apple's fault I can't price my app at $1.49, or $3.33, or whatever. But (1) that still doesn't prove that the 30% cut is harming consumers, which is what American antitrust law is relentlessly focused on, and (2) if that's the crux of the argument, it can be addressed simply by removing that restriction. It can probably be met even if Apple says "you can price your apps anything you want to, but if your app is not free, we're going to take a minimum 29¢ cut."

[daveFNbuck]

I'm not saying it's a slam dunk argument. I have no opinion on how this case will go because I don't know much about the law. I just think it's pretty clear that setting a 99 cent price floor increases the price of some apps.

[auslander]

Free apps are most likely to sell your data. Don't be a product, or if its your app, charge decent price and don't sell user's data :)

[daveFNbuck]

That may be good advice, but it has nothing to do with whether price controls restrict competition.